I'm thinking along the lines of pet breeds. How well an animal matches the standard for the breed is valued separate from any value the breed has or does not have. Which is how my mother ended up with a half Persian show cat/half alley cat. The owners of the show cat simply left it behind when they moved.
-
Features
Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah
- Thread starter Jimmy Higgins
- Start date
You want to push the MtFs into the men's--in more liberal areas this will work. But it will push the FtMs into the women's. And we've already seen this cause violence.
They haven't come for him yet. But they are dragging people off to camps. Just because it's not your in-group yet doesn't make it not a very big problem.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
The Mechanism
Lee Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
The Loud Part
Charlie Kirk: You wanna go thought crime? I'm sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I'm gonna be like, "Boy, I hope he's qualified."
...
That's not an immediate … that's not who I am. That's not what I believe.
...
I want to be as blunt as possible because now I'm connecting two dots. Wait a second, this CEO just said that he's forcing that a white qualified guy is not gonna get the job. So I see this guy, he might be a nice person and I say, "Boy, I hope he's not a Harvard-style affirmative-action student that … landed half of his flight-simulator trials."
...
It also … creates unhealthy thinking patterns. I don't wanna think that way. And no one should, right? … And by the way, then you couple it with the FAA, air-traffic control, they got a bunch of morons and affirmative-action people.
The Quiet Part
Young Republicans: if your pilot is a she and she looks ten shades darker than someone from Sicily, just end it there. Scream the no no word.
Lee Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
The Loud Part
Charlie Kirk: You wanna go thought crime? I'm sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I'm gonna be like, "Boy, I hope he's qualified."
...
That's not an immediate … that's not who I am. That's not what I believe.
...
I want to be as blunt as possible because now I'm connecting two dots. Wait a second, this CEO just said that he's forcing that a white qualified guy is not gonna get the job. So I see this guy, he might be a nice person and I say, "Boy, I hope he's not a Harvard-style affirmative-action student that … landed half of his flight-simulator trials."
...
It also … creates unhealthy thinking patterns. I don't wanna think that way. And no one should, right? … And by the way, then you couple it with the FAA, air-traffic control, they got a bunch of morons and affirmative-action people.
The Quiet Part
Young Republicans: if your pilot is a she and she looks ten shades darker than someone from Sicily, just end it there. Scream the no no word.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 17,199
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
And like we can look through historical documents and find probably a dozen or even hundreds -- and if we were lucky enough that all documents survived, though they didn't; many were spoken into the mere air, perhaps even a million we might have millions -- examples of someone in Nazi Germany saying something that translates very similar being spoken to some jew or trans person or someone else the Nazis attacked.
I bet we could find almost as many examples, had digital communication been the standard at the time, of those same people full-throatedly supporting the actions (if not methods) of the Holocaust later.
Emily seems unconcerned about the whole push to restore conversion camps being implemented by the same people who play the drums she marches to.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
I did not call you personally either evasive or clever. I called your argument clever but evasive. A person can have a clever argument but not be generally clever themselves, theoretically. Likewise, a person can have a super genius argument but be a dimwit. The same is true for an evasive argument. A person can submit an evasive argument but generally not be an evasive person. Or they can submit an argument that is completely relevant and hits all the necessary points but generally speaking they could be an avoidant person. Finally, whether or not my reason for calling your argument evasive is intellectually honest resides in the substance of my argument, not any of the things you are focusing on in the above sentences such as conflating descriptions of your argument with descriptions of you.
Well my sarcasm was illustrating a valid case as I demonstrate below.
Full stop. I didn't claim that you claimed Kirk called trans people defective for their own good.
Continuing on:
I did not insinuate that you claimed Kirk called trans people defective for their own good.
However, YOU did imply everyone in the thread arguing against you was personally illogical, not merely their arguments. I gave you and Kirk both the benefit of the doubt in my sarcastic post to say that you both were saying such insulting things to try to benefit trans (in the case of Kirk) and us (in the case of you). The sarcasm works whether or not either is true and remains an open-ended question in the sarcasm.
In summary, your post is illogical. No, that doesn't mean that you personally and generally are an illogical person.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,696
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
Isn’t North Carolina where an Islamic center under construction got set on fire?
Elixir
Made in America
All kinda problems there. After our Company moved to Leland NC I was gong there a lot. A more blatantly segregated society would be hard to imagine.
