Insight From Statistical Report

[Lem]

To make sure I understand, when you say "full-time missionaries" but exclude sisters, you mean "male full-time missionaries", right? I get the distinction with couples, being retired and older, so a different cohort, but what is your reasoning for concluding that adding the female count to the number of "[male] full-time missionaries" 'clouds' the information coming from that piece of data? If you mean male, then SAY male, for “F”'s sake. "full-time missionaries" does NOT mean male to readers here. Only to the sexist ones.

(I'm sure you can sense that I am irritated by your assumption that "full-time missionary" automatically means male. You really should know better. It's offensive and irritating to continue to read sh't like this on our board.)

I get your point on terminology. But I think his point may have been that if a greater percentage of full time missionaries are female today than, say, in the 80s, then the number of full time missionaries may not be as accurate an indicator of church growth and active membership over time than other numbers.

No, you didn't get my point. In fact, you have just exacerbated it. You are arguing that "the number of full time missionaries" measures growth and membership but only if "the number of full time missionaries" means MALE missionaries. If one wants to distinguish between the percentage of male and female missionaries and its impact on membership, then define it as such. Defining "full time missionaries" as exclusive of "sister missionaries" means you are defining "full time missionaries" as men, with the "sisters" as a separate category. That is sexist.

[Jersey Girl]

Speaking of the Statistical Report, where is Alf O'Mega these days?

[Analytics]

To make sure I understand, when you say "full-time missionaries" but exclude sisters, you mean "male full-time missionaries", right?

I'm not referring to "male full-time missionaries." I'm referring to the statistic that the Church reports.

I get the distinction with couples, being retired and older, so a different cohort, but what is your reasoning for concluding that adding the female count to the number of "[male] full-time missionaries" 'clouds' the information coming from that piece of data?

The information I would try to get from the count of full-time missionaries is how strong the Church is over time. When there are changes to either the rules of missions (e.g. 18 months vs. 24 months, leaving at high school graduation or age 19 for Elders, or leaving at 19 or 21 for Sisters), or when there are changes in culture (e.g. older couple or Sisters being more encouraged to go), changes in the number of missionary can be driven by those changes and not by the strength of the Church.

If you mean male, then SAY male, for “F”'s sake. "full-time missionaries" does NOT mean male to readers here. Only to the sexist ones.

I didn't say male because I didn't mean male. I don't care about whether a missionary is male or female. I just care about what the numbers the Church actually releases imply.

(I'm sure you can sense that I am irritated by your assumption that "full-time missionary" automatically means male. You really should know better. It's offensive and irritating to continue to read sh't like this on our board.)

This is what I said: "The number of full-time missionaries is interesting, but that gets clouded over time with more sisters and couples going on missions."

I clearly implied that before more Sisters were going, fewer Sisters were going, just as before more couples were going, fewer couples were going. None of this implies I think "full-time missionary automatically means male." Quite the opposite, in fact.

Your thinking is cloudy today. Are you on your period or something?

[Lem]

Your thinking is cloudy today. Are you on your period or something?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Your thinking is cloudy today. Are you on your period or something?

Analytics,

Seriously?

[¥akaSteelhead]

I expect the church to double down on "providing tabernacles" and condemning birth control rhetoric.

[Jersey Girl]

Your thinking is cloudy today. Are you on your period or something?

Do you need a tutorial on the female menstrual cycle?

[toon]

I get your point on terminology. But I think his point may have been that if a greater percentage of full time missionaries are female today than, say, in the 80s, then the number of full time missionaries may not be as accurate an indicator of church growth and active membership over time than other numbers.

No, you didn't get my point. In fact, you have just exacerbated it. You are arguing that "the number of full time missionaries" measures growth and membership but only if "the number of full time missionaries" means MALE missionaries. If one wants to distinguish between the percentage of male and female missionaries and its impact on membership, then define it as such. Defining "full time missionaries" as exclusive of "sister missionaries" means you are defining "full time missionaries" as men, with the "sisters" as a separate category. That is sexist.

