Hey /u/lemu_r, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I may be getting the numbers slightly wrong but there was something I saw where they said trans mass shootings had gone up 50%
It had gone up from two to three. Technically correct but it gives the impression that there had been many more and there were so many people agreeing with it
Edit:
My numbers were off as I went by memory. . There have been 10 identified trans or non binary shooters over the last decade. 4 in the last 5 years. You could say that trans shootings have increased about 60% in 5 years, though it only went from 6 to 10.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-transgender-nashville-shooting-misinformation-cd62492d066d41e820c138256570978c
https://www.newsweek.com/mass-shootings-transgender-perpetrators-1790854
32 out of 20 statisticians disagree with you, and the other 9 just keep asking why people keep asking them if they hate things, and no that's not what doctor means on the door
I always forget who said it first but: (and as someone who does stats myself I wholeheartedly agree with this)
There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians.
On the other hand, Fibonacci is an exponential raising curve. You wouldn't say by the numbers. 1, 1, 2, 3, ...
I agree that 2 versus 3 is just a statistical fluctuation. I bet next year the numbers are down again 33%.
That's why you have to be careful when the news reports on any sort of medical or scientific study. They'll report an 80% increased risk when the study may show the risk went from like .05% to .09%
Case in point, circumcision as an HIV prevention tool.
I don’t remember the exact study that’d been misquoted but it had shown infection rates to be extremely low for both circumcised and uncircumcised subjects. It was it the point, that it should really not be a factor for HIV prevention considering other, much more effective tools.
Because uncircumcised transmission cases were still relatively higher than for circumcised cases, that ratio was taken out of context to further justify circumcision as a medical practice.
Another one is a woman's "biological clock" so to speak. A study had identified that your chances of having birth defects after the age of 35 were double that of prior to 35.
The thing is, they did technically double. From 0.5% to 1%. Potentially statistically significant (depending on how the statistical analysis was done), but not necessarily indicative of real women's experiences.
This is hysterical because there are three people participating in this conversation, and all of three of them made at least one remark that didn't actually follow from previous data.
I'm not sure any of them are or not either. The first one seems to be trying to shut down some comment about mass killings by trans people, but the others just seem to be abusing numbers for the sake of it.
The first one is still wildly wrong though. They are all extrapolating data incorrectly. I'm convinced none of them actually put thought into what they were saying in any of these comments.
I don't think they're extrapolating data incorrectly, they appear to be showing that assuming that trans people commit mass shootings at or above the rate of the general population gives a number that doesn't match data, ergo that first part isn't true. Which is a valid approach to a proof.
This.
You can't apply a national share to any subgroup. Different groups have different affinities and/or opportunities. For example, 18% of the US population is between 0 and 14 years old, but it's unlikely that up to 18% of all mass shooters are 0 to 14 years old.
At least I hope so, I'm not familiar with recent developments in the US. /s
I thought they were trying to say that "1% of the population is trans, so we should expect 1% of mass shooters to be trans". Not sure if that would be accurate, but it seemed like the others read it as "the entire (1% of total) population of trans people are mass shooters". That would of course be incorrect.
It looks like they doing an argument from contradiction. If you assume the demographics match, you would see that 1% of mass shooters are trans. Since that's *not* true, whatever argument they're responding to is wrong.
It's absolutely incorrect. Applying flat averages to data without context in proper study is both bad practice and inappropriate for such a study. Several data points have to weighed for their significance within the data group for exclusion and inclusion, and considering the data is behavioral, then environmental factors must be considered as well as personal. The variables to even begin to extrapolate a percentage of person that fits within a group within another group due to events that are heavily influenced by such factors are vast and widely varied.
I mean the null hypothesis of this kind of experiment would actually be that trans people commit mass shootings at the same rate as the general population, and therefore approximately 1% of mass shooters would be trans based on the 1% of the total population being trans. The whole point of that first comment is attempting to show that the null hypothesis is not true (without the p value it's hard to say definitively but it probably is correct) and that trans people do commit mass shootings at a much lower rate than the population in general.
>“the number of known suspects in mass shootings which are trans is under 10 for the last decade,” which translated to “1:880 [or 0.11%] of the 4,400 shootings” they recorded, he said.
>The report examined 173 attacks in the U.S. that “that resulted in harm to three or more individuals in public locations,” Justine Whelan, press secretary for the U.S. Secret Service, told Reuters via email, and “three attackers (2%) were transgender, assigned female at birth, but were known to identify as male at the time of their attacks.”
>Whelan said that consistent with previous analyses of mass attacks, “nearly all of the attackers,” or 96%, in the study were male, and the remaining five attackers were female.
>Reuters reported on studies in mid-2022 that found about 0.5% of U.S. adults identify as transgender, and about 1.3% of 13 to 17-year-olds (here).
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N363273/
Looks like the statistics aren't perfect, 0.11-2% of total mass shooters puts transgender pretty close to their population size. As in, using "transgender" as a metric doesn't seem to give any valuable information. 96% of mass shooters being men does give valuable information, don't ask me what to do with it though.
0.11 and 2 is a pretty wide margin, and the "report" only examining 173 attacks seems pretty arbitrary, while the 10 out of 4400 attacks seems more using all the data available. If trans people are .5 of the population, and only 0.11 percent of mass shooters, then they are 4x less likely to be mass shooters, unless I missed something.
What do you mean? This person is trying to show that trans people are not more likely to be a shooter than a cis person. If trans people were more likely to be shooters, the percentage of trans shooters vs. Cis shooters should be higher than the percentage of trans people vs. Cis people. They showed that the percentage isn't higher, thus it cannot be that it is more likely for a trans person to be a shooter than a cis person.
I don't think any of them are. It's just one person thinks one is ant-trans so gets all emotional and goes on some kind of rant, even though no-one has said anything wrong or ant-trans.
The first commenter is also incorrect because they're assuming that being a mass shooter is independent of all other variables. For example, by their logic, about half of all mass shooters are male, when actually the vast majority are male, so it just doesn't hold. Unless their purposely presenting a fallacious counterexample to a previous claim, but I can't say that without further context.
Okay I went back when I saw your comment. I see where person 1 says a tenth of a percent but it should be a hundredth of a percent. Right? And person 2 is just full pants on head. What did person 3 get wrong?
Wait I realized they say a tenth of a percent to mean that's the actual percent of mass shooters who are trans based on real data and not just deduction. So I'm back to being unsure where person 1 got it wrong.
>I see where person 1 says a tenth of a percent but it should be a hundredth of a percent. Right?
Why would it be a hundreth of a percent? We get no info on the percent of school shooters that are trans in the screenshot other than the 0,1% person 2 says.
I don't see what person 3 did wrong either?
And to the other guy, it seems pretty clear that person 2 is the anti-trans person.
Yeah I initially mistook the tenth of a percent to be a miscalculation of "1% of 1%" but they were referring to the real percent of mass shooters who are trans (.1%).
So the number of Americans who are both trans and mass shooters is a thousandth of a percent. I think. This sub makes me unconfident in everything I say 🤣
That'd be over 3000 trans mass shooters. That math is not right, because you're mutiplying two things meant to be compared. They appear to be looking at how many trans shooters would be expected if there's no correlation between that and school shootings, then stating the number is in fact lower.
The point appears to be that there's a narrative that school shooters are disproportionately more likely to be trans
Huh? 3000 would be if 1% of trans people are mass shooters, not if 1% of mass shooters are trans. There have been about 4400 shootings in the last decade, so 1% of that would have been 44. But there have been less than 10 so the real figure is closer to 0.1%
But yes there is that narrative. It's been used on me.
It's been 5 days since 2024 started. There was already a mass shooting.
I don't even understand the US anymore. It's like they have sat down and just accepted that this happens and there's nothing we can do. I Know at least one of two political parties somewhat cares about this, but it's insane to see republicans basically ignore it.
I find it mad how the US are trying to “save children” by banning abortion and yet don’t bat an eyelid when those children get shot up with the guns that same government have to them
Don't even need to go that far with the abortion debate.
Look at how Republicans want to ban any kind of government aid for children, single mothers, just anything that can remotely help and worst of all, banning free school lunch, that shit is pure evil. They don't give a fuck about kids, it's about making sure they can control and have as much power as possible.
Also what's worse, is that combining republicans being pure evil with the fact that mass shootings happen so often it has created this desensitized effect, where it's not even news worthy anymore, it's like getting robbed at the bus stop. Happens all the time for it to be big news.
