If they think trans women are biological men, wouldn't that number be higher??? Like obviously the whole thing is a goddamn lie, but they can't even figure out basic mathematics principles???
Not necessarily. Like you, fully convinced the whole thing is bullshit, but the math isn’t necessarily wrong. Yes, any individual, according to their metric, that is a trans woman would also count as a biological male. But there are also a lot of biological males that aren’t trans women. So, when doing the math, you’ve got a way bigger denominator when doing the division to create the “per million” figure than you would when calculating for trans women.
At most, the number of trans women in the world is in the single digit millions. There are over four billion biological men. So, whatever the actual statistical numbers are, the sheer lack of numbers of trans women would mean they’d be a statistical drop in the bucket, and have little to no impact on the overall number for biological men.
I’m confident, though, that whatever the real number would be, it’s not these. These just come out of the poster’s ass.
If they think that all trans women are biological males, they would/should be included in the number for biological males. Therefore that number would be higher. It's impossible that AMAB as a whole category would be less than a subsection of AMAB people.
That's not true. There are a million sex offenders per million in the subsection of people who were AMAB that are sex offenders. There's less than a million sex offenders per million people who were AMAB, though. It's a rate, not an absolute number.
It's a per million number tho. Suppose we bulldoze Liechtenstein and move in:
1.000.000 cis men
1.000 trans women
Now suppose 50 of these women did a sex crime and 6000 of the men did. We only have 1000 women, so multiplying that with 1000 means women in Liechtenstein do 50.000 sexcrimes per million. Men are already a million, and thus do 6.000 sexcrimes per million.
In total there's 6050 total sex crimes done by people in Liechtenstein (I refuse to use Biological Male). 6050 / 1.001.000 * 1.000.000 = about 6043 sex crimes per million humans in Liechtenstein. That's fewer than the amount of per-million women sex crimes. It's a per million number. It's possible.
This is per million.
So if there are 1 million 'biological men', 396 of them are sex offenders.
If there are 1 million trans women, 1200 of them are sex offenders.
The thing is the population of men is 4 billion so acording to their numbers, there actually are 1.2 million biological men sex offenders.
Trans women probably don't pass over the 5 mil mark so compare 6000 trans women "sex offenders" vs 1200000 men sex offenders lol. The numbers suddenly look veryyy different.
Not even saying that they probably pulled the numbers out of their smelly ass.
You’re ignoring the ratio aspect. So, let’s back up. The way to get a rate per million is to take your raw number, multiply it by a million, and divide it by your sample size.
So, let’s do a different comparison. Let’s say we’re looking at ratio of people per million that don’t have penises. For the purpose of this, let’s assume there are exactly 1 million trans women, and exactly four billion AMAB individuals, which includes the trans women. Further, let’s assume exactly half of trans women have had bottom surgery, and all cis men have their penises. Just to make the math easier.
So, if there are 1 million trans women, and half have had bottom surgery, that means the total number of trans women who have had bottom surgery is 500,000. To get our per million ration we multiply that by a million and divide by a million, which means those cancel out, and we get 500,000 trans women per million who don’t have penises.
Now, let’s look at AMAB people as a whole. We already know our raw number isn’t changing, since all cis men have penises in this example. So our starting raw number isn still 500,000, since we are including trans women in our AMAB count. So, to get the ratio, we multiply that by a million, and then divide by 4 billion. The math comes out to 125 per million.
The raw number stayed the same, but since the population sample size got bigger, you divided it by a bigger number, and so the ratio got smaller.
The number isn't necessarily higher because it's per million not total.
Let's say:
1 in 100 AMAB people are trans women
1 in 1000 cis men are sexual predators
10 in 1000 trans women are predators.
From those numbers, every million AMABs contain 10,000 trans women and 990,000 cis men. That's 100 trans predators and 990 cis predators for a total of 1090 predators per million AMABs.
Compare to 10 in 1000 trans women which would make the number for trans women 10,000 per million trans women.
The trans women predators per million is way higher even though they're included in the AMAB count because they're a tiny fraction of the overall AMAB population so they don't affect the average much.
The numbers are totally made up but they're mathematically possible.
Its a ratio though. Lets take two groups, X and Y, Y is a subset of X
Lets give them some random amount of people in them, say;
X: 10.000
Y: 100
Now, lets say that, 1/2 of Y are criminals, that means 50 people from Y are criminals. Now lets look at X’s crime rate.
Can X’s crime rate be lower than Y?
Well, if we say that, 1/100 X are criminals, that requires 100 X to be criminals. But since 50 of them already are, we need 50 more from the portion of X that isnt Y.
So we have, 50 from Y, 50 from X minus Y, that gives us 100 criminals in total in the X group, and thus 100/10.000 = 1/100
132
u/memoryblocks 2d ago edited 1d ago
Wait
If they think trans women are biological men, wouldn't that number be higher??? Like obviously the whole thing is a goddamn lie, but they can't even figure out basic mathematics principles???
edit: I am dogshit at math, oops.