First open bisexual congresswoman elected

[Kirse]

Good for her!

Also, I'm a girl and I'd hit it

[semaphore]

I see what you're saying, but that's just not how the numbers work. There is a huge pool of people from whom a tiny pool of elected officials are drawn, assuming purely mathematical random selection the chances of getting anything remotely resembling correlation are very, very small.

Actually, that's how it works. There is no reason mathematically to expect the pool of elected officials to be so overwhelmingly dominated by the demographic group it is now. You just don't see it because you're looking at it wrong; you look at it as the chance of getting a specific pattern randomly, when it's the exact opposite.

To use an easier example, about 51% of the population is female. There's I think 78 women in the House and 20 in the Senate, out of a total of 535+100. For simplicity's sake we can model this as an unbiased coin. What's the chance of randomly flipping 635 coins, and only getting 100 heads?

---------- Post added 2012-11-24 at 05:40 AM ----------

I don't think we are there yet. By there I mean where we can all celebrate how far our society has advanced.

I agree. We haven't advanced very far at all if a woman can't be elected without people saying "well she's only elected because men are hot for her", rather than recognising an electoral victory for what it is, an electoral victory. You know, like when people say things like:

If she was not a young, atractive single lady declaring herself Bi-sexual but rather if she was an openly Lesbian, would have she still carried all the votes she did right now?

I know you're just playing the devil's advocate, but when people say things like this they are invariably trying to put down someone's achievements, by implying that a candidate won not on her own merits. There really isn't much merit to the argument at all. Moreover, there's enough bigots who do that already, we don't need to help them.

[Rukentuts]

It still pisses me off that people feel the need to make these kind of distinctions. We're all different, stop making a big fucking deal and get on with life.

[Haros]

To use an easier example, about 51% of the population is female. There's I think 78 women in the House and 20 in the Senate, out of a total of 535+100. For simplicity's sake we can model this as an unbiased coin. What's the chance of randomly flipping 635 coins, and only getting 100 heads?

Assuming a binomial distribution:
P(x = 100 women) = 5.517 x 10 ^-77 (Very small number)

Here's how out of whack the numbers are with the expected as shown by Wells earlier
P(x<200 women) = 9.6904 x 10 ^-24

Basically, things are so biased in politics it's beyond funny.

OT:
Great to hear. I'am not from America and most of the time when I hear something it seems to be negative so this is refreshing. Equality and all that. Just based on how well she spoke and avoided questions in the CNN video I think she'll fit into politics rather well.

[Letmesleep]

I really couldn't care less if the entire Congress was made up of black lesbians.

I'd probably watch more C-SPAN if this was true.

OT: Grats to her. I'm glad we're making progress on accepting differing sexual orientations in more areas of society.

[Cthulhu 2020]

To all the people saying "what does her sexual orientation have to do with it"... when you're running against a bunch of fundamentalists whose very existence is to deny the rights of gays, it's kind of a big deal.

[Rukentuts]

To all the people saying "what does her sexual orientation have to do with it"... when you're running against a bunch of fundamentalists whose very existence is to deny the rights of gays, it's kind of a big deal.

To be fair, those "fundamentalists" tend to be focused on one gender of homosexuals more than the other.

[Haarvald]

.

This goes in the, 'she earned enough votes of her district to win the election' group. Personally, it doesn't and shouldn't matter about her sexual orientation, nor should it matter about gender, race or her choice of pizza places or toppings.

[Deadvolcanoes]

To be honest, I have never understood bisexuality. I understand that for whatever reason people are born gay, but if that's true, isn't bisexuality a choice? It's kind of like saying, yeah I'm gay, but hey this is fun too! Maybe I'm completely wrong here. Maybe you can be born bisexual?

And of course the obligatory...Not that there's anything wrong with it!

[Dezerte]

I'm happy for Arizona, I feel some progress has been made.

[Puck]

To be honest, I have never understood bisexuality. I understand that for whatever reason people are born gay, but if that's true, isn't bisexuality a choice? It's kind of like saying, yeah I'm gay, but hey this is fun too! Maybe I'm completely wrong here. Maybe you can be born bisexual?