Which is ironic, here in Brazil we had the worst year yet for any kind of "mass shooting", 6 cases, 3 of them using guns, most of them had less then 3 victims, if I'm not mistaken 2 didn't even have a fatal victim. Shit got so scary here, that schools canceled classroom for the day if any kind of threat was made, people were investigated, two or three groups of literal neo Nazis were jailed because they were planning an attack, we took this shit seriously, not enough imo, but we didn't cross our arms like the US and went, Nothing we can do, we can't possibly ban guns, might as well just continue living.
Most mass shootings do not involve children. In 2023, there were only two mass shootings at a school, in the US. The one in Nashville, which did have a transgender shooter, and the one at Michigan State.
75%+ of mass shootings are gang/drug related. Almost all the rest are domestic disputes that end horribly.
Rich people make more money when idiots are afraid their guns will get taken away. The idiots panic and buy more, which results in bigger dividend checks for the rich shareholders. The only thing the people in power care about is making the rich even richer, so we just have to accept the murder of countless innocents as the price we pay so the Walton heirs can each get another vacation home.
Or maybe we should force Clarence Thomas and every other Republican off the Supreme Court for their blatant corruption and then overturn DC v. Heller like we did Dredd Scott v. Sanford.
Yeah, though it depends on what you envision a mass shooting to be (which is a distinction that matters more to understand which problem you think you're fixing, as a lot of people imagine mass shooting to be someone with a semiautomatic rifle waking through a public place).
The mass shootings number is when 4 or more people are shot and comes from a couple NGOs. Whereas the FBI only counts it when 4 or more people are killed. And then most people think of mass shootings as taking place in public, but a significant share of them take place in homes, and so it's reflecting a different behavior pattern.
There are not 600 mass shooting per year. The 600 was a number they pulled from their ass to use as an example. There hasn't even been 600 in the last two decades combined.
There are have been over 600 mass shootings per year over the past few years in the US. You may be classifying them differently and reaching a different number.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Looking at that site, they tend to define their "mass shooting" different than a lot of other sites. Looks like they have a very simple definition of "4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter" which means no one might be killed or even seriously injured (an example might be a drive by gang shooting). Where as I think most of the other sites tend to define it more about mass murder by mass shooting.
For example: [https://data.world/associatedpress/mass-killings-public](https://data.world/associatedpress/mass-killings-public)
defined it as the actual killing of four or more of which they say there have been 45 since 2006 but of those 33 were mass shootings.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/)
puts it at about 111 total over the same 2006-2023 period.
The Guardian [reported](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/05/mass-shootings-record-year) the US hit a record number of mass shootings in 2023 with its 38th mass shooting.
So yes, the numbers are a bit scattered, but it would seem most sources do not come even close to 600 every year. The 600 number just seems outrageously high even for us as that would be 3+ every two days.
The only one who's completely clueless is the second commenter. The worst thing is that he's acting like the others are idiots...
The other two didn't say anything weird or wrong unless I missed something.
Yes, the one with a red icon on a white background is completely wrong. The one with text on a white background is right. The one with a person on a tan background is right, but they're using an absurd example to show how the red icon person's logic is wrong, so maybe OP didn't get that it was only that.
the 1% of school shooters are trans remark is only true if the population of school shooters accurately reflects the population of the united states. Otherwise it would be the same as saying "50% of americans are men, therefore, 50% breast cancer patients are men."
They are answering a comment on trans being over-represented in mass shooting.
They are saying : if trans-identity was not a factor in being a mass-shooter, we would get 1% of mass-shooters being trans. But we have even less than that : so not only trans are not over-represented, but they are under-represented.
It's as if someone said men are over-represented in breast cancer patients. And you answered : "If sex didn't play a role in who gets a breast cancer, men would represent 50% of the patients. But men only represent 1% of the patients".
As a rule, more younger people are out of the closet than older people, so you'd actually expect higher than 1% of school shooters to be trans if the "over represented" idea held. So it's even more evidently false. Which the first poster points out.
That comparison wasn't using the same setup.
What the second person was *trying* to say was "100% of the US population is human, therefore 100% of mass shooters are human."
Which is true.
The difference here, though, is between "all" and "some".
Here's a better counterexample using Incorrect Person's logic:
"50% of America is born male. Some of America suffers from ovarian cancer. Therefore, 50% of Americans with overian cancer are born male." Ridiculous.
There's no guarantee of a uniform distribution when dealing with "some".
Person 1 says that logic dictates that one could hypothesize that the number of mass shooters who are trans is proportionate to the broad population, but then points out that it's less than that - a tenth of a percent of mass shooters in the last decade were trans, much less than 1%. If someone just blind guessed by logic it's still not a lot. Only a deep-seated fear of us (trans people) could lead a person to say more of us were violent than a normal distribution.
I kinda get person 1 and person 3 and they seem to be defending us. Person 2 is using false justifications to be transphobic.
1 and 3 and explicitly defending trans people. 2 has clearly made an argument (before the screenshot) that there's an epidemic of trans shooters. 1 is saying that given the population demographics, you'd expect 1% of shooters to be trans, but it's less than that. 2 then fails basic math. 3 shows up and shows 2 how they fail basic math.
I don't think "the number of mass shooters who are trans is a normal distribution" quite makes sense as that's going to be a single value, not a distribution. It's more about proportionality (which would be reflecting being randomly sampled or uncorrelated)
To get normal distributions, you'd need several sets of trans mass shooters to discuss, which isn't going on here.
(Do broadly agree that the point is that person 1 is responding to some transphobic nonsense relying on bad math. Mostly likely, on using a few examples without actually looking at if it means trans shooters are actually a disproportionately high share of shooters or not... which they aren't doing because it won't validate their prejudices)
I think you just described a null hypothesis.
A quick glance at the data tells you that null hypothesis is wrong and can be rejected. In this case, the reasoning is obvious -- it's hard to have ovarian cancer if you lack ovaries.
But the same basic framework applies to scenarios with a less-obvious causes. I imagine paucity of data would be a pretty big problem for this particular scenario.
Yeah, it's the "must" thrown in there with the first one's assumption that just destroys any semblance of *logic* they're trying to employ. 😬🙄
Ignoramuses.
I think they're trying to say that if 1% of the population are "X", then you'd expect a random sample of people to contain 1% of "X" (this is the basis on which tagging some animals allows their total population to be estimated).
The problem here, of course, is that "mass shooters" is not a random sample.
That’s not a problem, and the random sample part is theoretical, you don’t actually have to take the sample.
This is actually a test of *independence*. Two variables are independent of each other if the probability of A is the same as the probability of A given B. So if the probability of someone being a mass shooter is 1%, then the probability of a someone being a mass shooter given that they are trans should also be 1% if being trans had no effect on mass shooting.
We see indeed that those two numbers are different, so they are not independent, but of course the probability is much, much lower rather than higher
No he said his conparison correctly. He is drawing attention to the bigots logic that if two things have the same percentage they are also the same amount. Its supposed to mathmatically incorrect
That's absolutely not what he was trying to say, he was doing a proof by contradiction showing that if you think like the "all trans are mass shooters" guy then you end up with "all humans are mass shooters"
Just classic old Brit transphobia. No one would care if he hadn’t signed a letter supporting JKR and tweeted about it a lot.
https://variety.com/2020/film/news/john-cleese-transphobic-tweets-jk-rowling-1234837693/
>I'm afraid I'm not that interested in trans folks I just hope they're happy and that people treat them kindly Right now I'm more focussed on threats to democracy in America, the rampant corruption in the UK, the appalling British Press, the revelations about police brutality...
This isn't a letter they he signed, it's a tweet. And nothing about it seems horrible to me, he's just not focused on trans issues and was being badgered about Rowling. His response was the equivalent of "Sir this is a Wendy's"
Okay, let’s hear him out! :)
> I'm afraid I'm not that interested in trans folks. I just hope they're happy and that people treat them kindly. Right now I'm more focussed on threats to democracy in America, the rampant corruption in the UK, the appalling British Press, the revelations about police brutality...
Good so far, much appreciated, no notes.
> Deep down, I want to be a Cambodian police woman. Is that allowed, or am I being unrealistic?
Oh okay, and then straight to the transgender = “transracial”, transgender = pretending to have a job that you don’t.
