Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

How about YOU r-e-a-d- s-l-o-w-l-y, since you obviously love to gloss over any points or ideas anybody has to share here and concentrate only upon your own links. Do you have any ideas of your own to share, or do you just like to parrot your newstory links? So what about the irony, Inked? The world is filled with irony and ironic situations - and? What's your point? Is this thread about irony, or is it about Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals? And, we were talking about discriminating pub/bar/club access for gays/non-gays, and that was the discussion; just because you put up another link to something else entirely doesn't mean that the previous discussion is over. This thread belongs to everyone participating in it, Inked. You are not the thread's "boss."

Lotesse, which of the following points would you like to discuss?
1) The title of the article was priceless.
2) These are public bars, not private clubs.
3) Equality under the law means that someone can shove their heterosexuality in your face with the same equanimity as non-heterosexuals go about shoving theirs in everyone else's.
4) Gay bars have better male dancers and you don't have to be gay to dance (experentia docet), but who should choreograph your next appearance on the dance floor?
5)The irony was superb.
6)Some orientations are more equal than others in their own eyes and so deserve special treatment: "We can go to yours but you can't come to ours."
7) Could a bouncer reliably tell one's orientation or would it be solely an external characterization based on stereotypes?
8) Is Hollywood in England, Lotesse?

I'm not the thread boss, Lotesse. I'm not even a straw boss. But your reply is a "straw-person (p.c.)" argument.

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Well, you keep on screaming data! data! But the truth is that you post both data that are unsubstantiated, and statistical calculations that are wrong.
The 1-3% is far too low and just does not correspond with the scientific studies that have been done on the field, such as Laumann et al.
But let's get to the wrong statistics.
Just for the sake of argument I will take the 1% prevalence that you use.
First of all, it is not possible to find out the probability of two principals being LGBT without assuming (implicitely of explicitely) whether the events are dependent or independent. You assumed independence (also known as stockastical independent, also spelled stochastical) without even realizing it to obtain 1/10,000. The assumption of independence is not corroborated by facts in this context because there are all sources of endogeneity at work here, beginning with locational choice.
But let's set aside dependence for an instant, since, to use it, we would have to know its exact mathematical form. For the sake of continuing to prove you wrong, I'll go ahead and work out the case of independence that you want to consider.
If we ask ourselves what is the probability that that particular district in this particular moment had two LGBT principals, under all the assumptions above you do get 1/10,000, but that completely misconstrues the problem. That completely miscronstrues the problem because you would have cried foul whatever district had two LGBT principal. From a stitistical point of view (and I will build the common sense intuition in the post below), that is a completely different question.
The probability that you have to calculate is the probability to have at least one district with two LGBT principals out of all US districts (and you should do it for a reasonably long span or time). I am not familiar with US school districts; I will make some assumptions just to show the correct statistical reasoning; you can go and dig up actual number to plug into the formula.
For this example let's assume that all districts have two principals and that there are 10,000 districts in the US. The probability that you have to calculate is the probabity of having at least one district with two LGBT principals out of 10,000 (I am keeping on using your assumption that LGBT are 1% for the sake of illustation).
One more modeling choice is whether the selection of principals is better represented as "with reinmission" (also called Bernoulli trials) or "without reinmission". Given that I am not doing these calculations in a facetious way, I will just assume Bernoulli trials (for the purpose of this thread assuming non Bernoulli trials would change the name of the distribution that I am going to use) but not the substance of my point.
Under all these assumptions, the right way of computing the probability is by using the binomial distribution.
We still need a small piece of basic probability theory, before we can plow ahead and use the formula. The little piece of probability theory is that the probability of an event is equal to 1 minus the proabability of its complement. Applied to this case that statement says that the probability of having at least one district with two LGBT principals out of 10,000 districts is equal to 1 minus the probability of not having any district with two LGBT principals out of 10,000.
Now we can apply the binomial distribution to find the probability that zero districts out of 10,000 have two LGBT principals (under Inked's assumption that the proabability of two LGBT principals in one specific district is 1/10,000). Plug in the numbers in your calculator and you get approx. 37%.
That means that there is a probability approx 63% that in at least one district (and possibly more than one) out of 10,000 there will be two LGBT principals.

Thanks for erudition run amok, TWFM. But why aren't the two events independent? How are they linked?

The risk of being born with a y chromosome is, admittedly, slightly higher than 50%. That's usually attributed to the more svelte y chromosome itself in the swimming competition. BUT, by school age (~6yrs), the number of males and females is equal. (More males die, being the "more highly evolved of the species and therefore more susceptible to disease and trauma" (joke, people, joke - at least about the evolutionary part!)

Now, the Kinsey data of 10% are long discredited and self-declaration on anonymous studies places homosexuality in either sex at 1 - 3 % in the US population. So 1/100 x 1/100 = 1/10,000. Or, extravagantly, 3/100 x 3/100 equals 9/10,000 reducing to 0.9/1000 or, generoously, 1 per thousand.

So, statistically, it seems that the risk of two homosexual principals of opposite sexes both being named as such would be about 1/1000 at best and 1/10,000 at least likely.

Binomial that any way you like, TWFM, it remains statistically improbable. More like a political statement, methinks.

Intuitively, the likely hood of two random events transpiring at the same time is the product of their individual risks. Now, you can pretend that Boston was looking for thousands of principals at the same time, but that was not the case. They were looking for two. Intuitively, those two slots do not compare with thousands by a factor of 1000. That's ten to the third power for you math buffs!

and, with heroic effort, I am not going to address the "-mission" principles, as I will be unable to avoid references to positions (place holders, of course!)

[Spock]

you guys should get a blog

[inked]

Spock,

would that blog have to be "-mission" controlled by California standards or third world standards?

[Spock]

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Spock,

would that blog have to be "-mission" controlled by California standards or third world standards?

I agree with Spock. Eh, what Inked?

I have no clue what you guys are talking about!

So I'll just take this opportunity to say that I think being gay, bi-sexual, trans-gendered, or however you were born, is just excellent in my opinion.

Yay for gay, I say! I think that can't be said enough right now.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

So I'll just take this opportunity to say that I think being gay, bi-sexual, trans-gendered, or however you were born, is just excellent in my opinion.

Yay for gay, I say! I think that can't be said enough right now.

Indeed!! Yes!

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by inked

Binomial that any way you like, TWFM, it remains statistically improbable. More like a political statement, methinks.

Eh, it does not remain statistically improbable. Didn't you get what TWFM posted? Of course it depends on the number of high schools but if the number were large enough, it would be more improbable to have zero high schools with a gay principal than to have at least one high school with a gay principals.

Perhaps it was a political move to look for two openly homosexual principals, but please don't come with pseudo-statistical calculations to prove it.

Also, remember that principals have come and gone for many, many years and sooner or later, two gay principals would have to surface at the same time - inevitably making headlines in some newspapers. So let's not exaggerate the statistical improbability here.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I already answered this same post of yours two or three days ago, and you still have not explained to me what exactly you were implying by "Is Hollywood in England." See, for the most part, I try to refrain from making any kind of response to you

You applied Hollywood status to England. Are they equal? Same laws? Same behaviours differently regulated? Or is all the world your experience of it in Hollywood?

Uptake kinda slow, Lo!

[inked]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Eh, it does not remain statistically improbable. Didn't you get what TWFM posted? Of course it depends on the number of high schools but if the number were large enough, it would be more improbable to have zero high schools with a gay principal than to have at least one high school with a gay principals.

Perhaps it was a political move to look for two openly homosexual principals, but please don't come with pseudo-statistical calculations to prove it.

Also, remember that principals have come and gone for many, many years and sooner or later, two gay principals would have to surface at the same time - inevitably making headlines in some newspapers. So let's not exaggerate the statistical improbability here.

What's statistically improbable is that an event which occurs by chance 9,999 times out of 10,000 NOT occuring. That's what is improbable. Or do you routinely bet on the 1-in-ten-thousand event to occur? Say, at the races?

There's nothing pseudostatistical about it: it's a straightforward calculation yielding probability. I'm not exxagerating, I'm calculating.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Eh, it does not remain statistically improbable. Didn't you get what TWFM posted?

Indeed, he did not understand it. I surmise that the fact that he did not want to understand it, played a role in his not understanding it.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Of course it depends on the number of high schools but if the number were large enough, it would be more improbable to have zero high schools with a gay principal than to have at least one high school with a gay principals.

Perhaps it was a political move to look for two openly homosexual principals, but please don't come with pseudo-statistical calculations to prove it.

Also, remember that principals have come and gone for many, many years and sooner or later, two gay principals would have to surface at the same time - inevitably making headlines in some newspapers. So let's not exaggerate the statistical improbability here.

Exactly!

Originally Posted by inked

What's statistically improbable is that an event which occurs by chance 9,999 times out of 10,000 NOT occuring. That's what is improbable. Or do you routinely bet on the 1-in-ten-thousand event to occur? Say, at the races?

There's nothing pseudostatistical about it: it's a straightforward calculation yielding probability. I'm not exxagerating, I'm calculating.

Yes, you are calculating them wrongly. And you don't even have the humility to look up on the internet the very basic rules of probabilistic calculus that you would get in the first two weeks of any introduction to probability course

[Nurvingiel]

Anyone else have no clue what's going on here? *raises hand*

[Sminty_Smeagol]

my male gay friend and I want to put on a drag show at a local club. It would amuse me to be hit on by gay men thinking I am a drag queen when ta da i am REALLY female.

That's something i don't get. Why gay men are often attracted to drag queens, who are trying to resemble women as closely as they can, when none of them are attracted to women.

I don't like it when gay people complain about discrimination and hate crimes, like especially the gay guys talking about how straight guys hate them for no reason. Like no gay has ever done anything to earn dislike. But I do know several gay guys who "hit on" straight guys, guys they know are obviously straight. Guys with girlfriends. A lot of it isn't too subtle, and continues when the straight guy obviously shows no interest. Not saying that that earns hate crimes, especially not for the whole gay population, but some of them can be sick, just like any other group.

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

I don't have a problem with the gays. That being said, I like being straight, so I'd prefer not to catch gay. It's not airborn, is it?

[Sminty_Smeagol]

Actually, they make a pod of you and then it slowly forms into you and when you go to sleep your soul turns into the gay.

Don't sleep.

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Originally Posted by Sminty_Smeagol

Actually, they make a pod of you and then it slowly forms into you and when you go to sleep your soul turns into the gay.

Don't sleep.

Holy shitehawk!

And it gets worse. We don't have any local retailers of that anti-gay spray. I don't mean anti-gay in a discriminatory way, maybe anti-catch-gay spray?

Last thing I need is for my soul to get the gay.

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

Why? Don't you like being merry and happy?

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

Why? Don't you like being merry and happy?

I'm currently rather mentally balanced, thank you very much. And if I wanted that contagious Multiple Personality Syndrome, I'd probably choose characters more intriguing than a hoppit and a dwarf.



Ok, hang on just a moment. Let's stick to the subject at hand.

OMG Christian Bale's so hawt. I love his body.

[Embladyne]

Originally Posted by Sminty_Smeagol

my male gay friend and I want to put on a drag show at a local club. It would amuse me to be hit on by gay men thinking I am a drag queen when ta da i am REALLY female.

Heh, I've had almost the opposite happen to me. I've done plenty of drag. And, so one day when I was with friends, I was dressed as a sailor boy (which might have been the problem there) and we met up with other friends. The whole lot of us were queer, and quite a few of us dressed up, so I wasn't expecting anything of it. But then a couple of my male gay friends start hitting on me, a little too seriously. It was unnerving to have guys hitting on me because they thought I looked attractive dressed as a boy.

I've also never understood my gay friends who would hit on extremely straight people that they knew were straight, and there was no chance of anything happening.

Yeah, so this was OT, but I felt like sharing a story.

On the topic of hate crimes, I myself have been in fear of them many times, and not because I was provoking anyone, or even trying to be openly queer. There are some seriously scary people who are short-sighted enough to believe that the world must be rid of people who do not follow all their moral rules, and that it's ok to use violence outside of the law to achieve this end.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Rev. Justin Timberlake

Last thing I need is for my soul to get the gay.

Bwahaha!!

Embladyne nice story. I don't think it was OT. I wouldn't hit on a guy I knew was gay because, well duh right?