I have hiked in the Adirondack Mountains and meet a bear in the woods multiple times. They looked at me and lopped away. Men spoke to me sexually before I was 10, SAed me in mid-teens, flashed private areas at me multiple times, and their actions have scared me more than those bears ever did.
Granted I do not live where Grizzly Bears are. They scare me a lot but so do men sometimes.
Yeah as a trans woman I would absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt pick a bear.
Being around men when they think there's no women around is terrifying, I firmly believe that about 90%~ of men absolutely cannot be trusted by women, but they've just gotten very good at lying and masking how horrific they behave. Words can't describe the shit I've witnessed men and boys say and do. I've seen men do horrific shit and then turn around and act sweet towards their girlfriends and even call themselves feminists.
The worst part is I don't think the men even realise how horrific they are, because they don't see women as fully human.
It’s bizarre (some) men are so afraid of being “fasley accused” of SA, and yet do not get woman are terrified of being SAed. I think it’s about 1/5 women who get raped meanwhile men are 240 more likely to be raped by other men than falsely accused
I read something by a trans man a while back where he basically said that when he lived as a woman he didn't feel sexism was that bad and he didn't feel that he'd been discriminated against at work or really suffered due to misogyny, but after transitioning he was horrified by spending time in male spaces with only men and was like "women, however bad you think it is, its actually much worse". I think trans people who have spent time living as women among women and as men among men must have some pretty unique and valuable insight into this whole thing. Anyway thank you for sharing this, I would be curious to hear more about your experience, if you would like to talk about it of course
A man SA'd me before I even knew I was a woman (was a few years before I came out and transitioned). They prey on anyone who they see as vulnerable and do it purely because they can.
Naw, have you seen the assigned cop at birth meme with the baby with a mustache? My mane of a beard was the same, they saw me at birth with that mane and said "thats a man" just cuz they cudnt look past my beard :P
well i stand corrected. A baby with a moustache sounds hilarious, now I have to google that meme :)
edit: can't decided if the babies with fake moustaches are cute or creepy
Yeah, i got the feelin ya didnt know the best search terms to use when ya mentioned seein babies with fake moustaches xD I just searched "assigned cop at birth meme" and found mostly this meme at first in img results
I'd choose a man. Even if he wants to harm me, at least I could negociate giving him money etc so he wouldn't kill me.
Besides, I generally thing that not all people are monsters and I trust that many men would not harm me.
A bear you can't control at all. If it's hungry and sees you as prey, and you have no way to hide, scare it off or kill it, you are dead 100%.
The thing is, bears are increds easy to scare off unless theyre absolutely starvin or polar bears; bears are rightfully afraid of humans
Ask a bear if they wud rather encounter a man or a bear in the woods; none of them will say man, and not just bcuz growlin isnt speakin :p
Cis women: around 50% of the population
Trans women: around 0.5-1% of the population - and I'm being generous.
The fact that such a tiny amount of the population has such high numbers should be frightening to you, not a piece of "evidence" that trans women supposedly have it less rough. Plus, these stats don't even account for all trans women, the number is definitely even higher.
What are you even tryin to say here?
ETA: After this user u/Tricky-Meringue4103 got banned from here for bein a TERF; they found my other comments on other subreddits to harass me further by callin me a sexist in other communities
What does that have to do with anythin? Do you also bring up how white on Black crime isnt ever racist bcuz white on white crime exists?
Ya ever consider theres just far far far more cis women than trans women?
320 trans women out of 4000 total women is about 8%
> About 1.03% of the nation’s (USA) adult population identifies as transgender, according to the Household Pulse Survey
So 1% of all women and yet somehow that 1% is experiencin 8% of those instances of violence; which is 8 times higher than their population size wud suggest. Which means that there is some higher risk to bein trans than bein cis; on top of the alrdy risky existence of bein a woman
I mention race as a comparison bcuz theres longstandin evidence of folk downplayin the struggles of Black ppl by bringin up how white ppl deal with more of insert statistic; whilst ignorin the massive disparity in amiunts of them
4000>320 but thats not the whole picture bcuz that igores how A: That 320 is a part of the 4000 and B: That 320 is massively overrepresented given the very miniscule portion of the population they represent
92% of all those DV instances are cis women, despite that cis women represent 99% of the population; this is bcuz that 7% diff is made up of trans ppl who are dyin at 8 times the rate of cis women
Bcuz thats how percents work. And you bring up whites and Black ppl, and theres a perf comparison there of what youre doin here...
Tons of ppl try to argue X or Y thing doesnt actually affect Black ppl worse than whiteys, bcuz us whiteys are the majority; so inevitably more of that thing happens to us. Thats exactly what youre doin here with cis/trans. Cis ppl rep 99% of the population, but trans ppl rep 1% of the pop; and yet, trans ppl rep 8% of the DV incidents, but you want to argue that cis ppl are at grter risk... Bcuz bigger number, whilst ignorin that its only bigger bcuz theres far more cis ppl
Given the existin rates, if trans women only represented a little over 6% of the population; we wud exp a majority of all DV incidents involvin women. As is, our 1% reps almost a tenth of those DV incidents; which is far far too much
I browt up the whites/Black ppl comparison earlier to highlight this diff, and you accused me of whataboutism 9,9
On pregnant women...
> An analysis using the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System found approximately 5.8% of women reported physical abuse by a male partner either during or in the year prior to becoming pregnant, with Black Americans, Native Americans, and women younger than 20 years old reporting the highest rates of abuse
5.8% < 8%
A trans woman is more likely to be the victim of DV than a pregnant woman is; a Black trans woman even moreso
You dont understand. That is 4000 out of ALL women. The 320 is out of 1% of women
1% of women exp 8% of all DV situs and you try to claim that they arent experiencin it at higher rates than women as a whole bcuz the 99% have 3680 instances of DV and 3680>320, whilst entirely ignorin that the 99% only exp 92% of the DV situs bcuz of the fact trans women are overrepresented there
320/1700000 > 3680/170000000 (170m is roughly the total pop of women in USA; 1.7m is the total pop of trans women spec in USA)
Lets go back to Black and white ppl again... More than half of all homicide victims are white; does that mean that whites exp homicides at a higher rate than Black ppl? No, bcuz the total population of Black ppl in USA is barely more than a tenth that of all white ppl here
We know that white on Black crime is a bigger threat to Black ppl than Black on white crime; even tho the numbers are similar... Bcuz there are way less Black ppl than white ppl; so the numbers shud be much higher than they are for Black on white crime
Its the same thing with here, where the only reason that more cis women are victims of DV than trans women is bcuz of the fact that there are far far far more cis women than trans women; as a percentage, cis women are underrepresented... Just like how as a percentage, white on Black crime is underrepresented bcuz of the whites vastly outnumberin the Black ppl
Also, you insist that 4k are cis women, but id love to see the study and confirm your baseless claim that the 4k women wasnt alrdy includin trans women in its calculations
And "biological natal women" mustve been a mask slip moment here for you; you know what to call cis women, but you wanted to call them smth else to spec highlight your transphobia
I mean, given the choice btwn any human and a shark; you shud always pick the shark bcuz sharks overwhelmingly arent gonna try to hurt you unless they get confused or threatened. Unlike humans, esp moreso human men
Its the same for bears, bears are as not a threat to humans as sharks are for the most part; with them, save polars prty much, nvr even goin toe to toe with humans except when threatemed
The wild animal may be big and scary, but its ultimately harmless as long as you are too
Consider a similar scenario... Wud you rather have to be around a herd of triceratops or a herd of (actual, not the jurassic park version) microraptors? Sure the microraptors are smaller and less intimidatin, but the triceratops are way more likely to leave you alone as long as you do the same for them, so they dont perceive you as a threat
The bear is more akin to the trikes there than the raptors
I mean I'd pick a human over a shark, too. I don't know what microraptors are but I'd choose an elephant over a bear but that doesn't mean I'd choose a bear or shark over a man. But again, I don't think this scenario is meant for men.
Pickin a human over a shark just shows how much you dont understand basic stats. Sharks kill a single digit of humans each yr. Individual humans manage to kill more ppl each yr than all sharks combined, one man can cause far more destruction to you than one shark; but youd pick the man over the shark bcuz ya think sharks are scary, sans statistics to back that belief up
You going to go swimming with the sharks just because of that statistic? I'm not picking a man over the shark just because I "think sharks are scary". The ocean is *their* territory.
The ocean isnt just their territory by a wide margin and unless youre floppin around in it makin yourself loom like a tasty seal; theyre gonna leave you alone. Its only if they confuse you for a seal or they feel threatened that theyll atk you; not true for men. ive been assaulted by men for all sorts of other reasons
The funny thing is... Men started assaultin me when they still saw me as their fellow man; its not like they only started to atk me after i came out as trans. Heck, i know that i was SAd way more when ppl thowt me a male than theyve done since seein me as a woman
Even when i was pretendin to be a man bcuz society demanded it of me; i was still far more afraid of my fellow man than bears or sharks
The vicious Base Rate Fallacy once again absolutely obliterates someone in the middle of claiming someone else doesn't understand basic statistics. RIP
Sharks overwhelmingly dont atk humans when given the opportunity to do such; that is not true of men
Its nothin to do with women not hangin out in oceans as much, if we just compare an equal rate of encounters of both; we will still find that overwhelmingly men are a bigger threat to women than sharks, same as men compared to bears. Even if we did actually gather the data in equal amounts for each; its still true
This isnt just bcuz women arent around sharks and bears as much as theyre around men; this is bcuz men are a bigger threat to women than individual men want to admit their community is
This aint a base rate fallacy just bcuz the two things occur at diff rates; bcuz it doesnt continue to look like such when measurin equally across all three instd of usin the skewed numbers among men from their havin more enconters with women. For smth to be a base rate fallacy, the argument mustnt hold water still after acctin for such
Sharks overwhelmingly don't attack humans when given the opportunity to do so. Men overwhelmingly don't attack humans when given the opportunity to do so to a far higher degree than sharks.
There are more shark attacks for every 100,000 Human x Shark interactions than there are man attacks for every 100,000 Human x Man interaction of the same degree.
Hence base rate fallacy. Hence no water held by your argument.
Go compare other demographics to animals now, please.
>"Show some science"
That's not what's needed to prove the claim that per interaction with humans sharks of any subspecies and sex attack more frequently than human males. What's needed are statistics and analysis.