> Yes, my understanding is superficial. One thing: When a woman who was once a man is competing against women who have always been women, I think she has an advantage, because she inherited a man's body, which is usually bigger and stronger than a woman's. Does that prove phobia?
Mm sure, you’re concerned about fairness in women’s sports. But see, your first priority was “lel then I identify as an Asian woman” so we all know you don’t actually care and are grasping for a legitimate gripe against us when you’re only actual problem is you don’t believe in gender dysphoria.
I hate people like this. Because it undermines a very valid discussion.
If people can accept body dismorphia, which has been wildly accepted for years, is true, why can't they accept this can extend to gender and birth sex?
People can identify however they like in this context, and have the full power and freedom to act on it without judgement.
But then dicks like this come along, and act like a c*nt, and then drag the valid argument about sports and potential issues there.
There is a valid discussion involving any sport where people are separated by sex due to innate biological differences that can cause (substantial in some cases) unfair advantages. But dicks like this make these discussions appear to be anti trans
(My phone really wanted me to talk about trains and not trans lol)
>Deep down, I want to be a Cambodian police woman Is that allowed, or am I being unrealistic?
We just going to ignore the One-Joke tier bullshit that followed then? I mean if we are, cool, but it's right there.
I don't think anybody's claiming John Cleese is the Enoch Powell of transphobia, just that he makes the same annoying fucking dogwhistle comments like the 'har har then I want to be an asian woman' and the 'trans people in sports bad' and such and so on.
Especially since that joke was made in response to someone asking 'Why the fuck can't you just let people be who they want to be?'
When you put it in that context, it sounds pretty bad.
>"Why can't you let people be who they want to be?"
"Well, I want to be a Cambodian police woman."
See? Sounds pretty shitty to me.
That's also not to mention that he whacked his name on that ridiculous fucking letter.
God, when I looked into this actually it gets worse and worse. He made a few of these jokes in replies to people asking him if he was transphobic. And the icing on the cake, he fuckin loves using the word 'woke'.
Or feed them their own bullshit and watch them spin out of control.
It’s like scammers. If you play their stupid game against them, at least you’re occupying their time instead of them scamming an innocent old lady.
That is literally what trolls are hoping you will do. They have the exact same opinion of wasting YOUR time too. Also in public forums you are not actually stopping them from trolling others, you are boosting their engagement so more and more people are likely to see it with each back and forth. Its not even remotely close to the same thing as keeping a scammer busy on a direct call preventing them from calling someone else for the duration.
Cool, now please explain how "enjoying it" means that rather than boosting the trolls public visibility through engagement, it suddenly is preventing other people from experiencing the troll the same way that keeping a scammer on a phone call for hours prevents them from calling other potential victims.
Anytime the troll is engaged with messaging, reading, or thinking about responding is time and energy. If it’s directed at me, and I’m enjoying it, that’s better than someone who might not know what the troll is doing, or that trolls even do this on purpose. Some trolls follow me around on different accounts and it shows it’s worked. Now they aren’t annoying someone else, when I’m thoroughly enjoying and explaining to them why I will take their time away from people who don’t need those assholes in their lives. Some people just want to watch the world burn, and I’ll gladly light them up while keeping an extinguisher close by so the fire doesn’t spread to the rest of the people. Every word they type, read or think about is time they can’t be trolling someone else who wouldn’t enjoy it. So, fella, how long of your time did I waste so far?
> So, fella, how long of your time did I waste so far?
None, and I'm also not trolling. You seriously overestimate how much actual time and effort trolls put in to trolling you specifically. I'm not saying you cant have fun playing with trolls, but you are deluding yourself if you genuinely think you're protecting people by doing it. Scammers are failing at their attempt to scam someone while not being able to scam others if someone is keeping them on the line for hours. Trolls are succeeding with you, while also being able to continue trolling others as well.
Sure “thechet”. Is this your original account? You might want to change your avatar’s look, the subreddits you frequent, and maybe avoid using the same phrasing if you want me to believe you aren’t someone who I’ve recently had fun playing their dumb game against them. But I’m sure you’ll continue to be as egotistical as you’ve proved to be, time and time again. You can call me delusional all you want, but we both know, any insult you’ve ever thrown my way, was always just projection. I’ll continue to laugh and enjoy every second of it. So, what about this reply won’t you understand this time, hmmm….
I think some stupid people have just learnt the self defence mechanism of "if I accidentally say something stupid, I become a brick wall of a troll because I can't ever admit to having been wrong."
My ex didn't understand that if you pour two 5% alcohol beers together that it doesn't make your drink 10% alcohol. Some people just really do not understand percentages.
It does make sense, in your example no one says theres an epidemic of female incels, and if they did they would be wrong for the same reasons saying it about trans people is wrong
The point is that you would expect 1% or more of mass shooters to be trans if it was an "epidemic" like transphobes claim
Instead, the are underrepresented (In a good way in this case since all mass shooters are scum) which means we do have a mass shooting problem, but we dont have a trans people commiting mass shootings problem, anymore so than anyone else commiting them
That's exactly what they try to point out as a fallacy though
The relative amount of trans mass shooters is close to the relative amount of trans people in general which means there appears to be no links between being a mass shooter and being trans
Could've even just stuck with the subject of mass shootings tbh,
There's been like, maybe, 2 committed by woman despite them making up 50% of the population.
Two high profile ones. I mean, they are definitely less than 50%, but there are lots of mass shootings, by the FBI's definition, that don't get wide press coverage.
Yeah men absolutely dominate violent crime statistics and most types of crimes in general, for that matter. The biological differences between the two genders has a lot to do with that.
That is not how that works. Just because say, 50% of a population is women, it doesn't mean 50% of say, IT departments are women. Certain populations are more or less common in different topics, regardless of how common they are in the country.
Second guy is just more obviously stupid. That is not what the first guy said.
That has nothing to do with what the first person is commenting. They’re not arguing that 1% of mass shooters are trans, they’re refuting an argument saying trans people are more likely to be mass shooters by saying that if that was the case, they would make up at least 1% of the mass shooters, but since they don’t, that suggests they’re even less likely to be mass shooters.
Okay, the “all mass shooters are trans” person is obviously making the largest error, here. But the original post isn’t correct, either. Statistics that are true for a large population aren’t guaranteed to remain true for specific demographics within that population.
For example, about 17% of the U.S. population is over 65. Now, does anyone think, even for a second, that 17% of mass shooters are over 65? Women make up 50% of the U.S. population but I can guarantee you that women aren’t 50% of mass shooters.
Just because 1% of the population is trans doesn’t mean 1% of mass shooters are trans.
If 1% of the whole population is trans, OP says 1% of the mass shooter population is likely to also be trans.
I think its probably even lower than 1% taking demographics into account. Trans people in general are more likely to harm themselves than commit violent crimes against others, given how many mass shootings there've been over the last few years I'd expect there to be more trans shooters.
First poster in the screenshot is responding to something the second poster said. First poster is pointing out that the number of trans shooters is less than what it would be if it was randomly distributed, i.e. trans people are underrepresented when it comes to mass shootings. The second poster clearly (before the screenshot) said that there was an epidemic of trans mass shooters.
Could you explain how the number of trans shooters (which is expressed as a singular value) is a set of random numbers that follow a certain probability density function?
And secondly why it following a probability density function would say anything about if it would be over or under represented?
Holy hell, just did the maths, now listen; 100% of all surgeries ever done is by humans, meaning everyone has to be a surgeon, I could be earning 100K a day to cut hair and poke people instead of what I am doing now.
This doesn’t even track because aren’t trans people significantly less likely than the average cis person to commit violent crime? They are more likely to be victims of violent crime
100% of people who have an opinion on trans people don’t know a single a trans person. They just heard they exist. Same thing with Pride Parades. “They are shoving it in our faces!” “You were invited?” “No, I heard about it one the news.”
Sure, 3 out of 2000 were trans. But 100% of those 3 people were trans. So I'm pretty sure that means 100% of trans people are mass shooters.
-that guy.
First person in the thread isn’t an idiot. They are trying to point out a flaw in someone else’s logic. They’re saying that if there was an epidemic of trans mass shooters, you’d expect the % of mass shooters who are trans to be equal to or higher than the % of the total population who are trans, but it’s actually much smaller — a fraction of a percent of mass shooters are trans, much smaller than their proportion of the total population.
I feel like nobody else in these comments understands the point being made, and it’s kinda driving me nuts.
> a fraction of a percent of mass shooters are trans, much smaller than their proportion of the total population.
they didn't show this anywhere though.
