The stats are meant to be illustrative of the fact that women are also capable of, and do, commit assault and sexual assault in large numbers.
You’re just missing the point.
In your other reply you mention a magnitude of difference as being important, after asserting the one that exists is surely so massive that its not a problem.
Ok here’s an attempt at giving you that magnitude, ah, but, now its not precise enough, the situations are too dissimilar.
The point is women can be, and certain women are dangerous, and the extent to which that is common is not trivial, and is not hugely lopsided toward men just always doing all the bad things at an order of magnitude difference, 1 to 10 or 1 to 100, its more like a 1/3 to 2/3 difference.
You opened with highly doubting that women can be dangerous.
Uh, they can be.
They are ‘somewhat less dangerous than men’.
Not ‘so much far less dangerous than men as to be statistically negligible’.
Do you want me to pull stats on how many women have ever gotten arrested for a violent crime?
That number is not 0.
What I am getting for asking various AIs this question is that in the US, the overall crime.rate is going down, but since the 90s, the proportion of violent crimes committed by women is going up.
This data is not like, easily accessed, it would be an significant academic research task to attempt to properly answer this question, so, I’m ok with using an AI with sources for an ballpark estimate.
I’m asking duckduckgo’s duck.ai, if you want to check this.
In 2023, we’ve got ~880k violent crimes committed by men.
In 2023, we’ve got ~320k violent crimes committed by women.
Assuming thats one crime per person, we assume US population is 350 million, and its a 5050 population sex split, we get:
Chance a US man committed a violent crime in 2023: 0.0050%
Chance a US woman committed a violent crime in 2023: 0.0018%
Proportion of 2023 violent crimes committed by men: 73 1/3%
Proportion of 2033 violent crimes committed by women: 26 2/3%
Or, put back into my original phrasing…
Women are 30% as likely as a man is to commit any violent crime.
Which is, ok, half of what I said with IPV stats, half of ~60%.
But again, we are at proportional difference levels, not orders of magnitude difference levels.
So what this means, what Uber and Lyft are doing, is something like allowing discrimination against all their male drivers, so that the chance a woman gets assaulted goes down from ~0.005% to ~0.002%.
Something roughly in that ballpark.
Thats what you call massive losses for a mostly innocent group, for basically imperceptible gains, in comparison to the losses sustained by the group.
Women choosing only women drivers do not become 1100% (10x) or 100% (2x) or 50% (1.5x) safer by doing so.
They only become about ~0.0032% (~1.0032x) safer.
If you routinely did things because of that level of safety margin improvement, you can justify basically any decision at the level that it will make you 3 thousandths of a percent safer.
Yeah, these are estimates, they’re far from perfect, but this is the ballpark we are in.
Its ludicrous, from a mathematical standpoint, to attempt to justify this behavior. It is irrational. It is paranoid.
Maybe if you’re ubering to work every single day of the week, ok sure it becomes a cumulative thing, at that point you’d save money with a personal chauffeur, so that’s also kind of ridiculous.
women are also capable of, and do, commit assault and sexual assault in large numbers
Those statistics being thrown at me are for women in relationships, not two strangers in a cab.
Ok here’s an attempt at giving you that magnitude, ah, but, now its not precise enough, the situations are too dissimilar.
Wait, somehow pointing out the imprecision is a problem? Why isn’t the imprecision the problem instead?
You opened with highly doubting that women can be dangerous.
We’re talking about sexual assault. If you have the numbers of sexual assaults committed by women drivers towards passengers, I’d love to see them. Even better if they’re compared to the men drivers.
its more like a 1/3 to 2/3 difference.
Not for sexual misconduct, that’s for violence in general, so it’s imprecise. I’m not denying those numbers for what they are.
They are ‘somewhat less dangerous than men’. Not ‘so much far less dangerous than men as to be statistically negligible’.
You talk like you got the numbers. Let’s see them.
Do you want me to pull stats on how many women have ever gotten arrested for a violent crime? That number is not 0.
Great, we’re not talking about that.
What I am getting for asking various AIs this question
Please don’t. I use AI too, and I know firsthand this is not something you can trust them with.
You’re just missing the point.
By the looks of it, so are you. You’re talking about general violence when I’m not.