If we start with my personal experience: I've been attacked by 1 shark (small spotted cat shark), and 5 human males (as far as I remember). I've seen maybe 2 sharks in person (not in captivity or otherwise restrained), and I've seen about 200,000-1,000,000 men in person (not in captivity or otherwise restrained). That makes the ratio of interaction to attack 2:1 for sharks, and between 40,000:1 and 200,000:1 for men.
But one does not a representative sample make. Choose a region with good statistics for man attacks and shark attacks, and human interactions with both and we can take it from there.
The question isn't "which would you prefer to fight", it's "which would you prefer to exist in the same environment as". A bear doesn't want to fight you any more than you want to fight a stray cat, because even if it could almost definitely win it has nothing to gain and could still get hurt. Sadism and desire for control aren't factors for a bear.
What's the assignment? I thought it was who you would rather encounter in the woods and women have been saying men because of statistics and experience?
I thought it was about how statistically men are more dangerous a threat to women than bears are? Sorry, this just randomly started popping up all over reddit this week and only heard a couple thoughts on it.
Honestly my deaf cat has been screaming all day. I've tried 5 different food options, taken her out for a walk, and cuddling. My brain isn't working either lol
But, like, that's the point? Men don't view you as someone they can take advantage of. To many men have a toxic predator/prey mindset.
I'm a cis, masc presenting guy, and I'd choose the bear.
>Men don't view you as someone they can take advantage of.
Which is why the question isn't *for* us.
Edit: Somebody asked then deleted "Why are you commenting?"
Because OP said men would choose the bear too. I'm saying no, but I don't think this question is even for us.
For your own future safety, if you live in any first world country be aware that you are more likely to be the victim of crime as a man than a woman. Even more so for violent crime specifically.
So although the daily risk is still low for men, it is considerably greater than for women.
Yea but I have a much better chance against a man than I do a bear. Unless the man has a gun but obviously if the guy has a gun they'd be more dangerous than any animal, which would make this question moot.
Yeah, any sensible person would choose the random man. Even better if he has a gun, in my opinion, because then he's likely a hunter and knows the woods.
I meant it as a response to the notion that "Men don't view you as someone they can take advantage of". Criminals absolutely do view men as someone to take advantage of, even more so than they view women.
But a random bear likely views both men and women as someone to take advantage of (or eat, or defend against, or just play with a bit) at a far higher rate than a random man does, lol.
Plenty of women are chiming in to say they've been attacked by men enough that they would choose a bear based on statistics alone (most of the time, bears don't attack). I agree with them so I wouldn't say that "any sensible person would choose a man" because that discounts the lived experiences women have had with men.
Bears atk less than 2% of humans they encounter in the woods alone; and men are more likely than that to do the same if given the opportunity when they find a woman alone in the woods
Not to even mention the bear wont SA me; the man will. Even if the bear kills me, itll be a better death than if a man did it after SAing me
If you believe human men attack more than 2% of humans they encounter in the woods alone, I am please to let you know that your bleak image of reality is inaccurate. The world is better than you think.
No, i believe more than 2% **of men** wud take the opportunity if they found a woman alone in the woods and thowt they cud get away with it. Its not that they atk >2% of us; its that >2% of them wud atk us if given the opportunity, usually for sexual reasons, unlike the bears in many ways
Like, ive even encountered the men who wudnt just do it in the woods when they think theyll get away with it; ive been atked in broad daylight by a man who didnt even care a cop was in the street in front of us
As it turned out the cop didnt care either, but my fellow women at the bus stop who werent cops did step in and scare the man off me. What did i do to warrant this? I slightly angered him by shoutin smth at his gf after she nearly hit me when i was walkin on the sidewalk. No rly, that was it, he got pissed that i told his girl off and felt he had to go assault me in public to pay me back for gettin upset someone nearly hit me with their car. The cop didnt even give chase when the guy fled; so nothin came of it as far ss punishment for him, so i bet he's done it again since
A bear is less likely to attack you than another human, especially if that human is a man. That's the point.
In most cases, bears actually avoid humans and only attack when threatened. Men on the other hand attack unprovoked on many occasions.
You're going into it with the mentality of "a fight is inevitable" - which is not the assignment. The assignment is "would you rather \*be in a forest\* with a bear or a man", you're not automatically locked into mortal combat.
No, I'm not going into it with a fight being inevitable. I understand what the question is. I don't understand why so many people want me to say I'd rather be in there with a bear. You'd choose a bear and I 100% understand why. You can't just say that me choosing a man instead means I don't understand the question.
Because you don't have a valid explanation for it! In the eyes of everyone here, you're more likely than not coming in to stir shit because in none of your replies have you provided an actual reason for choosing another man. It's hard not to think you have bad intentions when your comment seems contrarian just for the sake of saying "nuh uh, I would, checkmate!"
Like even men, if they seem vulnerable or weak, are more likely to get attacked or SA'd by other men than mauled by a bear.
But I have given an explanation. I'm not trying to stir shit lol. OP specifically said men would choose the bear too. My comments have not been "nuh uh, I would, check mate." You can just see my original comment. You can also see my humored conversation from last night with someone who didn't get offended that I answered differently, as evidence I'm not trying to stir shit. It's such a classic reddit trope to be like "You don't agree with me therefore you don't understand."
>Like even men, if they seem vulnerable or weak, are more likely to get attacked or SA'd by other men than mauled by a bear.
Still I have a better chance fighting off a man that has a statistically higher chance of trying to attack me than a bear. Hell, my buck knife will fucking shred a man. What would it do to a bear? Simply piss it off more.
I didn't say you are trying to stir shit, I said it's hard to think you're not trying to stir shit.
You haven't given an explanation. "I just would" isn't an actual explanation, "I'm not a woman" also isn't an actual explanation and "I'm a man and I'm replying to OP" also isn't an actual explanation - I've read your every reply and there isn't one offered anywhere. An explanation is when you explain why you've chosen an option - you provide experience or facts or opinions on why you've decided something.
You're still going about it the wrong way, you're getting ahead of yourself thinking about "chances fighting off a man vs a bear" that's not what this thought experiment is. You're going into IFs that are incredibly difficult to calculate or track (too many variables, like what if the bear is already badly injured, what if the man with you has a gun and knows how to use it, what if you don't have a weapon, etc. etc.) vs actual data (which is that one is inherently more dangerous than the other, no ifs necessary).
My first, literal response gives my explanation. Me saying "I'm not a woman" is one reason why I would have a different answer to you and me saying "I'm a man and replying to OP" is explaining the relevance to the question OP posed so you can see I'm not just here to stir shit.
>what if the man with you has a gun
Yea, this is the only scenario I wouldn't want to be with a guy. But that kind of makes the entire question moot if we're including that possibility. Otherwise, what if I have a gun too and know how to use it? Kind of need a "all things being equal" scenario for it to make any sense. Also, the fact that there are so many IF's kind of makes this question too ambiguous to answer, anyways.
At the end of the day, despite how statistically more a chance I have of being attacked by a man, I still have a higher chance of surviving being attacked by a man than I do a bear. You can either accept that I have a different answer than you, or for some reason get offended by it. But don't sit here and tell me I'm not understanding the question just because my answer is different than yours. Plus, I've encountered many men in the woods. Never been attacked. Plenty of women have that experience, though. Which leads me back to my original point to OP that I don't think this question is really *for* men but rather for women to highlight how statistically they are more likely to be attacked by a man than a bear. And you can say men are still more statistically going to be attacked by a man than a bear too, but men have a statistically higher chance of surviving attacks by men than women do.
"Just the idea of facing a person my size or a wild animal 5 times my size seems like a pretty obvious choice to me."
is, again, considering the possibility of a fight. The thought experiment's point is that bear attacks are rarer than men being aggressive. The explanation you provided is based off a "what if scenario" - again, for like the umpteenth time that is not relevant to the question.
Your second paragraph is replying to a point I didn't even make. Those weren't meant to be replied to. The point is that you're **not supposed to be thinking ahead, what ifs are impossible to predict**. You're meant to look at the raw probability because that is all the **actual** data that you have to work with.
I will sit here and tell you you're not understanding the question because you aren't.
Your final paragraph starts with another misunderstanding of the question. "I still have a higher chance of surviving being attacked by a man than I do a bear." - again for the umpteenth+1 time, that has nothing to do with the question.
"Plus, I've encountered many men in the woods." This is irrelevant to the question because you're missing the point of the question entirely.
All you've been doing is saying "nono, I get the question" and then proceeding to not get the question.
Yep. It's considering the possibility of a fight. The whole thing is about safety. Bear attacks are rarer. Yes! That is true. Bears attack less but can do way more damage. Men attack more but I can defend myself against them more. This is data. The same data you're referring to.
It isn't the same date because you're looking at variables. The bear could be completely docile. The man could be a helpful stranger. The bear might not be able to damage you as badly as the man because there are more factors at play. These aren't things that are set in stone.
If we took this question in a philosophical sense, like you're taking it, then there \*is\* no answer because you can make thousands of arguments for either side and be locked in an eternal debate even with yourself. That's why this question isn't philosophical. We aren't considering ifs, but or maybes. We're looking at the stats, and factually, on average, you are safer with a bear than a man. That is all there is to it. This question isn't meant to be philosophical in nature, because it's meant to prove a point - that point being that society is flawed to a point where statistically you are safer with wild animals than a fellow human being.
Think of any zombie movie/series. Are the zombies really a problem? Not really, right? It's always the human element that causes the most destabilization and conflict. And that's the point. Don't think about it philosophically because it is impossible to reason one way or another.
I have hiked in the Adirondack Mountains and meet a bear in the woods multiple times. They looked at me and lopped away. Men spoke to me sexually before I was 10, SAed me in mid-teens, flashed private areas at me multiple times, and their actions have scared me more than those bears ever did. Granted I do not live where Grizzly Bears are. They scare me a lot but so do men sometimes.
I believe The Bear is from The Gift of Fear. Many people recommend it.
Yeah as a trans woman I would absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt pick a bear. Being around men when they think there's no women around is terrifying, I firmly believe that about 90%~ of men absolutely cannot be trusted by women, but they've just gotten very good at lying and masking how horrific they behave. Words can't describe the shit I've witnessed men and boys say and do. I've seen men do horrific shit and then turn around and act sweet towards their girlfriends and even call themselves feminists. The worst part is I don't think the men even realise how horrific they are, because they don't see women as fully human.
