What is a woman?

I brought up that 75% of people arrested for violent crime are men, because it shows that men are more violent than women. You think that a smaller number of women arrested for violent crimes somehow means women are more violent. It's weird!

And this just shows the hypocrisy of your claim.

This 75% needs to be contrasted with another number.
With the ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION being ~50% male, this shows that men are overrepresented in those arrested for violent crimes, relative to the ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION, which would show that for the ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION, males are more violent.
It means if you were to select a random male from the ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION and a random female from the ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION then the male would be 1.5 times as likely than the female to have been convicted of a violent crime.

But again, prisoners are not representative of the human population.

What you need to compare it to is the prison population.

Even with the low estimate of 90% of the PRISON POPULATION being male, this means women are over represented in those arrested for violent crimes, relative to the PRISON POPULATION!

The 75% figure shows that males HUMANS are more violent than female HUMANS, but it also shows female PRISONERS are more violent than male PRISONERS.
That if you were to select a random male PRISONER and a random female PRISONER, the female prisoner would be 3 times as likely to have been convicted for a violent crime.

Understand the difference yet?

So again, how does men making up 90% of the prison population yet only 75% of those convicted for violent crimes mean male PRISONERS are more violent?

Again, the only way such a stat could support you is if males made up more than 90% of those convicted for violent crimes. But they don't. They make up much less than 90%. They only make up 25%.

The other way of putting it is that female prisoners only make up 10% of the prison population, yet make up 25% of those convicted of violent crimes.
Again, this shows female PRISONERS are massively overrepresented in those arrested for violent crimes.
Again, this shows female PRISONERS are more violent.

Are you trying to show male PRISONERS are more violent than female PRISONERS, or just that in general, entirely ignoring that prisons are not representative of the population as a whole that male HUMANS are more violent than female HUMANS? i.e. something entirely pointless to the discussion.

Jack, I want you to go out into the world and offer to arm wrestle every woman you meet.

Mixmatching unitless numbers is bad math.

You cant just say 50 and 10% and 90% and just asd sibtraft

Jack, I want you to go out into the world and offer to arm wrestle every woman you meet.

No thanks.

I want you to explain how female prisoners being drastically overrepresented in the portion of prisoners convicted for violent crimes could mean male prisoners are more violent rather than female prisoners being more violent, as a straightforward analysis of the data would show.

Mixmatching unitless numbers is bad math.

Why? Because it doesn't give the results you want?

Can you show an actual error with the math and correct it? Or just complain about it.

Jesus christ! Way to twist the figures to give an answer you want or what?

If 75% of the people arrested for violent crime are male, it means just that, men are 3 times more likely to be violent and get arrested than women.

Your analysis is like saying if there was one person in prison who identifies as a dog who got arrested for biting a postman, ergo 100% of canine identifiers were violent and are statistically therefore the most dangerous of the prison population.

Spacey’s right get out more, as a person who used to go out when I was younger, in the pubs and clubs of Britain I had zero worries about getting into fights with women, I was never attacked or threatened once by a woman, all the altercations I got into were with men, every last one.

Jesus christ! Way to twist the figures to give an answer you want or what?

You mean what you and cowgirl are doing, while entirely ignoring what the figures actually show?

If 75% of the people arrested for violent crime are male, it means just that, men are 3 times more likely to be violent and get arrested than women.

FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION!!!
This is NOT representative of the population in prisons.

This is not difficult to comprehend.

Do you understand the difference between the general population and the prison population?

Your analysis is like saying if there was one person in prison who identifies as a dog who got arrested for biting a postman, ergo 100% of canine identifiers were violent and are statistically therefore the most dangerous of the prison population.

Not quite.
That would mean those who identify as dogs are more likely to be violent than those who don't.

in the pubs and clubs of Britain I had zero worries

Are they your fancy names for prisons? If not, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Again, the issue is specifically focusing on PRISONERS, not the general population.

Would you happily spend a few days in a women's prison and have zero worries? Think you would never get into any altercations?

Again, this is not hard to understand.

You again are purposefully missing the forest for the trees, the reason those people are in prison is because they were once in the general population, therefore that is where the relevance lies, men commit more violent crimes per capita than women, you jumping through mathematical hoops on a small part of the general population (those in prison) is not going to change that fact.

And in any case, violence by men towards either sex is liable to be more damaging, weapons aside because of their strength and size.
I read a report that in domestic violence statistics, men suffer up to 40% of them, but that percentage drops alarmingly in those that need hospital treatment.

I don't know of anywhere you can spend a few days without any worries. Can you imagine... I'm going to move into a 24hr Walmart for a week, no way I could get into an altercation there!

Anyway, if Jura spent a few days in a high security women's prison, they might fight over him. Women in prison larp family units, with some women taking on the dad role. The lucky little family would have a real dad.

If 75% of the people arrested for violent crime are male, it means just that, men are 3 times more likely to be violent and get arrested than women.

And this, of course, ignores the level of violence.  A "violent crime" spans everything from nailing someone to the floor and drilling holes in their knees to slapping someone in McDonalds.  Guess which one is more likely to have been perpetrated by a male?

In the UK 92% of murders are committed by men, so that might give you an idea.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on April 28, 2024, 08:10:26 AM

I brought up that 75% of people arrested for violent crime are men, because it shows that men are more violent than women. You think that a smaller number of women arrested for violent crimes somehow means women are more violent. It's weird!

And this just shows the hypocrisy of your claim.

