Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ivor the Engineer]

What is R and M?

Making a wild assumption that R = Rapist and M = Male

If my assumption is true, then you start out by saying that the probability of a person being a rapist given that the person is male is much smaller than the probability of a person being male given that the person is a rapist.

Then bayesian math... and I'm not going to try to turn that into words.

My assumption would seem to be born out by your conclusion that P(M|R) ~ 0.98; we already know that 98% of rapists are males.

Exact answers for the remainder are hard to come by, but they're also not complete unknowns. We have some knowledge and we can make some assumptions. We know for example that P(M|~R) < 0.5. We could arguably say that P(M) = 0.49 if we limit our scope to the US.

And we can proxy P(R). The 2016 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which measures sexual assaults and rapes that may not have been reported to the police, estimated that there were 431,840 incidents of rape or sexual assault in 2015. With a population of about 320,000,000 in 2015, that puts P(R) at 0.135. Thus P(~R) = 0.865.

So we've got P(M|R) = 0.98, P(M) = 0.49, P(R) = 0.135.
P(R|M) = P(M|R).P(R) / P(M) = 0.98 *0.135/0.49 = 0.27

That would imply that any given male has a 27% chance of being a rapist. That seems high, so let's make the extreme simplifying assumption that the 431,840 instances or rape were committed by only 43,184 males - that would mean that each rapist raped 10 people in 2015, which seems rather high, but we can treat that as a boundary scenario. That would mean that P(R) is more like 0.0135, and we end up with 0.027.

So for any given male, there's between a 2.7% and a 27% chance that they're a rapist.

P(R) = 431840 / 320,000,000 = 0.00135 = 0.135%

Therefore P(R|M) = 0.27%, not 27%!

If we include the fact that most rapists are multiple offenders and use 10 as the (reasonable) estimate of the number of rapes they each commit, then:

P(R|M) = 0.027%.

Anyone like to disagree?

 

[lionking]

P(R) = 431840 / 320,000,000 = 0.00135 = 0.135%

Therefore P(R|M) = 0.27%, not 27%!

If we include the fact that most rapists are multiple offenders and use 10 as the (reasonable) estimate of the number of rapes they each commit, then:

P(R|M) = 0.027%.

Anyone like to disagree?

Utter rot. But not surprising as most of what you post is merely your opinion of how you would like the world to work.

Where on earth do you get that the average number of rapes per rapist is 10?

 

[smartcooky]

P(R) = 431840 / 320,000,000 = 0.00135 = 0.135%

Therefore P(R|M) = 0.27%, not 27%!

If we include the fact that most rapists are multiple offenders and use 10 as the (reasonable) estimate of the number of rapes they each commit, then:
P(R|M) = 0.027%.

Anyone like to disagree?

1. Got any evidence to support this assumption
2. Any idea what percentage of all rapes are actually reported, in which a conviction results?
3. Did you factor in the fact that the rate of sexual assault convictions among transgender identified men is far greater than for normal men?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Utter rot. But not surprising as most of what you post is merely your opinion of how you would like the world to work.

Where on earth do you get that the average number of rapes per rapist is 10?

Thank you for that erudite analysis.

The figure of 10 rapes per rapist was a simplified but not out of the ball-park estimate by Emily's Cat. I think somewhere between 2 and 6 are more appropriate, but also somewhat misleading as explained in this interesting article.

ETA: For those that consider themselves more, er, visual learners, here's a picture:

Notice the far right column is labelled '9-50 Rapes'.

 

[lionking]

Thank you for that erudite analysis.

The figure of 10 rapes per rapist was a simplified but not out of the ball-park estimate by Emily's Cat. I think somewhere between 2 and 6 are more appropriate, but also somewhat misleading as explained in this interesting article.

So you have no idea. Thank you. Now how about answering smartcooky’s questions.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

So you have no idea. Thank you. Now how about answering smartcooky’s questions.

Odd how merely pointing out a two orders of magnitude error can really ruin some people's day!

 

[lionking]

Odd how merely pointing out a two orders of magnitude error can really ruin some people's day!

