Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Loren Pechtel]

Trans being far more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator is true for society in general.

Yes, that's not in dispute. Can you name any demographic it isn't true for? Left-handed AB-negative people are far more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator.

Why in the world would we think that? Why should there be any relationship?

There isn't any relationship -- that's why I picked it as an example! It illustrates the point I'm trying to get across: that "far more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator" is not a measure of relationship! It's the null-hypothesis: the pattern we should expect to find even if we know nothing about the demographic under consideration. It's merely a statistical artifact of the reality that criminal acts are not randomly distributed, but are mostly committed by a relatively small number of habitual criminals. Perplexity's statement "transgender people are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators" doesn't tell us anything about transgender people.

Which doesn't change the demographic mix at all.

Have you ever been burglarized? I have, twice. Never committed a burglary, though. You? One time, the police got us our stuff back. First they found it; then they had to figure out whose stuff was whose because the loot from a lot of burglaries was mixed together. Lots more people have been burglarized than are burglars because the same small number of burglars each rob lots of people's homes. Therefore any group you sample are more likely to be the victim of a burglary than the perpetrator, unless the source of your sample is a prison.

But you're doing a one to many comparison. Burglar (singular) vs burglary victim (many). Of course the latter is more likely. But look at your original criteria--would you expect sinister burglars to be more or less common than sinister people in society in general?

I know for sure that I do none of your “somebody” things, and don’t know anyone who does.

Um... you insinuated that I hate women simply because I want to uphold the exact same standards for abortion that existed under RvW.

Except your standards would sometimes kill women. Even ones that weren't at 6 months yet. We've already seen the sort of deaths your position would lead to: the doctors won't act unless they are certain of the situation and are certain they can prove they acted properly. Medical judgment goes out the window.

Let's suppose you're correct for the sake of argument. So what? Why do you think that has any bearing on the point in dispute? Emily and Elixir aren't arguing over whether Roe v Wade is good policy. They're arguing over whether Elixir infers hatred of women from opposition to abortions. Irrespective of whether Emily is right about abortion, do you in fact think Emily hates women?

I wasn't trying to address whether she hates women. Rather, I was addressing why people distrust her claim of support for the RvW position.

What does "people distrust her claim of support for the RvW position" mean? Are you saying IIDB members think she's lying when she says she wants RvW to be law of the land again? Why would they think that? It's ridiculous. RvW was a workable compromise that everyone but the lunatic fringes could live with and wanting it back is an entirely normal position, maybe even the majority view in the U.S. Who is it you believe distrusts her?

Or do you mean people distrust her claim that the RvW position is well-supported by evidence and reason -- i.e., do you mean people think RvW is bad policy? If that's what you mean then you're off-topic -- this isn't a thread for debating the merits of abortion. Emily brought up RvW only because in a roundabout way it relates to the Kirk assassination -- she was offering evidence about a sub-point in my dispute with JH and Elixir over whether the left-wing's inflammatory rhetoric contributed to radicalizing Tyler Robinson. (The "your" in the above Elixir quote refers to me.)

And that sub-point created a sub-sub-point: her complaining about us questioning her position on abortion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sometimes you need to fights even when you know you will lose, because to not fight is even worse, still.

How can fighting and losing produce a better outcome than not fighting?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

(B) I have, only once, heard that transgender people are born with genitals somewhere between male and female.

This can be caused by quite an array of conditions, collectively referred to by researchers "disorders of sexual development" or DSDs. DSDs are all types of Intersex conditions, intersex being the I in LGTBQIA. Not all intersex conditions result in DSDs. Those that do account for somewhere between 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 live births. It's thought that most intersex persons do not turn up transgendered later in life, though the data is pretty scattered due to stigma and secrecy. In short, rare is the parent inclined to let a researcher examine their newborn's genitals for abnormalities and study the results.

I wonder if transgender might actually be a form of DSD, just in the brain rather than the anatomy.

DSDs are by definition disorders of the sexual reproductive system, hence the name, but a lot of people have explored the idea that intersexuality in general is connected to transgendered persons. For instance, that ambiguity of endocrinal sex might impact something like patterns of thought and self-perception even if they did not impact gross anatomy at all. From my standpoint as a social scientist, "transgender" would still be referring to something different than "intersex" even if they were always connected. Sex and gender are not ultimately synonyms, and "transgendered" in particular is a very Western concept that does not map on easily to other cultures.