Yes. I got your point clearly the first time. I still get it.

And I did distinguish between the percentages. In fact, that’s precisely what I said. I never defined it as exclusively male or female. Perhaps you didn’t read what I wrote. I understood your point and was trying to provide a perhaps more charitable reading of what he said.

Why so combative?

[Lem]

No, you didn't get my point. In fact, you have just exacerbated it. You are arguing that "the number of full time missionaries" measures growth and membership but only if "the number of full time missionaries" means MALE missionaries. If one wants to distinguish between the percentage of male and female missionaries and its impact on membership, then define it as such. Defining "full time missionaries" as exclusive of "sister missionaries" means you are defining "full time missionaries" as men, with the "sisters" as a separate category. That is sexist.

Yes. I got your point clearly the first time. I still get it.

And I did distinguish between the percentages. In fact, that’s precisely what I said. I never defined it as exclusively male or female. Perhaps you didn’t read what I wrote. I understood your point and was trying to provide a perhaps more charitable reading of what he said.

Why so combative?

We will have to agree to disagree. As for asking someone why they are combative, why don't you ask Analytics?

Your thinking is cloudy today. Are you on your period or something?

[Analytics]

Yes. I got your point clearly the first time. I still get it.

And I did distinguish between the percentages. In fact, that’s precisely what I said. I never defined it as exclusively male or female. Perhaps you didn’t read what I wrote. I understood your point and was trying to provide a perhaps more charitable reading of what he said.

Thanks, Toon.

Lem created a new thread in non-Mormon discussions about my sexist language. To explain myself to whoever cares, I'll repeat here what I said there:

According to the Church’s reports, in 1989, there were 39,739 “full-time missionaries.” In 2019, there were 67,021 “full-time missionaries,” an increase of 19% per decade. Is this an indication that the overall strength of the Church grew by 19% per decade over that time period? Not necessarily, because the age/sex distribution of the missionary force changed over that time period.

I tried to make this point, and Lem insisted that when I refer to "full-time missionaries" I'm not talking about the number in the statistical report labled "full-time missionaries." Rather, I mean male missionaries only and am thus using sexist language.

Shen then went on a rampage and said:

If you mean male, then SAY male, for “F”'s sake. "full-time missionaries" does NOT mean male to readers here. Only to the sexist ones.

(I'm sure you can sense that I am irritated by your assumption that "full-time missionary" automatically means male. You really should know better. It's offensive and irritating to continue to read sh't like this on our board.)

Now, it is possible that Lem simply misunderstood my point, but I think what I said was clear enough. When toon correctly explained my point, Lem insisted:

No, you didn't get my point. In fact, you have just exacerbated it. You are arguing that "the number of full time missionaries" measures growth and membership but only if "the number of full time missionaries" means MALE missionaries.

No, the number of full-time missionaries (referring to the Church's definition of "full-time missionaries", as used in the Church's statistical report) only measures the strength of the church in a non-clouded way if the age/sex distribution of missionaries doesn’t change over time.

There is nothing the least-bit sexist about referring to what the Church calls "full-time missionaries" by the word "full-time missionary." Nothing. Nor is it sexist to note that the age/sex distribution of the Church's missionary force has changed. That's all I did, but Lem insists it is sexist language and went on a tirade about it.

Lem definitely has a chip on her shoulder, and it’s frustrating that in response to me creating a thread with fresh content that a statistics professor might be able to comment on intelligently, I instead get this baseless derail, that for good measure includes the word sh!t and an f-bomb.

I could have given Lem a patronizing lecture about reading comprehension and treating others with respect. I could have said “you should know better.” But I know she wants to be treated like one of the guys. She hit me so I hit her back. I said what I said for one purpose: to jerk her chain because she deserved to have her chain jerked. She wanted to be pissed at me for being a sexist, so I gave her the ammo she wanted.

If you are going to do the time, you might as well commit the crime.