This 75% needs to be contrasted with another number.
With the ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION being ~50% male, this shows that men are overrepresented in those arrested for violent crimes, relative to the ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION, which would show that for the ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION, males are more violent.
It means if you were to select a random male from the ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION and a random female from the ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION then the male would be 1.5 times as likely than the female to have been convicted of a violent crime.

But again, prisoners are not representative of the human population.

What you need to compare it to is the prison population.

Even with the low estimate of 90% of the PRISON POPULATION being male, this means women are over represented in those arrested for violent crimes, relative to the PRISON POPULATION!

The 75% figure shows that males HUMANS are more violent than female HUMANS, but it also shows female PRISONERS are more violent than male PRISONERS.
That if you were to select a random male PRISONER and a random female PRISONER, the female prisoner would be 3 times as likely to have been convicted for a violent crime.

Understand the difference yet?

So again, how does men making up 90% of the prison population yet only 75% of those convicted for violent crimes mean male PRISONERS are more violent?

Again, the only way such a stat could support you is if males made up more than 90% of those convicted for violent crimes. But they don't. They make up much less than 90%. They only make up 25%.

The other way of putting it is that female prisoners only make up 10% of the prison population, yet make up 25% of those convicted of violent crimes.
Again, this shows female PRISONERS are massively overrepresented in those arrested for violent crimes.
Again, this shows female PRISONERS are more violent.

Are you trying to show male PRISONERS are more violent than female PRISONERS, or just that in general, entirely ignoring that prisons are not representative of the population as a whole that male HUMANS are more violent than female HUMANS? i.e. something entirely pointless to the discussion.

But again, prisoners are not representative of the human population.

What you need to compare it to is the prison population.

i agree
but back tracking to when you comparing % against %.
if there's a larger male subset and a smaller female subset

But if you would like an example using that, then lets just group together g, k, l and m as violent and the others as non violent, and again use the 90% and 75%.
That means of the total prison population of 144517 people, 130065 are males, leaving 14452 as females. And of the 58640 convicted for violent offences, 43980 would be male, leaving 14660 to be female. (Yes, I know this already shows an issue, I'll get to that later). That means that 43980 out of 130 065 male inmates, or 34% of male inmates are convicted for a violent crime; while 14660 out of 14 452 or 101% of female inmates are in for violent crimes. So if you pick a random female they have a 101% chance to be a violent offender while a random male has a 34% chance.

but then

when getting into it

there's a population qty and a population %.


if there are 100prisoners
90are male
10femlae

75% of the males are violent= 68males
100%female are violent = 10female.

100% > 75%
68units > 10units

and still missing that fantastic bellcurve against bellcurve:
at what physical strength comparison do we see in the 68units vs the 10units?
do we say that these 10units are committing crimes against the males?
are they committing crimes against other females?
are they committing crimes using force multipliers - cars/ guns? - that tehy woudln't or otherwise have in prison?
are we comparing the overall averages taht males are 15% bigger than females?


and i may have missed it, but is this regarding the ability to prevent oneself from being raped?
becuase raping is also gang related.
68>10 means that 6 on 1 situations can happen.




the generic use of the stat is overly generic and un usable in this context

You again are purposefully missing the forest for the trees

No, I'm not.
I'm pointing out what you keep missing.

Your argument is based upon men being overrepresented, but if you limit it to the prison population, they are not. They are underrepresented.

The issue is not if males are more violent than females in general.
It is if male PRISONERS are more violent than female PRISONERS.

That means the population you compare it to is not the general population, which is roughly 50% male, but the prison population which according to cowgirl is over 90% male.

men commit more violent crimes per capita than women

And men are sent to prison for more crimes per capita than women.

So the question is how violent are the male and female prison populations, not the general population.

And in any case, violence by men towards either sex is liable to be more damaging, weapons aside because of their strength and size.

And again, this is the general population. When you take a subset that has committed crimes that is not necessarily going to be representative.

there's a population qty and a population %.

And when you are asking which is more likely to be violent, you would use %, not number.

100% > 75%
68units > 10units

And which is more important?
That 100% of that group are violent, so that group is more violent; or that that group is smaller?

How does that group being smaller make them less violent? Make them need protecting from the group less likely to be violent?

at what physical strength comparison do we see in the 68units vs the 10units?

Do you have a study on the strength of female prisoners vs male prisoners?

are we comparing the overall averages taht males are 15% bigger than females?

Is that for the general population or the prison population?

and i may have missed it, but is this regarding the ability to prevent oneself from being raped?

Not just raped, other crimes as well.

becuase raping is also gang related.

And gangs wouldn't need to be entirely male or entirely female.

the generic use of the stat is overly generic and un usable in this context

Unusable in the sense that it cannot be used to show either way, so it was wrong for Cowgirl to bring up those stats to claim male prisoners are more violent? Or just unusable to show something that goes against popular opinion?

Irrelevant who brought up the stats?

The stats are irrelevant inthemselves as theres nothing compareable or corolation to be drawn.

We were generically talking about men raping women in a mixed ssx prison so the violentness of the female pop is irrelevant.

The ability to be raped still applies to the size advantage of male over female.

And the quantity of the population still puts the females at a lower population regardless of %of propencity (sp?) to be violent.

It
Is
Irreelevant.

We were generically talking about men raping women in a mixed ssx prison so the violentness of the female pop is irrelevant.

Because you only seem to want to focus on that, ignoring men raping men, women raping women and women raping men.

Why do you care specifically about men raping women, and not the more general prisoners raping prisoners, which as a reminder, seems to be more prevalent in female facilities.

The ability to be raped still applies to the size advantage of male over female.

Which as we have already covered is a bell curve with massive overlap.