Ok, then technically not, but you do seem to be agreeing with my basic idea.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I feel like one solution would just be to have an all gender restroom while keeping the other restrooms separate. Of course people on both sides may not like that idea. And it's also way too advanced of an idea so it's not likely to happen.

It's been discussed. It would probably work in the adult world, but not in school. And it would not be practical to retrofit existing facilities.

 

[Elixir]

“Fighting” cannot succeed if it means violence as a means of directly forcing an end, but it can motivate people.
We are in this fix right now largely because violence on 1/6 was so successfully sold as a rallying cry.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I feel like one solution would just be to have an all gender restroom while keeping the other restrooms separate. Of course people on both sides may not like that idea. And it's also way too advanced of an idea so it's not likely to happen.

It's been discussed. It would probably work in the adult world, but not in school. And it would not be practical to retrofit existing facilities.

Yeah, well this is the problem, no solution is good enough for the people who are ambivalent about transgender people.

 

[Politesse]

(B) I have, only once, heard that transgender people are born with genitals somewhere between male and female.

This can be caused by quite an array of conditions, collectively referred to by researchers "disorders of sexual development" or DSDs. DSDs are all types of Intersex conditions, intersex being the I in LGTBQIA. Not all intersex conditions result in DSDs. Those that do account for somewhere between 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 live births. It's thought that most intersex persons do not turn up transgendered later in life, though the data is pretty scattered due to stigma and secrecy. In short, rare is the parent inclined to let a researcher examine their newborn's genitals for abnormalities and study the results.

I wonder if transgender might actually be a form of DSD, just in the brain rather than the anatomy.

DSDs are by definition disorders of the sexual reproductive system, hence the name, but a lot of people have explored the idea that intersexuality in general is connected to transgendered persons. For instance, that ambiguity of endocrinal sex might impact something like patterns of thought and self-perception even if they did not impact gross anatomy at all. From my standpoint as a social scientist, "transgender" would still be referring to something different than "intersex" even if they were always connected. Sex and gender are not ultimately synonyms, and "transgendered" in particular is a very Western concept that does not map on easily to other cultures.

Ok, then technically not, but you do seem to be agreeing with my basic idea.

You're definitely not the first to suggest it. I've been watching the emerging field of data with interest.

 

[Toni]

(B) I have, only once, heard that transgender people are born with genitals somewhere between male and female.

This can be caused by quite an array of conditions, collectively referred to by researchers "disorders of sexual development" or DSDs. DSDs are all types of Intersex conditions, intersex being the I in LGTBQIA. Not all intersex conditions result in DSDs. Those that do account for somewhere between 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 live births. It's thought that most intersex persons do not turn up transgendered later in life, though the data is pretty scattered due to stigma and secrecy. In short, rare is the parent inclined to let a researcher examine their newborn's genitals for abnormalities and study the results.

I wonder if transgender might actually be a form of DSD, just in the brain rather than the anatomy.

There have been a number of posts re: what we know about why some people are transgender.

 

[Politesse]

(B) I have, only once, heard that transgender people are born with genitals somewhere between male and female.

This can be caused by quite an array of conditions, collectively referred to by researchers "disorders of sexual development" or DSDs. DSDs are all types of Intersex conditions, intersex being the I in LGTBQIA. Not all intersex conditions result in DSDs. Those that do account for somewhere between 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 live births. It's thought that most intersex persons do not turn up transgendered later in life, though the data is pretty scattered due to stigma and secrecy. In short, rare is the parent inclined to let a researcher examine their newborn's genitals for abnormalities and study the results.

I wonder if transgender might actually be a form of DSD, just in the brain rather than the anatomy.

There have been a number of posts re: what we know about why some people are transgender.

Albeit mostly on our other thread, which is in fact probably where this whole sidebar belongs, though denial of "gender ideology" was such a major plank of Charlie Kirk's organization, it is difficult to draw an absolute line between the topics. His appeal to bridge-issue moderates like our Emily and Tom weren't just important to his career, from Trump's perspective attracting folks like them into increasingly rightwing conversation spaces was more or less Kirk's job. In death as in life.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The fact is that the ONLY way to determine whether any person in a ladies bathroom is a rapist is to look at whether that person rapes (or has raped) someone. If you decide that, because you have heard that a transwoman has raped someone in a ladies bathroom, therefore transwomen as a class are a risk because of their potential as rapists, then you are indulging in a logical error.

As Kevin Underhill wrote, (in a blog post about a County Commissioner from Kansas who railed against Muslims):

Let’s say you’ve only met one German in your life, and that German was a Nazi. First of all, yes, Grandpa, you’ve told the Hindenburg story before. The point is that to predict that the next German you meet will also be a Nazi, based on that limited evidence, would almost certainly be wrong. Even in the 1930s it would probably have been wrong. Anyway, this cognitive bias/logical fallacy turns out to have quite a few names, but when applied to people we usually call it “bigotry.”

Swap out "German" for "transwoman" and "Nazi" for "rapist or sexual assaulter", and you have the exact same reasoning that leads to the conclusion that transwomen should be excluded from ladies rooms in order to protect the users of those rooms from rape or sexual assault.

You cannot protect women in bathrooms from rape by banning transwomen from ladies rooms, any more than you can protect congressmen from terrorists by banning Muslims from congress. And to attempt to do so is bigotry, as well as being futile.

Indeed, one can posit a scenario that because a transwoman is in a public bathroom with a "natural woman", and because as a rule that they are stronger (that is one of the big things that they make a fuss about in regard to sport) that they could protect the other woman from a rapist.

What's with the eyerolls?

It’s all these diatribes deserve.

Still not going to admit we know Project 2025 is happening and the impact it will have on marginalized groups?

I’m not familiar enough with project 2025 to know but how will it impact white males, one of the most marginalized groups of the last few years?

P2025 will hurt everyone. In the long run, even it's backers.

For now it's tax cuts for the rich, don't do squat for anyone else. Gut any protections that get in the way of the rich. Gestapo.

Yes, it will result in a stultifying economy. If everyday people don't have the money to buy goods and services, then the economy will eventually tank.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sometimes you need to fights even when you know you will lose, because to not fight is even worse, still.

How can fighting and losing produce a better outcome than not fighting?

Hahaha!

Sometimes you fight knowing you will lose and you do it anyway.

Sometimes the aftermath, the fact that it happened and you stood at all gives the next person the courage to stand, fight, and live.

Sometimes in the aftermath you discover that you won anyway.

But you fight, because fighting evil is the right thing to do.

Sometimes you fight in small, quiet ways.

Sometimes you fight in loud, fierce ones, not letting them load you into a train alive.

Sometimes you fight by sabotage, and quiet resistance and sand bagging and turning an eye when you can safe lives and shooting over the (not-)enemy's heads.

But you must always fight that.

 

[Bomb#20]

Sorry, this one fell off the radar...

are you suggesting what Kirk was a victim of was "minor violence"?

Are you saying you couldn’t tell from context that I was referring to the pooor snowflake who got bitch-slapped?
I’ll try harder, for your sake. I promise.

Dude! The context is precisely what made it look like you were referring to Kirk! Here's the context...

Not that this chick didn’t deserve it, and not to say I know that slights against Dem victims of minor RW violence are routinely punished in similar manner, but it sounds like something that occurs used to occur regularly without such repercussions.

But no more; civil behavior is sure to result from this righteous enforcement action. /sarcasm

The slight that was alleged to have been punished was the slight against Kirk! What the heck slight against the bitch-slapped guy is alleged to have been punished?!? What slight against that guy was even made, other than you libeling him as a "snowflake"? (If you mean he's a snowflake for pressing charges over being bitch-slapped, he didn't. Police don't need a complaint when they witness the assault.)

 

[Bomb#20]

Your words add up to saying that it's not logical to be a leftist. I'm pointing out if there's a difference (which I'm not sure there is) the right is even less logical.

That's not a "Sorry, but" thing to point out; that's an "And also,". I singled out leftists because they were topical at the time; but if at any point in the future eight rightist IIDBers ever jump down my throat with a pile of illogical rightist drivel because I said something perfectly reasonable, I can assure you I'll tell them if they were logical they wouldn't be rightists in the first place.

Weird because you haven't told that to any of the right wing nuts here.

Not all that weird when you take into account that IIDB hasn't got eight right wing nuts. The clientele here kind of skews left.

If you're implying the "eight" part doesn't matter, what, you feel I shouldn't react differently to being mobbed from if only one person had attacked me? Well, fine, I'll take your opinion under advisement, but I'd put more weight on it if it came from somebody who wasn't in the mob.

Be that as it may, if you recall any of the two or three right wing nuts we have here ever jumping down my throat with a pile of illogic, feel free to refresh my memory. If they jumped down your throat with a pile of illogic and you want them told it's not logical to be a rightist, knock yourself out -- not really my job to deliver your messages for you. I don't recall you ever jumping to my defense when I was wrongly attacked. Quite the reverse, as it happens.