The only thing I will concede is the frequency of these assaults relative to the number of uneventful rides. And yet, people here would rather have thousands of cases of sexual assault by doing nothing about it because of some ill-perceived reframing. I swear the men in the comments are talking about this as if it’s some Jim Crow law being put in place when it’s not. It’s nothing but pearl-clutching.
The stats are meant to be illustrative of the fact that women are also capable of, and do, commit assault and sexual assault in large numbers.
You’re just missing the point.
In your other reply you mention a magnitude of difference as being important, after asserting the one that exists is surely so massive that its not a problem.
Ok here’s an attempt at giving you that magnitude, ah, but, now its not precise enough, the situations are too dissimilar.
The point is women can be, and certain women are dangerous, and the extent to which that is common is not trivial, and is not hugely lopsided toward men just always doing all the bad things at an order of magnitude difference, 1 to 10 or 1 to 100, its more like a 1/3 to 2/3 difference.
You opened with highly doubting that women can be dangerous.
Uh, they can be.
They are ‘somewhat less dangerous than men’.
Not ‘so much far less dangerous than men as to be statistically negligible’.
Do you want me to pull stats on how many women have ever gotten arrested for a violent crime?
That number is not 0.
What I am getting for asking various AIs this question is that in the US, the overall crime.rate is going down, but since the 90s, the proportion of violent crimes committed by women is going up.
This data is not like, easily accessed, it would be an significant academic research task to attempt to properly answer this question, so, I’m ok with using an AI with sources for an ballpark estimate.
I’m asking duckduckgo’s duck.ai, if you want to check this.
In 2023, we’ve got ~880k violent crimes committed by men.
In 2023, we’ve got ~320k violent crimes committed by women.
Assuming thats one crime per person, we assume US population is 350 million, and its a 5050 population sex split, we get:
Chance a US man committed a violent crime in 2023: 0.0050%
Chance a US woman committed a violent crime in 2023: 0.0018%
Proportion of 2023 violent crimes committed by men: 73 1/3%
Proportion of 2033 violent crimes committed by women: 26 2/3%
Or, put back into my original phrasing…
Women are 30% as likely as a man is to commit any violent crime.
Which is, ok, half of what I said with IPV stats, half of ~60%.
But again, we are at proportional difference levels, not orders of magnitude difference levels.
So what this means, what Uber and Lyft are doing, is something like allowing discrimination against all their male drivers, so that the chance a woman gets assaulted goes down from ~0.005% to ~0.002%.
Something roughly in that ballpark.
Thats what you call massive losses for a mostly innocent group, for basically imperceptible gains, in comparison to the losses sustained by the group.
Women choosing only women drivers do not become 1100% (10x) or 100% (2x) or 50% (1.5x) safer by doing so.
They only become about ~0.0032% (~1.0032x) safer.
If you routinely did things because of that level of safety margin improvement, you can justify basically any decision at the level that it will make you 3 thousandths of a percent safer.
Yeah, these are estimates, they’re far from perfect, but this is the ballpark we are in.
Its ludicrous, from a mathematical standpoint, to attempt to justify this behavior. It is irrational. It is paranoid.
Maybe if you’re ubering to work every single day of the week, ok sure it becomes a cumulative thing, at that point you’d save money with a personal chauffeur, so that’s also kind of ridiculous.
Those statistics being thrown at me are for women in relationships, not two strangers in a cab.
Wait, somehow pointing out the imprecision is a problem? Why isn’t the imprecision the problem instead?
We’re talking about sexual assault. If you have the numbers of sexual assaults committed by women drivers towards passengers, I’d love to see them. Even better if they’re compared to the men drivers.
Not for sexual misconduct, that’s for violence in general, so it’s imprecise. I’m not denying those numbers for what they are.
You talk like you got the numbers. Let’s see them.
Great, we’re not talking about that.
Please don’t. I use AI too, and I know firsthand this is not something you can trust them with.
By the looks of it, so are you. You’re talking about general violence when I’m not.
The only thing I will concede is the frequency of these assaults relative to the number of uneventful rides. And yet, people here would rather have thousands of cases of sexual assault by doing nothing about it because of some ill-perceived reframing. I swear the men in the comments are talking about this as if it’s some Jim Crow law being put in place when it’s not. It’s nothing but pearl-clutching.