And the quantity of the population still puts the females at a lower population

Which doesn't mean they need to be protected.

It
Is
Irreelevant.

Tell that to cowgirl and jura.

So let me get this straight, Jacky you accept that most violent crimes are committed by men, that the consequence is that society removes them from the general population and imprisons them.

In the UK prison population, the top three categories for incarceration are violence against a person, sexual offenses, and drugs in that order.
Women who comprise 3.9% of prisoners are mostly arrested for theft from shops, their sentences mostly (41%) are for up to 3 months, only 7% of that 3.9% are for 4 years or more, whereas for men it’s 13% of the remaining 96.1%, a bigger percentage of a much larger number in the category where the more violent prisoners would fall.

But, for all that it’s the men who would have to worry should the world go Jacky mental and integrate prisons. If we just take sexual offenders at 20% of the prison population that is over 16,000 that most of these are men is apparent because the total for women in the UK is less than 4,000, but integration would be safe? Like I say mental. 

I notice you have given up on the 75% stat. Is it because you have run of dishonest BS you can use to misrepresent it?

So let me get this straight, Jacky you accept that most violent crimes are committed by men, that the consequence is that society removes them from the general population and imprisons them.

I accept that the stats show men are more likely to be violent which results in them being more likely to imprisoned for that violence.
However, this results in a skewed distribution where prisoners are more likely to be violent than a person from the general population.
This applies to both men and women.
This results in women making up a smaller portion of the prison population, but does not necessarily mean the female prisoners are less violent than male prisoners.

In the UK prison population, the top three categories for incarceration are violence against a person, sexual offenses, and drugs in that order.

Yet you don't provide any stats on the breakdown of these.

Women who comprise 3.9% of prisoners are mostly arrested for theft from shops, their sentences mostly (41%) are for up to 3 months, only 7% of that 3.9% are for 4 years or more, whereas for men it’s 13% of the remaining 96.1%, a bigger percentage of a much larger number in the category where the more violent prisoners would fall.

Yes, it is well established that females typically receive less harsh punishments for the same crimes.
But this says nothing about how violent they are.

But, for all that it’s the men who would have to worry should the world go Jacky mental and integrate prisons.

No, currently, they already do have to worry.
And people like you don't seem to care at all, instead only wanting to protect females.

most of these are men

Tells you nothing about if men or women are more likely to be that category, if a man or a woman is more likely to be a threat.
All it tells you is that there are more men.

Like I say mental. 

This results in women making up a smaller portion of the prison population, but does not necessarily mean the female prisoners are less violent than male prisoners.

The sentencing and length of time given above would suggest so.

In the UK prison population, the top three categories for incarceration are violence against a person, sexual offenses, and drugs in that order.

Yet you don't provide any stats on the breakdown of these.

Well they didn’t provide any, see https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/662943d4b0ace32985a7e7fe/OMSQ_Q4_2023.pdf
The only part that stipulates male/female is for indeterminate judgements, those who are held for public protection or extended life sentences.
“On 31 March 2024, there were 8,526 (8,181 male; 345 female) ‘unreleased’ prisoners serving indeterminate sentences (Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) and life sentences).”
These are liable to be the most dangerous and women account for 4%, inline with their prison numbers, but again shows a majority of those considered dangerous to be men.

I mean I see you wriggling on this hook, but no one here is saying women can’t be dangerous or are not violent in some cases and would be quite happy to spend a night in a cell with any of the 345 women above, but if it came to a lucky dip between them and one of the 8,526 men I know which barrel I would dip.

As for intimating that we only care about women, that’s your fantasy prison world we are arguing against. As you seem to be implying that it would be no less safe for women to be incarcerated with statistically stronger and more violent prisoners some of whom predate their gender over their own, based on dubious math’s and your prejudice against women.   

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 29, 2024, 04:41:42 PM

We were generically talking about men raping women in a mixed ssx prison so the violentness of the female pop is irrelevant.

Because you only seem to want to focus on that, ignoring men raping men, women raping women and women raping men.

Why do you care specifically about men raping women, and not the more general prisoners raping prisoners, which as a reminder, seems to be more prevalent in female facilities.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 29, 2024, 04:41:42 PM

The ability to be raped still applies to the size advantage of male over female.

Which as we have already covered is a bell curve with massive overlap.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 29, 2024, 04:41:42 PM

And the quantity of the population still puts the females at a lower population

Which doesn't mean they need to be protected.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 29, 2024, 04:41:42 PM

It
Is
Irreelevant.

Tell that to cowgirl and jura.

Its very hard to rape when you lack a penetrating device.
Side note, were the stats on women being raped including prison guards?



The bell curve goes to the TORAL pop which we alrsady agreed is irrelevant.



Dinky males and females all need protection from being raped.




Jura
Space
You are irrelevant.

Like I say mental.

You mean like you are.

The sentencing and length of time given above would suggest so.

No, it doesn't.

These are liable to be the most dangerous and women account for 4%, inline with their prison numbers, but again shows a majority of those considered dangerous to be men.

And again shows that men are not more likely to be dangerous. If male prisoners were more dangerous, you would expect men to be over represented.

I mean I see you wriggling on this hook

Says the one needing to twist stats that showed female prisoners were overrepresented?

no one here is saying women can’t be dangerous or are not violent in some cases and would be quite happy to spend a night in a cell with any of the 345 women above, but if it came to a lucky dip between them and one of the 8,526 men I know which barrel I would dip.

No, instead they are just acting like men are the dangerous ones and women need to be protected from the men.

