this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
729 points (90.5% liked)
People Twitter
5145 readers
372 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, assuming the 79% statistic is accurate, you could start from that discrepancy and extrapolate from there?
Those 79% are irrelevant, what would be relevant is the opposite, which percentage of men are opposed to abortion, not how many of the people opposed to abortion are men.
Irrelevant to what? It's fair to say she is clearly Pro-Choice, so understanding the demographics of those who are anti-choice is very relevant. Especially if your point is that "since 4 out of 5 people opposed to abortion rights are men, who will not be directly affected by these laws, their opinion is functionally irrelevant".
Or are you just upset that this fails to acknowledge that just because men are more likely to be anti-abortion then women, that does not mean that men are likely to be anti-abortion in general? Because I would argue the latter is irrelevant to the fact that the majority of people who are against abortion rights will never be directly affected by it.
It is irrelevant because it would also be true if there were millions of anti-abortion people and just 100 pro-abortion people from some tiny sect that happens to be anti-abortion. Or, if the number was 80% instead of 79% it could also just be 5 people, 4 of which were men. The relevant number is how most men and how most women feel about this, not if the people who feel a certain way about it are mostly men or mostly women.
hmmm.... that's a good point.
Oh, wait a minute, no it's not! Knowing the demographics of a group is extremely relevant.
Would you say it's irrelevant if 79% of people who got a specific disease were men, just because less than 0.01% of the population ever got the disease?
What about if 79% of a prison population was of a certain ethnicity, even though only 1 out of 100 people were incarcerated?
What about if 98% of school shooters were men, even if they are only a tiny fraction of the population?
Obviously not, these are key data sets to understanding the underlying causes. Sure, it helps to know how those stats compare to the general makeup of the population, and understanding what percentage of a population is effected is another useful piece of data depending on the questions you want answered. But to write off the makeup of a group as irrelevant is... dumb.