Assuming 2% of children (<17) are trans as
per the US average, then with Bayesian inference:
P (T1 & T2) = P(T1) • P(T2) = P(.02) • P(.02) =
0.04%.
There is a 99.96% chance that one or both of his kids might
not be innately trans...
I know, overdue and homosexual, but this is not quite correct. You don't get to multiply 0.02 by 0.02 and say UNLIKELY if you want to
soyentifically test for innateness, you have to compare
Code:
P(2 troon children) := 0.04% -vs- P(2 troon children given troon parent) := unknown
take all relevant US pop numbers and plug that shit
into a two-proportion z-test, and it'll say how likely it is that the "status of children with troon parent" test series and "status of children" series are sourced from the same distribution (therefore "innately trans"), and then 1-p is the chance that they're groomed. One guy is not a sample.
Without the latter figure, the best I can do is 84.2M US families, charitably 84.2M fathers, of them (charitably *0.02, troons are unlikely to breed) 1.68M troons, of them LET'S SAY 50% == 840k with 2 children, (*0.0004) with two troon children == 336 cases. So he could be one of those 336 cases. If we got a negligible fractional number, we could say "his existence is improbable", but this is not the case. "How likely is it that one of these 336 organic three-of-a-kind troon fathers is poasting on peddit?" -- why wouldn't he? also inconclusive.
Don't forget that game made by a Russian college student (I think) called werewolf
It was originally (and still is, in Russia) called Mafia, Andrew Plotkin (major girldick enthusiast) learned it and renamed it Werewolf. And Dmitri Davydov wasn't just any college student but an MSU student of 1986 "psychology" (social sciences, statistics, game theory, decision theory, etc).