 

[Bomb#20]

Dude, objecting to your outgroup censoring your ingroup is not the same thing as giving a rat's ass about free speech. Throughout the time leftists have been sounding the alarm about Project 2025 they've been enthusiastically cancelling non-leftists. Did even one of you make a stink about it when that professor got fired for saying everyone's life matters?

You're focusing on the leftist mound while ignoring Everest on the right.

Mound vs. Everest, huh? Then you can produce a long list of professors axed for saying something unconservative, can you? Few people on either wing mind censorship as long as it's their side doing it. A plague on both their houses.

... There's a commonality in the thought processes that cause people to become leftists; vegans are vegan for lots of different reasons. "I'm not vegan because I love animals; I'm vegan because I HATE PLANTS!". You know perfectly well stereotyping an ideology is entirely different from stereotyping some random personal characteristic. To wit...

Meat eaters kill more plants than vegans.

Of course we do; that's why the T-shirt is funny. Nobody hates plants -- it's just a tongue-in-cheek way to say "Don't assume you know me."

 

[Politesse]

Not all that weird when you take into account that IIDB hasn't got eight right wing nuts. The clientele here kind of skews left.

We'd have more if they didn't predictably go off the deep end and piece out....

It's true, though, that "mob mentality" follows social dynamics, not party affiliations.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dude, objecting to your outgroup censoring your ingroup is not the same thing as giving a rat's ass about free speech. Throughout the time leftists have been sounding the alarm about Project 2025 they've been enthusiastically cancelling non-leftists. Did even one of you make a stink about it when that professor got fired for saying everyone's life matters?

You're focusing on the leftist mound while ignoring Everest on the right.

Mound vs. Everest, huh? Then you can produce a long list of professors axed for saying something unconservative, can you? Few people on either wing mind censorship as long as it's their side doing it. A plague on both their houses.

A professor saying All lives matters should be fired for being so stupid. It is a misquote, it is bad logic, and it is racist. It indicated that, at best, their logic process was so bad that they couldn't understand simple context and were then spreading such stupidity to students.

While I was in college, no professor said anything that stupid in class.

#BlackLivesMatters wasn't some radical racial statement intended to indicate that only black lives matter. And everyone that suggested it was, were pretty much calling themselves out as either idiots or racist.

 

[Elixir]

professors axed for saying something unconservative,

“Many professors and educators have recently been fired or disciplined for making statements that were perceived as being liberal, unconservative, or critical of conservative figures, especially surrounding high-profile events such as the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The firings have generally stemmed from social media posts or public remarks considered inflammatory, unsympathetic, or contrary to conservative viewpoints, leading to significant legal and political controversy.[usatoday +3]
Recent High-Profile Firings
• After the assassination of Charlie Kirk, dozens of educators—including professors and teachers at both K-12 and university levels—were terminated for online comments or posts that were critical of Kirk or expressed left-leaning views about his death.[nbcnews +2]
• At Texas A&M University, a lecturer was fired and two administrators were removed after a student accused the instructor of teaching “gender ideology” by acknowledging more than two genders in class, which was seen as diverging from conservative state policy.[nytimes]
• At Clemson University and other institutions, faculty were dismissed following pressure from Republican officials after posting comments critical of Kirk or his views on social media.[nytimes +1]
Legal and Political Backlash
• Several of the fired educators have filed lawsuits claiming violation of their First Amendment rights, arguing they were dismissed for expressing private or personal opinions outside their official university roles.[foxnews +2]
• The firings have provoked national debate over free speech and “cancel culture,” with critics arguing these actions demonstrate an increasing intolerance for liberal or left-leaning viewpoints in academic environments, especially in conservative states.[nbcnews +1]
• Groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the American Association of University Professors have intervened or issued statements protesting these terminations.[abcnews.go +1]
• High-profile comments and pressures from political figures, including state governors and President Trump, have amplified calls for dismissing educators who make politically controversial statements.[insidehighered +1]
Common Themes
• Firings typically followed online expression (posts, tweets, classroom emails) deemed unconservative or offensive by political groups or school officials.
• Most cases involve substantial public and political pressure leading to rapid administrative action.
• The majority of educators involved are challenging the firings in court, making these cases pivotal tests of academic freedom and free speech protections in the U.S..[abcnews.go +1]
In short, firings of professors and educators for making statements perceived as liberal or unconservative have become more frequent, particularly in the aftermath of divisive events or when statements contravene the prevailing political climate on campus or in their community.”

-AI, which proves it never happens, right?