Of course. Violent far right liars will make up any bullshit they can use to be horrid little cretins. They NEED people to shit on and harm. If trans people disappeared, they would move on to another group. If all groups they say they hated vanished, they would eat one another. Hatred is the only thing they have been absolutely concrete on.
Why would someone who is marginalized on a daily basis for just being want to increase that attention and hatred even more? I’ve known several transgendered folks who just want to get by and be left alone, not stir up more violence and hatred.
You seem to be confused. The title is that there is no evidence of RISING violence from trans people.
You posted 4 articles - from 2023, 2023, 2019 and 2018. If we count ALL the mass shootings starting in 2018 through now, we get over 3,350 mass shooting events. Thank you for showing just how rare it continues to be for a mass shooter to be trans.
That’s just anecdotal evidence from a ten-second search on Google. If you want broad data, take a gander at the USSS’ assessment. 1.6% of mass shooters between 2016-2020 were trans, which is more than three times the percentage of trans population in the U.S.
Thank you for showing just how rare it continues to be for a mass shooter to be trans.
It is indeed rare — because being trans is rare overall. However, trans mass shooters occur in the general population of mass shooters at a rate more than triple their proportion in the general population at-large.
Lmfao maybe try citing actual data instead of some internet comic. 1.6% of mass shooters between 2016-2020 were trans, which is more than three times the percentage of trans population in the U.S.
I’m just gonna quote this back to you instead of saying “no you.”
If a demographic within a general population is an experiencing an event (e.g., committing mass shootings) to a greater proportion (1.6%) than their proportion within that general population (0.5%), that is a statistically disparate impact. That’s literally the basis for modern discrimination law, lmfao.
Good job buddy. I hope you find the bananas you’ve been looking for.
You've forgotten about the randomness in results.
With the data you use (3 in 180) and simple binomial distribution calculations, if the actual amount of trans shooters is 0.5% then the chance of that result being less than what it actually is, is 93.7%. This means this data or more would be from pure random chance 6.3% of the time.
If you knew anything about statistics, you'd know that the confidence interval for pretty much anything to be statistically relevant is 95%, which your data doesn't reach so it's inconclusive at best and trash at worst.
if the actual amount of trans shooters is 0.5% then the chance of that result being less than what it actually is, is 93.7%
Except there isn’t a chance of that — because we know exactly how many mass shootings there have been, and what the gender identity of the shooters are. You’re using statistical extrapolation when there is nothing to extrapolate.
If you knew anything about statistics, you'd know that the confidence interval for pretty much anything to be statistically relevant is 95%, which your data doesn't reach so it's inconclusive at best and trash at worst.
Again, you employ a confidence interval when you’re extrapolating a sample to a larger data group — not when your sample is that entire data group.
Congrats, you just demonstrated that you have no understanding of statistics. Been a while since I’ve seen something so directly and quickly backfire on someone lol.
Can you .. I don't know.. USE the data you provide? You're acting like want to talk about "statistical anomalies", but are ignoring every statistical anomaly except one.
Please explain why trans people are not mentioned at ALL in the 'attack elements' or the 'behavioral overview' of the document YOU PROVIDED, but males made up 96% of all mass shooters. (p. 57)
That is a much larger statistical anomaly you conveniently ignore.
See above. Trans mass shooters occur at a rate triple the occurrence of trans in the general population. Do better, take a statistics class (I’m happy to tutor, but my hourly rate is pretty high).
Please explain why trans people are not mentioned at ALL in the 'attack elements' or the 'behavioral overview' of the document YOU PROVIDED, but males made up 96% of all mass shooters. (p. 57)
Because trans shooters are a minority, but so is being trans in general. The proportion of mass shooters that are trans is more than triple the proportion of Americans that are trans.
Sorry you’re having so much trouble understanding basic statistics. Your line of logic seems to be that if a certain group does not make up the majority of another group, then the former group cannot be disparately more likely to he involved in the latter group.
The most depressing thing about this is that I expect no one who actually believed there was such a trend will read this article, nor believe it if shown to them. I’m glad it was published, but for the audience likely to read it I don’t think there is going to be a surprise here.
It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. The initial, personal cause of his grievance against the universe can only be guessed at; but at any rate the grievance is here. He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon.
Well, please look at the ratio we have as well as the rest of the evidence of not so subtle encouragement from major players. Also, check the number of hate groups associated with right wing nutcases vs LGBTQ+ folks and then you might see how your reply is a wee bit foolish.
And I’m sure I can mirror your “incredibly robust trend line” for LGBTQ shooters, just as I did above — that doesn’t change the fact that the ultimate propositions are still logical fallacies.
Oh most certainly I can, it’s just going to be logically defective — just as the “incredibly robust trend line” the other commentator was referencing would be.
Go ahead and try. Whatever you come up with for right wing shooters I’ll give you the logical inverse for LGBTQ shooters. Both will be true, and both will be logically flawed.
Add comment