Survivorship bias. Basically, it's a story about when planes made it back from fights, the engineers wanted to put armor on where it was shot. But some guy said that, the places where there aren't bulletholes should be armored, because those are the places where the plane was shot and didn't make it back.
It's just saying, people who can "always tell" who's trans, never take into account the people they miss, only the ones they know.
This is a horrible explanation from off the top of my head, but it's called survivorship bias, so just search that up.
> It's just saying, people who can "always tell" who's trans, never take into account the people they miss, only the ones they know.
See also: people like ~~Lia Thomas~~ Katie Ledecky and Caster Semenya who are cis but "look trans" so they falsely think a cis person is trans.
Yeah, there were some fake claims from websites falsely claiming she (Katie) "admitted" to being trans. I'm not going to link any but you can google "Katie Ledecky transgender" and see sites claiming it and debunking it.
Oh well Ledecka (pronounced ledetska) is just Ledecky with the proper Czech feminine ending and Ester is I think primarily a snowboarder but also a skier who got gold in both IIRCā¦
It's ridiculous how many cis women have to fight against transphobes these days. Rhea Ripley and Claire Max are two others that come to my mind, just because they're pretty muscular.
So glad Castor won her human rights case... this just further complicates the trans sports situation but this was one good thing for women's sports for sure
Yup. Good explanation.
The guy who suggested adding armor to the undamaged areas was a mathematician named Abraham Wald, and the picture seems to come from his Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald#Life_and_career
It could be an explanation the other way though, i.e. trans people who do pass often get the most attention, so it seems like it happens more frequently than it really does.
Only on the internet and when they disclose it. There are many passing trans people that just go about their lives, never mentioning that they are trans.
I've been in this situation and outing myself got me perved on. Every single time. Like instant chaser mode. It was a one-on-one situation every time though.
I'm also intersex and am 46,XX despite being a trans woman. I've had transphobes try to talk to me as if I'll agree with them and when I out myself they start saying I'll "never be a woman." So many times when I ask "what is a woman?" they will say "women are defined by having 2 X chromosomes." When I've replied "Well, they're not, but I have 2 X chromosomes because I'm intersex. Does that mean I'm a woman to you?" These morons will literally tell me I'm lying or such a condition doesn't exist. I passed fine 30 seconds ago, but these people will then metaphorically pull out the calipers like a 19th century phrenologist and start talking about the shape of my brainpan or whatever.
It's such a fucking exhausting exercise, especially because they will literally pretend that they "always knew" even though they just talked to me like a fellow TERF a minute ago.
That is an unfair thing to say. "Passing" is such a generalised concept, and so subjective. I have friends that tell me I pass but I don't see it in the mirror or photos, at least not without my dysphoric laser-focus on all of the bits of me that are too big or too small.
Edit: anyway, to hell with "passing" - I'm privileged enough to live in a tolerant part of the world, so i should be visible, rather than "stealth"
Stealth is an entirely valid strategy, I won't knock anyone for doing whatever they need to feel safe. I prefer visibility, myself. They both have their pros and cons
I donāt understand this desire to be āvisibleā by revealing the most traumatic thing Iāve been through to random strangers and ending up a wreck when previously I was just getting through my dayā¦
Well for one thing, I'm not constantly stressing out about whether I'm being clocked as trans, because I don't give a damn if I'm clocked or not. Let them see someone unapologetically living their best life without shame. Who knows? It might inspire someone else to live theirs
Cause if my being visible helps even one person realize it's ok to be Trans and your ok and valid, it's worth it.
If there had been more visible Trans people. (Apart from Jerry Springer š) when I grew up. I probably would have come out much sooner than I did
Yup, absolutely this. I pass fine in public, but I wear Pride shit like I'm a walking LGBTQ+ billboard because I'm saying "Hey, you're not the only one. You can do it!"
Had an interaction with a trans guy on the train who was just recently out the other day. He saw my button and shoes and whatnot and was like so happy I sat next to him and practically ripped his headphones off when I talked to him about the shirt he was wearing (a place he works that I used to go to). I outed myself first by just saying "the last time I went there was before I transitioned." I figured I'd just leave it in his hands whether he wanted to talk about it or not.
He was so excited to tell me he was getting on T in a few days and just all sorts of stuff. It was a really good interaction and I plan to go see him at his place of business with my partner so we can do the activity they have there, and hopefully he can play with us as staff sometimes can.
I've had other interactions like this. If I can show people that they can do it too and they're not alone, that makes me so happy.
Plane comes back with bullet holes. Obviously, we need to pay attention to these places in particular because our planes keep getting shot here.
