TERFs crash London Pride

quadraginta said:
If Littman picked out her respondents exclusively from sources with a demonstrated bias then the science is not solid.

And that's what she did.

If she did that, not because she failed to understand the inherent flaws in her research study, but rather because she was trying to get a specific result, then her study is not only not science. It is junk intended for propaganda.

I'll leave it to you do decide which it is, but it does appear from her other activities that she has rather specific beliefs and attitudes which characterize her work.
Click to expand...

Everyone is biased. Everyone has bias.

Do you think if you interview an 18 year old in the thick of gender dysphoria and getting care at a gender affirming clinic with clinicians who believe in an extreme version of the pink brain/blue brain hypothesis they won't be biased?

Data exists outside of bias. When 4 friends all become gender dysphoric at once, that's just a data point.

If your daughter and her closest friends all became gender dysphoric at once, wouldn't you want that to be studied to find out what's up with that? I would.

If you were a scientist curious about the epidemiology of gender dysphoria, wouldn't you want to document that phenomenon? I would.

Again, this is just basic science.
 
kellyb said:
Everyone is biased. Everyone has bias.

Do you think if you interview an 18 year old in the thick of gender dysphoria and getting care at a gender affirming clinic with clinicians who believe in an extreme version of the pink brain/blue brain hypothesis they won't be biased?
Click to expand...


If you want to study the motives of the patients in question you do.

You won't get it by just asking their parents. Especially when those parents have already self-selected as being convinced their child is just vulnerable to some teen girl fad.

Data exists outside of bias. When 4 friends all become gender dysphoric at once, that's just a data point.

If your daughter and her closest friends all became gender dysphoric at once, wouldn't you want that to be studied to find out what's up with that? I would.
Click to expand...


So would I, but it wouldn't be by asking only the parents who have already demonstrated a unanimity toward a single bias.

And leaving the girls out entirely would make the whole thing an exercise in self-fulfillment.

If you were a scientist curious about the epidemiology of gender dysphoria, wouldn't you want to document that phenomenon? I would.
Click to expand...


Sure, but no "scientist" would assemble a study with the built-in prejudices which Littman's clearly has.

Again, this is just basic science.
Click to expand...


You don't do "science" by cherry picking all of your data from one side of a spectrum.
 
kellyb said:
...snip...

Again, this is just basic science.
Click to expand...

Problem is that the study mentioned above appears to be under question as to whether it is good or bad science, so much so that the journal is reviewing it as is the author's university. Now of course they may conclude it is perfectly fine but at the moment I would say it is rather premature to be quoting the paper as supporting any bias you may have.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Problem is that the study mentioned above appears to be under question as to whether it is good or bad science, so much so that the journal is reviewing it as is the author's university. Now of course they may conclude it is perfectly fine but at the moment I would say it is rather premature to be quoting the paper as supporting any bias you may have.
Click to expand...

"They" are not better or smarter than you or I. The people at PLOS are just like you and me. They're going "wtfbbq?" about it all just like you and I are.
But recruiting sub-groups for study like that really is standard. It's how we know about the bulimia epidemic that hit in the 80's.

Brown Univertity only pulled the press release, they didn't say "Oh, this is quackery! Sorry!" They're just sussing out the legitness of recruiting a sample in that way (the methodology). The data stands. Parental reports are standard, and the author didn't extrapolate the results to the larger population. She explicitly stated that she's just looking at this subgroup. The research is solid and will not be pulled. Hopefully more research and more data will be forthcoming.
 
kellyb said:
"They" are not better or smarter than you or I. The people at PLOS are just like you and me. They're going "wtfbbq?" about it all just like you and I are.
But recruiting sub-groups for study like that really is standard. It's how we know about the bulimia epidemic that hit in the 80's.

Brown Univertity only pulled the press release, they didn't say "Oh, this is quackery! Sorry!" They're just sussing out the legitness of recruiting a sample in that way (the methodology). The data stands. Parental reports are standard, and the author didn't extrapolate the results to the larger population. She explicitly stated that she's just looking at this subgroup. The research is solid and will not be pulled. Hopefully more research and more data will be forthcoming.
Click to expand...

If the methodology behind the data is weak or flawed the data means nothing. As I say I would think not using that research until the current reviews are finished and reported is the sensible course.

If you want science surely you want good science?
 
kellyb said:
"They" are not better or smarter than you or I. The people at PLOS are just like you and me. They're going "wtfbbq?" about it all just like you and I are. ...snip....
Click to expand...

No they are reviewing the research because there was legitimate concerns about the quality of the science.
 
Darat said:
No they are reviewing the research because there was legitimate concerns about the quality of the science.
Click to expand...

They're just double checking to make sure it's legit to interview the parent who glom onto 4thwavenow, etc as a result of their daughters developing dysphoria in groups, like social contagion. And, of course it's legit. Surveys that recruit subgroups like that are staples in modern psychology.
 
Darat said:
If you want science surely you want good science?
Click to expand...

Yes, I want better quality science! I want that a lot.

I was only 13 years old when I threw myself in with LGB advocacy, starting my local gay-straight alliance and local BGALA, at the expense of the religion I was indoctrinated into. My BFF was a dude who came out of the closet to me first, and I had that ONE data point which informed the whole rest of my worldview.
 
kellyb said:
They're just double checking to make sure it's legit to interview the parent who glom onto 4thwavenow, etc as a result of their daughters developing dysphoria in groups, like social contagion. And, of course it's legit. Surveys that recruit subgroups like that are staples in modern psychology.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll excuse me for not taking your claim as proof, I'll wait on the reviews by the experts.
 
kellyb said:
Here's an example regarding sports:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transgender-weightlifer-outsports_us_58d280efe4b02d33b7474cfd
Click to expand...

I think we can leave it to sports organizations to decide for themselves what is or is not fair competition since that is what they do. The "fear button" comment was directed towards people who believe allowing trans-people to use the bathroom or dressing room that corresponds to their gender identity will open the door for sexual harassment or assault by people who are not legitimately trans.

Since I haven't seen anyone argue for forcing women to compete against trans-women, can we set that aside as a red herring and instead concentrate on the aspects that are fear mongering?
 
kellyb said:
I don't think people are being rushed or pressured, but I do think it's far more likely than not that a sub-group of people (usually teens) who experience dysphoria developed it via social contagion, akin to bulimia and body dysmorphic disorder.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting theory, possibly even correct, but should still not be asserted without evidence. Nor should it be asserted to bolster a claim that trans-people should be denied recognition as belonging to the gender of their choosing.
 
kellyb said:
"Godmother" is what my kids think of their aunt, who is their legal guardian in the event of my death as.

Why is this an issue?
Click to expand...


Because the two have distinct and separate definitions, one of which is legally recognized, one of which is not. "Legal Guardian" is a real, government-recognized status. "Legal Godmother" is not; "godmother" is purely a religious role, not a legal one.
 
luchog said:
Because the two have distinct and separate definitions, one of which is legally recognized, one of which is not. "Legal Guardian" is a real, government-recognized status. "Legal Godmother" is not; "godmother" is purely a religious role, not a legal one.
Click to expand...

Which does a fairy godmother count as?

Godfathers, by contrast, are invariably illegal.
 
kellyb said:
"Godmother" is what my kids think of their aunt, who is their legal guardian in the event of my death as.

Why is this an issue?
Click to expand...
Which issue - you brought up *official* godparents and that caused some curiosity, because I suspect like me folk hadn't heard about official godparents before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom