196

Btw your 20% figure includes those at Level 1 literacy, only 8% are below level 1 (from your source)

I wanted to test myself to get a sense of what "level one literacy" actually meant but you have to pay to take the test and the OECD already gets enough of my money as is.

Here's a good study on gunshoot statistics thay include nonletal gunshot wounds:

https://www.theactuarymagazine.org/firearm-risk/

Quick Google results showed me between 15 and 20% lethality for single GSWs

That's good to see a lot of the statistics are close, and I appreciate the sources.

That said, for a full picture, I think you should mention that the average 20 year old doesn't have 18 gunshot wounds (365 wounds per 400 per year, is about 9.1 wounds per person per decade, or 18.2 wounds per 20 years per person)

So I'd appreciate if you include a bullet point about that.

You didn't fact-check how many trans people there are in the U.S.^1^

It looks to be between 0.5% and 1.6% of the total U.S. population (2 - 6 in 400).

References:

• https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Trans-Pop-Update-Jun-2022.pdf
• https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/07/about-5-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-say-their-gender-is-different-from-their-sex-assigned-at-birth/

Semi-related, the number of intersex people (in the literature they talk about people with "disorders of sexual development") have also been estimated to be around 1% of the population (4 in 400), source:

https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a

^1^ yes, the U.S. isn't mentioned in the OP, but your sources are looking at U.S. demographics and so I will continue with the U.S.-centrism already present.

Some Thoughts (oh boy):

There is a weird logic to pointing out how few trans people there are actually are in the OP. Even if there were many more trans people, (like if there really were 1 in 5 trans people as is commonly mis-perceived), would that make the GOP's campaign of fear-mongering and animus any more justified? I don't think this is what Shon (@gayblackvet) was going for, but it almost seems like a consequence of how the message was written.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but does it seem like way it is written implies that the problem is not that the trans panic is unjustified in its fear of trans people, but that it is merely blown out of proportion? Maybe the angle was that even if we assume trans people are a problem, it's still so few people it's not worth all this panic and legislation (there are >500 anti-trans bills in the U.S. right now, over 40 of them have already passed).

Rhetorically this perspective-taking might be effective in appealing to mildly transphobic centrists or moderate conservatives who are not entirely comfortable with trans people but who might not want to be perceived as transphobic and don't want to be associated with the rabid and vocal transphobia of the GOP.

That wedge between a more moderate closeted transphobe and a more openly transphobic right-wing one is politically useful, so I am not necessarily complaining, but there is a concern here about whether tackling transphobia is really the goal here, and if so how we should best go about that.

How convenient, you left out the shooting statistic. It's fucking insanely wrong.