And of course the obligatory...Not that there's anything wrong with it!

It is becoming more and more apparent that almost everyone is too some degree Bisexual.

[Collegeguy]

Actually, that's how it works. There is no reason mathematically to expect the pool of elected officials to be so overwhelmingly dominated by the demographic group it is now. You just don't see it because you're looking at it wrong; you look at it as the chance of getting a specific pattern randomly, when it's the exact opposite.

To use an easier example, about 51% of the population is female. There's I think 78 women in the House and 20 in the Senate, out of a total of 535+100. For simplicity's sake we can model this as an unbiased coin. What's the chance of randomly flipping 635 coins, and only getting 100 heads?

Why would the election process have anything to do with probability?

[Letmesleep]

It is becoming more and more apparent that almost everyone is too some degree Bisexual.

I've viewed sexuality as a sliding scale as well, but I think from his point of view heterosexuals are on one extreme where as homosexuals are on another. Both gay and straight people have enough interest in the same or opposite sex to actually have sex, which kind of leaves bisexual people in the "????" zone that don't fit into either extreme.

Some may see your statement and have a bomb go off in their head, but I think it's pretty accurate. I think you can be impressed by the same sex's looks without automatically arriving at "I want to have sex with them" or anything even remotely close. I admit I'm not sure what to make of bisexuals either, but I do not judge them as inferior or morally wrong. I simply don't understand.

[starlord]

To be honest, I have never understood bisexuality. I understand that for whatever reason people are born gay, but if that's true, isn't bisexuality a choice? It's kind of like saying, yeah I'm gay, but hey this is fun too! Maybe I'm completely wrong here. Maybe you can be born bisexual?

And of course the obligatory...Not that there's anything wrong with it!

sexuality is best viewed as a spectrum, ive heard.

[semaphore]

To be honest, I have never understood bisexuality. I understand that for whatever reason people are born gay, but if that's true, isn't bisexuality a choice?

No. That's a complete non sequitor. Beiing born gay doesn't preclude being born bi.

And anyway most people are attracted to both genders. Sexuality is a sliding scale, not a black and white (and grey) multi choice.

---------- Post added 2012-11-24 at 08:51 AM ----------

Why would the election process have anything to do with probability?

Did I say the election process is? No.

Whether the demography of elected officials reflects the population from whence they are supposedly drawn, assuming that all demographic groups are equally capable of reaching electoral office, is however a matter that can be viewed through statistics.

[Haros]

Why would the election process have anything to do with probability?

On the first page of the thread there was a discussion about how the politicians of an area represent that area so logically, if there wasn't any bias the politicians should be a pretty good representation of that area in terms of gender and racial background. The probability was to prove that there is significant bias in the process towards other things such as sexuality as discussed in this thread.

[Deleted]

Clearly she only won because she's bangable. If she was ugly she would've lost and if you can't see that then you're thick.

She could get the D though.

And anyway most people are attracted to both genders.

Firstly 20% isn't "most people". And secondly it's pop-science at best.

[semaphore]

Firstly 20% isn't "most people". And secondly it's pop-science at best.

Most people can find sexual attractions in both genders at some level. 20% is just the number of people who are roughly equally attracted to both.

[Deleted]

Most people can find sexual attractions in both genders at some level. 20% is just the number of people who are roughly equally attracted to both.

Where are you getting this "most people" thing?

17% of females and 20% of males admit to having been sexually attracted to and/or sexually involved with someone of the same gender at some point throughout their lives.

I still don't see how that is most people. Not to mention that there is essentially no science or valid surveys to back any of this up.

[Mormolyce]

Hot.

And the only thing that's surprising is that she's the first. Then again you've never had a President who doesn't believe in God. Or been a woman. Kind of shows how out of date your political offices are I suppose.

Cool, I guess. The sexuality of a person doesn't really matter to mean unless they're using it as some kind of shield against criticism or a platform against others.

Or if they are the victim of discrimination, as long as we're throwing in comments that have no bearing on the actual topic at hand. Except to maybe give an impression of our ideological biases and the chips on our shoulders.