I spoke with a number of the line workers, and they were a sullen bunch. Almost all were known to mgmt as commodities of variable value, names associated only with functions and performance levels.
The "People on the streets" traveled together 90+ percent of the time grouped by color. Pretty depressing to know that most of those people were either voting against their own interests due to persuasive, ubiquitous right wing propaganda, or not represented in government at all.
The corruption is epic. A great "business environment" for anyone who needs cheap labor.
Emily Lake
Might be a replicant
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 8,464
- Location
- It's a desert out there
- Gender
- Agenderist
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist
More like I haven't bought into you nightmare fantasy as being at all representative of actual reality.
Piss off with your not-very-well veiled insults.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 17,199
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Seriously though, I'll choose to actually take Peter Thiel and his Project2025 at face value and assume yes, that there is a nightmare coming for many of us, if not all of us (probably all of us) in the form of Christian theocracy.
It's a published plan.
It has thousands of backers and billions of dollars behind it.
It is neither paranoia or fantasy to think this is the goal when it is already published as the goal.
It is, instead rank fucking gaslighting to pretend, even in such a clearly rhetorical and dishonest way, that it's not happening, serious, and real.
It's a published plan.
It has thousands of backers and billions of dollars behind it.
It is neither paranoia or fantasy to think this is the goal when it is already published as the goal.
It is, instead rank fucking gaslighting to pretend, even in such a clearly rhetorical and dishonest way, that it's not happening, serious, and real.
Elixir
Made in America
Ems doesn’t read those publications.
Ignorance is bliss, and you are a mean old poopyhead for trying to disrupt her well earned bliss.
GenesisNemesis
I am a proud hedonist.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 5,990
- Basic Beliefs
- In addition to hedonism, I am also an extremist- extremely against bullshit.
And Trump himself said Russell Vought (who is a member of the Trump administration) was "of Project 2025 fame" in a recent post. He knows about Project 2025, yet right wingers are still blindly in denial about it.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Your link certainly doesn't show they're certainly not over-represented -- its numbers are way too ambiguous to get certainty from. Some obvious problems jump out at me.
Trans people are probably under-represented, but certainly not over-represented as mass shooters.
Few Mass Shooters Have Been Transgender - FactCheck.org
Q: Have many of the mass shooters been transgender? A: The number of transgender mass shooters in the U.S. varies depending on how “mass shooting” is defined, but is relatively small. The Gun Violence Archive, which uses a broader definition, lists five mass shootings by transgender or...www.factcheck.org
The Violence Prevention Project at Hamline University defines a mass shooting as “four or more people shot and killed, excluding the shooter, in a public location, with no connection to underlying criminal activity, such as gangs or drugs.” By that more restrictive measure, the project’s mass shooter database identifies 201 mass shooters between 1966 and 2024, and only one of them – Audrey Hale, the 2023 Nashville school shooting suspect – was transgender ...He said of the 201 mass shooters in the database, “196 (97.5%) are cisgender men,” “4 (2.0%) are cisgender women,” and “1 (0.5%) is a transgender individual.”196 + 4 + 1 = 201. I.e., zero are men or women of unknown gender identity. In statistics going back to 1966! We're supposed to seriously believe that the cops who arrested a mass shooter in 1966, when transgenderism was barely in the public consciousness and most trans people were as deeply closeted as gays were, took care to thoroughly investigate and record whether the perp thought of himself as a woman? There's no plausible deniability here -- the VPP is plainly simply taking for granted that if they don't know a shooter is trans then he's cis.
Also, if we take the numbers at face-value it would mean the 1% of biological females who are transmen account for 20% of the mass shootings committed by females, suggesting being trans makes a female twenty times more likely to commit a mass shooting. That's implausibly high -- it immediately raises the question of whether Hale was taking testosterone supplements as gender-affirming care. The article doesn't say. If she was, it would seem much more likely she went out of control due to testosterone poisoning than due to being trans.
Toxic masculinity aside, this isn't relevant to the proposition that trans persons in total are over represented. Your initial link refuted a positive claim—that trans people are overrepresented—and the statistical ambiguities you are now citing only serve to strengthen the original refutation.
To determine if trans individuals are overrepresented as mass shooting perpetrators, we must compare their representation in the perpetrator pool Pshooter to their established representation (the base rate) in the general population Pgeneral. The claim of overrepresentation means mathematically that Pshooter > Pgeneral.
