Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Loren Pechtel]

Of the three sins listed, WHY would 'marrying outside one's race' be considered sinful? Because I kind of get the other ones even though I don't agree with sin as a concept.

aa

You could have someone who thinks races should be kept pure without thinking one is better than another. We see it in animal breeding. But even if it were a good idea that ship sailed long ago.

That’s not very accurate. First of all, people are not animals nor kept for breeding. This includes black people, who, in slavery were treated livestock and bred to maintain or increase supply.

Secondly, most animal breeders are indeed people who consider some breeds better than others , especially for their purposes. Within the breed, individuals are selected specifically for certain characteristics, with the desire to strengthen or compliment certain traits and to ‘breed out’ other characteristics.

Finally, the concept of race is a human invention, a construct invented to rank groups of people by the most easily discernible characteristics.

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You completely misunderstand the comparison.

You want to effectively ban them from society because you are afraid of some of them. Exactly like wanting to remove the bad parts of town.

Exactly what part of my views can be interpreted by a reasonable and rational person as wanting to ban transgender people from society as a whole? Be specific.

By painting targets on them. Targets we already know bring violence down on them.

Again... Exactly what part of MY VIEWS paints targets on them?

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow what disingenuous tripe.

Protest, and not allowing the to drag us away to camps, that is not terrorism, and acting like it is is a great indicator whether someone is a Nazi.

Nobody is dragging you off to a camp. Put your persecution complex away for a while.

El Salvador says otherwise.

Jarhyn isn't in El Salvador, and is a US citizen. Nobody is dragging Jarhyn off to any camps.

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)]

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wow what disingenuous tripe.

Protest, and not allowing the to drag us away to camps, that is not terrorism, and acting like it is is a great indicator whether someone is a Nazi.

Nobody is dragging you off to a camp. Put your persecution complex away for a while.

El Salvador says otherwise.

Jarhyn isn't in El Salvador, and is a US citizen. Nobody is dragging Jarhyn off to any camps.

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.

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)]

Hey, I get that logic isn't any of your strong suits -- if you were logical you wouldn't be leftists in the first place

Ahem.

In Bomb#20's defense, maybe he isn't insulting us.

You say that like insulting you would be a bad thing. Why, do you have some objection to insults, Mr. "your argument is clever, but it's evasive."? You said that to me because you are illogical and because you are malicious. You do not have an intellectually honest reason to accuse me of being evasive.

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.

Maybe he cares about us in the same way Charlie Kirk cared about trans people--calling us defective for our own good.

Save your sarcasm for when you have a case.

Well my sarcasm was illustrating a valid case as I demonstrate below.

I didn't claim Kirk called trans people defective for their own good ...

Full stop. I didn't claim that you claimed Kirk called trans people defective for their own good.

Continuing on:

and you do not have an intellectually honest reason to insinuate that I did.

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.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Shadowy Man]

Isn’t North Carolina where an Islamic center under construction got set on fire?

 

[Elixir]

Isn’t North Carolina where an Islamic center under construction got set on fire?

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]

Emily seems unconcerned about the whole push to restore conversion camps being implemented

More like I haven't bought into you nightmare fantasy as being at all representative of actual reality.

by the same people who play the drums she marches to.

Piss off with your not-very-well veiled insults.

 

[Jarhyn]

Please quit with the gaslighting.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

 

[Elixir]

It's a published plan.

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]

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.

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)]

He painted them not as victims but as aggressors, linking them to mass shootings and "perversion," even though the evidence runs the opposite direction.

I'll be much surprised if you can produce said evidence running in the opposite direction re "perversion", since "perversion" is an entirely subjective pejorative. Re mass shootings, do you mean something like Elixir's Perplexity emission, "transgender people are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators"? That's true of pretty much any demographic, since one perpetrator typically has many victims.

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

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.

​

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 P_shooter to their established representation (the base rate) in the general population P_general. The claim of overrepresentation means mathematically that P_shooter > P_general.

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 P_shooter ~= 0.005 is less than P_general ~= 0.01. They are, by definition, underrepresented.

The Gun Violence Archive, an independent organization that tracks gun-related violence in the U.S., defines mass shootings as incidents in which there are “a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident.” Under this standard, there were 5,748 mass shootings between Jan. 1, 2013, and Sept. 15, 2025, according to the GVA. “OF THAT NUMBER OF INCIDENTS, there have been FIVE CONFIRMED Transgender shooters,” ...​

​

I.e., there average about four hundred and fifty mass shootings a year. The VPP's definition says three and a half -- over a hundred times fewer. Can't tell from the link just how much of the difference is due to one definition counting wounded and the other only counting killed, but it's clear from other sources that those 450 annual mass shootings are heavily dominated by drug and gang violence. I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb to point out that gang culture and drug dealer culture are macho as all hell. They might not be the most welcoming spaces for an out-of-the-closet transwoman. To the extent that transwomen are excluded and/or put off by the culture and therefore aren't in gangs, or stay in the closet when they join so the police don't find out they're trans when they participate in shootings, their contribution to the statistics is artificially depressed.

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, P_shooter = 5/5748 ~= 0.00087. Compared to the estimated general population rate of P_general ~= 0.01, this shows extreme underrepresentation.