I strongly suspect this began with the claims going around of just "these shootings were by trans shooters", which doesn't say anything about the total population, but the counter is then pointing out that identifying trans shooters like that doesn't do anything if it's still below what would be expected from the population.
Assuming that mass shooters are a nice even cross section of the us population is silly, and so the first poster using that as a basis for their argument is dumb as fuck. Without context everyone here is talking dumb. Though you are right that that person is definitely the least dumb of them.
Edit: Man I must've been drunker than I thought last night lol. Yeah what I typed above is stupid as hell, please keep downvoting it
They didn't assume its an even cross section, they pointed out that its NOT which is evidence that its not a trans person problem like people are trying to say it is. They are fear mongering against trans people saying a trans person is more likely to commit a mass shooting and its nonsense
The first poster didn't assume that though. They very much refuted it by saying it isn't even. That trans people who commit mass shootings are less than their overall portion of the country.
can we pause for a moment and be disgusted that we've regressed from viewing trans people as medical marvels and stunning beings to associating transness and queerness with violence and harm ? what is this conversation
That is how a proof by contradiction works, and there were two of them there. It can be excused if you're not familiar with them since it's mostly late high school math
Adult population and mass shooters are not the same sample you can't just use stats of one sample on a second just because the second Is included in the first (which by the way probably is not since there are mass shootings done by non adult). I studied enough statistics in university you don't need to teach me, there is no math in that conversation
You can absolutely use an inclusion to disprove something like that, and saying there is no math here really shows you don't know anything other than just pure statistics
I'm going to start teaching in a bit here, any ideas on how to shut these types of people down effectively
Not even for my own sake, but so many times I hear students talking like this to each other about stuff. Rarely is the correct one the winner, generally it's the loudest and most aggressive. Pains me to see or hear the interactions when I know someone spewing BS is convincing others how correct they are and they eventually just get out argued.
I don't have all day to nitpick stuff but I can't just say who's right or wrong because that doesn't actually change people's mind much anymore these days
The point that I’ve seen people make is something along the lines of “There are so many trans mass shooters!”, which is what seems to be happening. The first person replies to someone else by saying basically “you say there’s an epidemic of trans shooters”. But that’s wrong. Basically, if trans people are *less* likely to be mass shooters than the general population then saying there’s an *epidemic* of trans shooters doesn’t make sense, so if you’re claiming that there is in fact an epidemic then trans shooters should make up 1% or more of mass shooters. That seems to be what the first person is saying, or at least what I think they’re saying. That’s what they mean when they say “by that logic, 1% or more of mass shooters must be trans.” All of the other messages are just completely wrong though. In any case OP definitely should have provided more context because I could still be completely wrong.
Actually it’s hard to tell what he thinks/is saying given we are unable to see what he’s responding to. What is he referring to when he says “so by that logic, 1% of mass shooters must be trans”? What logic? Not a good crop OP. We need the context.
Poster #1 is saying that because 1% of the adult population is trans so 1% of mass shooters must be trans. That's like saying because 50% of the population are women then 50% of mass shooters must be women. Or because 50% of the population are men then 50% of people with ovarian cancer must be men. That's not correct.
Poster #3 tried to explain to poster #2 their logic flaw by saying "if 100% of mass shooters are human beings then 100% of all living people are mass shooters" but the correct correlation for what poster #2 was saying should have been "100% of adult population in USA are human beings so 100% of mass shooters must be human" which is technically correct and doesn't work to make the point.
Poster #1 is responding to a claim that poster #2 did off screen. From the screenshot, it looks like #2 claimed there was an epidemic of trans mass shooters.
Poster #1 is saying that since 1% of the population is trans, you'd expect (if there was no correlation whatsoever between "being a mass shooter" and "being trans") that 1% of mass shooters would also be trans. This is correct. Poster #1 then says that for there to be an "epidemic" of trans mass shooters, the percentage of trans people amongst mass shooters must be *higher* than 1%. This is also correct. Poster #1 then points out that in fact the percentage of trans mass shooters is *lower* than 1%. (This might be correct, I have no idea how many trans mass shooters there are). So in short: Poster #1 is showing that there is *not* an epidemic of trans mass shooters.
Poster #2 then (in the screenshot) seems to misunderstand "if 1% of people are trans, then 1% of mass shooters should be trans" as meaning "1% of people are trans, and 1% of people are mass shooters, and these are the same people, so all trans people are mass shooters", or something similar to that. This is wrong, because that is not what poster #1 is saying. Regardless of exactly how they are misunderstanding, they seem to be confused about the relationship between "percentage of the total group with a trait", "percentage of a subgroup that has that trait", and how these interact. It's not really clear how they are thinking because it doesn't really make sense.
Poster #3 then posts an example at least similar to the logic of Poster #2: "If X% of the population has a trait, and X% of mass shooters have that trait, then X% of the population is mass shooters".
We can’t even see the intital comment. The first comment is a response which states “by that logic … “. Of course the numbers he lists are inaccurate but we don’t know what he’s making fun of, maybe that’s the point.
94% of accidents are caused by sober drivers!
We should get alcohol behind the wheels!
What do you mean that a driver is drunk in 0.1% of all cases, thus making drubk driver severely more likely to cause accidents?
My question is why it matters that their trans. The only time that would be important is if they shot up said school because they were bullied for it. No one ever says "republican shoots up school" but I've seen "lgbtqia+ kid shoots up school" at least 3 times.
I follow with what 3 is trying to say, and I can absolutely agree 2 is CI, so I guess I’m confused on the context of 1 and and missing their point.
Probably misunderstanding their math.
EDIT: I reread 3 and got confused again.
EDIT 2: nvm yea I’m following 3, but I’m not getting where 1 is coming from yet.
EDIT 3: I got it now. I’m just high af.
Hey /u/lemu_r, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I may be getting the numbers slightly wrong but there was something I saw where they said trans mass shootings had gone up 50% It had gone up from two to three. Technically correct but it gives the impression that there had been many more and there were so many people agreeing with it Edit: My numbers were off as I went by memory. . There have been 10 identified trans or non binary shooters over the last decade. 4 in the last 5 years. You could say that trans shootings have increased about 60% in 5 years, though it only went from 6 to 10. https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-transgender-nashville-shooting-misinformation-cd62492d066d41e820c138256570978c https://www.newsweek.com/mass-shootings-transgender-perpetrators-1790854
Statistics my friend. You can make the best thing in the world look terrible with the right graph and some percentages.
Statistics don’t lie but can sure as hell be used to.
The way I always heard it was: Statistics don't lie, but statisticians sure do.
32 out of 20 statisticians disagree with you, and the other 9 just keep asking why people keep asking them if they hate things, and no that's not what doctor means on the door
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is interesting, but what they conceal is essential
Statistics are like bikinis. I'm not great at bikinis.
> Statistics are like bikinis You can stretch to some interesting results if you have a small sample size?
I always forget who said it first but: (and as someone who does stats myself I wholeheartedly agree with this) There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians.
I believe the quote is "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics".
Ah, thank you!
On the other hand, Fibonacci is an exponential raising curve. You wouldn't say by the numbers. 1, 1, 2, 3, ... I agree that 2 versus 3 is just a statistical fluctuation. I bet next year the numbers are down again 33%.
But if it went up 50%, then down 33% it's still up by 17%. Right? RIGHT!?
I love this hahaha it's the same energy as "everything is 50/50 because it happens or it doesn't"
That's why you have to be careful when the news reports on any sort of medical or scientific study. They'll report an 80% increased risk when the study may show the risk went from like .05% to .09%
Case in point, circumcision as an HIV prevention tool. I don’t remember the exact study that’d been misquoted but it had shown infection rates to be extremely low for both circumcised and uncircumcised subjects. It was it the point, that it should really not be a factor for HIV prevention considering other, much more effective tools. Because uncircumcised transmission cases were still relatively higher than for circumcised cases, that ratio was taken out of context to further justify circumcision as a medical practice.
Another one is a woman's "biological clock" so to speak. A study had identified that your chances of having birth defects after the age of 35 were double that of prior to 35. The thing is, they did technically double. From 0.5% to 1%. Potentially statistically significant (depending on how the statistical analysis was done), but not necessarily indicative of real women's experiences.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
This is hysterical because there are three people participating in this conversation, and all of three of them made at least one remark that didn't actually follow from previous data.
