Luminiferous

@Luminiferous

ChattyGremlin #sexist #elitist #psycho

Overit users have VERY different opinions about castration based on whether they remember trans people exist at any given moment lol

Various TERFs #sexist #transphobia

All their comments are getting mad at trans women, but the original criticism was about not including trans men. They do this all the time, they have at best a cargo-cult understanding of what trans people actually want.

PinkPilled #sexist #transphobia

@Vgal #65987

These types of people have an almost hilarious inability to understand logic–and I don’t mean the “facts and logic” sort of generic sense of them being dumb, I mean actual formal “If A then B”-style logic. I’ve seen them say stuff like “If trans women are women, then are women trans women?” (that one got 1300 likes on twitter) and “We [cis women] are not a subset of women. There is no subset of women” and “People don’t get pregnant, WOMEN get pregnant!” (keep an eye out whenever a big twitter account uses the phrase “pregnant people” and you can see literal hundreds of these so-called “radical feminists” come out of the woodwork to scream at them that women aren’t people).

I said I didn’t mean it in the sense of them being dumb, but they are frequently quite dumb.

Ugly_equals_Death #sexist #crackpot

I signed up just to post this comment because this is hilarious. EVEN IF this guy’s assumptions were correct in 100% of cases… it leads to an equal number of male and female children anyway.

To formalize the assumptions:
When a child is male, 50% chance to continue having children.
When a child is female, 100% chance to continue having children.
Stop having children after having two female children.
We’ll throw away the thing about stopping reproducing at economic capacity because that’s essentially random and uniformly affects the number of male and female children.

We’ll ignore trans and intersex children for now for the sake of easy math, and assume that every child has a 50⁄50 chance of being male or female.

Your first child can go three ways: male with sibling, male without sibling, and female with sibling, with probabilities 0.25, 0.25, and 0.5 respectively.

The expected value of having a first child is 0.5 male children, 0.5 female children, 0.25 siblings-with-all-brothers, and 0.5 siblings-with-one-sister.

The expected value of 1 sibling-with-all-brothers is the same as our expected value for a first child: 0.5 female, 0.5 male, 0.25 sibling-with-all-brothers, and 0.5 siblings-with-one-sister.

The expected value of 1 sibling-with-one-sister is 0.5 female, 0.5 male, and 0.25 sibling-with-one-sister.

These last two are defined recursively, with each one also being equal to 0.25 more of itself. This is equivalent to an infinite series which converges to a value of 4⁄3.

Thus, each yet-undefined sibling is expected to be equal to 4⁄6 female children, 4⁄6 male children. A sibling with all brothers is gives an additional 4⁄6 siblings-with-one-sister, and that value translates to an additional 16⁄64 = ¼ male child + ¼ female child.

Thus, a family based on these rules will have an expected size of 0.5 + 0.5(⅔) + 0.25(⅔ + ¼) boys, and 0.5 + 0.5(⅔) + 0.25(⅔ + ¼) girls. If we math that out, that’s 1.0625 boys and 1.0625 girls.

In fact, if you could devise some… parental algorithm for having more boys than girls other than “having a theoretically infinite number of kids and stopping when you have more boys than girls”, you could take that to vegas and win big at roulette!