Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[Robin]

No, it isn't. There has been almost no research into detransitioners. Your faith in "experts" to the point where you won't even examine literature yourself isn't science, it's scientism.

First - you seem to have missed that I have consulted a number of experts over the last 16 or so years.

Secondly - what do you think listening to the accounts of individual detransitioners will tell you?

Thirdly, what gives you the idea that you are qualified to examine the literature yourself?

Me, I'm not a psychologist, that is why I have to go through a number of psychologists, a number of them, who are quaiified to review the literature.

You have just fallen for the myth of the instant internet expert.

 

[Ziggurat]

First - you seem to have missed that I have consulted a number of experts over the last 16 or so years.

That doesn't impress.

Secondly - what do you think listening to the accounts of individual detransitioners will tell you?

What happened to them.

Thirdly, what gives you the idea that you are qualified to examine the literature yourself?

Because I can think. What requirements do you imagine are needed beyond that?

You have just fallen for the myth of the instant internet expert.

You have it backwards. No special expertise is needed to read a journal article.

 

[Elaedith]

As far as the data goes I trust the psychologists who we consult. I doubt that anyone here is qualified to go straight to the journals.

All of us must process scientific research through people qualified to examine it. If you are reading passages taken out of individual papers you are doing it wrong.


None of us here are capable of taking an overview o the data, know what has been replicated and what hasn't.

I am an academic psychologist and I am indeed 'qualified to go straight to the journals'. That is what I spent more than a decade getting qualifications and training for, and what I have been doing for a living for more than 20 years now. I spent several months examining primary source material before drawing conclusions on this topic, as I would for any other topic. Concerns about the literature on gender transitioning in minors that I identified 2-3 years ago now are being confirmed by the recent systematic reviews.
Moreover, there are other people here with academic qualifications outside this field who are nevertheless qualified to analyse the literature, as most skills for understanding arguments, data and conclusions generalise across fields.
And on top of that, one does not need specific qualifications but just needs basic scientific literacy (like understanding distinction between correlation and causation, and experimental design) and critical thinking skills to spot flaws in many papers in this area. That is supposed to be the basis of skepticism, to learn to evaluate things for oneself rather than trust what people tell you. The exceptionalism applied to this area is bizarre.

If you don't feel confident looking at primary source material that is one thing, but don't project it onto everyone else.

I have consulted a number of psychologists including one regarded as a leading figure on autism and related conditions.

But this has taken me years and consulting a variety of specialists, what exactly is it that you want me to lay before you that you can quickly digest?

You will find that leading experts in clinical psychology will tell you different things and many have a history of saying things that were later discredited. That's why it helps to evaluate evidence for yourself.

 

[Robin]

I am an academic psychologist and I am indeed 'qualified to go straight to the journals'. That is what I spent more than a decade getting qualifications and training for, and what I have been doing for a living for more than 20 years now. I spent several months examining primary source material before drawing conclusions on this topic, as I would for any other topic. Concerns about the literature on gender transitioning in minors that I identified 2-3 years ago now are being confirmed by the recent systematic reviews.
Moreover, there are other people here with academic qualifications outside this field who are nevertheless qualified to analyse the literature, as most skills for understanding arguments, data and conclusions generalise across fields.
And on top of that, one does not need specific qualifications but just needs basic scientific literacy (like understanding distinction between correlation and causation, and experimental design) and critical thinking skills to spot flaws in many papers in this area. That is supposed to be the basis of skepticism, to learn to evaluate things for oneself rather than trust what people tell you. The exceptionalism applied to this area is bizarre.

If you don't feel confident looking at primary source material that is one thing, but don't project it onto everyone else.


You will find that leading experts in clinical psychology will tell you different things and many have a history of saying things that were later discredited. That's why it helps to evaluate evidence for yourself.

You didn't mention that.

So, cite me a paper that contradicts anything that I have said here and I will be happy to take it to a psychologist for comment.

Just cite the paper and quote the thing I have said that it contradicts.

 

[Robin]

Elaedith,

Tell me what it is that I have said that is wrong them.

Are you saying that the standard intervention for autism is not to educate the children about their condition and to give them strategies to navigate the unconscious social signals that neurotypical people are expecting?

If so I will tell all those psychologists that they have been giving my three children the wrong kind of intervention all these years.

Or is it something else?

 

[Robin]

Because I can think.

Please give me a list of the journals you subscribe to and one or two papers that contradict anything I have said.

 

[Elaedith]

Elaedith,

Tell me what it is that I have said that is wrong them.

Are you saying that the standard intervention for autism is not to educate the children about their condition and to give them strategies to navigate the unconscious social signals that neurotypical people are expecting?

If so I will tell all those psychologists that they have been giving my three children the wrong kind of intervention all these years.

Or is it something else?

No, I said that helping children with autistic spectrum conditions doesn't somehow give them some magical ability to overcome the introspection illusion and have excellent self-insight in all domains, or make them invulnerable to social influence. It just makes it easier for them to function in society.