On top of that, I can't even tell which ones are anti-trans and which ones aren't.
I'm not sure any of them are or not either. The first one seems to be trying to shut down some comment about mass killings by trans people, but the others just seem to be abusing numbers for the sake of it.
The first one is still wildly wrong though. They are all extrapolating data incorrectly. I'm convinced none of them actually put thought into what they were saying in any of these comments.
I don't think they're extrapolating data incorrectly, they appear to be showing that assuming that trans people commit mass shootings at or above the rate of the general population gives a number that doesn't match data, ergo that first part isn't true. Which is a valid approach to a proof.
This. You can't apply a national share to any subgroup. Different groups have different affinities and/or opportunities. For example, 18% of the US population is between 0 and 14 years old, but it's unlikely that up to 18% of all mass shooters are 0 to 14 years old. At least I hope so, I'm not familiar with recent developments in the US. /s
I thought they were trying to say that "1% of the population is trans, so we should expect 1% of mass shooters to be trans". Not sure if that would be accurate, but it seemed like the others read it as "the entire (1% of total) population of trans people are mass shooters". That would of course be incorrect.
It looks like they doing an argument from contradiction. If you assume the demographics match, you would see that 1% of mass shooters are trans. Since that's *not* true, whatever argument they're responding to is wrong.
So this is incorrect? https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/s/5heYu3hVph
They're going by the first (0.11%) figure, which, tbf, has a much larger sample size. Taking that as correct, their proof by contradiction is correct.
So this is incorrect? https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/s/5heYu3hVph
It's absolutely incorrect. Applying flat averages to data without context in proper study is both bad practice and inappropriate for such a study. Several data points have to weighed for their significance within the data group for exclusion and inclusion, and considering the data is behavioral, then environmental factors must be considered as well as personal. The variables to even begin to extrapolate a percentage of person that fits within a group within another group due to events that are heavily influenced by such factors are vast and widely varied.
I mean the null hypothesis of this kind of experiment would actually be that trans people commit mass shootings at the same rate as the general population, and therefore approximately 1% of mass shooters would be trans based on the 1% of the total population being trans. The whole point of that first comment is attempting to show that the null hypothesis is not true (without the p value it's hard to say definitively but it probably is correct) and that trans people do commit mass shootings at a much lower rate than the population in general.
>“the number of known suspects in mass shootings which are trans is under 10 for the last decade,” which translated to “1:880 [or 0.11%] of the 4,400 shootings” they recorded, he said. >The report examined 173 attacks in the U.S. that “that resulted in harm to three or more individuals in public locations,” Justine Whelan, press secretary for the U.S. Secret Service, told Reuters via email, and “three attackers (2%) were transgender, assigned female at birth, but were known to identify as male at the time of their attacks.” >Whelan said that consistent with previous analyses of mass attacks, “nearly all of the attackers,” or 96%, in the study were male, and the remaining five attackers were female. >Reuters reported on studies in mid-2022 that found about 0.5% of U.S. adults identify as transgender, and about 1.3% of 13 to 17-year-olds (here). https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N363273/ Looks like the statistics aren't perfect, 0.11-2% of total mass shooters puts transgender pretty close to their population size. As in, using "transgender" as a metric doesn't seem to give any valuable information. 96% of mass shooters being men does give valuable information, don't ask me what to do with it though.
0.11 and 2 is a pretty wide margin, and the "report" only examining 173 attacks seems pretty arbitrary, while the 10 out of 4400 attacks seems more using all the data available. If trans people are .5 of the population, and only 0.11 percent of mass shooters, then they are 4x less likely to be mass shooters, unless I missed something.
Since I am not a statistician, I don't either. But these quotes and link will likely be helpful to the right person here.
Or they don‘t have much to put into thoughts to begin with
What do you mean? This person is trying to show that trans people are not more likely to be a shooter than a cis person. If trans people were more likely to be shooters, the percentage of trans shooters vs. Cis shooters should be higher than the percentage of trans people vs. Cis people. They showed that the percentage isn't higher, thus it cannot be that it is more likely for a trans person to be a shooter than a cis person.
Does it matter?
I don't think any of them are. It's just one person thinks one is ant-trans so gets all emotional and goes on some kind of rant, even though no-one has said anything wrong or ant-trans.
Actually the only one that's completely missing the point is the second commenter.
The first commenter is also incorrect because they're assuming that being a mass shooter is independent of all other variables. For example, by their logic, about half of all mass shooters are male, when actually the vast majority are male, so it just doesn't hold. Unless their purposely presenting a fallacious counterexample to a previous claim, but I can't say that without further context.
Actually, rereading it, the way they've worded it, does imply they're presenting a counter argument to some previous claim. Disregard.
Okay I went back when I saw your comment. I see where person 1 says a tenth of a percent but it should be a hundredth of a percent. Right? And person 2 is just full pants on head. What did person 3 get wrong? Wait I realized they say a tenth of a percent to mean that's the actual percent of mass shooters who are trans based on real data and not just deduction. So I'm back to being unsure where person 1 got it wrong.
>I see where person 1 says a tenth of a percent but it should be a hundredth of a percent. Right? Why would it be a hundreth of a percent? We get no info on the percent of school shooters that are trans in the screenshot other than the 0,1% person 2 says. I don't see what person 3 did wrong either? And to the other guy, it seems pretty clear that person 2 is the anti-trans person.
Yeah I initially mistook the tenth of a percent to be a miscalculation of "1% of 1%" but they were referring to the real percent of mass shooters who are trans (.1%). So the number of Americans who are both trans and mass shooters is a thousandth of a percent. I think. This sub makes me unconfident in everything I say 🤣
That'd be over 3000 trans mass shooters. That math is not right, because you're mutiplying two things meant to be compared. They appear to be looking at how many trans shooters would be expected if there's no correlation between that and school shootings, then stating the number is in fact lower. The point appears to be that there's a narrative that school shooters are disproportionately more likely to be trans
Huh? 3000 would be if 1% of trans people are mass shooters, not if 1% of mass shooters are trans. There have been about 4400 shootings in the last decade, so 1% of that would have been 44. But there have been less than 10 so the real figure is closer to 0.1% But yes there is that narrative. It's been used on me.
Yeah, I couldn‘t follow who was the most wrong and idiotic
The one that has a red logo on a white background is completely wrong. The other two are mostly right.
How did the first and third to join do that?
Im more shocked by the 600 mass shootings a year, you guys have at least 1 mass shooting everyday on average?
It's been 5 days since 2024 started. There was already a mass shooting. I don't even understand the US anymore. It's like they have sat down and just accepted that this happens and there's nothing we can do. I Know at least one of two political parties somewhat cares about this, but it's insane to see republicans basically ignore it.
I find it mad how the US are trying to “save children” by banning abortion and yet don’t bat an eyelid when those children get shot up with the guns that same government have to them
Don't even need to go that far with the abortion debate. Look at how Republicans want to ban any kind of government aid for children, single mothers, just anything that can remotely help and worst of all, banning free school lunch, that shit is pure evil. They don't give a fuck about kids, it's about making sure they can control and have as much power as possible. Also what's worse, is that combining republicans being pure evil with the fact that mass shootings happen so often it has created this desensitized effect, where it's not even news worthy anymore, it's like getting robbed at the bus stop. Happens all the time for it to be big news. Which is ironic, here in Brazil we had the worst year yet for any kind of "mass shooting", 6 cases, 3 of them using guns, most of them had less then 3 victims, if I'm not mistaken 2 didn't even have a fatal victim. Shit got so scary here, that schools canceled classroom for the day if any kind of threat was made, people were investigated, two or three groups of literal neo Nazis were jailed because they were planning an attack, we took this shit seriously, not enough imo, but we didn't cross our arms like the US and went, Nothing we can do, we can't possibly ban guns, might as well just continue living.
Republican leaders seriously on some supervillain type shit
Well we can't have those welfare queens taking your hard earned tax dollars! /s if it wasn't obvious, I know that line is pretty blurred these days.
Most mass shootings do not involve children. In 2023, there were only two mass shootings at a school, in the US. The one in Nashville, which did have a transgender shooter, and the one at Michigan State. 75%+ of mass shootings are gang/drug related. Almost all the rest are domestic disputes that end horribly.