Using the VPP data you cited: Transgender people account for 1 out of 201 shooters, or approximately 0.5% of mass shooters. Given that conservative estimates place the transgender population at approximately 1.0% of the U.S. general population, the current data demonstrates that Pshooter ~= 0.005 is less than Pgeneral ~= 0.01. They are, by definition, underrepresented.
I need to point out again that this is a refutation of a positive claim, i.e., that trans people are overrepresented as perpetrators in mass shootings. The burden of proof for this claim rests entirely with the accuser. If the data is subject to so many "confounding factors," "implausibly high" outliers, and massive definitional shifts (201 shooters vs. 5,748 shooters), then no scientifically sound conclusion of overrepresentation can possibly be drawn.
If we accept the GVA figures you provided, Pshooter = 5/5748 ~= 0.00087. Compared to the estimated general population rate of Pgeneral ~= 0.01, this shows extreme underrepresentation.
The bottom line is extremely close to the overall point: we can confidently say that the data certainly does not support the claim of overrepresentation.
Conceding that the data is too "noisy" to draw a definitive conclusion about underrepresentation is reasonable. However, this weakness in the data does not suddenly give credence to the opposite, positive claim. The absence of evidence of overrepresentation, combined with the low observed frequency, is sufficient to refute the initial claim that trans people are overrepresented. The data simply does not contain the necessary signal to support the original, inflammatory assertion.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 17,199
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
BoTh SiDeS!
Spacetime Inhabitant
Senior Member
Choosing a rare characteristic (or any very specific category) to define a statistical relationship between one category and another can be a risky exercise.
What if one has a mass shooting and the shooter description includes the following, wearing a red shirt and brown boots.
Then one attempts to link those aspects to the general category of people. Of course, as these are changeable aspects, then at any one time a major portion of the population would meet these criteria.
An example of another aspect, sample sizes:
"In the 12 months ending September 2025, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) recorded 8 road fatalities, which was the lowest number among all Australian states and territories."
All that would be needed to raise this figure by 50% is if a single additional incident involving 4 deaths also occurred.
Statistical anomalies, and biased selection of aspects to include, are two of many things that can affect statistical comparisons.
What if one has a mass shooting and the shooter description includes the following, wearing a red shirt and brown boots.
Then one attempts to link those aspects to the general category of people. Of course, as these are changeable aspects, then at any one time a major portion of the population would meet these criteria.
An example of another aspect, sample sizes:
"In the 12 months ending September 2025, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) recorded 8 road fatalities, which was the lowest number among all Australian states and territories."
All that would be needed to raise this figure by 50% is if a single additional incident involving 4 deaths also occurred.
Statistical anomalies, and biased selection of aspects to include, are two of many things that can affect statistical comparisons.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,493
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
So, like, go into battle in heels? That's a stretch. And, practicalities of the shooting spree itself aside, a lot of shooters aren't trying to go out with a bang and are hoping to get away afterwards if they can, and pretty much all of them are trying not to attract attention on their way to the scene. So I don't think it's reasonable to assume all 196 males were cis.
Following a link in Don's original link leads to a site saying "The shooter who attacked students and teachers at the Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee, on Monday was identified by police as 28-year-old Audrey Hale, who law enforcement said once attended the school. ... A police spokesperson told ABC News that Hale was assigned female at birth and pointed to a social media account linked to Hale that included use of the pronouns he/him."
From your lips to the Flying Spaghetti Monster's ears.
Bingo. To my mind the GVA's decision to contaminate their data with gang conflict makes their statistics useless.
Right. As far as I can see, what factcheck.org cited isn't statistically significant.
Speculative, but plausible.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,493
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Dude! It was your link! You linked it in post #1292.Your link certainly doesn't show they're certainly not over-represented -- its numbers are way too ambiguous to get certainty from. Some obvious problems jump out at me.
Trans people are probably under-represented, but certainly not over-represented as mass shooters.
Few Mass Shooters Have Been Transgender - FactCheck.org
Q: Have many of the mass shooters been transgender? A: The number of transgender mass shooters in the U.S. varies depending on how “mass shooting” is defined, but is relatively small. The Gun Violence Archive, which uses a broader definition, lists five mass shootings by transgender or...