As for intimating that we only care about women, that’s your fantasy prison world we are arguing against. As you seem to be implying that it would be no less safe for women to be incarcerated with statistically stronger and more violent prisoners some of whom predate their gender over their own, based on dubious math’s and your prejudice against women.

It isn't just this non-sexist fantasy you are arguing against, it is also this sexist reality you are supporting. A reality in which people you like seem to believe that female prisoners need protecting but don't seem to give a damn about the male prisoners, while ignoring stats about actual violence in prisoners.

Its very hard to rape when you lack a penetrating device.

So are you the kind of low life that believes a woman forcing a man to have sex with them isn't rape?

Side note, were the stats on women being raped including prison guards?

No, they were separate.

According to the study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3793850/) :
Inmate on inmate sexual victimisation is 4.3% for males and 21.3% for females.
Staff on inmate sexual victimisation is 7.6% for men and 7.7% for females, with the error range for females entirely encompassing the range for males.

So staff sexually victimise inmates at equal rates, but female prisoners victimise other prisoners at a much higher rate than male prisoners.

For physical victimisation, the situation is different.
Inmate on inmate physical victimisation is 20.7% for both males and females (but with different error ranges, with the female error estimate being broader)
Staff on inmate physical victimisation 25.2% for males and 8.3% for females.

So for both sexual and physical victimisation males are more likely to suffer it at the hands of the guards than other inmates.
So for both sexual and physical victimisation females are more likely to suffer it at the hands of other inmates than the guards.

Has that study been replicated?

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 30, 2024, 04:47:02 AM

Its very hard to rape when you lack a penetrating device.

So are you the kind of low life that believes a woman forcing a man to have sex with them isn't rape?

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 30, 2024, 04:47:02 AM

Side note, were the stats on women being raped including prison guards?

No, they were separate.

According to the study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3793850/) :
Inmate on inmate sexual victimisation is 4.3% for males and 21.3% for females.
Staff on inmate sexual victimisation is 7.6% for men and 7.7% for females, with the error range for females entirely encompassing the range for males.

So staff sexually victimise inmates at equal rates, but female prisoners victimise other prisoners at a much higher rate than male prisoners.

For physical victimisation, the situation is different.
Inmate on inmate physical victimisation is 20.7% for both males and females (but with different error ranges, with the female error estimate being broader)
Staff on inmate physical victimisation 25.2% for males and 8.3% for females.

So for both sexual and physical victimisation males are more likely to suffer it at the hands of the guards than other inmates.
So for both sexual and physical victimisation females are more likely to suffer it at the hands of other inmates than the guards.

Women who rape shouldnt get punished

?

what an absurd extrapolatiin.
I did not hint that.
My point was that raping a man is a much harder thing for a woman to pull off given the llogistics of sex.

% vs #

But still
% of vs magnitude.
Given we alrwady agree we mot looking at 50%ofglobale pop but instead the pop in prison and there is a larager pool of men in prison than women, then simply using a % will not yield any relevant data because once you mix the populstions the %pop changes.


It
Is
Irrelevant

Jacky you are going to have to succinctly outline how your proposal to dump the 4% of women offenders in to mixed prisons helps the men you seem to think we want hurt.

While you are at it could you explain to me how you come to the conclusion that women present a comparable level of risk in a prison where the indictable offence groups (UK) with the highest proportion of women prosecuted were fraud offences (33% female) and theft offences (21% female), whilst the offence groups with the highest proportion of men prosecuted were sexual offences (98% male) and possession of weapons (93% male).

I get where you are going with the 75% argument you think we have been speared with, but you neglect all the concerns and problems with the conclusion that the remaining 25% are done by exclusively women and not a combination, and the severity of that violence for which I cannot find a breakdown but can run the gamut from slaps and pushes to homicidal assault.

Quote from: Unconvinced on February 29, 2024, 09:53:31 PM

Not when you have such a large performance gap between what the top male and female athletes can achieve.

That performance gap just relates to how many divisions you have, and what the boundaries are.

No shit, Sherlock.  So how about an example of how many divisions you suggest for just one event in one competition?   Maybe try the one I repeatedly asked about, the Olympic 100m sprint.  Arguably the simplest of all sports- just run really fast.

Quote from: Unconvinced on February 29, 2024, 09:53:31 PM

No, that's what YOU complain about. I'm OK with it, to account for the substantial differences in male and female physiology.

You mean you are OK with blatant sexism.

Again, it isn't a case of male and female physiology. It is physiology of an individual, which on average typically results in greater athletic performance for males.
Again, for it to really be male vs female physiology, you need all males to be better than all females.

I know that’s what you think.  You don’t need to keep repeating it.  But you told me that when I’m complaining about your nonsensical idea, I’m “really” complaining about the system as it is now.  I am not.  Deal with the fucking arguments I make.

Quote from: Unconvinced on February 29, 2024, 09:53:31 PM

We've been talking about YOUR PROPOSAL to introduce lower ability divisions of existing events, so no.  No multiple fucking options.

So you want to focus on one option, rather than all.
From the start, the issue was the sexism. But considering sexists people like you are so desperate to get lower ranked athletes into a "prestigious" competition, then separate divisions based upon ability would be the answer.

Yes.  You claim to have better system, so you should be able to describe a system coherently that stands up to scrutiny. 

For example, when I question how the divisions that YOU PROPOSE should work in practice, don’t then tell me that maybe there shouldn’t be any divisions at all.  As you have so many times.

Repeatedly calling me sexist does not address my argument. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on February 29, 2024, 09:53:31 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 29, 2024, 01:17:22 PM

Or you can make different divisions, based upon non sexist terms, And then people would be eligible for at least one division, and getting too good for their current one and moving up to the next, they are still eligible for it, even if they don't have a chance of winning.