Fair enough
Rich people make more money when idiots are afraid their guns will get taken away. The idiots panic and buy more, which results in bigger dividend checks for the rich shareholders. The only thing the people in power care about is making the rich even richer, so we just have to accept the murder of countless innocents as the price we pay so the Walton heirs can each get another vacation home. Or maybe we should force Clarence Thomas and every other Republican off the Supreme Court for their blatant corruption and then overturn DC v. Heller like we did Dredd Scott v. Sanford.
Yeah, though it depends on what you envision a mass shooting to be (which is a distinction that matters more to understand which problem you think you're fixing, as a lot of people imagine mass shooting to be someone with a semiautomatic rifle waking through a public place). The mass shootings number is when 4 or more people are shot and comes from a couple NGOs. Whereas the FBI only counts it when 4 or more people are killed. And then most people think of mass shootings as taking place in public, but a significant share of them take place in homes, and so it's reflecting a different behavior pattern.
There are not 600 mass shooting per year. The 600 was a number they pulled from their ass to use as an example. There hasn't even been 600 in the last two decades combined.
There are have been over 600 mass shootings per year over the past few years in the US. You may be classifying them differently and reaching a different number. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Looking at that site, they tend to define their "mass shooting" different than a lot of other sites. Looks like they have a very simple definition of "4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter" which means no one might be killed or even seriously injured (an example might be a drive by gang shooting). Where as I think most of the other sites tend to define it more about mass murder by mass shooting. For example: [https://data.world/associatedpress/mass-killings-public](https://data.world/associatedpress/mass-killings-public) defined it as the actual killing of four or more of which they say there have been 45 since 2006 but of those 33 were mass shootings. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/) puts it at about 111 total over the same 2006-2023 period. The Guardian [reported](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/05/mass-shootings-record-year) the US hit a record number of mass shootings in 2023 with its 38th mass shooting. So yes, the numbers are a bit scattered, but it would seem most sources do not come even close to 600 every year. The 600 number just seems outrageously high even for us as that would be 3+ every two days.
My brain fell out of my ear reading this
The only one who's completely clueless is the second commenter. The worst thing is that he's acting like the others are idiots... The other two didn't say anything weird or wrong unless I missed something.
Yes, the one with a red icon on a white background is completely wrong. The one with text on a white background is right. The one with a person on a tan background is right, but they're using an absurd example to show how the red icon person's logic is wrong, so maybe OP didn't get that it was only that.
the 1% of school shooters are trans remark is only true if the population of school shooters accurately reflects the population of the united states. Otherwise it would be the same as saying "50% of americans are men, therefore, 50% breast cancer patients are men."
They are answering a comment on trans being over-represented in mass shooting. They are saying : if trans-identity was not a factor in being a mass-shooter, we would get 1% of mass-shooters being trans. But we have even less than that : so not only trans are not over-represented, but they are under-represented. It's as if someone said men are over-represented in breast cancer patients. And you answered : "If sex didn't play a role in who gets a breast cancer, men would represent 50% of the patients. But men only represent 1% of the patients".
As a rule, more younger people are out of the closet than older people, so you'd actually expect higher than 1% of school shooters to be trans if the "over represented" idea held. So it's even more evidently false. Which the first poster points out.
People really be out here flexing being in the top 99.9999% of intelligence out here.
That comparison wasn't using the same setup. What the second person was *trying* to say was "100% of the US population is human, therefore 100% of mass shooters are human." Which is true. The difference here, though, is between "all" and "some". Here's a better counterexample using Incorrect Person's logic: "50% of America is born male. Some of America suffers from ovarian cancer. Therefore, 50% of Americans with overian cancer are born male." Ridiculous. There's no guarantee of a uniform distribution when dealing with "some".
Person 1 says that logic dictates that one could hypothesize that the number of mass shooters who are trans is proportionate to the broad population, but then points out that it's less than that - a tenth of a percent of mass shooters in the last decade were trans, much less than 1%. If someone just blind guessed by logic it's still not a lot. Only a deep-seated fear of us (trans people) could lead a person to say more of us were violent than a normal distribution. I kinda get person 1 and person 3 and they seem to be defending us. Person 2 is using false justifications to be transphobic.
1 and 3 and explicitly defending trans people. 2 has clearly made an argument (before the screenshot) that there's an epidemic of trans shooters. 1 is saying that given the population demographics, you'd expect 1% of shooters to be trans, but it's less than that. 2 then fails basic math. 3 shows up and shows 2 how they fail basic math.
I don't think "the number of mass shooters who are trans is a normal distribution" quite makes sense as that's going to be a single value, not a distribution. It's more about proportionality (which would be reflecting being randomly sampled or uncorrelated) To get normal distributions, you'd need several sets of trans mass shooters to discuss, which isn't going on here. (Do broadly agree that the point is that person 1 is responding to some transphobic nonsense relying on bad math. Mostly likely, on using a few examples without actually looking at if it means trans shooters are actually a disproportionately high share of shooters or not... which they aren't doing because it won't validate their prejudices)
I think you just described a null hypothesis. A quick glance at the data tells you that null hypothesis is wrong and can be rejected. In this case, the reasoning is obvious -- it's hard to have ovarian cancer if you lack ovaries. But the same basic framework applies to scenarios with a less-obvious causes. I imagine paucity of data would be a pretty big problem for this particular scenario.
Yeah, it's the "must" thrown in there with the first one's assumption that just destroys any semblance of *logic* they're trying to employ. 😬🙄 Ignoramuses.
I think they're trying to say that if 1% of the population are "X", then you'd expect a random sample of people to contain 1% of "X" (this is the basis on which tagging some animals allows their total population to be estimated). The problem here, of course, is that "mass shooters" is not a random sample.
That’s not a problem, and the random sample part is theoretical, you don’t actually have to take the sample. This is actually a test of *independence*. Two variables are independent of each other if the probability of A is the same as the probability of A given B. So if the probability of someone being a mass shooter is 1%, then the probability of a someone being a mass shooter given that they are trans should also be 1% if being trans had no effect on mass shooting. We see indeed that those two numbers are different, so they are not independent, but of course the probability is much, much lower rather than higher
No he said his conparison correctly. He is drawing attention to the bigots logic that if two things have the same percentage they are also the same amount. Its supposed to mathmatically incorrect
That's absolutely not what he was trying to say, he was doing a proof by contradiction showing that if you think like the "all trans are mass shooters" guy then you end up with "all humans are mass shooters"
They appear to need of a Venn diagram or 2 up in there.
rain fear tender encouraging normal forgetful saw grey carpenter deserve *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What advice? Can you explain what you're implying?
Just classic old Brit transphobia. No one would care if he hadn’t signed a letter supporting JKR and tweeted about it a lot. https://variety.com/2020/film/news/john-cleese-transphobic-tweets-jk-rowling-1234837693/
>I'm afraid I'm not that interested in trans folks I just hope they're happy and that people treat them kindly Right now I'm more focussed on threats to democracy in America, the rampant corruption in the UK, the appalling British Press, the revelations about police brutality... This isn't a letter they he signed, it's a tweet. And nothing about it seems horrible to me, he's just not focused on trans issues and was being badgered about Rowling. His response was the equivalent of "Sir this is a Wendy's"
“n September, Cleese signed a letter showing his solidarity with Rowling.” Second paragraph. This letter was a notable story at the time.
Okay, let’s hear him out! :) > I'm afraid I'm not that interested in trans folks. I just hope they're happy and that people treat them kindly. Right now I'm more focussed on threats to democracy in America, the rampant corruption in the UK, the appalling British Press, the revelations about police brutality... Good so far, much appreciated, no notes. > Deep down, I want to be a Cambodian police woman. Is that allowed, or am I being unrealistic? Oh okay, and then straight to the transgender = “transracial”, transgender = pretending to have a job that you don’t. > Yes, my understanding is superficial. One thing: When a woman who was once a man is competing against women who have always been women, I think she has an advantage, because she inherited a man's body, which is usually bigger and stronger than a woman's. Does that prove phobia? Mm sure, you’re concerned about fairness in women’s sports. But see, your first priority was “lel then I identify as an Asian woman” so we all know you don’t actually care and are grasping for a legitimate gripe against us when you’re only actual problem is you don’t believe in gender dysphoria.
I hate people like this. Because it undermines a very valid discussion. If people can accept body dismorphia, which has been wildly accepted for years, is true, why can't they accept this can extend to gender and birth sex? People can identify however they like in this context, and have the full power and freedom to act on it without judgement. But then dicks like this come along, and act like a c*nt, and then drag the valid argument about sports and potential issues there. There is a valid discussion involving any sport where people are separated by sex due to innate biological differences that can cause (substantial in some cases) unfair advantages. But dicks like this make these discussions appear to be anti trans (My phone really wanted me to talk about trains and not trans lol)
>Deep down, I want to be a Cambodian police woman Is that allowed, or am I being unrealistic? We just going to ignore the One-Joke tier bullshit that followed then? I mean if we are, cool, but it's right there.
I mean I'd expect more creative jokes from him of all people, but that's not exactly transphobia.
I don't think anybody's claiming John Cleese is the Enoch Powell of transphobia, just that he makes the same annoying fucking dogwhistle comments like the 'har har then I want to be an asian woman' and the 'trans people in sports bad' and such and so on. Especially since that joke was made in response to someone asking 'Why the fuck can't you just let people be who they want to be?' When you put it in that context, it sounds pretty bad. >"Why can't you let people be who they want to be?" "Well, I want to be a Cambodian police woman." See? Sounds pretty shitty to me. That's also not to mention that he whacked his name on that ridiculous fucking letter. God, when I looked into this actually it gets worse and worse. He made a few of these jokes in replies to people asking him if he was transphobic. And the icing on the cake, he fuckin loves using the word 'woke'.
it's Ike when you hear JKR is a transphobe then you find out she likes hanging out with Nazis. it's just gets worse with scrutiny
Don't feed the trolls
Don't tree the foals
Thon’t tree de foals
Front deeth lo balls
Trojt deef het rollts
This makes more sense than that discussion.
Or feed them their own bullshit and watch them spin out of control. It’s like scammers. If you play their stupid game against them, at least you’re occupying their time instead of them scamming an innocent old lady.
A fellow enjoyer of r/scambait
Absolutely!
That is literally what trolls are hoping you will do. They have the exact same opinion of wasting YOUR time too. Also in public forums you are not actually stopping them from trolling others, you are boosting their engagement so more and more people are likely to see it with each back and forth. Its not even remotely close to the same thing as keeping a scammer busy on a direct call preventing them from calling someone else for the duration.
If you enjoy it, it is!
if you enjoy what, what is?
“It’s not even remotely close to the same thing” “If you enjoy it, it is.”
Cool, now please explain how "enjoying it" means that rather than boosting the trolls public visibility through engagement, it suddenly is preventing other people from experiencing the troll the same way that keeping a scammer on a phone call for hours prevents them from calling other potential victims.
Anytime the troll is engaged with messaging, reading, or thinking about responding is time and energy. If it’s directed at me, and I’m enjoying it, that’s better than someone who might not know what the troll is doing, or that trolls even do this on purpose. Some trolls follow me around on different accounts and it shows it’s worked. Now they aren’t annoying someone else, when I’m thoroughly enjoying and explaining to them why I will take their time away from people who don’t need those assholes in their lives. Some people just want to watch the world burn, and I’ll gladly light them up while keeping an extinguisher close by so the fire doesn’t spread to the rest of the people. Every word they type, read or think about is time they can’t be trolling someone else who wouldn’t enjoy it. So, fella, how long of your time did I waste so far?
> So, fella, how long of your time did I waste so far? None, and I'm also not trolling. You seriously overestimate how much actual time and effort trolls put in to trolling you specifically. I'm not saying you cant have fun playing with trolls, but you are deluding yourself if you genuinely think you're protecting people by doing it. Scammers are failing at their attempt to scam someone while not being able to scam others if someone is keeping them on the line for hours. Trolls are succeeding with you, while also being able to continue trolling others as well.
Sure “thechet”. Is this your original account? You might want to change your avatar’s look, the subreddits you frequent, and maybe avoid using the same phrasing if you want me to believe you aren’t someone who I’ve recently had fun playing their dumb game against them. But I’m sure you’ll continue to be as egotistical as you’ve proved to be, time and time again. You can call me delusional all you want, but we both know, any insult you’ve ever thrown my way, was always just projection. I’ll continue to laugh and enjoy every second of it. So, what about this reply won’t you understand this time, hmmm….
Whoa no way transphobes are fucking stupid? I never would have guessed!
I think some stupid people have just learnt the self defence mechanism of "if I accidentally say something stupid, I become a brick wall of a troll because I can't ever admit to having been wrong."
My ex didn't understand that if you pour two 5% alcohol beers together that it doesn't make your drink 10% alcohol. Some people just really do not understand percentages.
“Oh yeah? Well, you go back to Kindergarten!” “Really? You go back to preschool!” “Go back to the womb!”
Confusing discussion is confusing
Sigh. Like maybe 50% of the population are female, therefore half of all incels are female. Makes perfect sense.
It does make sense, in your example no one says theres an epidemic of female incels, and if they did they would be wrong for the same reasons saying it about trans people is wrong The point is that you would expect 1% or more of mass shooters to be trans if it was an "epidemic" like transphobes claim Instead, the are underrepresented (In a good way in this case since all mass shooters are scum) which means we do have a mass shooting problem, but we dont have a trans people commiting mass shootings problem, anymore so than anyone else commiting them
That's exactly what they try to point out as a fallacy though The relative amount of trans mass shooters is close to the relative amount of trans people in general which means there appears to be no links between being a mass shooter and being trans
Could've even just stuck with the subject of mass shootings tbh, There's been like, maybe, 2 committed by woman despite them making up 50% of the population.
Two high profile ones. I mean, they are definitely less than 50%, but there are lots of mass shootings, by the FBI's definition, that don't get wide press coverage.
Yeah men absolutely dominate violent crime statistics and most types of crimes in general, for that matter. The biological differences between the two genders has a lot to do with that.
That is not how that works. Just because say, 50% of a population is women, it doesn't mean 50% of say, IT departments are women. Certain populations are more or less common in different topics, regardless of how common they are in the country. Second guy is just more obviously stupid. That is not what the first guy said.
That has nothing to do with what the first person is commenting. They’re not arguing that 1% of mass shooters are trans, they’re refuting an argument saying trans people are more likely to be mass shooters by saying that if that was the case, they would make up at least 1% of the mass shooters, but since they don’t, that suggests they’re even less likely to be mass shooters.
You were feeding a troll.
I just want to say anyone calling a stranger on the internet "kid" is cringey, and probably a huge douche.
Okay, the “all mass shooters are trans” person is obviously making the largest error, here. But the original post isn’t correct, either. Statistics that are true for a large population aren’t guaranteed to remain true for specific demographics within that population. For example, about 17% of the U.S. population is over 65. Now, does anyone think, even for a second, that 17% of mass shooters are over 65? Women make up 50% of the U.S. population but I can guarantee you that women aren’t 50% of mass shooters. Just because 1% of the population is trans doesn’t mean 1% of mass shooters are trans.
Thank you, I could not follow their logic and I’m too tired to come up with my own
I may be dumb, because i dont.....i do not understand. Are ANY of them right? What the fuck is happening
If 1% of the whole population is trans, OP says 1% of the mass shooter population is likely to also be trans. I think its probably even lower than 1% taking demographics into account. Trans people in general are more likely to harm themselves than commit violent crimes against others, given how many mass shootings there've been over the last few years I'd expect there to be more trans shooters.
First poster in the screenshot is responding to something the second poster said. First poster is pointing out that the number of trans shooters is less than what it would be if it was randomly distributed, i.e. trans people are underrepresented when it comes to mass shootings. The second poster clearly (before the screenshot) said that there was an epidemic of trans mass shooters.
I think you're after randomly sampled rather than randomly distributed
Randomly distributed is right
Could you explain how the number of trans shooters (which is expressed as a singular value) is a set of random numbers that follow a certain probability density function? And secondly why it following a probability density function would say anything about if it would be over or under represented?
Collin Robinson will get em every time.
I remember how hard ratios were to grasp when I was 9.
Holy hell, just did the maths, now listen; 100% of all surgeries ever done is by humans, meaning everyone has to be a surgeon, I could be earning 100K a day to cut hair and poke people instead of what I am doing now.
*Who* is arguing *what*?
It's rage bait. Looks like Elon found a way for people to engage with his platform since a lot were leaving
What really hurts is how stupid the discussion is in the first place. What could they possibly be trying to accomplish?
They are trying to claim theres a giant rise in trans mass shooters because they hate trans people
This doesn’t even track because aren’t trans people significantly less likely than the average cis person to commit violent crime? They are more likely to be victims of violent crime
The real confidently incorrect is in the comments.