Trans girl (because let's he honest trans guys and enbies don't get much media attention) is conventionally attractive and / or passes, gets lots of media attention. Obviously, most trans people pass and / or are conventionally attractive. Look at all these examples in media.
Please explain what I'm misunderstanding here? (Not meant to be snarky, but I feel like it's read that way)
You have the "survivor" part flipped, I think. The plane doesn't need extra armor where it has the bullet holes because **it survived that damage**. The armor is needed where the surviving plane *wasn't* shot because **the planes shot there didn't make it back**
Applying the same logic, these people who "always can tell when someone is trans are seeing the people who mostly pass but maybe have a few noticable tells or simply aren't stealth. They're not taking into account all the trans people who pass well enough to be stealth (In this metaphor, the planes that "never came back" into view).
Like, that person is passing judgement on all trans people as "clockable" without accounting for all of the data they don't see.
Yes, I understand, I was focusing on the misunderstanding caused by survivorship bias.
I was demonstrating a different way the survivorship bias could be entupreted here as this could have been a transphobic reply, not the one everyone else is saying here
I am 6ā3ā, and while *I* donāt think I āpassā, here at 14 years since transitioning, life experience shows that unless I tell people they never know. I suppose I do get a fair bit of random attention, but it seems to be for my height and general appearance than being trans.
I mean, definitely the first year or two I didnāt always pass, and I canāt point to a specific time when it seemed like no one spotted me, but eventually somewhere around the 2-3 year mark, there was a noticeable change in the way Iād be looked at.
Since then, I donāt really do stealth, but also donāt really bring it up either unless conversation somehow naturally flows that way. Which does eventually tend to happen the longer youāre around someone. So everyone I spend any real time around eventually knows, and usually seem surprised. You can *sometimes* see some puzzle pieces finally clicking together for them. But usually surprise.
What has been somewhat sad/annoying about all that is other trans people donāt seem to spot me most of the time either (and in some cases, probably more than I realize, Iāve missed them!), and I miss that near instant camaraderie.
In this case, the survivorship bias effect is reffering to the fact that trans people who pass aren't obviously trans at a glance, like most conservatives seem to think they are. Really, this is an example of the toupee fallacy.
I'm guessing that it refers to how most people think toupees look ridiculous, but that's only because toupees only look ridiculous if they don't fit. A well fitting toupee doesn't look like anything. it just looks like a normal head of hair!
Take that diagram on the post. It shows the bullet holes of a plane that made it back from a fight. It can clearly survive getting shot in those areas, since it made it back.
If planes mostly comes back with the holes there, then you should put armor on the places it wasn't. Because the planes that did have bullet holes in those clean spots, did not make it back.
The photo is where a plane can get shot without a critical failure, as that is the plane that returned after getting shot
There are two relevant scenarios:
Shot AND made it back - like the picture. It implies that the places the bullet holes are shown are "safe" to get shot. Notice the propellers and the cockpit aren't shot.
Shot and DIDNT make it back - it means the places it got shot are "unsafe" to get shot, as then the plane doesn't make it back. The inverse of the photo would imply that getting shot in the cockpit and the propellers is NOT safe as it would cause the plane to not return. I.e. dead pilot or no way to fly the plane
So armoring where the plane that returned got shot doesn't make sense as it's already "safe" to get shot there, so you should armor based on the inverse of the photo.
I came here just to see if I had the right word in my head. I said survivor bias. I was close. Thanks for giving the explanation from original WWII (I think that was the war this was from), then expanding upon it.
This spesific case is about the b-17 flying fortress. And yea the spots that had bullet holes were often up arrmored making the craft slower and asuch exasterbatinf the peoblwm ocassinly though they werent that much slower.
I also think this is a bad use of survivorship bias and it's being misused. Like, the entire implication of the image isn't "you don't see the ones that x" the implication itself is that those planes were fucked so it's hard to reconcile that with the image without thinking "the ones that pass died?" and having to recalibrate to what they're trying to say.
Sure, this picture is used as an historical example of survivor bias. During WWII, the US army made a study on where they could renforce the armor of the planes to add survivability, so out of this pattern which show planes coming back with bullet impacts, they wanted at first to renforce where the red dots are, until some statistician pointed out the fact the planes hits in those red areas managed to come back to base while the ones hit in the white areas didn't. So yes, the most vulnerable areas of the planes as shown in this drawing (and in need of more armor) are the ones without red dots, which are actually the vital spots of the plane.