So now the UK needs to send 218 athletes just to compete in the dozens of new Olympic 100m sprint events for every ability level just to fit in the fastest woman?

No.
Just like they don't for boxing and weight lifting.

The Olympics would be several divisions where the best from those divisions get to compete.
Yes, there will be people who are better than those in lower divisions that are excluded, just like now. The difference is they wont be excluded on the basis of sex.

No? So what the hell did you mean by the bit I was replying to, pasted back in above?

But no, it’s not the same at all.  They send the best boxers and weight lifters they can for each class.  The featherweight qualifies by beating all the other featherweights and gets the honour of representing their country.  No boxer is excluded for winning too many fights, because that would be nonsense.

But that’s exactly the kind of nonsense you’d get introducing lower ability divisions in major tournaments.  Win too many matches, races, games etc. and miss the chance to represent your country.  The athletes would no longer just try to be as good as they can, but moderate their performance to try and hit the exact arbitrary window that someone needs to set.  Similar things would happen at lower level events.

And thus the entire nature of competitive sports is wrecked.

Quote from: Unconvinced on February 29, 2024, 09:53:31 PM

Wrong.

Not wrong.
You have repeatedly complained about it.
Here is one example:

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 23, 2023, 05:02:53 PM

In your total disaster of an idea, you want to split each event into multiple ability tiers.  So countries no longer just send their best for each event, but a mixture of the best, the quite good, the average, the mediocre…

You are acting like my idea is a disaster because they aren't just sending the best, instead they are also sending lower tiers including the mediocre.
But to pretend this isn't the case now, you use dishonest sexist BS, with a massive double standard, where such different divisions would be the same event, but a male and female division would be different events, so you can dishonestly pretend that they currently send the best and only the best.

LOL.

Had to search back a bit to cherry pick a quote where I didn’t quite explain it properly, didn’t you? Deliberately ignoring the dozens of times since when I’ve gone into much more detail.  Which I have again above.

I haven’t even gotten round to team sports before, which would be an even bigger clusterfuck. 

How exactly do you pick and train a lower ability national football team?  There’s no simple metric to rate an individual player’s ability.  Normally it’s the managers job to put a team together based on individual talent and their ability to play well together.  It’s entirely based on the manager’s judgement, but the goal is simple- put the best team together that they can.

How the hell are managers supposed to put together a team that’s intentionally not too good while still trying to win matches?  Who decides if they are breaking the rules by fielding a better than they should?  What criteria do they use to determine that? How would fans feel about their star players being axed because they played too well?

The fact that these are even relevant questions shows how fundamentally different your ridiculous idea is.  None of the those issues apply to sports now, which shows I am not using a double standard.  I can pull your stupid idea apart for being stupid without even mentioning sex, which shows that I don’t use sexist BS.

The only dishonesty here is yours, in trying to my claim argument is something that it isn’t.   I have NEVER pretended that the best women are anything but the best of the women.  I’ve explained my position so many times there’s no excuse for this pathetic lie.   Who the fuck do you think you’re fooling anyway?  I know what my argument is and no one else cares about our crappy conversation.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 30, 2024, 02:39:05 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 30, 2024, 04:47:02 AM

Its very hard to rape when you lack a penetrating device.

So are you the kind of low life that believes a woman forcing a man to have sex with them isn't rape?

what an absurd extrapolatiin.

There is nothing absurd about it at all.
You said it is very hard to rape when you lack a penetrating device.
This has the quite obvious implication that you need such a device to penetrate someone to rape them, and that if you don't penetrate them it isn't rape.

My point was that raping a man is a much harder thing for a woman to pull off given the llogistics of sex.

Then maybe you should have said that, and explain how.

Given we alrwady agree we mot looking at 50%ofglobale pop but instead the pop in prison and there is a larager pool of men in prison than women, then simply using a % will not yield any relevant data because once you mix the populstions the %pop changes.

Using a % will yield relevant data.
It reveals what type are the most likely to be violent. What type most likely needs to be isolated from other prisoners for their protection.

Jacky you are going to have to succinctly outline how your proposal to dump the 4% of women offenders in to mixed prisons helps the men you seem to think we want hurt.

Segregate based upon violence of offence and violence during prison time.
Have it non-private or otherwise prohibit profit.
Have guards go through proper training, with proper evaluation to become a guard.
Have the prisoners protected from each other by the guards.

While you are at it could you explain to me how you come to the conclusion that women present a comparable level of risk in a prison where the indictable offence groups (UK) with the highest proportion of women prosecuted were fraud offences (33% female) and theft offences (21% female), whilst the offence groups with the highest proportion of men prosecuted were sexual offences (98% male) and possession of weapons (93% male).

I was using the numbers provided by space cowgirl, which showed 75% of those imprisoned for violent crimes were men while they made up 90% of the prison population.
In addition to that, there is the study showing comparable rates of physical victimisation by female and male inmates.

As for the numbers you are providing, these are for convictions, not prison.
For example, if you read directly prior to what you quoted:
"TV licence evasion was the most common offence for which women were convicted in 2019. 74% of those convicted for TV licence evasion were female and this offence accounted for 30% of all female convictions."
Are those convicted for TV licence evasion sent to prison?
We also likewise see differences in the graph above it which shows how useless your numbers are:

Women make up 27% of convictions, but only 5% of the prison population.

