Well that’s a smoking gun.

If they knew the numbers were significantly different(presumably lower) they could have easily said the lower number to refute my point and the info graphic’s point.

One of two things comes to mind. 1) The number wasn’t significantly lower. 2) The CDC’s letter was a fabrication.

“The pertinent question that pops to mind is; why did CDC not use that knowledge to refute typhonblue’s 60-40 calculation as that is the only piece missing? Could it be because the gender ratio for perpetrators of MTP the last 12 months is close enough to the 79.2% it was for lifetime numbers making it unsuitable as an instrument in making such a refutation?”

Alternatively the twelve month female perp numbers are higher. In fact I would stake money on this.

All of this reeks to high heaven.

One think one can deduce from the questionaire is that CDC does have the data on the gender distribution of perpertrators reported by victims of “made to penetrate” in the last 12 months. Essentially they first ask for initials and genders of all perpetrators for lifetime. Then they ask the respondents to list all the perpetrators who had victimized them in the last 12 months (paraphrasing by me). Since the last 12 months perpetrators is a subset of the lifetime perpetrators and CDC knows the gender of the lifetime perpetrators they also know the genders of the last 12 months perpetrators.

The pertinent question that pops to mind is; why did CDC not use that knowledge to refute typhonblue’s 60-40 calculation as that is the only piece missing? Could it be because the gender ratio for perpetrators of MTP the last 12 months is close enough to the 79.2% it was for lifetime numbers making it unsuitable as an instrument in making such a refutation?

Registerher.com

And Schala, the sheer superstition around transfolk is one of the few great remaining points of magical thinking affecting science and honest doubting thought. Scientists are being quite cowardly about this, avoiding taking on bigots with the cowardly out of

Is there any other examples of academics today inflicting this much damage to the societal body simply because it serves them personally?

Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund (his mentor) about trans women, since 1985 and until recently.

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2013/05/a_classic_text_on_genderand_it.html

In the past, Dr. Koss has repeatedly stated that her study used the legal definition of rape.

But one of the questions she used to detect rape was, “Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?”

Dr. Koss now acknowledges that question is flawed.

“At the time, I viewed the question as legal,” she says. “I now conceded that it’s ambiguous.”

Page 9, column b

The Blade: Toledo, Ohio Sunday October 10, 1993 Section A

The problem in the Koss study was not the sample size. It was more than large enough to be representative (3187 women, 2972 men). But that is not to say that there weren’t problems with the sampling. 93 institutions were contacted, but only 32 were willing to allow their students to participate in the study. Among the reasons for not participating were concerns over the ethics of the use of human subjects, anonymity of participants, religious objections, and concerns regarding the sensationalism of the results.

Possible ethical concerns might have included (Koss doesn’t specify) that the male students were being asked to admit to committing possibly criminal acts, the survey was administered to entire classes at once. While it was stated that a student could opt out, they were required to remain in the classroom while the others took the survey which may be considered coercive. Further students were told not to sign the consent forms they were given (supposedly to ensure anonymity, but this would be considered unethical today). While the consent form is said to have contained “all the elements of informed consent,” Koss indicates that the purpose of the study was explained in a “printed debriefing statement” handed out after the survey was completed. This indicates that a level of deception was used in the study. Research ethics permit deception to be used only in studies where knowing the purpose of the study might effect the outcome. Koss was clearly trying to hide her intent from her participants (This conclusion is supported in the reasons Koss gives for the ambiguous questions as well).

One interesting statistic Koss reported that I have not seen anyone else comment about, but which is an indicator that the women did not interpret the survey questions as Koss suggests, is her report that 41% of those women she records as rape victims reported that they had been virgins at the time the “rape” occurred. This could indicate that these participants were attempting to rationalize the decision to finally “go all the way” thinking they didn’t really plan the behavior, or didn’t intend to have intercourse, and answered affirmatively because she really “didn’t want to” have sex, but not actually meaning that the sex occurred without consent. This could also explain the discrepancy between Koss interpretation of the survey answers and the face-to-face denial by the women that they had been sexually assaulted. Koss dismissed this discrepancy stating that these women simply did not know the meaning of sexual assault or rape. She presented no evidence from the interviews to support this conclusion. Nor did she present evidence that refutes alternate explanations.