>>11870839>>11870871Doesn't sound right to me. It's unlikely that a porn site has not even one single actually female user.
I think you'd maybe need to multiply it with other priors like statistics of porn site registration by (real-life) gender, the percentage of males who claim to be females on porn sites, and maybe the percentage of females who claim to be male (to avoid getting endless DMs/comments from tons of horny guys).
Is this a Monty Hall-ish problem in disguise? Kind of reminds me of the variation with 100 doors where Monty opens up 98 of them and shows they're all losing doors. After that, the odds of the remaining unchosen and unopened door being the winner are much higher than just 1/100.
It might work better if you make it 10,000 users, though. No women out of 100 users is still plausible, but no women out of 10,000 users would be very unlikely, assuming a woman is likely to register as a female.