On the contrary. Your successful efforts in getting so much wrong is highly amusing.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

1. Got any evidence to support this assumption
2. Any idea what percentage of all rapes are actually reported, in which a conviction results?
3. Did you factor in the fact that the rate of sexual assault convictions among transgender identified men is far greater than for normal men?

As with all the best teachers, I'm leaving that as an exercise for the reader. Please have your answers in by Monday, with full working shown.

 

[lionking]

Thank you for that erudite analysis.

The figure of 10 rapes per rapist was a simplified but not out of the ball-park estimate by Emily's Cat. I think somewhere between 2 and 6 are more appropriate, but also somewhat misleading as explained in this interesting article.

ETA: For those that consider themselves more, er, visual learners, here's a picture:
View attachment 62974
Notice the far right column is labelled '9-50 Rapes'.

That proves nothing. Without more information this is utterly meaningless. You “thinking” something does not make it true. But this is par for the course for you.

 

[Manger Douse]

I don't think men engaging in regular exercise would have a significant effect on violence against women. Do you?

If it helps their mental health then absolutely - why would you think it not?

Is your solution to burglary bigger locks on doors?

My solution isn't to legalise burglary the way your solution legalises voyeurism

The people who are arguing so vehemently against transsexuals appear to be just fine with the creation of abusers of women, or at least think it's nothing to do with them and not their responsibility to do anything about it.

Projection

 

[d4m10n]

Yes, it should: that gender identity and sexuality are experienced very differently to those other categories.

First off, we can discount sexuality almost entirely when the policy discussion at hand is about transitioning people who are too young to have experienced sexual attraction. As to "gender identity" I've yet to see it defined coherently in this iteration of this thread. Tried to start a separate thread about how to define it, but that discussion got folded back in here and effectively shut down as a result.

For example, many (most?) transsexual people know the physical sex of their body, but feel like it does not match their gender.

Have you defined the highlighted term in such as way that we could imagine a mismatch between the physical body and whatever that is?

It must really piss some of you off...

Please try to keep your responses free from this sort of pointless personalization, you agreed to those ground rules when you signed up.

 

[Thermal]

On the contrary. Your successful efforts in getting so much wrong is highly amusing.

Ivor is criticizing the grade school level math borking by Emily's Cat. Don't blame him. It was her gross miscalculation.

In fairness, EC screwed up much more. For instance, she used half the population as being male for the computations. But not all males are of raping age, physiologically or practically. Assuming that 15 yrs old to 60 is the reasonable range, that leaves us with 108,000,000 men who could be statistically be assumed to be a rapist, again assuming one unique male per assault. Plugging in the 432,000 estimated rapes, the realistic percentage EC was going for is that per the 2015 data, it can be assumed that any male of age has a 0.4% chance of being a rapist. If we assume any of these men commited more than one rape that year, the odds go down yet lower.

I would quibble with @Ivor the Engineer's rates of multiple rapes linked above, as they seem to indicate lifetime offenses, not single year assaults as EC was trying to calculate.

On the flip, EC's math only accounted for rapes that occurred that year. If you are trying to determine the odds of whether a given man on the street is a rapist, the span should be increased by at least a few years back.

So basically a staggering math flub of epic proportions. Big thumbs up!

 

[theprestige]

Ivor is criticizing the grade school level math borking by Emily's Cat. Don't blame him. It was her gross miscalculation.

In fairness, EC screwed up much more. For instance, she used half the population as being male for the computations. But not all males are of raping age, physiologically or practically. Assuming that 15 yrs old to 60 is the reasonable range, that leaves us with 108,000,000 men who could be statistically be assumed to be a rapist, again assuming one unique male per assault. Plugging in the 432,000 estimated rapes, the realistic percentage EC was going for is that per the 2015 data, it can be assumed that any male of age has a 0.4% chance of being a rapist. If we assume any of these men commited more than one rape that year, the odds go down yet lower.

I would quibble with @Ivor the Engineer's rates of multiple rapes linked above, as they seem to indicate lifetime offenses, not single year assaults as EC was trying to calculate.

On the flip, EC's math only accounted for rapes that occurred that year. If you are trying to determine the odds of whether a given man on the street is a rapist, the span should be increased by at least a few years back.

So basically a staggering math flub of epic proportions. Big thumbs up!

