CitricBase

Here's a more general report that delves into your question: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/global-study-on-homicide.html

By far the biggest reason is that ~70% of those homicides are crime or gang related, and almost all of those are men, which neatly accounts for the disparity.

That of course raises the question, why are men so much more likely to get tangled up in gangs or crime? I'm sure that the sociologists have a more nuanced take, but I'll venture out on a limb and say it's because men are full of dumbassifying hormones. Being immersed in societal peer pressure probably doesn't help, depending on what environment they're in.

This goes without saying, every country will levy retaliatory tariffs. It's one of the reasons random tariffs are such a stupid idea to begin with.

Yep. A 10% tariff will mean that every other country has 10% more purchasing power compared to the US. It's basically shooting your own economy's competitiveness in the foot.

Thank you.

To be fair to the Guardian, their headline is substantive, compared to the other article that just gave a number without context. The report does clearly support the assertion that on average home is the most dangerous place for women to be attacked.

Sir, my entire thesis was about how important it is to present clear data to substantiate your claims. Not only are you refuting the findings with zero data or sources, you are injecting a racially charged dimension into the mix.

For all we know your arguments could be entirely correct, but you yourself are undermining them by not attempting constructive discourse.

It's a shame that this data is being presented this poorly, because this is a really important issue that deserves attention. None of the figures presented in the linked article have the proper context to understand them. Even the UN report itself does not present their findings well.

So, for instance, 140 women per day is of course more than the ideal number of zero, but there are billions of people on this planet. To actually quantify the gender imbalance of this number, we need to compare it to the number of men who are victims in the same way. From the report:

Globally, approximately 51,100 women and girls were killed by their intimate partners or other family members [...out of...] 85,000 women and girls killed intentionally during the year [...] In other words, an average of 140 women and girls worldwide lost their lives every day at the hands of their partner or a close relative.

The report does not offer corresponding numbers for male (or non-binary) victims. It does, however, say that 11.8% of male victims and 60.2% of female victims are killed by partners or other family members. It also acknowledges that 80% of all homicide victims are men and 20% women, which is beside the point as this is about domestic violence, but it will allow us to do some math to arrive at numbers to compare against.

• 85,000 * 80/20 = 340,000 men killed total
• 340,000 * 11.8% = 40,120 men killed by partners or family
• so we are comparing 40,120 men with 51,100 women
• women are 27.4% more likely than men to be killed by partners or family.

...which should have been the headline. 27% more is massive! Domestic violence is a huge issue, and women are more likely to suffer from it!

There is no need to obfuscate the numbers to be less honest. The honest numbers themselves are shocking enough, and scientifically literate readers won't dismiss your credibility along with your cause. I look forward to future UN reports communicating these horrifying statistics a bit more clearly.

With you in that the sexist comment means avoid, but am I missing something about the browser name? Aren't ladybirds just what ladybugs are called in the UK?

https://www.natgeokids.com/uk/discover/animals/insects/ladybird-facts/

They're not a Trojan Horse. They're just the Trojans, they knocked on the gates and said "yes hello we would like to come in to rape your women and children, pillage your valuables, and destroy the city." And the citizens said "hmm yes eggs are a bit expensive" and decided to open the gates to willingly let them in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNX5OPkrfZk&t=64s

Missouri got their anti-RCV proposal passed by billing it as an amendment declaring that non-citizens cannot vote. That's right, they did it by banning something that was already against the law.

Maybe the way forward for election reform is to put it as a footnote in a proposition declaring murder to be bad.

I think that one thing you and other centrists are missing is that any kind of regulation isn't just a regulation on trans women, it's a regulation on ALL women. It won't be just trans women that will be put in a position of constantly having their genitals checked.

Be it for bathrooms, sports, whatever, you're opening us up to a world where anyone that fancies themselves an authority will feel empowered to sexually assault any women they want. That's what's at stake here. This is a women's issue, not just a trans issue. Hell, even men will end up getting harassed in bathrooms.

Meanwhile, actual trans people are going to by and large steer clear of segregated contact sports like they've always done, feeling the pain of exclusion and marginalization while deserving none of it.

Your little scenario explicitly presumes that the man would be the one in charge, making this decision.