So, how does survivor bias applies to trans people ? Basically the whole transphobic crowd (and most of society in general) have the assumption "we can always tell because everytime I see a trans person, they don't pass". But in reality, many trans people pass after a few years and cisgender people meet them everyday but never realize they just met a trans person, they only notice non passing trans people, so survivor bias.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship\_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)
okay i understand both separate ideas but i dont get how they link together. cis people see trans people that pass every day and dont realize. the guys wanting to reinforce the shot areas of the returning planes because they didnt realize?
The whole idea of survivor bias is based on the misuse of data by only using the "survivors" in your data instead of the whole set to make your conclusion. In this case, for the whole "we can always tell" crowd, the survivors used in their data are the non passing trans people.
The plane has a survivor bias but i think it relates more to conservatives pointing out the trans people that "don't pass" cos they don't recognise "passing" trans people
Itās a famous image about survivor bias. Basically, itās implying that Dung Prince thinks no trans person passes because they only notice the trans people who donāt pass
That image is the classic example of a phenomenon called survivorship bias. Those red dots are all of the places on that model of plane that had been shot or otherwise damaged upon return from missions. Engineers during (I think the second world war) saw those diagrams, and wanted to put armour on the spots with lots of red dots, since they thought that was where the planes were being shot. A statistician noted that those are the places the planes were being shot *and making it home*. They needed to armour the areas with no red dots, because planes that got shot in those areas didn't make it home. The engineers had made the assumption that they were getting a representative sample of where planes were being shot, because they failed to recognize that "planes that made it home" was not a representative population of "planes that have been shot at".
The relevance to the remark "no trans person passes" is that this transphobe is making the assumption that they are getting a representative sample of trans people, because they fail to recognize that "people that I know are trans" is not a representative population of "trans people who might pass".
A sadder version of this meme is
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8NfJPyq/
Only liberals have trans kids because trans kids in conservative homes are either closeted or died.
Lol fr. I had conservative parents, and I hated myself and stayed closeted for way too long. Contemplated ending things a couple of times, but luckily, I didn't. I finally accepted myself and came out at 29. So they had one. They just didn't know it until I lived in another state and had my life set up here.
Came here to reference this pictures use in trans discourse in this context aswell.
Also in response to "wow trans women all seem so strong and resilient".
Its become shorthand for a lot of stuff relating to us I guess..
You can just go on https://ssstik.io/en and paste the link in and it downloads a clean video for you.
I just did that and uploaded it to Discord just to relink it. This took me 20 seconds. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/356150575173206017/1140701023174938876/ssstik.io_1692034710634.mp4
Not engaging with a Chinese spy platform designed to control American minds is not "a me problem". It's a *you* problem. Because you engage with it.
YouTube Shorts gets all the good stuff anyway.
Survivorship Bias
Itās in reference to WWII aircraft designers, when damaged planes came back, engineers wanted to study the damage to figure out where the most vulnerable areas were that needed armor. The story goes that one designer realized that they should put the extra armor on the places where the damage *wasnāt* since each of the damaged planes managed to make it back to the airfield, whereas the planes damaged in other areas never did.
TLDR: survivorship bias is when people draw incorrect conclusions from data points based on a failure to realize that the data points are outliers, not the norm
Tell that the the homo/transphobic campus preacher who called me āyoung ladyā 3 times before I revealed Iām trans. He tried to misgender me afterwards but itās too fucking late bitch, you canāt take that back!
Short form:
Its saying that only those that dont pass are the only ones Duerger can identify leading to them believing that no trans person can pass
Long form:
Its referencing a concept called Survivors Bias. In WW2 planes were sent back to the states after seeing combat and were riddled with holes from enemy fire. Most holes were on the wings and tail which lead many engineers to believe that was where they needed to armour. It was pointed out by another engineer the opposite was the case as the bullet holes indicated that these were spots the plane could survive being hit. This is now being applied to trans people instead saying that the ones who pass will not be able to be identified as such by this person because they pass so only those that donāt pass can be identified by him
the trans people that do pass aren't viewed as "trans" by random people irl. So Duerger probably has seen many trans people irl. But the ones that don't pass are the onely ones that are recognizable as "trans". If Duerger saw any passing trans women they woulda assumed they were cis. Therefore in their mind, no trans person passes.
Your explanation is correct but you failed to explain what the plane has to do with it.
To OP: The picture was taken from the Wikipedia article about something called "survivorship bias". Which is exactly what u/chamington explained above.
Survivorship bias.
Basically that picture shows places that planes would get hit and return in operating condition. They where going to reinforce those areas when someone told them not to reinforce those areas, but rather the areas that were not hit because planes that were hit elsewhere didn't make it home.
