TERFs crash London Pride

Information Analyst said:
It seems the American College of Pediatricians has around 500 members, as opposed to the American Academy of Pediatrics with 64,000.
Click to expand...

It's a religious group by admission.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030807101759/http://www.narth.com/docs/differ.html

"We are essentially a Judeo-Christian, traditional-values organization," he noted, "open to membership for pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold to our core beliefs." Those beliefs, he said, are that "life begins at conception, and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children."
Click to expand...
 
deadrose said:
Interesting. A study comparing Massachusetts cities with and without gender discrimination laws, and the same cities after statewide gender discrimination lows took effect, found there was no change in bathroom-related crimes, in matched cities before the statewide bill, or in the same cities after the bill. It appears that the whole "male predators dressed as women" excuse for bathroom bills and the current anti-trans outrage has no basis in reality.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/pa8dby/the-biggest-argument-against-bathroom-bills-was-destroyed-by-this-study

I suppose one could interpret it that the "male predators in dresses" were there and being arrested in the same numbers before transgender rights, but in that case, the conclusion would be that the laws are already catching them, so why would you need to take away someone else's rights?
Click to expand...

That's not what this data says. Of the 134 complaints regarding sexual assault, voyeurism and harassment in changing rooms at public swimming pools over 2017-2018, 120 took place in unisex ones and 14 in single-sex ones, even though unisex ones only account for less than half of the total.

What was the data of your study, how many incidents etc?
 
Rolfe said:
It will be interesting to see what reasons are forthcoming for why this study is biassed, hateful and so on, and so must be discounted.

https://www.acpeds.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/6.6.17-Gender-Dysphoria-in-Children.pdf
Click to expand...


Oh look, using an anti-LGBTQ Religious Right organization as a source. I can't tell if that's a step up or step down from the radfem conspiracy theory woos.

Let's see, a diatribe thinly disguised as a "study", created by a fundamentalist religious organization that exists for the express purpose of opposing LGBTQ rights (particularly to oppose adoption of children by LGBTQ couples) and denying the existence of transpeople, which starts off with the presumption that Gender Dysphoria is a temporary psychological condition, not the neurological condition that the evidence is increasingly pointing to, depends heavily on anecdote and ideological pronouncements, cherry picks what little data it cites, and rambles on badly misrepresenting both Gender Dysphoria and the current treatment protocol for trans-identifying children.

Let's take a look at the abstract:
ABSTRACT: Gender dysphoria (GD) of childhood describes a psychological condition in which children experience a marked incongruence between their experienced gender and the gender associated with their biological sex. When this occurs in the pre-pubertal child, GD resolves in the vast majority of patients by late adolescence. Currently there is a vigorous, albeit suppressed, debate among physicians, therapists, and academics regarding what is fast becoming the new treatment standard for GD in children. This new paradigm is rooted in the assumption that GD is innate, and involves pubertal suppression with gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists followed by the use of cross-sex hormones—a combination that results in the sterility of minors. A review of the current literature suggests that this protocol is founded upon an unscientific gender ideology, lacks an evidence base, and violates the long-standing ethical principle of “First do no harm.”
Click to expand...


Nope, that's not ideologically-driven at all. :rolleyes: How many scientific studies would you accept where all the evidence is summarily dismissed and denied in such an offhanded manner? You know, I bet if you go to the Stormfront website you can find similar "studies" on the innate criminality of black people.

Little hint, when you've broken through the bottom of the barrel, it's time to stop scraping.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
Well, you did quite literally fail to analyze the information beyond the url initially.
Click to expand...

Initially? He never did. I still think this is accurate:
caveman1917 said:
"Oops, this data contradicts my preferred belief, what can I do now? Well I obviously can't say the results are false, it is after all so friggin easy for anyone to verify for themselves. Hmmm, I could attack the venue the results were presented. Of course this has no bearing on the actual truth of the results, which again can simply be verified by anyone, but people are stupid so they'll probably fall for that anyway. But then I still have the problem that I have no basis for attacking the venue. Hmmm, I could just launch an unsupported attack on the venue, simply telling everyone of my own personal dislike for it without support. People are stupid after all, I'll just call this stuff 'Information Analysis' or something and they'll fall for it."
Click to expand...
 
caveman1917 said:
Total: 317
Known sex workers: 51
Known not-sex workers: 51
Unknown profession: 215

Minimum possible percentage of sex workers: 51/317 = 16%
Maximum possible percentage of sex workers: (51 + 215)/317 = 84%.
Click to expand...