#notallmen

This whole thing is a red herring anyway. It's unfortunate that EC bit on it.

In reality, we're not concerned about the entire population of rape-capable males. I'm sure the vast majority of males would be perfectly safe in a women's restroom, if for some reason the ended up in one. But the vast majority of males aren't demanding access to women's restrooms whenever they want. The vast majority of males aren't interested in anything like that.

No, our concern is about the incredibly small population of males who are demanding access to women's restrooms whenever they want. And the reason we're concerned about that population is because among those few males, there's a concerning percentage who are predatory towards women. It turns out there's a whole class of predator, emerging from the woodwork of fiat self-ID, who were previously deterred from exposing themselves. The men demanding access are exactly the men we should be worried about, when it comes to fiat self-ID in public policy.

 

[smartcooky]

As with all the best teachers, I'm leaving that as an exercise for the reader. Please have your answers in by Monday, with full working shown.

As I expected, you've again dodged the hard questions
Also, calling yourself a 'teacher' is laughable. Nothing you claim to know is worth learning.

 

[theprestige]

As with all the best teachers, I'm leaving that as an exercise for the reader. Please have your answers in by Monday, with full working shown.

We turned that assignment in years ago. Now the teacher has become the remedial student.

 

[Thermal]

#notallmen

This whole thing is a red herring anyway. It's unfortunate that EC bit on it.

It's not, though. Emily's Cat has hit long and hard on the refrain that males and transwomen are going to assault women in the toilet, so it is very relevant to her argument. She wants to convince everyone that if over one in four men is a rapist, the same (or worse) can be assumed about transwomen. Note that she chose a laughable average of 10 rapes per rapist, to highlight how absurd that would be, and make her 27% seem more reasonable by comparison. It's classic manipulation, like repeating phrases.

This highlights what I have been cranky about ITT for a couple months now: the anti trans side will accept any crazy ass claim with no critical thinking AT ALL. 5 additional members... of a goddamned skeptics forum... gave a thumbs up to that ludicrous calculation she cooked up.

That's what I have been cranky about lately. You can't just say ridiculous ◊◊◊◊ and have the peanut gallery high fiving and backslapping, and then point at something shiny when it gets called out. This was absurd, and continues to be so.

In reality, we're not concerned about the entire population of rape-capable males. I'm sure the vast majority of males would be perfectly safe in a women's restroom, if for some reason the ended up in one. But the vast majority of males aren't demanding access to women's restrooms whenever they want. The vast majority of males aren't interested in anything like that.

No, our concern is about the incredibly small population of males who are demanding access to women's restrooms whenever they want.

I've been repeatedly crucified here for pointing exactly this out.

And the reason we're concerned about that population is because among those few males, there's a concerning percentage who are predatory towards women.

Haven't really demonstrated that. We've had the UK stats submitted, indicating 79 convicted trans sex offenders out of a nation of 69 million. Keeping it mind, it was simultaneously argued by the same people that many of the jailhouse re-identifications were opportunistic, to gain access to female victims in jail.

It turns out there's a whole class of predator, emerging from the woodwork of fiat self-ID, who were previously deterred from exposing themselves. The men demanding access are exactly the men we should be worried about, when it comes to fiat self-ID in public policy.

As you could guess, I don't see it that way. I think the transwomen demanding access are either very sincere, or obnoxious and entitled. But the actual violent ones gain no advantage, as I've argued. All eyes are on them, which is the polar opposite of what a predator needs to successfully victimize. I imagine that's why we don't see an increase in assaults under open gender policies, such as in my fair state and others that we have data from.

If this small percentage is as opportunistic as you say, shouldn't we see some kind of uptick in woman on woman assaults (with transwomen marked as women on crime stats)? In my state, they went down following adoption of the law, as did other assaults.

 

[theprestige]

It's not, though. Emily's Cat has hit long and hard on the refrain that males and transwomen are going to assault women in the toilet, so it is very relevant to her argument. She wants to convince everyone that if over one in four men is a rapist, the same (or worse) can be assumed about transwomen. Note that she chose a laughable average of 10 rapes per rapist, to highlight how absurd that would be, and make her 27% seem more reasonable by comparison. It's classic manipulation, like repeating phrases.