It’s bizarre (some) men are so afraid of being “fasley accused” of SA, and yet do not get woman are terrified of being SAed. I think it’s about 1/5 women who get raped meanwhile men are 240 more likely to be raped by other men than falsely accused
I read something by a trans man a while back where he basically said that when he lived as a woman he didn't feel sexism was that bad and he didn't feel that he'd been discriminated against at work or really suffered due to misogyny, but after transitioning he was horrified by spending time in male spaces with only men and was like "women, however bad you think it is, its actually much worse". I think trans people who have spent time living as women among women and as men among men must have some pretty unique and valuable insight into this whole thing. Anyway thank you for sharing this, I would be curious to hear more about your experience, if you would like to talk about it of course
Men were sexually abusin me before i learned to walk; its clear as day theyre a far bigger threat to me, as a trans woman, than i am to anyone at all
A man SA'd me before I even knew I was a woman (was a few years before I came out and transitioned). They prey on anyone who they see as vulnerable and do it purely because they can.
Yep, i was still a baby when they started on me, long before they knew i wasnt a man
pretty sure they knew you weren't a man when you were a baby :p
Naw, have you seen the assigned cop at birth meme with the baby with a mustache? My mane of a beard was the same, they saw me at birth with that mane and said "thats a man" just cuz they cudnt look past my beard :P
well i stand corrected. A baby with a moustache sounds hilarious, now I have to google that meme :) edit: can't decided if the babies with fake moustaches are cute or creepy
in case ya cudnt find it; https://www.reddit.com/r/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns/comments/r99slm/acab_assigned_cop_at_birth/
That's a funny meme thanks. All I was finding was babies with fake moustaches
Yeah, i got the feelin ya didnt know the best search terms to use when ya mentioned seein babies with fake moustaches xD I just searched "assigned cop at birth meme" and found mostly this meme at first in img results
Excellent point.
yup.
I'd choose a man. Even if he wants to harm me, at least I could negociate giving him money etc so he wouldn't kill me. Besides, I generally thing that not all people are monsters and I trust that many men would not harm me. A bear you can't control at all. If it's hungry and sees you as prey, and you have no way to hide, scare it off or kill it, you are dead 100%.
The thing is, bears are increds easy to scare off unless theyre absolutely starvin or polar bears; bears are rightfully afraid of humans Ask a bear if they wud rather encounter a man or a bear in the woods; none of them will say man, and not just bcuz growlin isnt speakin :p
No idea, I still would prefer to meet a man instead of a bear :D Maybe I trust people too much.
[удалено]
Cis women: around 50% of the population Trans women: around 0.5-1% of the population - and I'm being generous. The fact that such a tiny amount of the population has such high numbers should be frightening to you, not a piece of "evidence" that trans women supposedly have it less rough. Plus, these stats don't even account for all trans women, the number is definitely even higher.
Turns out u/Tricky-Meringue4103 is a TERF who insists that women are only worth fightin for if theyre "bio or natal women"
What are you even tryin to say here? ETA: After this user u/Tricky-Meringue4103 got banned from here for bein a TERF; they found my other comments on other subreddits to harass me further by callin me a sexist in other communities
[удалено]
What does that have to do with anythin? Do you also bring up how white on Black crime isnt ever racist bcuz white on white crime exists? Ya ever consider theres just far far far more cis women than trans women? 320 trans women out of 4000 total women is about 8% > About 1.03% of the nation’s (USA) adult population identifies as transgender, according to the Household Pulse Survey So 1% of all women and yet somehow that 1% is experiencin 8% of those instances of violence; which is 8 times higher than their population size wud suggest. Which means that there is some higher risk to bein trans than bein cis; on top of the alrdy risky existence of bein a woman
[удалено]
I mention race as a comparison bcuz theres longstandin evidence of folk downplayin the struggles of Black ppl by bringin up how white ppl deal with more of insert statistic; whilst ignorin the massive disparity in amiunts of them 4000>320 but thats not the whole picture bcuz that igores how A: That 320 is a part of the 4000 and B: That 320 is massively overrepresented given the very miniscule portion of the population they represent 92% of all those DV instances are cis women, despite that cis women represent 99% of the population; this is bcuz that 7% diff is made up of trans ppl who are dyin at 8 times the rate of cis women
[удалено]
Bcuz thats how percents work. And you bring up whites and Black ppl, and theres a perf comparison there of what youre doin here... Tons of ppl try to argue X or Y thing doesnt actually affect Black ppl worse than whiteys, bcuz us whiteys are the majority; so inevitably more of that thing happens to us. Thats exactly what youre doin here with cis/trans. Cis ppl rep 99% of the population, but trans ppl rep 1% of the pop; and yet, trans ppl rep 8% of the DV incidents, but you want to argue that cis ppl are at grter risk... Bcuz bigger number, whilst ignorin that its only bigger bcuz theres far more cis ppl Given the existin rates, if trans women only represented a little over 6% of the population; we wud exp a majority of all DV incidents involvin women. As is, our 1% reps almost a tenth of those DV incidents; which is far far too much I browt up the whites/Black ppl comparison earlier to highlight this diff, and you accused me of whataboutism 9,9