 

[Robin]

No, I said that helping children with autistic spectrum conditions doesn't somehow give them some magical ability to overcome the introspection illusion and have excellent self-insight in all domains, or make them invulnerable to social influence. It just makes it easier for them to function in society.

Since I never said that it did then that is irrelevent.

So what exactly is it that I have actually said that is wrong?

 

[Elaedith]

Since I never said that it did then that is irrelevent.

So what exactly is it that I have actually said that is wrong?

Implying that if autistic conditions contribute to misdiagnosis of GD or to autistic children and adolescents thinking they are trans, then awareness of autistic conditions would result in a reduction in GD diagnosis.

 

[Robin]

Implying that if autistic conditions contribute to misdiagnosis of GD or to autistic children and adolescents they are trans, then awareness of autistic conditions would result in a reduction in GD diagnosis.

In other words if there is a factor that is leading to a misdiagnosis then a better understanding of that factor would result in a decline of misdiagnosis.

Is that part wrong?

The second part is that if that factor was a significant cause of a growth in diagnoses then a decline in misdiagnosis would lead to a decline in diagnoses.

In other words if most diagnoses are, in fact, misdiagnoses then correcting the misdiagnoses would result in a decline of diagnoses.

Again, show me how that is wrong. Maybe put some numbers to it since you are familiar with the iiterature. The growth in autism diagnoses and the growth in GD diagnoses over, say, the past 20 years. And a reasonable estimate of what percentage are misdiagnoses due to confounding factors from autism.

 

[Elaedith]

In other words if there is a factor that is leading to a misdiagnosis then a better understanding of that factor would result in a decline of misdiagnosis.

Is that part wrong?

Yes, it is wrong.
The increase in diagnosis of GD in minors only started around the early 2000s and really took off around 2011, around 12 years ago, along with the promotion of the idea that biological sex is a social construct and terms such as 'boy' and 'girl' should refer to 'identification with a gender' rather than to sex. Nobody is saying that children with autistic spectrum conditions were potentially being misdiagnosed with any frequency before that. There is no reason to expect a reduction in misdiagnosis when diagnosis is rapidly increasing. There is also no reason to expect that a better understanding of autism will prevent misdiagnosis when clinicians risk destruction of their reputations and careers by suggesting this.

The second part is that if that factor was a significant cause of a growth in diagnoses then a decline in misdiagnosis would lead to a decline in diagnoses.

In other words if most diagnoses are, in fact, misdiagnoses then correcting the misdiagnoses would result in a decline of diagnoses.

Nobody said that autism was a factor in the growth of diagnoses. The growth in diagnosis is potentially due to the pressure to adopt the gender-affirmative approach and to not consider alternatives. This results in potential increase of misdiagnoses, not decrease.

Again, show me how that is wrong. Maybe put some numbers to it since you are familiar with the iiterature. The growth in autism diagnoses and the growth in GD diagnoses over, say, the past 20 years. And a reasonable estimate of what percentage are misdiagnoses due to confounding factors from autism.

Nick Terry did a good overview of this already. And there is no way to get a reasonable estimate of how many misdiagnoses might result from confounding factors when we don't know way autism and other conditions are correlated with trans identity and GD and there is insufficient research being done.

 

[Robin]

In other words if there is a factor that is leading to a misdiagnosis then a better understanding of that factor would result in a decline of misdiagnosis.

Is that part wrong?

Yes, it is wrong.

So you are saying that if some factor was leading to misdiagnosis and that factor became better understood the misdiagnoses would continue at the same level?

Nobody said that autism was a factor in the growth of diagnoses.

Nobody seems to know what the claim is regarding autism and GD.

Nick Terry did a good overview of this already.

He has posted the number of ASD diagnoses and the GD diagnoses by year for the past 20 years? I missed that. Are you going to make me look for it?

As for the proportion that are misdiagnoses due to confounding factors from autism, you can provide an illustrative ballpark for what you had in mind.

 

[Elaedith]

So you are saying that if some factor was leading to misdiagnosis and that factor became better understood the misdiagnoses would continue at the same level?

A factor (e.g. autism) being better understood does not equate to an understanding of why it might be associated with another diagnosis, or whether it contributes to misdiagnosis. And yes, if misdiagnosis is occurring then it could continue and increase, as has already been explained.

Nobody seems to know what the claim is regarding autism and GD.

Yes, nobody currently has a good understanding of why there is an association between autism and GD or trans identity.

He has posted the number of ASD diagnoses and the GD diagnoses by year for the past 20 years? I missed that. Are you going to make me look for it?

The increase in referrals to gender clinics has been posted many times in this thread. I don't have time to dig it out again now. But it isn't clear how the increase in both these diagnoses is relevant, because your apparent claim that there should be a negative correlation is unfounded. Both have increased over a similar time period.

As for the proportion that are misdiagnoses due to confounding factors from autism, you can provide an illustrative ballpark for what you had in mind.

No, there is no point in doing that when there is little research to go on.

 

[Robin]

Yes, nobody currently has a good understanding of why there is an association between autism and GD or trans identity.