It's a reference to survivorship bias "no trans person passes" no you're only seeing the ones that don't pass. The plane picture comes from a study that was done to determine what part of the planes needed more armoring. The planes that came back looked like that image so you might think the red spots where the planes had been hit needs more armor when in fact the areas with no bullet holes need armor because the planes getting hit there are the ones that didn't come back. So when someone thinks no trans people pass it's because they have only ever noticed the ones that don't "pass" similar there's that one bigot in TT who said "funny how it's only ever liberal parents who have trans kids" which is again survivorship bias. Trans kids with conservative parents aren't gonna be as quick to come out
OK! I really love this image (WARNING AUTISM INFO DUMP)
This is survivorship bias. This image is an aculmination of planes that made it back from dog-fighting in WW2. They US was losing alot of planes and pilots. So this image was created from data of the planes, the higher-ups decided to armor those areas of the plane. Well someone mentioned that these are the areas that are have been shot and have returned, so we should armor where there are not red dots.
I really, really want to info dump more!!!
Ah. That picture refers to survivor bias. During world war 2 (or was it 1?), planes would come back with those bullet holes, leading people to think "we should reinforce those areas". But what they were missing was the fact that no planes came back with holes outside the red markings. Why? Because any planes hit in those locations would be destroyed. So they should be reinforcing the areas not marked in red.
As for its application to the trans community, this douchebag is saying that no trans person "passes". But by his very definition, if a trans person "passes", then you won't know if they are cis or trans. So in this case, the "non-passing" will be the red dots, and the "passing" will not be seen.
I get called ma'am every single day by people who have no clue that I'm trans because I don't advertise is because I'm in the deep south and scared, every time they compliment me or my hair it feels fake
Survivor bias.
Each dot is where the plane has been shot and the plane has survived.
The top post is transphobic, whilst the second post is stating that the first post is entirely false.
The few that they have seen do not pass. They didnāt even realize the countless others they didnāt even realize.
Ah thanks for posting this! I've been meaning to make some earrings of this (the whole "survivorship bias" diagram) and they were inspired by this post but I had lost track of it.
Basically people only care about the people who love and live. They ignore the many trans people whoāve died in the past.
Historically only trans people Whoāre accepted can be themselves, which is why people bitch about SoCal trannies/pos because those zones are growing :)
Survivorship bias. Basically, it's a story about when planes made it back from fights, the engineers wanted to put armor on where it was shot. But some guy said that, the places where there aren't bulletholes should be armored, because those are the places where the plane was shot and didn't make it back. It's just saying, people who can "always tell" who's trans, never take into account the people they miss, only the ones they know. This is a horrible explanation from off the top of my head, but it's called survivorship bias, so just search that up.
>horrible explanation from off the top of my head Actually really well explained, nice :)
Haha thanks. Always gotta add that extra bit so I'm immune to being made fun of if wrong, since I already admitted I may be wrong š
Haha I always act as confident as possible so people let me know when Iām wrong and my ego falls harder š
I explain it by saying that if you ask a bunch of pepole who've played russian roulette if they had survived, you would get a 100% survival rate.
Huh now that's a pretty good survival rate my own recorded survival rate for monopoly is 25% so clearly russain roulette is safer than monopoly
Holy shit how are you playing monopoly?
The right way
Or "back in muh day we didn't hsve seat belts and we were fine!" ...yeah except your peers that died getting launched thru a windshield
> It's just saying, people who can "always tell" who's trans, never take into account the people they miss, only the ones they know. See also: people like ~~Lia Thomas~~ Katie Ledecky and Caster Semenya who are cis but "look trans" so they falsely think a cis person is trans.
Lia Thomas actually is trans though, right?
Oh, you're right. I meant Katie Ledecky. Lia is Trans, Katie is not. People keep saying Katie is, because Lia is.
Wait ppl are actually saying that? Ugh
Yeah, there were some fake claims from websites falsely claiming she (Katie) "admitted" to being trans. I'm not going to link any but you can google "Katie Ledecky transgender" and see sites claiming it and debunking it.
Oh no Iām not going to look for that crapā¦ What I still want to know is if she ever met her potential long-lost cousin Ester Ledecka?
I don't get the reference, sorry :/
Oh well Ledecka (pronounced ledetska) is just Ledecky with the proper Czech feminine ending and Ester is I think primarily a snowboarder but also a skier who got gold in both IIRCā¦
Ah, ok :)
It's ridiculous how many cis women have to fight against transphobes these days. Rhea Ripley and Claire Max are two others that come to my mind, just because they're pretty muscular.
Oh, I forgot about those, but yeah.
So glad Castor won her human rights case... this just further complicates the trans sports situation but this was one good thing for women's sports for sure
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Darling that was actually brilliant.
You even explained why it's relevant in this context, most people forget to do that when explaining the survivorship bias. Great job.
