No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So how many cases of perverts using bathroom laws to tear apart the law and order of your fair city are there then?

www.adn.com...
Well, here's a man who wears dresses and claims he's a woman filing discrimination charges against the city's battered women's shelter because they didn't let him in.

We have a serious crime problem here presently. I'm not even joking on this, Anchorage has laid claim to the most violent, most crime riddled major city in America on a per capita basis this year. The media here is trying to downplay all but the worst crimes, the police are worthless enablers, and the mayor's office is absolutely corrupt and doing nothing about the crime. As a result, crimes like "Joe kiddie watcher was caught in the girls' room at Walmart whilst wearing a mumu and sporting a flowered clutch" don't even begin to make the news. All I have are anecdotes. Believe me, though, there is nowhere in the eastern US aside from perhaps that pit of hell, Camden, NJ that can directly compare to Anchorage. We're a city of opportunistic tweakers, predators, and filth on one side, good people who deserve good lives on the other. Laws which, even on a "statistically insignificant" level, make it easier for the predators to stalk their prey aren't helpful or good.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks

I have no idea
All I know is that it was important enough to include in the same article as the study touted by the op.
I never said the data is no good, nice try tho.

So that’s how you measure whether or not this study is BS? That the person reporting chose to show both sides of the argument?

Lmao.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
We cannot even see the study or the methodology. Saying “it’s nice that science is corroborating it” without reading the study is very unscientific.

It’s right there in the link in the OP.

link.springer.com...

That’s the abstract, not the study or methodology.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks

I have no idea
All I know is that it was important enough to include in the same article as the study touted by the op.
I never said the data is no good, nice try tho.

So that’s how you measure whether or not this study is BS? That the person reporting chose to show both sides of the argument?

Lmao.

Guess I missed where I made any measurements
Lmao

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
We cannot even see the study or the methodology. Saying “it’s nice that science is corroborating it” without reading the study is very unscientific.

It’s right there in the link in the OP.

link.springer.com...

That’s the abstract, not the study or methodology.

Click on Appendix: Placebo Matched Pairs Analysis. The methodology, data, and charts are all right there. A sample of part of it for everyone else that doesn’t want to actually read:

Similar to before, we assessed trends in crime rates between these localities. This way, it could be assessed whether trends in crime rates increased in clear GIPANDO localities and limited GIPANDO localities, as compared to their matched localities. The figure limits the timeframe to 12 months before and 12 months after the passage of the local GIPANDOs. A 12-month window was chosen because some localities in this analysis were asked to provide incidents within a two-year timeframe, so we restrict the plot to the timeframe common to all localities.

More at the link.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks

I have no idea
All I know is that it was important enough to include in the same article as the study touted by the op.
I never said the data is no good, nice try tho.

So that’s how you measure whether or not this study is BS? That the person reporting chose to show both sides of the argument?

Lmao.

Guess I missed where I made any measurements
Lmao

Yes, yes you did.

Lmao.

So lets break this down to its simplest form. If were born with a penis, you are a man. If you were born with a vagina, you are a woman. There's a mans bathroom, and a woman's bathroom for a reason. Instead of making 99% of the population even more uncomfortable using already awkward public bathrooms to please 1%, how about we don't. It's crazy how much has been forced on the majority just to please this small group of individuals who obviously have a few screws loose upstairs. I'm not against homosexuality at all, but what I am against is people making up words, genders, sexes, and rules simply because they can and disregarding what is truth and evident by just looking at nature. If you're a man who likes men, cool have fun, but when you sit here and deny the fact that you are the sex you are then force others to recognize your lie as truth or be attacked/labeled/made a mockery of by a mob, there is a serious problem there.

jesus christ. not that again

do like i do. stay in your house most of the time and use your own toilette.

a reply to: underwerks

An appendix contains supplementary material that is not an essential part of the text itself.

A few more examples to add to yours:

Unisex Changing Rooms Put Women at Danger of Sexual Assault, Data Reveals

Sexual Violence Reports in Target Spike After Transgender Bathroom Policy: Study

Bathroom Incidents

The threat to women and girls presented by transgender “bathroom bills”

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: underwerks

An appendix contains supplementary material that is not an essential part of the text itself.

And in this case, the data in question. Along with relevant charts.

a reply to: xxGPxx

Which public bathroom should this person go to?




How about this person?



And this person?

a reply to: kaylaluv

I can find some interesting pics too... But they won't be as pretty as yours...

Really want to go there???

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: kaylaluv

I can find some interesting pics too... But they won't be as pretty as yours...

Really want to go there???

I can find lots of pics of big, ugly, mannish-looking women - who were born women and identify as women. Are we going to stop all of them and check their panties, just to make sure?

a reply to: kaylaluv

Go read the first few sentences of my post and that should answer the question. Born with penis = men's bathroom/ Born with vagina = women's bathroom. Not rocket science

a reply to: underwerks

If you would be so kind as to point them out?

a reply to: xxGPxx

Which ones in the pics have penises and which ones have vaginas? Can you tell by looking at them?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: xxGPxx

Which ones in the pics have penises and which ones have vaginas? Can you tell by looking at them?

No, but a very basic and scientific DNA test can tell you immediately which one os female and which one is male, per genetics, whereas there is no such scientific test to say which one *thinks* they are or "identifies as" something other than what they were genetically born with.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Being able to identify a tranny was never part of my argument, but good try though

Also we're not gonna pretend that the majority of trans people have undergone complete transformations, because that's definitely not the case

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So we’re gonna do dna tests on everyone before they go to the bathroom?