Basically that's what I'm getting at. There is a correlation but no reason to suppose that autism is a factor in misdiagnosis, or a problem in any way.

 

[Robin]

I need to get more time to get the figures. But so far I have found this, with unfortunately not much overlap in the dates. A rise in gender dysphoria diagnoses from 0.005% of the population in 2017 to 0.125% of the population.in 2021. A rise in ASD diagnoses from 0.6% of the population in 2002 to 2.5% of the population in 2018

[imgw=700]https://robinsrevision.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/image-8.png?w=1024[/imgw]

[imgw=700]https://robinsrevision.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/image-10.png?w=1024[/imgw]

 

[Elaedith]

Basically that's what I'm getting at. There is a correlation but no reason to suppose that autism is a factor in misdiagnosis, or a problem in any way.

There is not just a correlation in rates, there is co-morbidity, as stated before. In other words, these occur within the same person at a higher rate than chance.

 

[Elaedith]

I need to get more time to get the figures. But so far I have found this, with unfortunately not much overlap in the dates. A rise in gender dysphoria diagnoses from 0.005% of the population in 2017 to 0.125% of the population.in 2021. A rise in ASD diagnoses from 0.6% of the population in 2002 to 2.5% of the population in 2018

The fast increase in referrals of children and adolescents to gender clinics began around 2011 onwards in multiple countries.

 

[Ziggurat]

Please give me a list of the journals you subscribe to and one or two papers that contradict anything I have said.

You really don't get it. I can't give you papers contradicting what you're saying for the same reason you can't give me papers supporting it (and I'm specifically talking about misdiagnosis of autistic kids as being trans). You don't understand that on a lot of topics, including this one, there IS no peer reviewed research. Nor is there likely to be any time soon. Nobody wants to do research on how often kids are misdiagnosed. That's not only really hard to do, it's also probably career suicide.

But what I will give you is an example of where I was able to go to the original sources including peer reviewed journal articles to examine the accuracy of a claim that was made.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13746973#post13746973

One of the claims made by "experts" regarding trans therapy is that puberty blockers are fully reversible. In the linked post I dug into one such claim which cited several references in support of that claim. None of them actually supported the claim. Do any contradict that claim? No. Why? Because nobody has done the research. Nobody has tested whether puberty blockers given as a treatment for gender dysphoria are fully reversible as claimed. Hell, nobody is even really tracking the long term health effects for kids who are put on blockers and then onto cross sex hormones (which is basically all of them) either. If you actually dig into this stuff, there's a shocking lack of any evidentiary basis for pretty much all of the medical interventions for minors. You don't need to be credentialed to figure this out, you just need to pay attention and do some digging.

Deference to "experts" isn't justified here, as multiple scandals such as Tavistock have shown.

 

[Elaedith]

You really don't get it. I can't give you papers contradicting what you're saying for the same reason you can't give me papers supporting it (and I'm specifically talking about misdiagnosis of autistic kids as being trans). You don't understand that on a lot of topics, including this one, there IS no peer reviewed research. Nor is there likely to be any time soon. Nobody wants to do research on how often kids are misdiagnosed. That's not only really hard to do, it's also probably career suicide.

But what I will give you is an example of where I was able to go to the original sources including peer reviewed journal articles to examine the accuracy of a claim that was made.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13746973#post13746973

One of the claims made by "experts" regarding trans therapy is that puberty blockers are fully reversible. In the linked post I dug into one such claim which cited several references in support of that claim. None of them actually supported the claim. Do any contradict that claim? No. Why? Because nobody has done the research. Nobody has tested whether puberty blockers given as a treatment for gender dysphoria are fully reversible as claimed. Hell, nobody is even really tracking the long term health effects for kids who are put on blockers and then onto cross sex hormones (which is basically all of them) either. If you actually dig into this stuff, there's a shocking lack of any evidentiary basis for pretty much all of the medical interventions for minors. You don't need to be credentialed to figure this out, you just need to pay attention and do some digging.

Deference to "experts" isn't justified here, as multiple scandals such as Tavistock have shown.

The thing is that virtually every claim in that AAP position paper is not supported by the citations given and anyone can verify this for themselves by just checking the citations. Most of the citations given to support their position on gender identity don't even mention gender identity. It doesn't stop the AAP being repeatedly cited by advocates of gender affirmation for minors, although none of them have ever even attempted to rebut the criticisms but just ignored them.

 

[Ziggurat]

The thing is that virtually every claim in that AAP position paper is not supported by the citations given and anyone can verify this for themselves by just checking the citations. Most of the citations given to support their position on gender identity don't even mention gender identity. It doesn't stop the AAP being repeatedly cited by advocates of gender affirmation for minors, although none of them have ever even attempted to rebut the criticisms but just ignored them.

Robin's attitude, that we shouldn't read journal articles ourselves but just trust experts to interpret them for us, seems to be sadly common. I suspect it's a big part of why the AAP and others can basically get away with such shoddy methodology.