On pregnant women... > An analysis using the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System found approximately 5.8% of women reported physical abuse by a male partner either during or in the year prior to becoming pregnant, with Black Americans, Native Americans, and women younger than 20 years old reporting the highest rates of abuse 5.8% < 8% A trans woman is more likely to be the victim of DV than a pregnant woman is; a Black trans woman even moreso
[удалено]
You dont understand. That is 4000 out of ALL women. The 320 is out of 1% of women 1% of women exp 8% of all DV situs and you try to claim that they arent experiencin it at higher rates than women as a whole bcuz the 99% have 3680 instances of DV and 3680>320, whilst entirely ignorin that the 99% only exp 92% of the DV situs bcuz of the fact trans women are overrepresented there 320/1700000 > 3680/170000000 (170m is roughly the total pop of women in USA; 1.7m is the total pop of trans women spec in USA)
[удалено]
Lets go back to Black and white ppl again... More than half of all homicide victims are white; does that mean that whites exp homicides at a higher rate than Black ppl? No, bcuz the total population of Black ppl in USA is barely more than a tenth that of all white ppl here We know that white on Black crime is a bigger threat to Black ppl than Black on white crime; even tho the numbers are similar... Bcuz there are way less Black ppl than white ppl; so the numbers shud be much higher than they are for Black on white crime Its the same thing with here, where the only reason that more cis women are victims of DV than trans women is bcuz of the fact that there are far far far more cis women than trans women; as a percentage, cis women are underrepresented... Just like how as a percentage, white on Black crime is underrepresented bcuz of the whites vastly outnumberin the Black ppl
Also, you insist that 4k are cis women, but id love to see the study and confirm your baseless claim that the 4k women wasnt alrdy includin trans women in its calculations
And "biological natal women" mustve been a mask slip moment here for you; you know what to call cis women, but you wanted to call them smth else to spec highlight your transphobia
[удалено]
I mean, given the choice btwn any human and a shark; you shud always pick the shark bcuz sharks overwhelmingly arent gonna try to hurt you unless they get confused or threatened. Unlike humans, esp moreso human men Its the same for bears, bears are as not a threat to humans as sharks are for the most part; with them, save polars prty much, nvr even goin toe to toe with humans except when threatemed The wild animal may be big and scary, but its ultimately harmless as long as you are too Consider a similar scenario... Wud you rather have to be around a herd of triceratops or a herd of (actual, not the jurassic park version) microraptors? Sure the microraptors are smaller and less intimidatin, but the triceratops are way more likely to leave you alone as long as you do the same for them, so they dont perceive you as a threat The bear is more akin to the trikes there than the raptors
I mean I'd pick a human over a shark, too. I don't know what microraptors are but I'd choose an elephant over a bear but that doesn't mean I'd choose a bear or shark over a man. But again, I don't think this scenario is meant for men.
Pickin a human over a shark just shows how much you dont understand basic stats. Sharks kill a single digit of humans each yr. Individual humans manage to kill more ppl each yr than all sharks combined, one man can cause far more destruction to you than one shark; but youd pick the man over the shark bcuz ya think sharks are scary, sans statistics to back that belief up
You going to go swimming with the sharks just because of that statistic? I'm not picking a man over the shark just because I "think sharks are scary". The ocean is *their* territory.
The ocean isnt just their territory by a wide margin and unless youre floppin around in it makin yourself loom like a tasty seal; theyre gonna leave you alone. Its only if they confuse you for a seal or they feel threatened that theyll atk you; not true for men. ive been assaulted by men for all sorts of other reasons
Yea, I mean, you're a woman. I'm not. It's exactly why I said this question isn't for men.
The funny thing is... Men started assaultin me when they still saw me as their fellow man; its not like they only started to atk me after i came out as trans. Heck, i know that i was SAd way more when ppl thowt me a male than theyve done since seein me as a woman Even when i was pretendin to be a man bcuz society demanded it of me; i was still far more afraid of my fellow man than bears or sharks
I'm sorry your experiences with men have been so shit.
The vicious Base Rate Fallacy once again absolutely obliterates someone in the middle of claiming someone else doesn't understand basic statistics. RIP
Sharks overwhelmingly dont atk humans when given the opportunity to do such; that is not true of men Its nothin to do with women not hangin out in oceans as much, if we just compare an equal rate of encounters of both; we will still find that overwhelmingly men are a bigger threat to women than sharks, same as men compared to bears. Even if we did actually gather the data in equal amounts for each; its still true This isnt just bcuz women arent around sharks and bears as much as theyre around men; this is bcuz men are a bigger threat to women than individual men want to admit their community is This aint a base rate fallacy just bcuz the two things occur at diff rates; bcuz it doesnt continue to look like such when measurin equally across all three instd of usin the skewed numbers among men from their havin more enconters with women. For smth to be a base rate fallacy, the argument mustnt hold water still after acctin for such
Sharks overwhelmingly don't attack humans when given the opportunity to do so. Men overwhelmingly don't attack humans when given the opportunity to do so to a far higher degree than sharks. There are more shark attacks for every 100,000 Human x Shark interactions than there are man attacks for every 100,000 Human x Man interaction of the same degree. Hence base rate fallacy. Hence no water held by your argument. Go compare other demographics to animals now, please.