This highlights what I have been cranky about ITT for a couple months now: the anti trans side will accept any crazy ass claim with no critical thinking AT ALL. 5 additional members... of a goddamned skeptics forum... gave a thumbs up to that ludicrous calculation she cooked up.

That's what I have been cranky about lately. You can't just say ridiculous ◊◊◊◊ and have the peanut gallery high fiving and backslapping, and then point at something shiny when it gets called out. This was absurd, and continues to be so.

I've been repeatedly crucified here for pointing exactly this out.

Haven't really demonstrated that. We've had the UK stats submitted, indicating 79 convicted trans sex offenders out of a nation of 69 million. Keeping it mind, it was simultaneously argued by the same people that many of the jailhouse re-identifications were opportunistic, to gain access to female victims in jail.

As you could guess, I don't see it that way. I think the transwomen demanding access are either very sincere, or obnoxious and entitled. But the actual violent ones gain no advantage, as I've argued. All eyes are on them, which is the polar opposite of what a predator needs to successfully victimize. I imagine that's why we don't see an increase in assaults under open gender policies, such as in my fair state and others that we have data from.

If this small percentage is as opportunistic as you say, shouldn't we see some kind of uptick in woman on woman assaults (with transwomen marked as women on crime stats)? In my state, they went down following adoption of the law, as did other assaults.

Yeah, EC fell for the misdirection. I think we all did, to some extent.

It suits the TRA agenda to keep us focused on the wrong door of the Monty Hall Problem.

 

[d4m10n]

5 additional members... of a goddamned skeptics forum... gave a thumbs up to that ludicrous calculation she cooked up.

All five of us are looking forward to your attempt to get the math correct.

 

[p0lka]

I can understand why YOU think it causes problems. Its because you are obsessed with labels. You are (irrevocably it seems) wedded to the flawed idea that "woman" must be exclusively a "gender" label, and "female" must exclusively be a "sex" label. However, until relatively recently, the term "gender" was almost exclusively an adjective used in grammar when assigning nouns as masculine or feminine, in particular, in languages such as French (Le, La), Italian (-o, -a), Portuguese (-o,-a) and German (Der, Die - and they also have Das which is neutral). You can see this as recently as about 40 years ago in the following extract from the 1982 Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary....

"Gender" in this defintion is a noun, not an adjective as it would have to be if you were using the way you want to. Its also worth noting that the word "sex" in regards to the defintion of gender was only ever used in a jocular fasion at that time.

When you look at the defintion of "sex" from the same dictionary, the term gender does not appear at all...

I doubt this will ever happen, and your conclusion is so far from logical, I almost consider it a non-seqitur.

The term "gender" has been hijacked by TRAs and the ultra-progressive left.

I'm not a tra or any such label, but i've been thinking about gender roles and how they shouldn't exist for as long as I can remember and I'm 56. The whole 'be a man' thing and my siblings having pressure to conform to a thing that was gender roles was happening in the 70's.

The reality is that term "female" is common across all mammalian species, and "woman" is the descriptor for humans, i.e. Adult Human Female, just as other mammalian species have their own descriptors

Mare = adult equine female
Bitch = adult canine female
Sow = adult porcine female
Cow = adult bovine female
Ewe = adult ovine female
Nanny = adult caprine female
Queen = adult feline female

etc

That's a weird argument. Humans are the only one in that list that can communicate an opinion about the descriptors?

 

[Thermal]

Yeah, EC fell for the misdirection. I think we all did, to some extent.

Fell for it, or leaped on her hobby horse?

It suits the TRA agenda to keep us focused on the wrong door of the Monty Hall Problem.

One thing in this thread that really got me thinking was exactly *why* we are so touchy about being in the same restroom as the opposite sex (not changing rooms). I freely admit it feels powerfully wrong, having been in full unisex facilities a couple times. I mean, I'm sure a lot of it is simple Puritanical throwback from the not-so-distant days of women being shamed for showing their ankles in public.

But it's there, and strong. I want my daughters to be able to touch up their makeup or attend to their menstrual needs without some oaf like me towering over their shoulder, perfectly safe oaf or not. Comfort is comfort, and unease is unease, no matter how it got rooted in our collective consciousness.