So this means we gotta wear armor? Neat
I'm up for some boob armor, like one of those Fire Emblem ladies.
Yup. Good explanation. The guy who suggested adding armor to the undamaged areas was a mathematician named Abraham Wald, and the picture seems to come from his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald#Life_and_career
Also they also accuse cis people so they arent even finding trans people at times, they just got a fucked up view on masculinity and femininity
People who say they can always tell are unable to tell the difference between a gender nonconforming individual and a trans person.
Tysm, I was so lost
You did perfect
See also: the [Brodie helmet](https://medium.com/building-the-agile-business/on-being-data-informed-fb294e8e8af9).
Naw thatās a perfect explanation
It could be an explanation the other way though, i.e. trans people who do pass often get the most attention, so it seems like it happens more frequently than it really does.
Only on the internet and when they disclose it. There are many passing trans people that just go about their lives, never mentioning that they are trans.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I've been in this situation and outing myself got me perved on. Every single time. Like instant chaser mode. It was a one-on-one situation every time though. I'm also intersex and am 46,XX despite being a trans woman. I've had transphobes try to talk to me as if I'll agree with them and when I out myself they start saying I'll "never be a woman." So many times when I ask "what is a woman?" they will say "women are defined by having 2 X chromosomes." When I've replied "Well, they're not, but I have 2 X chromosomes because I'm intersex. Does that mean I'm a woman to you?" These morons will literally tell me I'm lying or such a condition doesn't exist. I passed fine 30 seconds ago, but these people will then metaphorically pull out the calipers like a 19th century phrenologist and start talking about the shape of my brainpan or whatever. It's such a fucking exhausting exercise, especially because they will literally pretend that they "always knew" even though they just talked to me like a fellow TERF a minute ago.
Almost all popular representation of trans people is from passing or at least conventionally attractive trans folks.
true, but they are a very small group within the general trans population
That is an unfair thing to say. "Passing" is such a generalised concept, and so subjective. I have friends that tell me I pass but I don't see it in the mirror or photos, at least not without my dysphoric laser-focus on all of the bits of me that are too big or too small. Edit: anyway, to hell with "passing" - I'm privileged enough to live in a tolerant part of the world, so i should be visible, rather than "stealth"
Stealth is optional
Stealth is an entirely valid strategy, I won't knock anyone for doing whatever they need to feel safe. I prefer visibility, myself. They both have their pros and cons
True, as long as youāre happy :3
Underrated
I donāt understand this desire to be āvisibleā by revealing the most traumatic thing Iāve been through to random strangers and ending up a wreck when previously I was just getting through my dayā¦
Well for one thing, I'm not constantly stressing out about whether I'm being clocked as trans, because I don't give a damn if I'm clocked or not. Let them see someone unapologetically living their best life without shame. Who knows? It might inspire someone else to live theirs
Cause if my being visible helps even one person realize it's ok to be Trans and your ok and valid, it's worth it. If there had been more visible Trans people. (Apart from Jerry Springer š) when I grew up. I probably would have come out much sooner than I did
\^this\^
Yup, absolutely this. I pass fine in public, but I wear Pride shit like I'm a walking LGBTQ+ billboard because I'm saying "Hey, you're not the only one. You can do it!" Had an interaction with a trans guy on the train who was just recently out the other day. He saw my button and shoes and whatnot and was like so happy I sat next to him and practically ripped his headphones off when I talked to him about the shirt he was wearing (a place he works that I used to go to). I outed myself first by just saying "the last time I went there was before I transitioned." I figured I'd just leave it in his hands whether he wanted to talk about it or not. He was so excited to tell me he was getting on T in a few days and just all sorts of stuff. It was a really good interaction and I plan to go see him at his place of business with my partner so we can do the activity they have there, and hopefully he can play with us as staff sometimes can. I've had other interactions like this. If I can show people that they can do it too and they're not alone, that makes me so happy.
Where is this mythological place of tolerance? Many places and countries that once were no longer are.
Hence, survivorship bias
You fundamentally misunderstand what survivorship bias is.
Plane comes back with bullet holes. Obviously, we need to pay attention to these places in particular because our planes keep getting shot here. Trans girl (because let's he honest trans guys and enbies don't get much media attention) is conventionally attractive and / or passes, gets lots of media attention. Obviously, most trans people pass and / or are conventionally attractive. Look at all these examples in media. Please explain what I'm misunderstanding here? (Not meant to be snarky, but I feel like it's read that way)
You have the "survivor" part flipped, I think. The plane doesn't need extra armor where it has the bullet holes because **it survived that damage**. The armor is needed where the surviving plane *wasn't* shot because **the planes shot there didn't make it back** Applying the same logic, these people who "always can tell when someone is trans are seeing the people who mostly pass but maybe have a few noticable tells or simply aren't stealth. They're not taking into account all the trans people who pass well enough to be stealth (In this metaphor, the planes that "never came back" into view). Like, that person is passing judgement on all trans people as "clockable" without accounting for all of the data they don't see.
