> I find the wikipedia link about lesbian domestic violence so interesting, especially due to the all the well-sourced text it devotes to the fact that it's not

> I find the wikipedia link about lesbian domestic violence so interesting, especially due to the all the well-sourced text it devotes to the fact that it's not actually possible to state anything with certainty about the prevalence of same-sex domestic violence! So - I wonder, what conclusion were you hoping a reader would draw from that source? I try to be even-handed, so yes, I included a liberal-leaning wiki entry which synthesized sources bolstering my claim and refutations of them, with an obvious editorial slant toward the latter. I apologize for that? --- > I mean, consider the first line of the abstract: "Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1" Why leave off the second half of that sentence? "while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1." That is a fine example of cherry-picking! > But what should we make of the final line of the abstract: "This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children." Now take a look at the preceeding sentence: "This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually." The final line is just boilerplate CYA we don't want to suggest anything bad about homosexuals language at odds with the rest of the paper. Standard deferential genuflection for any research that contradicts liberal priors. > I mean, it seems like the study is actually stating that despite an over-prevalence of homosexuals in the pedophilic group, that they still don't make up the majority of pedophiles? Who made that claim? I certainly didn't. --- > What do you make of the remainder of that same line from the abstract: "but studies directly assessing the association between these diverse types of maltreatment and sexuality cannot disentangle the causal direction because the sequencing of maltreatment and emerging sexuality is difficult to ascertain." I only claimed correlation, not necessarily causation. But, come on, leaving out the whole preceding section of the abstract is hilarious: Our study used instrumental variable models based on family characteristics that predict maltreatment but are not plausibly influenced by sexual orientation (e.g., having a stepparent) as natural experiments to investigate whether maltreatment might increase the likelihood of same-sex sexuality in a nationally representative sample (n = 34,653). In instrumental variable models, history of sexual abuse predicted increased prevalence of same-sex attraction by 2.0 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4, 2.5), any same-sex partners by 1.4 percentage points (95% CI = 1.0, 1.9), and same-sex identity by 0.7 percentage points (95% CI = 0.4, 0.9). Effects of sexual abuse on men’s sexual orientation were substantially larger than on women’s. Effects of non-sexual maltreatment were significant only for men and women’s sexual identity and women’s same-sex partners. While point estimates suggest much of the association between maltreatment and sexual orientation may be due to the effects of maltreatment on sexual orientation, confidence intervals were wide. Our results suggest that causal relationships driving the association between sexual orientation and childhood abuse may be bidirectional, may differ by type of abuse, and may differ by sex. --- My friend, your refutation skills need a lot of work. You're listing random sentences that you think confirm your priors, without actually reading them at all. By the way, I can't help but notice your lack of response on the connection between queer theory and pederasty. I thought that video was both humorous and informative, and very easy to fact-check. How about you?