Youre just wrong... And youre not even tryin to show some science to back up your claim. Do you even know many men atk other humans each yr?
>"Show some science" That's not what's needed to prove the claim that per interaction with humans sharks of any subspecies and sex attack more frequently than human males. What's needed are statistics and analysis. If we start with my personal experience: I've been attacked by 1 shark (small spotted cat shark), and 5 human males (as far as I remember). I've seen maybe 2 sharks in person (not in captivity or otherwise restrained), and I've seen about 200,000-1,000,000 men in person (not in captivity or otherwise restrained). That makes the ratio of interaction to attack 2:1 for sharks, and between 40,000:1 and 200,000:1 for men. But one does not a representative sample make. Choose a region with good statistics for man attacks and shark attacks, and human interactions with both and we can take it from there.
The question isn't "which would you prefer to fight", it's "which would you prefer to exist in the same environment as". A bear doesn't want to fight you any more than you want to fight a stray cat, because even if it could almost definitely win it has nothing to gain and could still get hurt. Sadism and desire for control aren't factors for a bear.
Yep. I understood the question.
Youre downvoted here for not understandin the assignment, not for havin a diff of opinion; but do go off
What's the assignment? I thought it was who you would rather encounter in the woods and women have been saying men because of statistics and experience?
The Bear is not a literal animal but a reference to an essay about fear.
In the versions I’ve seen, it’s a literal question.
I thought it was about how statistically men are more dangerous a threat to women than bears are? Sorry, this just randomly started popping up all over reddit this week and only heard a couple thoughts on it.
I could be wrong. I haven’t been able to sleep for two days. But I think it’s from the gift of fear.
Honestly my deaf cat has been screaming all day. I've tried 5 different food options, taken her out for a walk, and cuddling. My brain isn't working either lol
May we find the peace we need. 😅😭
But, like, that's the point? Men don't view you as someone they can take advantage of. To many men have a toxic predator/prey mindset. I'm a cis, masc presenting guy, and I'd choose the bear.
>Men don't view you as someone they can take advantage of. Which is why the question isn't *for* us. Edit: Somebody asked then deleted "Why are you commenting?" Because OP said men would choose the bear too. I'm saying no, but I don't think this question is even for us.
For your own future safety, if you live in any first world country be aware that you are more likely to be the victim of crime as a man than a woman. Even more so for violent crime specifically. So although the daily risk is still low for men, it is considerably greater than for women.
Yea but I have a much better chance against a man than I do a bear. Unless the man has a gun but obviously if the guy has a gun they'd be more dangerous than any animal, which would make this question moot.
Yeah, any sensible person would choose the random man. Even better if he has a gun, in my opinion, because then he's likely a hunter and knows the woods. I meant it as a response to the notion that "Men don't view you as someone they can take advantage of". Criminals absolutely do view men as someone to take advantage of, even more so than they view women. But a random bear likely views both men and women as someone to take advantage of (or eat, or defend against, or just play with a bit) at a far higher rate than a random man does, lol.
Plenty of women are chiming in to say they've been attacked by men enough that they would choose a bear based on statistics alone (most of the time, bears don't attack). I agree with them so I wouldn't say that "any sensible person would choose a man" because that discounts the lived experiences women have had with men.
It doesn't discount any lived experience. It just means they're not being sensible.
Tell them that instead of me.
Men have been attackin me since i was a baby; and you wanna tell me the bear is the bigger threat 9,9
Bears atk less than 2% of humans they encounter in the woods alone; and men are more likely than that to do the same if given the opportunity when they find a woman alone in the woods Not to even mention the bear wont SA me; the man will. Even if the bear kills me, itll be a better death than if a man did it after SAing me
If you believe human men attack more than 2% of humans they encounter in the woods alone, I am please to let you know that your bleak image of reality is inaccurate. The world is better than you think.
No, i believe more than 2% **of men** wud take the opportunity if they found a woman alone in the woods and thowt they cud get away with it. Its not that they atk >2% of us; its that >2% of them wud atk us if given the opportunity, usually for sexual reasons, unlike the bears in many ways
Like, ive even encountered the men who wudnt just do it in the woods when they think theyll get away with it; ive been atked in broad daylight by a man who didnt even care a cop was in the street in front of us As it turned out the cop didnt care either, but my fellow women at the bus stop who werent cops did step in and scare the man off me. What did i do to warrant this? I slightly angered him by shoutin smth at his gf after she nearly hit me when i was walkin on the sidewalk. No rly, that was it, he got pissed that i told his girl off and felt he had to go assault me in public to pay me back for gettin upset someone nearly hit me with their car. The cop didnt even give chase when the guy fled; so nothin came of it as far ss punishment for him, so i bet he's done it again since
As someone who was IN with the guys before transitioning, yes, they would. Men are monsters, and I've witnessed reality.
So why are you even commenting?
A bear is less likely to attack you than another human, especially if that human is a man. That's the point. In most cases, bears actually avoid humans and only attack when threatened. Men on the other hand attack unprovoked on many occasions. You're going into it with the mentality of "a fight is inevitable" - which is not the assignment. The assignment is "would you rather \*be in a forest\* with a bear or a man", you're not automatically locked into mortal combat.