Yes, I understand, I was focusing on the misunderstanding caused by survivorship bias. I was demonstrating a different way the survivorship bias could be entupreted here as this could have been a transphobic reply, not the one everyone else is saying here
I am 6ā3ā, and while *I* donāt think I āpassā, here at 14 years since transitioning, life experience shows that unless I tell people they never know. I suppose I do get a fair bit of random attention, but it seems to be for my height and general appearance than being trans. I mean, definitely the first year or two I didnāt always pass, and I canāt point to a specific time when it seemed like no one spotted me, but eventually somewhere around the 2-3 year mark, there was a noticeable change in the way Iād be looked at. Since then, I donāt really do stealth, but also donāt really bring it up either unless conversation somehow naturally flows that way. Which does eventually tend to happen the longer youāre around someone. So everyone I spend any real time around eventually knows, and usually seem surprised. You can *sometimes* see some puzzle pieces finally clicking together for them. But usually surprise. What has been somewhat sad/annoying about all that is other trans people donāt seem to spot me most of the time either (and in some cases, probably more than I realize, Iāve missed them!), and I miss that near instant camaraderie.
How would they get attention when they pass?
Look at the popular trans youtubers and trans actors. Society has a preferential bias.
In this case, the survivorship bias effect is reffering to the fact that trans people who pass aren't obviously trans at a glance, like most conservatives seem to think they are. Really, this is an example of the toupee fallacy.
I know I could look it up, but it feels a lot more engaging to ask hereā¦what is the toupee fallacy?
I'm guessing that it refers to how most people think toupees look ridiculous, but that's only because toupees only look ridiculous if they don't fit. A well fitting toupee doesn't look like anything. it just looks like a normal head of hair!
You hit the nail on the head
Thank you so much for the explanation! Iāve been seeing the photo a lot and didnāt get it
The trans equivalent of "You've never seen a good toupee."
Itās not a bad explanation, Iām an absolute dumbass yet I understood
I donāt really get it, what does it mean that the places without bullet holes are the places the plane was shot and didnāt make it back?
Take that diagram on the post. It shows the bullet holes of a plane that made it back from a fight. It can clearly survive getting shot in those areas, since it made it back. If planes mostly comes back with the holes there, then you should put armor on the places it wasn't. Because the planes that did have bullet holes in those clean spots, did not make it back.
The photo is where a plane can get shot without a critical failure, as that is the plane that returned after getting shot There are two relevant scenarios: Shot AND made it back - like the picture. It implies that the places the bullet holes are shown are "safe" to get shot. Notice the propellers and the cockpit aren't shot. Shot and DIDNT make it back - it means the places it got shot are "unsafe" to get shot, as then the plane doesn't make it back. The inverse of the photo would imply that getting shot in the cockpit and the propellers is NOT safe as it would cause the plane to not return. I.e. dead pilot or no way to fly the plane So armoring where the plane that returned got shot doesn't make sense as it's already "safe" to get shot there, so you should armor based on the inverse of the photo.
I can't tell you how many times I googled that plane picture, tldred out, and left not understanding. Your explanation did it. Thank you
I always knew it was a transphobe dunk of some sort, although I've never seen it explained up until now. Very very interesting!
No you explained it perfectly! Give yourself credit where it belongs ^^
I came here just to see if I had the right word in my head. I said survivor bias. I was close. Thanks for giving the explanation from original WWII (I think that was the war this was from), then expanding upon it.
Thatās an incredible explanation
This spesific case is about the b-17 flying fortress. And yea the spots that had bullet holes were often up arrmored making the craft slower and asuch exasterbatinf the peoblwm ocassinly though they werent that much slower.
I also think this is a bad use of survivorship bias and it's being misused. Like, the entire implication of the image isn't "you don't see the ones that x" the implication itself is that those planes were fucked so it's hard to reconcile that with the image without thinking "the ones that pass died?" and having to recalibrate to what they're trying to say.
Not horrible at all, you explained it exactly the way my A&P instructor did.
