Have you ever rolled your eyes at a movement that tries to conflate sexual harassment with sexual…
JP McGlone

This is a common gambit in dodgy statistical reporting: conflating the worst cases (which are almost always extreme outliers) with the the mildest cases (which are almost always by far the commonest) and presenting as a single case, to make the “problem” seem much worse.

For instance, instances of teens cutting themselves (very rare) and teens scratching or bruising themselves (much more common) will both be classed as “self-harm”, and presented as “x-number of teens self-harm”. Of course, the picture conjured by the phrase “self-harm” is always of cutting, so the worst cases are thus falsely presented as the norm.

The other common gambit is to class all people aged 0–18 as “children”. This is technically correct in medical terminology, but for most people, a “child” is a prepubescent. Yet, when media report, for instance, “x number of children consume marijuana weekly”, they are referring to teenagers, probably late teens.

Regardless of what medical literature say, media would be more honest to develop a terminology along the lines of infants/children/preteens/teens/young adults, when reporting such statistics.

But that wouldn’t scare people nearly so much.

As for this “me too” palaver, I’ve had my butt grabbed in a pub, so, technically, I could say, “me too”, but that would be ridiculously hysterical, and frankly demeaning to actual victims of sexual assault.

Which is something these bandwagon-jumping ninnies ought to stop to consider.

Like what you read? Give Lushington Brady a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.