Bottom line: there are too many confounding factors. Anybody who claims to know whether being trans makes you more or less inclined to commit a mass shooting, or has no effect either way, is overestimating his ability to extract signal from noise.

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]

The data simply does not contain the necessary signal to support the original, inflammatory assertion

BoTh SiDeS!

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

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.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

If they're going to go out with a bang you think they wouldn't be dressed as desired? I think it's a reasonable assumption.

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.

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.

Another explanation: cis females don't get the persecution by society that trans ones do. Besides, wasn't that 1 a MtF, not a FtM?

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."

Realistically, though, we shouldn't be drawing conclusions from such a small data set.

From your lips to the Flying Spaghetti Monster's ears.

... Can't tell from the link just how much of the difference is due to one definition counting wounded and the other only counting killed, but it's clear from other sources that those 450 annual mass shootings are heavily dominated by drug and gang violence. I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb to point out that gang culture and drug dealer culture are macho as all hell. They might not be the most welcoming spaces for an out-of-the-closet transwoman. To the extent that transwomen are excluded and/or put off by the culture and therefore aren't in gangs, or stay in the closet when they join so the police don't find out they're trans when they participate in shootings, their contribution to the statistics is artificially depressed.

I find this irrelevant. Gang conflict is not what people generally mean by "mass shooting".

Bingo. To my mind the GVA's decision to contaminate their data with gang conflict makes their statistics useless.

Bottom line: there are too many confounding factors. Anybody who claims to know whether being trans makes you more or less inclined to commit a mass shooting, or has no effect either way, is overestimating his ability to extract signal from noise.

Yeah, there isn't enough data to mean anything. And be especially leery of data sets of 1.

Right. As far as I can see, what factcheck.org cited isn't statistically significant.

Personally, I would expect trans to be overrepresented because most mass shooters have had troubled lives and being trans can make your life troubled.

Speculative, but plausible.

 

[Bomb#20]

He painted them not as victims but as aggressors, linking them to mass shootings and "perversion," even though the evidence runs the opposite direction.

I'll be much surprised if you can produce said evidence running in the opposite direction re "perversion", since "perversion" is an entirely subjective pejorative. Re mass shootings, do you mean something like Elixir's Perplexity emission, "transgender people are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators"? That's true of pretty much any demographic, since one perpetrator typically has many victims.

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

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.

​

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

Dude! It was your link! You linked it in post #1292.

refuted a positive claim—that trans people are overrepresented—

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.

and the statistical ambiguities you are now citing only serve to strengthen the original refutation.

How do you figure that? They serve to highlight how weak the attempted refutation was.

To determine if trans individuals are overrepresented as mass shooting perpetrators, we must compare their representation in the perpetrator pool P_shooter to their established representation (the base rate) in the general population P_general. The claim of overrepresentation means mathematically that P_shooter > P_general.

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 P_shooter ~= 0.005 is less than P_general ~= 0.01.

It demonstrates nothing of the sort. In the first place the sample size is too small to be statistically significant. What, if P_shooter = 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.

They are, by definition, underrepresented in that sample, provided the shooters whose gender identity wasn't known were as it happens all cis.

I.e., there average about four hundred and fifty mass shootings a year. The VPP's definition says three and a half -- over a hundred times fewer. Can't tell from the link just how much of the difference is due to one definition counting wounded and the other only counting killed, but it's clear from other sources that those 450 annual mass shootings are heavily dominated by drug and gang violence. I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb to point out that gang culture and drug dealer culture are macho as all hell. They might not be the most welcoming spaces for an out-of-the-closet transwoman. To the extent that transwomen are excluded and/or put off by the culture and therefore aren't in gangs, or stay in the closet when they join so the police don't find out they're trans when they participate in shootings, their contribution to the statistics is artificially depressed.

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.

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.

If we accept the GVA figures you provided,

You're the one who provided those figures.

P_shooter = 5/5748 ~= 0.00087. Compared to the estimated general population rate of P_general ~= 0.01, this shows extreme underrepresentation.

Yes, it shows out-of-the-closet transwomen are extremely underrepresented in street gangs. Perhaps we should tell the Crips to be more tolerant.

Bottom line: there are too many confounding factors. Anybody who claims to know whether being trans makes you more or less inclined to commit a mass shooting, or has no effect either way, is overestimating his ability to extract signal from noise.

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.

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 that the data is too "noisy" to draw a definitive conclusion about underrepresentation is reasonable

"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.

. However, this weakness in the data does not suddenly give credence to the opposite, positive claim.

"He little thinks how eloquently he has pleaded his rival's cause!"

The absence of evidence of overrepresentation, combined with the low observed frequency, is sufficient to refute the initial claim that trans people are overrepresented.

No it isn't -- the data is too weak to either refute or confirm that claim.

The data simply does not contain the necessary signal to support the original, inflammatory assertion.

Finally something we can agree on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The absence of evidence of overrepresentation, combined with the low observed frequency, is sufficient to refute the initial claim that trans people are overrepresented.

No it isn't -- the data is too weak to either refute or confirm that claim.

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.

The data simply does not contain the necessary signal to support the original, inflammatory assertion.

Finally something we can agree on.

You try to look like you are protecting the honor of statistical purity, but it looks a lot more like gaslighting.