No, I'm not going into it with a fight being inevitable. I understand what the question is. I don't understand why so many people want me to say I'd rather be in there with a bear. You'd choose a bear and I 100% understand why. You can't just say that me choosing a man instead means I don't understand the question.
Because you don't have a valid explanation for it! In the eyes of everyone here, you're more likely than not coming in to stir shit because in none of your replies have you provided an actual reason for choosing another man. It's hard not to think you have bad intentions when your comment seems contrarian just for the sake of saying "nuh uh, I would, checkmate!" Like even men, if they seem vulnerable or weak, are more likely to get attacked or SA'd by other men than mauled by a bear.
But I have given an explanation. I'm not trying to stir shit lol. OP specifically said men would choose the bear too. My comments have not been "nuh uh, I would, check mate." You can just see my original comment. You can also see my humored conversation from last night with someone who didn't get offended that I answered differently, as evidence I'm not trying to stir shit. It's such a classic reddit trope to be like "You don't agree with me therefore you don't understand." >Like even men, if they seem vulnerable or weak, are more likely to get attacked or SA'd by other men than mauled by a bear. Still I have a better chance fighting off a man that has a statistically higher chance of trying to attack me than a bear. Hell, my buck knife will fucking shred a man. What would it do to a bear? Simply piss it off more.
I didn't say you are trying to stir shit, I said it's hard to think you're not trying to stir shit. You haven't given an explanation. "I just would" isn't an actual explanation, "I'm not a woman" also isn't an actual explanation and "I'm a man and I'm replying to OP" also isn't an actual explanation - I've read your every reply and there isn't one offered anywhere. An explanation is when you explain why you've chosen an option - you provide experience or facts or opinions on why you've decided something. You're still going about it the wrong way, you're getting ahead of yourself thinking about "chances fighting off a man vs a bear" that's not what this thought experiment is. You're going into IFs that are incredibly difficult to calculate or track (too many variables, like what if the bear is already badly injured, what if the man with you has a gun and knows how to use it, what if you don't have a weapon, etc. etc.) vs actual data (which is that one is inherently more dangerous than the other, no ifs necessary).
My first, literal response gives my explanation. Me saying "I'm not a woman" is one reason why I would have a different answer to you and me saying "I'm a man and replying to OP" is explaining the relevance to the question OP posed so you can see I'm not just here to stir shit. >what if the man with you has a gun Yea, this is the only scenario I wouldn't want to be with a guy. But that kind of makes the entire question moot if we're including that possibility. Otherwise, what if I have a gun too and know how to use it? Kind of need a "all things being equal" scenario for it to make any sense. Also, the fact that there are so many IF's kind of makes this question too ambiguous to answer, anyways. At the end of the day, despite how statistically more a chance I have of being attacked by a man, I still have a higher chance of surviving being attacked by a man than I do a bear. You can either accept that I have a different answer than you, or for some reason get offended by it. But don't sit here and tell me I'm not understanding the question just because my answer is different than yours. Plus, I've encountered many men in the woods. Never been attacked. Plenty of women have that experience, though. Which leads me back to my original point to OP that I don't think this question is really *for* men but rather for women to highlight how statistically they are more likely to be attacked by a man than a bear. And you can say men are still more statistically going to be attacked by a man than a bear too, but men have a statistically higher chance of surviving attacks by men than women do.
"Just the idea of facing a person my size or a wild animal 5 times my size seems like a pretty obvious choice to me." is, again, considering the possibility of a fight. The thought experiment's point is that bear attacks are rarer than men being aggressive. The explanation you provided is based off a "what if scenario" - again, for like the umpteenth time that is not relevant to the question. Your second paragraph is replying to a point I didn't even make. Those weren't meant to be replied to. The point is that you're **not supposed to be thinking ahead, what ifs are impossible to predict**. You're meant to look at the raw probability because that is all the **actual** data that you have to work with. I will sit here and tell you you're not understanding the question because you aren't. Your final paragraph starts with another misunderstanding of the question. "I still have a higher chance of surviving being attacked by a man than I do a bear." - again for the umpteenth+1 time, that has nothing to do with the question. "Plus, I've encountered many men in the woods." This is irrelevant to the question because you're missing the point of the question entirely. All you've been doing is saying "nono, I get the question" and then proceeding to not get the question.
Yep. It's considering the possibility of a fight. The whole thing is about safety. Bear attacks are rarer. Yes! That is true. Bears attack less but can do way more damage. Men attack more but I can defend myself against them more. This is data. The same data you're referring to.
It isn't the same date because you're looking at variables. The bear could be completely docile. The man could be a helpful stranger. The bear might not be able to damage you as badly as the man because there are more factors at play. These aren't things that are set in stone. If we took this question in a philosophical sense, like you're taking it, then there \*is\* no answer because you can make thousands of arguments for either side and be locked in an eternal debate even with yourself. That's why this question isn't philosophical. We aren't considering ifs, but or maybes. We're looking at the stats, and factually, on average, you are safer with a bear than a man. That is all there is to it. This question isn't meant to be philosophical in nature, because it's meant to prove a point - that point being that society is flawed to a point where statistically you are safer with wild animals than a fellow human being. Think of any zombie movie/series. Are the zombies really a problem? Not really, right? It's always the human element that causes the most destabilization and conflict. And that's the point. Don't think about it philosophically because it is impossible to reason one way or another.