And further down we get:
"for the indictable offences for which the highest number of female offenders were sentenced in 2019, including theft from shops and fraud by misrepresentation, the proportion of those who were sentenced to immediate custody was lower for female offenders than for males."
Showing again that females are less likely to be sentenced.

But that shouldn't really be surprising given the context of the report, specifically in relation to the MoJ’s Female Offender Strategy, which wants to reduce the number of prison in the criminal justice system.
Even though men make up a much larger portion they don't seem to care about them.

I get where you are going with the 75% argument you think we have been speared with, but you neglect all the concerns and problems with the conclusion that the remaining 25% are done by exclusively women and not a combination, and the severity of that violence for which I cannot find a breakdown but can run the gamut from slaps and pushes to homicidal assault.

That makes no sense at all.
The statement provided was "Men make up about 75% of people imprisoned for violent crimes." That means the remaining 25% are not men.

And my main objection to that was the entirely incorrect and indefensible use of that statistic to claim that male prisoners are more violent.

No shit, Sherlock.  So how about an example of how many divisions you suggest for just one event in one competition?

Again, my objection is to the sexist divisions.
I don't mind how many performance based divisions there are.

I know that’s what you think.

It isn't merely what I think, it is based upon what you have said.

If you want to account for differences in physiology without being sexist, you do it based upon the individual, not their sex.
Doing it based upon their sex, unless it is a case of sex actually being able to correctly divide so all males fall into the "male" category and all females would fall into the "female" category, is nothing more than sexism.
So if you want it to be that women aren't fast enough to compete with men, you need it to be all men being faster.

But you told me that when I’m complaining about your nonsensical idea, I’m “really” complaining about the system as it is now.

No, I point out that these issues you are complaining about already exist in the current system which you ignore because you are happy with that sexism.

Yes.  You claim to have better system, so you should be able to describe a system coherently that stands up to scrutiny.

No, I claim removing the discrimination based upon sex is inherently a better system due to removing that sexism.

So what the hell did you mean by the bit I was replying to, pasted back in above?

I mean what I said.
If you want the divisions you can have multiple divisions and send in the best for that division, while those in that division that are not the best are excluded.

But no, it’s not the same at all.  They send the best boxers and weight lifters they can for each class.

As they would with this.
Class vs division is just semantics.

And hiding behind weight, being used as a proxy for ability, doesn't help you either.
If the featherweight wants to get stronger, by building more muscle mass, they get excluded.

The athletes would no longer just try to be as good as they can, but moderate their performance to try and hit the exact arbitrary window that someone needs to set.

Yes, as they already do in boxing.
This shouldn't be surprising.

With boxing, if they just cared about being as good as they can be, they wouldn't care about weight. But instead, they train and do whatever they can to remain just below the entirely arbitrary threshold.

So if this wrecks the entire nature of competitive sport, then it is already wrecked.

Had to search back a bit to cherry pick a quote where I didn’t quite explain it properly, didn’t you?

No, I just decided to go for one near the start of the thread, to avoid issues of you claiming it is out of context.
You then try to reframe it in a way where you can pretend you aren't objecting to that so you can pretend that sending women and finding the best woman, even though they aren't the best overall is fine.

I haven’t even gotten round to team sports before, which would be an even bigger clusterfuck.

So why not stick to individual sports until that is settled?

 
I can pull your stupid idea apart for being stupid without even mentioning sex, which shows that I don’t use sexist BS.

Including against the simple one where there are no divisions at all? Where the objection then is that people of a particular sex wont be able to compete?
Where the divisions would only be necessary to keep those people of a particular sex being able to compete?

So how about that, entirely forget about the divisions for now, which is really just a way to appease people like you, and instead try arguing against just removing divisions entirely so there is just the event and you find the best. Try arguing against that without mentioning sex or even implicitly linking to it.
What is wrong with a such a system?

For example, at the olympics, for running, there is a 100 m sprint, a 200 m sprint, a 400 m sprint, a 50 km marathon and so on; as well as high jump, pole vault, boxing, long jump, discus, shot put, weightlifting, etc.
Where each event (e.g. the 100 m sprint) is open to all, without division.
And then you find the best athlete at that event. (And in the case of events where the athletes make a number, also the 2nd and 3rd. For knockout events, just the first.)

I have NEVER pretended that the best women are anything but the best of the women.

Which is just continuing with the sexism.
They key part is that they are not the best athlete, so complaining about not having the best compete applies to the current system.

You cannot object to countries sending in the "mediocre" or complaining about people being excluded for being too good or better athletes not being able to go while worse athletes can go to represent their country.

Absurd?

Nah guy
It is implicitly implied that if requiring being pentrated means it is difficult to rape.
Which is why people thinknit odd when a female teacher rapes a student, given the deinifiton of the offense it is explotation and less the peneteation associated with a malw teacher who rapes.

%

% and context absolutley matter.
Because bell curves
Taking that men are 15%outperforming women you claim is irrelevant because some women excell over some men
But aome women beijg more violent than other women doesnt cross % against some women  being more strong than some men.
You cant do thst with %.

No, the charts aren’t useless, they point to the difference in the type of crimes men and women commit, and I did read it.
The arrests to convictions to prison population suggests that women get 15 % arrests which leads to 26% prosecution and 27% convictions but only 5% to jail is indicative of the severity of the crimes, fiddling your TV license isn’t indictable, nor should it be, Violence, sexual offenses and possession of weapons are a different league.
So a greater amount of women are prosecuted set against their arrest rate but less end up in prison because of the type of crime.