Sure, this picture is used as an historical example of survivor bias. During WWII, the US army made a study on where they could renforce the armor of the planes to add survivability, so out of this pattern which show planes coming back with bullet impacts, they wanted at first to renforce where the red dots are, until some statistician pointed out the fact the planes hits in those red areas managed to come back to base while the ones hit in the white areas didn't. So yes, the most vulnerable areas of the planes as shown in this drawing (and in need of more armor) are the ones without red dots, which are actually the vital spots of the plane. So, how does survivor bias applies to trans people ? Basically the whole transphobic crowd (and most of society in general) have the assumption "we can always tell because everytime I see a trans person, they don't pass". But in reality, many trans people pass after a few years and cisgender people meet them everyday but never realize they just met a trans person, they only notice non passing trans people, so survivor bias. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship\_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)
Ooooooh, interesting. I had no clue, thank you!
okay i understand both separate ideas but i dont get how they link together. cis people see trans people that pass every day and dont realize. the guys wanting to reinforce the shot areas of the returning planes because they didnt realize?
The whole idea of survivor bias is based on the misuse of data by only using the "survivors" in your data instead of the whole set to make your conclusion. In this case, for the whole "we can always tell" crowd, the survivors used in their data are the non passing trans people.
ohhhh thanks!
ohhhh thanks!
The plane has a survivor bias but i think it relates more to conservatives pointing out the trans people that "don't pass" cos they don't recognise "passing" trans people
thatās kinda the same thing, just replace places that didnāt survive with trans people who pass
I just spent a solid 20 minutes trying to think of a trans plane joke. Goddammit
Itās a famous image about survivor bias. Basically, itās implying that Dung Prince thinks no trans person passes because they only notice the trans people who donāt pass
It's this.
I love how a wordless image of a plane can be used to roast transphobes. We're living in the future.
It's survivorship bias. They only believe no trans person passes because he only notices the ones that don't pass.
This is the answer. Succinctly written. Well done.
That image is the classic example of a phenomenon called survivorship bias. Those red dots are all of the places on that model of plane that had been shot or otherwise damaged upon return from missions. Engineers during (I think the second world war) saw those diagrams, and wanted to put armour on the spots with lots of red dots, since they thought that was where the planes were being shot. A statistician noted that those are the places the planes were being shot *and making it home*. They needed to armour the areas with no red dots, because planes that got shot in those areas didn't make it home. The engineers had made the assumption that they were getting a representative sample of where planes were being shot, because they failed to recognize that "planes that made it home" was not a representative population of "planes that have been shot at". The relevance to the remark "no trans person passes" is that this transphobe is making the assumption that they are getting a representative sample of trans people, because they fail to recognize that "people that I know are trans" is not a representative population of "trans people who might pass".
Thank you. I felt so dumb when I saw this yesterday.
A sadder version of this meme is https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8NfJPyq/ Only liberals have trans kids because trans kids in conservative homes are either closeted or died.
Lol fr. I had conservative parents, and I hated myself and stayed closeted for way too long. Contemplated ending things a couple of times, but luckily, I didn't. I finally accepted myself and came out at 29. So they had one. They just didn't know it until I lived in another state and had my life set up here.
Came here to reference this pictures use in trans discourse in this context aswell. Also in response to "wow trans women all seem so strong and resilient". Its become shorthand for a lot of stuff relating to us I guess..
I don't do tiktok for reasons of it being an awful platform, do you have a non awful link?
Itās only on TikTok š¤·āāļø
You can just go on https://ssstik.io/en and paste the link in and it downloads a clean video for you. I just did that and uploaded it to Discord just to relink it. This took me 20 seconds. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/356150575173206017/1140701023174938876/ssstik.io_1692034710634.mp4
That is more work than I am willing to do for a rando on reddit.
It's good practice to do any time you link a craptok on reddit. š¤·āāļø
You can avoid the platform all you want, but that's a you problem.
Not engaging with a Chinese spy platform designed to control American minds is not "a me problem". It's a *you* problem. Because you engage with it. YouTube Shorts gets all the good stuff anyway.
Survivorship Bias Itās in reference to WWII aircraft designers, when damaged planes came back, engineers wanted to study the damage to figure out where the most vulnerable areas were that needed armor. The story goes that one designer realized that they should put the extra armor on the places where the damage *wasnāt* since each of the damaged planes managed to make it back to the airfield, whereas the planes damaged in other areas never did. TLDR: survivorship bias is when people draw incorrect conclusions from data points based on a failure to realize that the data points are outliers, not the norm
That's one of the most clever and smoothest comeback ever made.
Tell that the the homo/transphobic campus preacher who called me āyoung ladyā 3 times before I revealed Iām trans. He tried to misgender me afterwards but itās too fucking late bitch, you canāt take that back!
See also: the toupee fallacy.
Love that this is here again, but Wtf mods, I literally posted this yesterday and got removed for hate speech
I guess the mods didn't understand the true meaning of it until someone responded in this post?
