1 in 9 girls and 1 in 20 boys under age 18 experience sexual abuse or assault.
82% of all victims under 18 are girls. Young women 16-19 are 4× more likely than gen pop to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.
In 88% of the sexual abuse claims that CPS substantiates or finds supporting evidence of, the perpetrator is male. In 9% of cases they are female, and 3% are unknown.
The vast majority are acquaintances or family.
So the most likely scenario of grooming of minors is an adult man grooming a young woman 12 to 17 years old... the exact opposite of what anti trans and anti gay crusaders want you to believe.
The fact that 34% of sexual abuse of minors are committed by family is precisely why mandatory school reporting is DANGEROUS. It ends up being taken out on the kid at home.
Furthermore, since OVER A THIRD of abuse cases are committed by family, education in school in healthy sexuality, relationships and consent is essential so that young people can tell the difference between love and abuse.
We have known this for DECADES. So I seriously question the true motives of the people loudly trying to turn back the clock. Open dialogue in schools keeps kids safer.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I know I keep harping on this, but I'm just pissed off that people are straight-faced claiming that Gamergate started the current culture war. Here's why YOU ARE WRONG... 🧵
Gamergate was a symptom of culture war. Not the cause. Think of it as a big ol' zit that popped on the culture war's adolescent face. Two major factions: Huffington Post and Breitbart news, already existed when Gamergate began. GG's dynamics were simple: Breitbart vs EVERYONE.
I tried to pitch objective, neutral pieces to numerous outlets, based on direct, on the ground reporting I'd done with people on both sides. EVERY TIME I was told "Nope. It's Milo. It's nuclear. We're not touching Breitbart." Now... there were 3 main reasons for this:
Things like this are why I keep following the fallout from the Depp/Heard trial. This is written by Nick Wallis, a journalist who covered the trial. And it's riddled with sexist assumptions about the woman judge in lieu of an actual fact-based argument. 🧵
Setting aside, for now, his admission that the whole thing is special pleading, trials are made public primarily out of a belief that it makes them more fair to the accused. Wallis' argument is that it is inherently bad that Youtubers shaped perception. Is that so?
I didn't watch much of the YouTube commentary, though I did participate in some. Based on the trial in the UK, YouTube commentary would have happened no matter what. In light of that, it's more fair to the accused (Heard) that people can access the trial WITHOUT that filter.
Alright poppets, today we're dropping facts about the dreaded DETRANSITIONING. Cause GC Voldemort and company are bringing it up. They use the IF EVEN ONE PERSON reasoning, a favorite of racists and homophobes throughout history. Here's what's wrong with it... 🧵
1) They don't now how to read statistics. Yes, the number of people who detransition is small. OMG BUT IT'S IRREVERSIBLE they say! All surgery is. A 97% satisfaction rate is actually incredibly high. And that's where we come to reading statistics...
Never, EVER, just take a single statistic without comparing it to some sort of baseline. Because you realize how ridiculous the GCs are being regarding medical transition when you compare gender affirming care to plastic surgery results in general...
Transphobes are attempting a definition creep on the term "reversal" regarding puberty blockers. They're claiming because a teen can't go back in time, and therefore is "delayed" in puberty, that it's a permanent change. But that's wrong, and here's why... 🧵
There is no clockwork age that puberty begins. The term "late bloomer" existed when I was growing up for a reason. So the delay experienced by some teens who cease treatment eventually works itself out. Just a bit later. That's the "reversible" element.
Think about it: when you stop taking diabetes medicine, the trend in your blood sugar REVERSES. You don't go back in time so you never had the relief of symptoms. All medications work that way. To single out GnRH drugs is absurd.
So, to recap the fact check on JK Rowling's latest "opinion"
🧵
She disagrees w Sturgeon that no rights will be taken away from women with the GRC reforms, but doesn't state the rights being robbed. The GRC merely changes the process for the document change. Nothing else changes.
Rowling claims that "no one seems to be able to explain what living as an acquired gender ... means". But we know:
the gender expressed publicly in their daily life including at work, while shopping or accessing other services, in housing environment or in the broader community.
Rowling insists that she has "no clue" how to assess someone's authentic "innate sense of self", but she wants us to take her word for it that she's not transphobic, despite transphobic statements and associations. Which version of reality do we believe here?
So let's recap what happened the last few days:
J.K. Rowling used her sizeable platform to go after a trans youth charity (which she already had a hate on for over breast binders) by finding an inadvisable conference appearance by 1 trustee in 2011 when he was a PhD student. 🧵
She has also decided to demand the Discord messaging service be shut down or meaningfully reduced, because 4 twelve year olds were talking to bad people on it, even though Discord's minimum ToS age is 13. (Of course, this is after the charity she hates moved some comms to Discord
J. K. Rowling's stans go nuts. They begin forging excerpts from the trustee's vanity press book to make him seem like an active, modern day supporter of pedophilia. (I had to read that damned thing to discover this. My brain.)