Just sharing a screenshot of this AIBU poll

Pleased to see the votes are now waaay over 2000. And still the “visitors” cannot swing it.

We all started as naive about this clickychicky. Going along with the "be kind" instructions. But as the layers are peeled away the onslaught on women's rights and child safeguarding has become apparent.

So here we are with born males taking women's places in sport, refuges, hospital wards etc and gaslighting children into believing that their teenage angst about their bodies can be fixed with drugs, surgery and new pronouns.

We are over 50% of the population and we have to fix this - for our children's sake.

At some point, politicians, the media, everyone, is going to have to start some truth telling. Until then, many more are going to feel as though they've been misled, once they begin to understand

I saw in the Times that one of the GB male relay swimmers had picked up on the unfairness - I now can't find the link but he was commenting about whether he should identify as a woman as well next time to win the most golds ever.

@Undersnatch

Hello, I've been directed to this board from a couple of the threads in AIBU. It is that fact about the testosterone that I wasn't aware of that has made me think I need to read more into this. That and I had no idea that there was no requirement to have had surgery. I feel like I've been a little naive about it all.

Has anyone seen this Bbc article about Hubbard today? www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/57989022.amp

Probably this detail has been discussed on another thread, but I was struck by this info:

According to NHS data, men's testosterone levels range between 10 and 30 nanomoles per litre dependant on factors including age and time of day, but a younger healthy male typically ranges between 20 and 30. Women's testosterone levels range between 0.7 and 2.8.

Yet, the IOC only needs transwomen’s testosterone levels to be under 10. Meaning that aside from all the advantages of going through male puberty, actually a transwomans testosterone at the time of competition could be way higher than a typical female. Its even more shocking every time I read more.

Slight derail here, but thanks to those outlining the numbers. I am terrible with numbers, always have been. Really struggled with maths at school. Those posts might as well have been written in Russian, but I think I get the overall gist.

I wonder if the voting percentage goes in 2% increments, and therefore can't go any lower. Weird. Anyway, it's likely to be the biggest landslide of any AIBU poll which is very heartening.

If it shows even one or two more women what is going on out there, then it was very much worth it.

It certainly would have been easy to drag the figure down from 98% by brigading, due to the low total. But that in turn would have been obvious, leading to a huge shift in the total proportions in different voting periods.

(I think I meant brigading, rather than ballot stuffing)

Another way to think of it is that polling/sampling error arises as error bounds on the count totals, it's not a constant error bound in percentage points.

This means that a 50% poll result might be +/-5% at a certain sample size. But given the same sample size, a 98% result will not be +/-5%. The error margin will be a lot smaller. (Fairly obviously, for the +5%, I hope).

So this poll locked onto what appears to be a 98% population figure quite fast, and maintained that as the sample size increased. Which further suggests no huge change in the population voting - no ballot stuffing.

Oops. Should have been 200:220 in the middle of that, so 47.6%. A 2.4% percentage point shift from 20% change in the vote totals.

Overall point stands though.

It was at 98% when there were only a few hundred votes, though.

Yes, and I'd kind have expected to see a teeny bit of movement early on, but it really can't move that much from just random effects.

If it was 50% at 200 (100:100), then having the next 200 votes be a bit more one way - getting 20% more nos on top, so (100:120) - leaves you at 200:240, so 45% overall. A 5 percentage point shift occurs from 20% change in one of the vote totals.

But if it's 98% at 200 (196:4), then having the next 200 votes be a bit more one way doesn't change much. 20% more nos gives you 196:5, leaving you at 392:9, or 97.8%. 20% more yeses gives you 235:4, leaving you at 431:8, or 98.1%. A 20% change in either vote takes you nowhere. You'd need a big change in proportions.

It was at 98% when there were only a few hundred votes, though.

I didn't see the original poll but you can add me to the 98% too!

I hope Nic Williams from Fair Play for Women sees this. It's very encouraging.

Must be a twitter bat (TRA) signal.

2% of 1978 votes is 39 votes for YABU.

2% of 2133 votes is 43 votes for YABU.

Only 4 extra votes for YABU, outweighed by the 155 more votes for YANBU.

From a statistical perspective, odd.

Actually, not really, right at an end of the scale.

To shift to 99% would mean having half the relative number of yeses - doubling the nos while receiving no more yeses at all.

To shift to 97% would mean having 50% more yeses. Quite a new surge of opposing votes. Likely only if a new voting group dragged in.

You see what I mean? A one percentage point change at that end of the scale is a 50% change in proportion.

In the middle of the scale, a one percentage point change is a much smaller proportion change.

I don't quite see how it has been stuck at 98%, for so long. So few posters seem to think YABU, and the total number voting has increased dramatically, and yet still the same % split. From a statistical perspective, odd.

Just posting an update on the poll