Information Analyst said:
So as few as 16% were sex workers, and I'd suspect that that status was far more likely to be reported than others.
Click to expand...

caveman1917 said:
So as much as 84% were sex workers, and I'd suspect that status was far less likely to be reported than others.
Click to expand...

Information Analyst said:
Bollocks.
Click to expand...

Can you say "confirmation bias"? I know you can :)

Darat said:
Er no - half of 102 is 51.
Click to expand...

What about you Darat, any reason you chose to dispute my statement on the data but not Information Analyst's preceding statement, even though my statement did nothing but invert his? Well, any reason other than confirmation bias, that is.
 
Information Analyst said:
You seem to have a charmingly naive view of how the press operates. "Clerical worker" is a far less salacious/"interesting" detail to report than "sex worker."
Click to expand...

Yet "clerical worker" would be known (a registered profession) whereas "sex worker" would only be known if the murder itself happened in a work context.

Furthermore, in the UK dataset all have their professions known, and the ratio is also about 50%, which supports the figure of 50% that you'd get by assuming that the 102 in the larger dataset which had their professions recorded constitutes an unbiased sample of the 317 total. You know, because that would be the minimum information assumption (that's the first part of your job title btw, you should be familiar with it).
 
caveman1917 said:
Yet "clerical worker" would be known (a registered profession) whereas "sex worker" would only be known if the murder itself happened in a work context.

Furthermore, in the UK dataset all have their professions known, and the ratio is also about 50%, which supports the figure of 50% that you'd get by assuming that the 102 in the larger dataset which had their professions recorded constitutes an unbiased sample of the 317 total. You know, because that would be the minimum information assumption (that's the first part of your job title btw, you should be familiar with it).
Click to expand...

You think that sex worker status is something that wouldn't come to light and be reported during any investigation into the murder, even if it was not a factor in the murder itself? How naive. Apart from that, if someone is murdered outside of the context of them being a sex worker, then them being a sex worker is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
Feel free to link to the post where you addressed the content of the post from Mumsnet.
Click to expand...

I didn't because others already had, not least in the comments on the actual Mumsnet page.

Even then, nobody managed to work out that the list was missing one victim in teh relevant timeframe, who was not a sex worker.
 
Last edited:
Information Analyst said:
You think that sex worker status is something that wouldn't come to light and be reported during any investigation into the murder, even if it was not a factor in the murder itself? How naive.
Click to expand...

Can you support that assertion with some data? Actually, how about you support the full list of assertions which we must consider true to allow for the data to be interpreted in a way to support your prior belief:

1. For every murder in every country, if the victim is a sex worker then the investigation into the murder will make it come to light and report it.

2. For every press in every country, if a murder happens and the victim has been reported by the investigation to be a sex worker then the press will also report that.

3. The UK dataset does not form an unbiased sample from the World dataset.

Apart from that, if someone is murdered outside of the context of them being a sex worker, then them being a sex worker is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe a lot of random street muggings happen around the red light district.
 
caveman1917 said:
Great, so we're agreed then.
Click to expand...

Nope, you're still mischaracterised what I did or didn't do. Not analysing something is not a "failure" of analysis, any more than a car mechanic "fails" at beigng a car mechanic if they don't look under the bonnet of every noisily defective car that drives past them.

Anyway, this is all getting very boring now, which means there's not point in talking or listening to you anymore.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
Well, you did quite literally fail to analyze the information beyond the url initially.
Click to expand...

caveman1917 said:
He never did.
Click to expand...

Information Analyst said:
Really? You seem to be claiming a lot with no actual evidence. That suggests that you think you're reading minds, rather than what has actually been said.
Click to expand...

caveman1917 said:
Feel free to link to the post where you addressed the content of the post from Mumsnet.
Click to expand...

Information Analyst said:
I didn't
Click to expand...

caveman1917 said:
Great, so we're agreed then.
Click to expand...

Information Analyst said:
Nope, you're still mischaracterised what I did or didn't do. Not analysing something is not a "failure" of analysis, any more than a car mechanic "fails" at beigng a car mechanic if they don't look under the bonnet of every noisily defective car that drives past them.
Click to expand...

Great, so we're agreed now then.

Anyway, this is all getting very boring now, which means there's not point in talking or listening to you anymore.
Click to expand...

Translation: I can't support my claims so I'm backing out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom