[this answer and others [wasnt sure which to add this response to]] kinda reminds me of the migrant bias thing, where fuelled fears flip the statistic, making migrants seem more problematic, when in reality, they’re even more devoted to the country and not wanting to be a problem.
still would be wise not to overcompensate the other way. (like the OP image can be interpreted as doing).
So general high estimate is trans people may make up up to 1% of the population. I’m going to estimate as unfriendly to us to be thorough.
So with a total of 2829 shootings we’d expect 28.29 of them to be by trans people and 2800.71 of them to be by cis people.
Now the more realistic answer is .3% of the population are trans and each of those 3 trans shooters has a huge asterisk next to the claims that they’re trans.
So general high estimate is trans people may make up up to 1% of the population. I’m going to estimate as unfriendly to us to be thorough.
:3 wouldnt assuming a lower % of the population as trans be estimating “as unfriendly” more than accepting a higher estimate? because that’d increase the % of mass shooters in the trans population. like if it’s an order fewer, than that’s already tipped the scale the other way. if its a third, then we’re well within the margin of error, effectively making it balanced out, each equivalent, easily arguably making this an utter irrelevant criteria, a non-factor.
gotta wonder about the socio-psychological duress, and the priming by false flagging agencies needing patsies, more, than whatever aspects of gender identity in psychology or physiology.
no time for pitchforks vs torches. the emperor’s naked.
It’s always been so interesting to me that the identities are ‘balanced.’ If being trans was due to any of the many causes the anti-trans movement proposes (peer pressure, mental illness, environmental contamination, etc) you would expect one population out of three, just by chance, to outnumber the others. But to me the fact it’s proportional implies that it’s just an organically occurring part of the human experience.
Your trans type is like your Pokemon type. Fire, grass, water. So any type is weak to one and strong to another. If any type starts to prevail, the type that’s strong against it will be more successful, therefore keeping the populations in balance. Simple Pokebiology.
![worrisome trend [OC]](https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/f38e921b-f1eb-4b93-aa16-f42013fd7c8b.webp){kind=link}
What’s that per population?
Very roughly, based on quickly googled U.S. populations and the numbers in this comic:
So, still not looking great for cis people? If my math is right?
To make it easier to read, it would mean that cis people conduct mass shootings at a rate 6.378 times greater than trans people.
Yeah, but keep in mind that the USA has more people per capita than the rest of the world.
More “people per people”? Did you mean more guns per capita? Yeah that’s true…
It’s an old meme from /r/shitamericanssay, based on an actual quote.
Ohhh!! Well that definitely tracks lol, sorry I didn’t recognize it
[this answer and others [wasnt sure which to add this response to]] kinda reminds me of the migrant bias thing, where fuelled fears flip the statistic, making migrants seem more problematic, when in reality, they’re even more devoted to the country and not wanting to be a problem.
still would be wise not to overcompensate the other way. (like the OP image can be interpreted as doing).
the truth well out. :)
So general high estimate is trans people may make up up to 1% of the population. I’m going to estimate as unfriendly to us to be thorough.
So with a total of 2829 shootings we’d expect 28.29 of them to be by trans people and 2800.71 of them to be by cis people.
Now the more realistic answer is .3% of the population are trans and each of those 3 trans shooters has a huge asterisk next to the claims that they’re trans.
:3 wouldnt assuming a lower % of the population as trans be estimating “as unfriendly” more than accepting a higher estimate? because that’d increase the % of mass shooters in the trans population. like if it’s an order fewer, than that’s already tipped the scale the other way. if its a third, then we’re well within the margin of error, effectively making it balanced out, each equivalent, easily arguably making this an utter irrelevant criteria, a non-factor.
gotta wonder about the socio-psychological duress, and the priming by false flagging agencies needing patsies, more, than whatever aspects of gender identity in psychology or physiology.
no time for pitchforks vs torches. the emperor’s naked.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-adults-united-states/
1%of the population identifies as trans (1/3 of each man, woman, non-binary)
It’s always been so interesting to me that the identities are ‘balanced.’ If being trans was due to any of the many causes the anti-trans movement proposes (peer pressure, mental illness, environmental contamination, etc) you would expect one population out of three, just by chance, to outnumber the others. But to me the fact it’s proportional implies that it’s just an organically occurring part of the human experience.
Your trans type is like your Pokemon type. Fire, grass, water. So any type is weak to one and strong to another. If any type starts to prevail, the type that’s strong against it will be more successful, therefore keeping the populations in balance. Simple Pokebiology.