The Violence Prevention Project at Hamline University defines a mass shooting as “four or more people shot and killed, excluding the shooter, in a public location, with no connection to underlying criminal activity, such as gangs or drugs.” By that more restrictive measure, the project’s mass shooter database identifies 201 mass shooters between 1966 and 2024, and only one of them – Audrey Hale, the 2023 Nashville school shooting suspect – was transgender ...He said of the 201 mass shooters in the database, “196 (97.5%) are cisgender men,” “4 (2.0%) are cisgender women,” and “1 (0.5%) is a transgender individual.”196 + 4 + 1 = 201. I.e., zero are men or women of unknown gender identity. In statistics going back to 1966! We're supposed to seriously believe that the cops who arrested a mass shooter in 1966, when transgenderism was barely in the public consciousness and most trans people were as deeply closeted as gays were, took care to thoroughly investigate and record whether the perp thought of himself as a woman? There's no plausible deniability here -- the VPP is plainly simply taking for granted that if they don't know a shooter is trans then he's cis.
Also, if we take the numbers at face-value it would mean the 1% of biological females who are transmen account for 20% of the mass shootings committed by females, suggesting being trans makes a female twenty times more likely to commit a mass shooting. That's implausibly high -- it immediately raises the question of whether Hale was taking testosterone supplements as gender-affirming care. The article doesn't say. If she was, it would seem much more likely she went out of control due to testosterone poisoning than due to being trans.
Toxic masculinity aside, this isn't relevant to the proposition that trans persons in total are over represented. Your initial link
That massively overstates your case. Your link casts doubt on the positive claim; it makes it rational to incrementally reduce one's estimate of its probability. It would take a lot stronger evidence than that to refute it.
How do you figure that? They serve to highlight how weak the attempted refutation was.
It demonstrates nothing of the sort. In the first place the sample size is too small to be statistically significant. What, if Pshooter = 0.01 you think that would mean every set of 200 shooters would contain exactly two trans shooters? It doesn't work that way, Some sets of 200 would contain 2, some 3, some 1, some 4 or more, some 0. Finding 1 in the first set of 200 you look at is perfectly within the normal range of variation. (Moreover, there's no good reason for the sample size to be so small. The VPP excluded mass shootings where three or fewer of the people who were shot died, no matter how many were shot. Whether a bullet wound is mortal is pretty much chance -- it's not like the shooter was deliberately trying not to kill. So the VPP might as well have decided which shootings to include by rolling dice.)
And in the second place we don't know transgender people account for 1 out of 201 shooters. The VPP claim they do but we have no reason to believe the VPP know what they're talking about. People the VPP know are transgender account for 1 out of 201 shooters. Not the same thing at all. The VPP are plainly assuming people are cis unless they're known not to be; that's a groundless assumption.
They are, by definition, underrepresented in that sample, provided the shooters whose gender identity wasn't known were as it happens all cis.
So why didn't you say that in the first place? If that had been all you claimed then I wouldn't have gotten on your case. But you said "the evidence runs the opposite direction" and "Trans people are probably under-represented, but certainly not over-represented as mass shooters". Those are positive claims you made, and the evidence you cited is inadequate to support them.
You're the one who provided those figures.
Yes, it shows out-of-the-closet transwomen are extremely underrepresented in street gangs. Perhaps we should tell the Crips to be more tolerant.
What's your point? Nobody said it does. If anybody in the thread wants to support Gorka's and Kirk's claims he'll have to link something else; but I haven't seen any sign there's any such person in the thread.
"Conceding"?!? You calling what I wrote "conceding" is not reasonable. You're trying to paint a false narrative of what the point in dispute is. You have burden-of-proof for the positive claims you made -- claims I challenged because the evidence you cited in support of your claims was inadequate to support them. You're pretending I'm arguing for Gorka's and Kirk's claims, because they had burden-of-proof for their claims and you wish I had burden-of-proof for their claims. It doesn't work that way. I only have burden-of-proof for my own claims, and I never claimed they were right.
"He little thinks how eloquently he has pleaded his rival's cause!"
No it isn't -- the data is too weak to either refute or confirm that claim.
Finally something we can agree on.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,396
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
This is technically a true statement, however, it is still absolute nonsense.
It implies a sense of parity between sides when in reality, if something doesn't have any evidence to support it, it isn't worth the words to project the thought.
Just because X can't be statistically disproven doesn't mean a reasonable conjecture can't be concluded based on a decent amount of observable evidence.
You try to look like you are protecting the honor of statistical purity, but it looks a lot more like gaslighting.Finally something we can agree on.