Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

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

Did so, with further fine tuning (post #11,177). Not that I was trying to correct it; I was asking what the ◊◊◊◊ you guys were seeing.

You found errors in my criticism? More significant than her two orders of magnitude off, which was so obvious that a child would ask how the hell we were supposed to take that seriously? The floor is yours.

Eta: you were a surprise on that thumbs up list. I expected the others, and expected Ziggurat and theprestige to rub their temples and hope no one else noticed.

Why did you feel like showing that Like support? What did you like about that math job?

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Interesting, but irrelevant. You're talking about social aspects - I'm talking about facts, evidence and observable reality

That's a weird argument.

Nevertheless, it is reality. Its only weird if it doesn't comport with your beliefs

Humans are the only one in that list that can communicate an opinion about the descriptors?

And?

 

[smartcooky]

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

Don't hold your breath!

 

[d4m10n]

Note that she chose a laughable average of 10 rapes per rapist

Whereas the actual value is closer to 5?

For instance, she used half the population as being male for the computations. But not all males are of raping age, physiologically or practically.

They don't graduate from being a rapist, they get to carry that status around forever. Personally, I'd put it on their gravestones.

Did so, with further fine tuning (post #11,177).

I must be reading you post wrong, it doesn't look like you came to any mathematically derived conclusions.

Which step were you on when you said "plugging in" exactly?

 

[smartcooky]

...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.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it?

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.

Its high, she acknowledged that, but its not that far out, given she did say it was a boundary number, and the range she ended up with was between 2.7% and 27% - that equates to a number between 1 and 10 and the actual number turns about to be about 5.

Maybe maths is another one of your not very strong suits

 

[smartcooky]

This is worth the 16 minutes to watch

TRAs and their sycophants here will dismiss it, but what he says will ring true it anyone capable of thinking beyond their own pre-determined conclusions...

 

[d4m10n]

?

P(R|M) = P(M|R) * P(R)
.....................P(M)

Assuming "R" denotes the status of an individual having ever coerced another individual into at least one sex act, and "M" denotes the status of being male at birth, we just need to work out the probability of an individual being male given that they've ever coerced any sex acts "P(M|R)" along with the probability of a randomly selected individual having ever coerced another individual into at least one sex act "P(R)" and the probability of being born male "P(M)".

Estimating P(M|R) at 92% (which I think is probably at bit low) based on USSC data.

Estimating P(R) between 19/4,687 & 66/4,687 based on the data from Table 1 of this study.

Estimating P(M) at 50% because that's close enough given the inevitable sample errors in the studies.

That all puts my low end estimate of P(R|M) at 745.9 per 100k population and my high end estimate at 2,591 per 100k.

(If you prefer percentages, that's roughly .75% — 2.6%)

Please take note that I'm looking at lifetime perpetration rates here, not just a few years.

Wish I could tie this back into the main topic somehow, but I don't think anyone is gathering comparable data on perpetration by FtM or MtF folks.

Please let me know if you dispute my calculations or my sources.

 

[Thermal]

Whereas the actual value is closer to 5?

No... no, I'd put it very close to 1. For whatever reason, EC focuses on rapes in the year 2015, and males in the population in 2015, and extrapolates the likelihood of a given male being a rapist. There is no data presented to indicate the average rapist rapes 5 times per year on average. Even President Biden's 6 rapes per rapist claim was a lifetime total, not an annual tally. Is this a point of contention for you?

They don't graduate from being a rapist, they get to carry that status around forever.

OK, that's fair. A geriatric rapist who is no longer a threat is still a rapist (although the context of EC's musing very clearly implied an active threat). I still contend that male infants, toddlers, etc should not be factored in, as EC was presenting the odds of a male *being* a rapist, which I maintain a male infant is fairly unlikely to be. Is this also a point of contention for you?

Personally, I'd put it on their gravestones.

Word.

I must be reading you post wrong, it doesn't look like you came to any mathematically derived conclusions.

That's likely because I already assured you that I had no interest in providing any. I was pointing out further problems (more logical than mathematical) in the mathematically derived conclusions presented in the Big Thumbs Up post.

If you want better mathematically derived conclusions, I'd think you have a lot of work in front of you. I'm the guy that points and says "well that ain't anywhere near right', and shows why. What *is* right is not in my charter.

Which step were you on when you said "plugging in" exactly?

Doesn't really matter when the whole calculation is ◊◊◊◊◊◊ six ways from Sunday, does it? Plug it in where ever you like. You won't disrupt the integrity.

 

[Thermal]

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it?

You're serious, aren't you? You genuinely don't understand what we are talking about, do you?

Its high, she acknowledged that, but its not that far out, given she did say it was a boundary number, and the range she ended up with was between 2.7% and 27% - that equates to a number between 1 and 10 and the actual number turns about to be about 5.

Yes, we know. That's not what we are talking about. Try to follow along:

-The conclusion is that given any male, there is a 27% chance of him being a rapist (based on a one man, one rape model), at an estimated 432,000 rapes for the year 2015.

-The total amount of men was given as 160,000,000 for the year 2015 (half of the total 320,000,000 US population).

Now this is the fun part, smartcooky. You can do the math in your head, even!

-If there were 160 million men, and over a quarter of them were rapists, how many rapes would that be for that year?

-If you guessed 'over 40 million', you'd be right!

-Bringing it home: do you think 432,000 and 40 million are about the same number? If not, why do you suppose EC's math is off by two orders of magnitude?

I'll give you a hint: she ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up decimals and percentages.

Maybe maths is another one of your not very strong suits

Do tell. Get back to me when you understand how badly you ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up here. Everyone else can see it.

 

[angrysoba]

Not seeing how this has any relevance to the debate. So she's a bit masculine... so what?
This is not bloke with a cock and balls dressing up as a woman and trying to force his way into the ladies toilet so he can swing his ladydick in their faces.

What on Earth is going on in your head?

What is it you actually see in your imagination?

 

[angrysoba]

To put it in terms of the debate here...

For
every time a woman and transgender identified man are in the same restroom, there is between a 1 in 30 and a 1 in 3 chance she is in there with a rapist.

This is in itself a claim so absurd it is amazing you wrote it. And yet, it gets better....

Its probably much higher that that, because we know, for a fact, that the rate of sexual offending among transgender identified men is at least three times higher than for non-transgender identified men.

I seem to remember there was some statistical jiggery-pokery earlier on in which it was claimed that something like 0.2% or 0.4% of the transgender population was a sex offender.

And yet here we are now.

I expect that we will hit the 100% figure in a few pages. It certainly seems like some of the posters are insinuating it.

 

[Pixel42]

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.

I'm pretty sure most women (especially those who have previously been victims of male sexual predators) are, and have always been, uneasy about entering any enclosed area in which they will need to partially or fully undress, making them especially vulnerable, if it contains strange males who are bigger and stronger than they are. I don't think it's so much "Puritanical throwback" as basic animal instinct.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm pretty sure most women (especially those who have previously been victims of male sexual predators) are, and have always been, uneasy about entering any enclosed area in which they will need to partially or fully undress, making them especially vulnerable, if it contains strange males who are bigger and stronger than they are. I don't think it's so much "Puritanical throwback" as basic animal instinct.

And what do the statistics show?
20% of women have experienced completed or attempted rape during their lifetime.
81% of women have experienced sexual harassment and/or sexual assault in their lifetime
33% of women who have been victims of completed or attempted rape, experienced it for the first time between the ages of 11 and 17

But our resident TRA sycophants really don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ about these women, just so long as men with girly feels get to force their way into women's spaces so they can wave their girlydicks around.

 

[angrysoba]

And what do the statistics show?
20% of women have experienced completed or attempted rape during their lifetime.
81% of women have experienced sexual harassment and/or sexual assault in their lifetime
33% of women who have been victims of completed or attempted rape, experienced it for the first time between the ages of 11 and 17

But our resident TRA sycophants really don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ about these women, just so long as men with girly feels get to force their way into women's spaces so they can wave their girlydicks around.

Hmmm….

No source for the stats.
No definitions.
Dishonest spread between “harassment” and/or “assault”.
Then immediate pivot to rhetorical attack on anyone who disagrees.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

P(R|M) = P(M|R) * P(R)
.....................P(M)

Assuming "R" denotes the status of an individual having ever coerced another individual into at least one sex act, and "M" denotes the status of being male at birth, we just need to work out the probability of an individual being male given that they've ever coerced any sex acts "P(M|R)" along with the probability of a randomly selected individual having ever coerced another individual into at least one sex act "P(R)" and the probability of being born male "P(M)".

Estimating P(M|R) at 92% (which I think is probably at bit low) based on USSC data.

Estimating P(R) between 19/4,687 & 66/4,687 based on the data from Table 1 of this study.

Estimating P(M) at 50% because that's close enough given the inevitable sample errors in the studies.

That all puts my low end estimate of P(R|M) at 745.9 per 100k population and my high end estimate at 2,591 per 100k.

(If you prefer percentages, that's roughly .75% — 2.6%)

Please take note that I'm looking at lifetime perpetration rates here, not just a few years.

Wish I could tie this back into the main topic somehow, but I don't think anyone is gathering comparable data on perpetration by FtM or MtF folks.

Please let me know if you dispute my calculations or my sources.

I think this is the best yet, though it doesn't include the observation that most rapists are repeat offenders, so this analysis overestimates the human male's rapiness quotient by a factor of ~6, which would alter your range to 0.13% - 0.43%.

How little affective empathy does a person have to have for him to be able to commit rape without coercion or deception? I would estimate such a person needs close to zero affective empathy to be able to engage in rape under those conditions. I think such low levels of affective empathy would likely be permanent. Also, given that transsexual women are such a tiny group, it would only take a few (psychopathic?) males with near zero affective empathy using trans-identity to massively skew the rapiness quotient for transsexual women.

 

[d4m10n]

I think this is the best yet, though it doesn't include the observation that most rapists are repeat offenders

N from Table 1 of the Belgian study is the number of "respondents that reported each behaviour" rather than number of incidents of each behaviour, which is to say that the experimenters were trying to directly measure number of rapists rather than number of rapes.

Of course this means that all our Bayesian math is ultimately unnecessary, because that same data table already has the incidences of perpetration split out by sex.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

N from Table 1 of the Belgian study is the number of "respondents that reported each behaviour" rather than number of incidents of each behaviour, which is to say that the experimenters were trying to directly measure number of rapists rather than number of rapes.

Of course this means that all our Bayesian math is ultimately unnecessary, because that same data table already has the incidences of perpetration split out by sex.

Ah, okay, my mistake. I only looked at the table before responding and thought it was a survey of victims rather than perpetrators. So the estimated range from that study is as you stated 0.75% - 2.6%.

As well as psychopaths borderlines and narcissists also have problems with empathy. What I'm basically getting at is that while transgenderism may be correlated with sexual aggression it may not be particularly predictive of it, compared to say, childhood abuse and neglect.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

@d4m10n you asked for a definition of gender earlier on.

Gender: The subjective feeling of self-association with maleness, femaleness or neither.

 

[theprestige]

@d4m10n you asked for a definition of gender earlier on.

Gender: The subjective feeling of self-association with maleness, femaleness or neither.

Works for me me. Not that it actually does any work, since it has no practical applications in public policy.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Works for me me. Not that it actually does any work, since it has no practical applications in public policy.

Should we allow transsexual men into male public toilets and/or changing rooms?

Should we allow transsexual women into female public toilets and/or changing rooms?

If your answers are different, please explain why.