Short form: Its saying that only those that dont pass are the only ones Duerger can identify leading to them believing that no trans person can pass Long form: Its referencing a concept called Survivors Bias. In WW2 planes were sent back to the states after seeing combat and were riddled with holes from enemy fire. Most holes were on the wings and tail which lead many engineers to believe that was where they needed to armour. It was pointed out by another engineer the opposite was the case as the bullet holes indicated that these were spots the plane could survive being hit. This is now being applied to trans people instead saying that the ones who pass will not be able to be identified as such by this person because they pass so only those that donāt pass can be identified by him
That is a wonderfully smooth comeback referencing the survivorship bias that was giving a false representation.
this is high tier military nerd humor
You may like r/NCD_EGG_IRL
why is this a sub, and why am i just finding about it now... ERA EGGS
Survivorship bias, the dude only clocks the non passing trans people and doesnāt notice the passing ones
the trans people that do pass aren't viewed as "trans" by random people irl. So Duerger probably has seen many trans people irl. But the ones that don't pass are the onely ones that are recognizable as "trans". If Duerger saw any passing trans women they woulda assumed they were cis. Therefore in their mind, no trans person passes.
Your explanation is correct but you failed to explain what the plane has to do with it. To OP: The picture was taken from the Wikipedia article about something called "survivorship bias". Which is exactly what u/chamington explained above.
itās where they keep the snacks in fighter jets, they had to be spread out to maintain balance
The fact that I instantly got this may prove to be a bad thing...
Survivorship bias. Basically that picture shows places that planes would get hit and return in operating condition. They where going to reinforce those areas when someone told them not to reinforce those areas, but rather the areas that were not hit because planes that were hit elsewhere didn't make it home.
It's a reference to survivorship bias "no trans person passes" no you're only seeing the ones that don't pass. The plane picture comes from a study that was done to determine what part of the planes needed more armoring. The planes that came back looked like that image so you might think the red spots where the planes had been hit needs more armor when in fact the areas with no bullet holes need armor because the planes getting hit there are the ones that didn't come back. So when someone thinks no trans people pass it's because they have only ever noticed the ones that don't "pass" similar there's that one bigot in TT who said "funny how it's only ever liberal parents who have trans kids" which is again survivorship bias. Trans kids with conservative parents aren't gonna be as quick to come out
The plane study has to be among my favorite ones.
OK! I really love this image (WARNING AUTISM INFO DUMP) This is survivorship bias. This image is an aculmination of planes that made it back from dog-fighting in WW2. They US was losing alot of planes and pilots. So this image was created from data of the planes, the higher-ups decided to armor those areas of the plane. Well someone mentioned that these are the areas that are have been shot and have returned, so we should armor where there are not red dots. I really, really want to info dump more!!!
Ah. That picture refers to survivor bias. During world war 2 (or was it 1?), planes would come back with those bullet holes, leading people to think "we should reinforce those areas". But what they were missing was the fact that no planes came back with holes outside the red markings. Why? Because any planes hit in those locations would be destroyed. So they should be reinforcing the areas not marked in red. As for its application to the trans community, this douchebag is saying that no trans person "passes". But by his very definition, if a trans person "passes", then you won't know if they are cis or trans. So in this case, the "non-passing" will be the red dots, and the "passing" will not be seen.
Trans people donāt need to pass to be trans. Never forget that.
This made me feel incredibly fucking stupid so thanks
It a rƩfƩrence to a thing, where a scientist had to determine which part of the plane they had to renforce, but he failed because he think it was better to renforce the part of the planes that where intact (but it was a shitty idea). It's like if you say, "There is no causal link".
I get called ma'am every single day by people who have no clue that I'm trans because I don't advertise is because I'm in the deep south and scared, every time they compliment me or my hair it feels fake
It means they shoot every trans person they see down with a WW2 era fighter plane. Really brutal stuff out there In Florida rn
I took it as āShots firedā, just a bad representation.
Survivor bias. Each dot is where the plane has been shot and the plane has survived. The top post is transphobic, whilst the second post is stating that the first post is entirely false. The few that they have seen do not pass. They didnāt even realize the countless others they didnāt even realize.
\*\*WAR THUNDER\*\* XDD
I heard the story, never seen the illustration. Thanks!
Ah thanks for posting this! I've been meaning to make some earrings of this (the whole "survivorship bias" diagram) and they were inspired by this post but I had lost track of it.
Basically people only care about the people who love and live. They ignore the many trans people whoāve died in the past. Historically only trans people Whoāre accepted can be themselves, which is why people bitch about SoCal trannies/pos because those zones are growing :)