I notice that you didn’t answer the question of why you think women are in less danger if jailed with men considering that men’s top crimes are violence against a person and sexual offenses (98% of those convicted for that offense), it may well be that a higher proportion of the women you meet in prison are of a violent bent but when the section that commit the crimes that threaten you, outnumber you to the extent they would, women would be in greater danger just by the weight of numbers.

I can't be arsed reading through his quote heavy bullshit, but is wako jacko advocating for mixed sex prisons?   

It is implicitly implied that if requiring being pentrated means it is difficult to rape.

Being raped does not require being penetrated, no matter how much some people want to twist the definition to pretend it does. At least if you a decent human being.

Do you think it needs it?

% and context absolutley matter.
Because bell curves
Taking that men are 15%outperforming women you claim is irrelevant because some women excell over some men
But aome women beijg more violent than other women doesnt cross % against some women  being more strong than some men.
You cant do thst with %.

Care to try that again, but more clearly?
Because I have no idea what you are saying.

No, the charts aren’t useless, they point to the difference in the type of crimes men and women commit, and I did read it.

The chart you are providing is useless for determining if female prisoners are more violent.

The issue is female prisoners, not females who are arrested or convicted.
So the females that get convicted and fined are not relevant to the discussion.
So it is useless for determining the issue at hand.

I notice that you didn’t answer the question of why you think women are in less danger if jailed with men

It isn't about being jailed with men or women.
It is about the likelihood of those you are jailed with being violent.
Housing less violent inmates together makes them safer than being housed with more violent inmates.

But again, that is not the question to be asking.
The question is how are they safer by excluding all the men, and how is that fair on the men that aren't isolated from the more violent offenders.

considering that men’s top crimes are violence against a person and sexual offenses (98% of those convicted for that offense)

And yet again you blatantly misrepresent that stats.
No where in that report does it indicate these are the top crimes for men. Instead it focuses on the portion of men prosecuted for that.
You don't have any numbers there for what portion of men prosecuted (or even better convicted) are done so for these types of offences.

And you dishonestly pick the 2 you want to focus on, and only give the high number.
What you have is a crime with the greatest portion being men being prosecuted, with sexual offences at 98%. The second most is possession of weapons at 93%, then robbery and drug offences at a tied 92%, then public order offenses at 89%, then misc. crimes against society at 87%, then criminal damage and arson at 86%, and only then in 8th place (5th last) do you get to violence against the person at 84%.
Yet you happily group together violence against the person and sexual offences and just report the 98%. I wonder why?

Why can't you present the stats honestly?
Is it because if you did it wouldn't help make your case?

Also, just note that - violence against the person is 84% male and 16% female, yet females only make up less than 5% of the prison population.
And if we apply the stats of "Assault of an emergency worker" custody rate to this, we end up with 93% men and 7% women; reducing the overrepresentation of women, but it is still greater than the portion of the prison population.

We can even see more falsehoods being portrayed by that representation when we look further into it, such as following the source back:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2019/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2019

We see in terms of arrests, the top crime for both males and females is violence against the person, making up 46% of females arrested and 39% of males arrested.
Sexual offences, the one you cling to to get that high 98% only makes up 1% and 5% respectively. So quite dishonest to suggest it is "men's top crime".

So why don't we follow it back even further?
To here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2019
If we filter to just get those that get "Total Immediate Custody" (i.e. prison), for Violence against the person we end up with 120396 males and 7402 females. That is 94% and 6%. Certainly not indicative of men being the majority. We can also further filter by offence. For example, for murder it is 94% males and 6% females. For attempted murder it is 93% male and 7% female. Conspiracy to murder is even worse for females, 76% male 24% female. Likewise manslaughter is 89% male and 11% female. Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm is 94% male and 6% female. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is 95% and 5%.

So that either matches the population quite well or has females being more represented.

Certainly doesn't indicate males are more violent.

it may well be that a higher proportion of the women you meet in prison are of a violent bent but when the section that commit the crimes that threaten you, outnumber you to the extent they would, women would be in greater danger just by the weight of numbers.

That presupposes that the men will gang up and kill the women.
But why?
Why wouldn't you have groups with men and women?
You could also say the same about race.
Restricting it to black or white, black people make up 9% and white people make up 91%.
Does that mean we need to segregate based upon race to prevent the white people ganging up on the black people?
Do we need to do it based upon age, to prevent old people getting ganged up on?
Do we need to do it based upon sexuality?

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 02, 2024, 08:45:42 AM

No shit, Sherlock.  So how about an example of how many divisions you suggest for just one event in one competition?

Again, my objection is to the sexist divisions.
I don't mind how many performance based divisions there are.

You proposed these performance based divisions, but can’t be fucked to put a single bit of thought into how they might work in reality?

If you can’t even explain your idea properly for a single simple example, you basically have nothing.  You certainly can’t claim it’s an improvement on the sports we have now.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 02, 2024, 08:45:42 AM

I know that’s what you think.

It isn't merely what I think, it is based upon what you have said.

If you want to account for differences in physiology without being sexist, you do it based upon the individual, not their sex.
Doing it based upon their sex, unless it is a case of sex actually being able to correctly divide so all males fall into the "male" category and all females would fall into the "female" category, is nothing more than sexism.
So if you want it to be that women aren't fast enough to compete with men, you need it to be all men being faster.

Haha.  Says the man who claims that “weight is a proxy for performance” in boxing. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 02, 2024, 08:45:42 AM

But you told me that when I’m complaining about your nonsensical idea, I’m “really” complaining about the system as it is now.

No, I point out that these issues you are complaining about already exist in the current system which you ignore because you are happy with that sexism.