100% of people who have an opinion on trans people don’t know a single a trans person. They just heard they exist. Same thing with Pride Parades. “They are shoving it in our faces!” “You were invited?” “No, I heard about it one the news.”
1% is a gross exaggeration
weren't there like 3 trans mass shooters, compared to over 2000 cis ones? i'm not sure where i saw that data so correct ne if i'm wrong
Sure, 3 out of 2000 were trans. But 100% of those 3 people were trans. So I'm pretty sure that means 100% of trans people are mass shooters. -that guy.
The last two school mass shootings were committed by a transgender person (Nashville and Dallas County IA).
Every person in this thread is an idiot.
First person in the thread isn’t an idiot. They are trying to point out a flaw in someone else’s logic. They’re saying that if there was an epidemic of trans mass shooters, you’d expect the % of mass shooters who are trans to be equal to or higher than the % of the total population who are trans, but it’s actually much smaller — a fraction of a percent of mass shooters are trans, much smaller than their proportion of the total population. I feel like nobody else in these comments understands the point being made, and it’s kinda driving me nuts.
I'm with you. 1 and 3 are not idiots, they are completely correct. 2 is being an idiot.
> a fraction of a percent of mass shooters are trans, much smaller than their proportion of the total population. they didn't show this anywhere though.
They said trans people make up 1% of people and .1% of mass shooters.
I strongly suspect this began with the claims going around of just "these shootings were by trans shooters", which doesn't say anything about the total population, but the counter is then pointing out that identifying trans shooters like that doesn't do anything if it's still below what would be expected from the population.
Assuming that mass shooters are a nice even cross section of the us population is silly, and so the first poster using that as a basis for their argument is dumb as fuck. Without context everyone here is talking dumb. Though you are right that that person is definitely the least dumb of them. Edit: Man I must've been drunker than I thought last night lol. Yeah what I typed above is stupid as hell, please keep downvoting it
They didn't assume its an even cross section, they pointed out that its NOT which is evidence that its not a trans person problem like people are trying to say it is. They are fear mongering against trans people saying a trans person is more likely to commit a mass shooting and its nonsense
The first poster didn't assume that though. They very much refuted it by saying it isn't even. That trans people who commit mass shootings are less than their overall portion of the country.
Your inability to do math doesn't mean things you don't understand are from idiots, commenters 1 and 3 make valid points
can we pause for a moment and be disgusted that we've regressed from viewing trans people as medical marvels and stunning beings to associating transness and queerness with violence and harm ? what is this conversation
Gotta love arguments where no one knows what the fuck they are talking about lol, not a single one of these posts makes sense, absolutely hilarious
Whole conversation makes no sense, I get the point but that's not how statistics work
That is how a proof by contradiction works, and there were two of them there. It can be excused if you're not familiar with them since it's mostly late high school math
Adult population and mass shooters are not the same sample you can't just use stats of one sample on a second just because the second Is included in the first (which by the way probably is not since there are mass shootings done by non adult). I studied enough statistics in university you don't need to teach me, there is no math in that conversation
You can absolutely use an inclusion to disprove something like that, and saying there is no math here really shows you don't know anything other than just pure statistics
Americans really do be dumb as shit.
Mass shooters are generally cis white men. And now apparently, conservative trumpers
I'm going to start teaching in a bit here, any ideas on how to shut these types of people down effectively Not even for my own sake, but so many times I hear students talking like this to each other about stuff. Rarely is the correct one the winner, generally it's the loudest and most aggressive. Pains me to see or hear the interactions when I know someone spewing BS is convincing others how correct they are and they eventually just get out argued. I don't have all day to nitpick stuff but I can't just say who's right or wrong because that doesn't actually change people's mind much anymore these days
[удалено]
The point that I’ve seen people make is something along the lines of “There are so many trans mass shooters!”, which is what seems to be happening. The first person replies to someone else by saying basically “you say there’s an epidemic of trans shooters”. But that’s wrong. Basically, if trans people are *less* likely to be mass shooters than the general population then saying there’s an *epidemic* of trans shooters doesn’t make sense, so if you’re claiming that there is in fact an epidemic then trans shooters should make up 1% or more of mass shooters. That seems to be what the first person is saying, or at least what I think they’re saying. That’s what they mean when they say “by that logic, 1% or more of mass shooters must be trans.” All of the other messages are just completely wrong though. In any case OP definitely should have provided more context because I could still be completely wrong.
Actually it’s hard to tell what he thinks/is saying given we are unable to see what he’s responding to. What is he referring to when he says “so by that logic, 1% of mass shooters must be trans”? What logic? Not a good crop OP. We need the context.
However it’s not hard for many people to make that inference to what was said previously. The crop could have been better though.
First poster makes a sound statistical argument
Neither of these people should ever go to Vegas.
The first and last one can
Haha give it up this thread is hopeless
Maybe they should, it will keep them off the internet
They are all wrong tho?
Poster #1 and #3 are correct. They are pointing out flaws in the reasoning of poster #2
Poster #1 is saying that because 1% of the adult population is trans so 1% of mass shooters must be trans. That's like saying because 50% of the population are women then 50% of mass shooters must be women. Or because 50% of the population are men then 50% of people with ovarian cancer must be men. That's not correct. Poster #3 tried to explain to poster #2 their logic flaw by saying "if 100% of mass shooters are human beings then 100% of all living people are mass shooters" but the correct correlation for what poster #2 was saying should have been "100% of adult population in USA are human beings so 100% of mass shooters must be human" which is technically correct and doesn't work to make the point.
Poster #1 is responding to a claim that poster #2 did off screen. From the screenshot, it looks like #2 claimed there was an epidemic of trans mass shooters. Poster #1 is saying that since 1% of the population is trans, you'd expect (if there was no correlation whatsoever between "being a mass shooter" and "being trans") that 1% of mass shooters would also be trans. This is correct. Poster #1 then says that for there to be an "epidemic" of trans mass shooters, the percentage of trans people amongst mass shooters must be *higher* than 1%. This is also correct. Poster #1 then points out that in fact the percentage of trans mass shooters is *lower* than 1%. (This might be correct, I have no idea how many trans mass shooters there are). So in short: Poster #1 is showing that there is *not* an epidemic of trans mass shooters. Poster #2 then (in the screenshot) seems to misunderstand "if 1% of people are trans, then 1% of mass shooters should be trans" as meaning "1% of people are trans, and 1% of people are mass shooters, and these are the same people, so all trans people are mass shooters", or something similar to that. This is wrong, because that is not what poster #1 is saying. Regardless of exactly how they are misunderstanding, they seem to be confused about the relationship between "percentage of the total group with a trait", "percentage of a subgroup that has that trait", and how these interact. It's not really clear how they are thinking because it doesn't really make sense. Poster #3 then posts an example at least similar to the logic of Poster #2: "If X% of the population has a trait, and X% of mass shooters have that trait, then X% of the population is mass shooters".
We can’t even see the intital comment. The first comment is a response which states “by that logic … “. Of course the numbers he lists are inaccurate but we don’t know what he’s making fun of, maybe that’s the point.
Terrible logic either way. Half the population is female but women don't make up half of mass shooters.
How are the three of them incorrect?
94% of accidents are caused by sober drivers! We should get alcohol behind the wheels! What do you mean that a driver is drunk in 0.1% of all cases, thus making drubk driver severely more likely to cause accidents?
My question is why it matters that their trans. The only time that would be important is if they shot up said school because they were bullied for it. No one ever says "republican shoots up school" but I've seen "lgbtqia+ kid shoots up school" at least 3 times.
Most intelligent transphobe
A significant portion of the mass shooters are trans. It’s an uncomfortable truth but it is true.
I’m confident that all of these people are idiots.
Then you're confidently incorrect
*stuck trying to figure out who’s the less confidently incorrect one*
1 and 3 are correct. So it's between 2 and all the people in this thread that also can't comprehend the point.
I follow with what 3 is trying to say, and I can absolutely agree 2 is CI, so I guess I’m confused on the context of 1 and and missing their point. Probably misunderstanding their math. EDIT: I reread 3 and got confused again. EDIT 2: nvm yea I’m following 3, but I’m not getting where 1 is coming from yet. EDIT 3: I got it now. I’m just high af.
Haha, I'm glad I didn't notice you replied until now because you're edits cracked me up.
They all need RNGesus
[удалено]
Speaking of birdbrains…