You literally told me I’m “really” complaining about the system now.   I’ve explained how they are fundamentally different.  If you disagree, then debate the points I made like a normal honest person and stop telling me my argument is anything other than what I write.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 02, 2024, 08:45:42 AM

Yes.  You claim to have better system, so you should be able to describe a system coherently that stands up to scrutiny.

No, I claim removing the discrimination based upon sex is inherently a better system due to removing that sexism.

Spoken like a true ideologue.  Any system is only as good as how well it works in reality.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 02, 2024, 08:45:42 AM

So what the hell did you mean by the bit I was replying to, pasted back in above?

I mean what I said.
If you want the divisions you can have multiple divisions and send in the best for that division, while those in that division that are not the best are excluded.

You said that any athletes who were too good for a lower division could compete in the next level up.  Then apparently changed your mind. 

Hilarious that you’re telling me you mean what you said, though.  I acknowledge the things you say and don’t pretend you mean something else entirely.  Try it.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 02, 2024, 08:45:42 AM

But no, it’s not the same at all.  They send the best boxers and weight lifters they can for each class.

As they would with this.
Class vs division is just semantics.

And hiding behind weight, being used as a proxy for ability, doesn't help you either.
If the featherweight wants to get stronger, by building more muscle mass, they get excluded.

You are the one hiding behind “weight as a proxy for ability” to justify your ability divisions.  That’s your argument.

Boxers do change weight classes, and then compete at the same level in the new class.  There’s even a special title for boxers who manage get world champion in FOUR weight classes, a Quadruple Champion.  That’s not just competing, but beating everyone else in the new class- 3 times.  Hardly excluded are they?

Because weight is only one factor.  By far the most important factor is BEING A GOOD BOXER.

It’s not semantics, it’s how sports works.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 02, 2024, 08:45:42 AM

The athletes would no longer just try to be as good as they can, but moderate their performance to try and hit the exact arbitrary window that someone needs to set.

Yes, as they already do in boxing.
This shouldn't be surprising.

With boxing, if they just cared about being as good as they can be, they wouldn't care about weight. But instead, they train and do whatever they can to remain just below the entirely arbitrary threshold.

So if this wrecks the entire nature of competitive sport, then it is already wrecked.

Because boxing matches are settled in the ring, not on a set of scales.  The point is to win matches by being the better boxer.  Weight classes account for a general advantage for heavier boxers, to allow lighter people to compete.  Many people prefer the lighter weight classes anyway, because it’s more about speed and maneuvering than just slogging each other as hard as possible. 

Funny how you claim that accounting for physiological differences between men and women only works if every man is  better than every woman.  Yet you’re happy to claim than “weight is a proxy for ability” in boxing.  As if a pro boxer half your size wouldn’t kick your sorry arse.

Who has the double standard now?

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 02, 2024, 08:45:42 AM

Had to search back a bit to cherry pick a quote where I didn’t quite explain it properly, didn’t you?

No, I just decided to go for one near the start of the thread, to avoid issues of you claiming it is out of context.
You then try to reframe it in a way where you can pretend you aren't objecting to that so you can pretend that sending women and finding the best woman, even though they aren't the best overall is fine.

Wow.  So clarifying an argument equals “reframing” it now?  So you cherry pick a quote and decide that this is my entire argument, and nothing I can possibly say will make any difference? 

No.  Deal with with the arguments presented to you and stop saying  I’m pretending anything.  I am not.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 02, 2024, 08:45:42 AM

I haven’t even gotten round to team sports before, which would be an even bigger clusterfuck.

So why not stick to individual sports until that is settled?

That was my plan, but you can’t even acknowledge my basic point, and refuse to consider details for even the simplest event (see top of post). You aren’t trying to settle it.

Team sports highlight the problems even more.  So if you really can’t get my points for individual sports, then maybe this will help you understand what I mean? 

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 02, 2024, 08:45:42 AM

 
I can pull your stupid idea apart for being stupid without even mentioning sex, which shows that I don’t use sexist BS.

Including against the simple one where there are no divisions at all? Where the objection then is that people of a particular sex wont be able to compete?
Where the divisions would only be necessary to keep those people of a particular sex being able to compete?

So how about that, entirely forget about the divisions for now, which is really just a way to appease people like you, and instead try arguing against just removing divisions entirely so there is just the event and you find the best. Try arguing against that without mentioning sex or even implicitly linking to it.
What is wrong with a such a system?

For example, at the olympics, for running, there is a 100 m sprint, a 200 m sprint, a 400 m sprint, a 50 km marathon and so on; as well as high jump, pole vault, boxing, long jump, discus, shot put, weightlifting, etc.
Where each event (e.g. the 100 m sprint) is open to all, without division.
And then you find the best athlete at that event. (And in the case of events where the athletes make a number, also the 2nd and 3rd. For knockout events, just the first.)

We’ve argued specifically about your ability division nonsense for dozens of posts over months.  If you want to drop it for being the unworkable mess I’ve always said it was, then sure.  We can talk about something else.

But I’m not going to try to debate you trying to have all possible positions simultaneously.  This isn’t quantum physics.  Decide on one system to replace womens sports.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 02, 2024, 08:45:42 AM

I have NEVER pretended that the best women are anything but the best of the women.

Which is just continuing with the sexism.
They key part is that they are not the best athlete, so complaining about not having the best compete applies to the current system.

You cannot object to countries sending in the "mediocre" or complaining about people being excluded for being too good or better athletes not being able to go while worse athletes can go to represent their country.

Why do keep saying this? Stop telling me I can’t object to your shitty idea.  I can and do, for the reasons explained AGAIN in this post.