Current Events > Transgender activists force University to take down article on gender dysphoria.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1034185162219773952

Why?
---

Gender Madness
---

I mean, they just interviews parents to conclude that gender dysphoria is basically a result of peer pressure.
---

frozenshock posted...

I mean, they just interviews parents to conclude that gender dysphoria is basically a result of peer pressure.

I wouldnt believe it normally, but snowflakes statuses ARE in right now for todays modern youth.
---

So this is really what it's come to huh?
---

Forgettable posted...

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) describes a phenomenon where the development of gender dysphoria is observed to begin suddenly during or after puberty in an adolescent or young adult who would not have met criteria for gender dysphoria in childhood. ROGD appears to represent an entity that is distinct from the gender dysphoria observed in individuals who have previously been described as transgender. The worsening of mental well-being and parent-child relationships and behaviors that isolate AYAs from their parents, families, non-transgender friends and mainstream sources of information are particularly concerning. More research is needed to better understand this phenomenon, its implications and scope.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

it's almost as if the article claims that kids latch onto cultural fads in an effort to be seen as unique and special

Forgettable posted...

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) describes a phenomenon where the development of gender dysphoria is observed to begin suddenly during or after puberty in an adolescent or young adult who would not have met criteria for gender dysphoria in childhood. ROGD appears to represent an entity that is distinct from the gender dysphoria observed in individuals who have previously been described as transgender. The worsening of mental well-being and parent-child relationships and behaviors that isolate AYAs from their parents, families, non-transgender friends and mainstream sources of information are particularly concerning. More research is needed to better understand this phenomenon, its implications and scope.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

sounds to me like TITS. Trolling Induced Transsexuality Syndrome. Its what happened to Chris-Chan, now Christine.
---

the usual suspects will defend this
---

I don't agree with the removal of this information, but I think that this article doesn't do any favors for the study of trans people.

The article itself states that it's not 100% conclusive, only that it's marking trends. The data is a questionnaire, filled out by parents, not by those suffering from gender dysphoria. The sample size is 256, and the conclusions are things that have already been observed anyway.

Being trans leads to worry, anxiety, isolation, and seeking a new group of people to communicate with? You don't say. These are growing pains of young transpeople at this point in history, where society kinda wants to accept them and still kinda weirded out by them.

I believe Brown should not have removed this article, nor buckled to the pressure. The way to counter articles like these is not through removal, but rebuttal. There are plenty of people studying transpeople who can work alongside or in opposition to this article for better understanding.
---

A cursory examination of the Twitter link you posted shows a hell of a lot of people explaining this is bad science, that the methodology was flawed, and clearly biased. Assuming this is true (because unlike some I dont just take Twitter posts at face value without any further thought), wouldnt that be a valid reason for activists to want something taken down, if its a transparent attempt to push an agenda rather than, you know, science? I dont know if thats actually the case, but thats the vibe I get from reading the link.

After reading the commment above me after initially posting this: yeah, a poll of 256 parents doesnt mean a damn thing, and positing Rapid onset gender dysphoria when the info you have is some parents think some things is pretty stupid, in my non-scientist opinion. Take that with a grain of salt.
---

Zonbei posted...

A cursory examination of the Twitter link you posted shows a hell of a lot of people explaining this is bad science, that the methodology was flawed, and clearly biased. Assuming this is true (because unlike some I dont just take Twitter posts at face value without any further thought), wouldnt that be a valid reason for activists to want something taken down?

There are a lot of flawed and bad articles out there with poor science done, yet they remain published and existing for the world to see. This one should be no different. Instead of deleting such work from the world, we should instead preserve them for their flaws.
---

It's a shitty paper published in a shitty journal, but all the context is ignored by the general public from consideration and people will latch onto this paper to justify their own previously held beliefs.

I don't agree with attempts to take it down without any ethical violations by the authors, but I am shocked that it even got published in plos one.
---

CyricZ posted...

Zonbei posted...

A cursory examination of the Twitter link you posted shows a hell of a lot of people explaining this is bad science, that the methodology was flawed, and clearly biased. Assuming this is true (because unlike some I dont just take Twitter posts at face value without any further thought), wouldnt that be a valid reason for activists to want something taken down?

There are a lot of flawed and bad articles out there with poor science done, yet they remain published and existing for the world to see. This one should be no different. Instead of deleting such work from the world, we should instead preserve them for their flaws.

Im willing to bet most of those wont be latched into by bigots, trolls, and religious fanatics to prove their stupid points. I dont really care about high minded principles, I care about the practical effects of things like this, frankly. Its not like the scientific pursuits arent already broken as fuck and run by money. Not like its sacred as it is, look at the state of things. Take it down and the researcher can try again with something that isnt a waste of everyones time thats going to fuel bigots.
---

Zonbei posted...

Im willing to bet most of those wont be latched into by bigots, trolls, and religious fanatics to prove their stupid points. I dont really care about high minded principles, I care about the practical effects of things like this, frankly. Its not like the scientific pursuits arent already broken as fuck and run by money. Not like its sacred as it is, look at the state of things. Take it down and the researcher can try again with something that isnt a waste of everyones time thats going to fuel bigots.

After two decades on the Internet, I've concluded that bigots, trolls, and fanatics will latch onto anything. Making a fuss about its bad science is one thing. Make that the narrative. Try to get it removed and the opposition will cry censorship to take the moral high ground. As they're doing right now.
---

wtf we hate surveys now
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

wtf we hate surveys now

Surveys on a selected population on the basis of the factor I was looking at. I can survey people from alexjonesrocks.com and be left with the idea that there is a serious concern about the rise in transgenderism due to homosexual frogs in the water.

It's not super informative, and the conclusion that this type of survey result actually provides evidence for some phenomenon is patently ridiculous.

And yes, surveys will always be shitty methodology lol.
---

COVxy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

wtf we hate surveys now

Surveys on a selected population on the basis of the factor I was looking at. I can survey people from alexjonesrocks.com and be left with the idea that there is a serious concern about the rise in transgenderism due to homosexual frogs in the water.

It's not super informative, and the conclusion that this type of survey result actually provides evidence for some phenomenon is patently ridiculous.

will file this post away for later use when you inevitably post something relying on surveys or polls lululululul
---

Can someone explain, in layperson terms, what the objective reasons are for why this study is flawed and thus worthy of removal?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

will file this post away for later use when you inevitably post something relying on surveys or polls lululululul

lol.

Since when have I ever suggested that survey methodology is rigorous? Provide me one example.

And even still, this is a particularly egregious case because the sample is clearly nonrandom and problematic.
---

thelovefist posted...

Can someone explain, in layperson terms, what the objective reasons are for why this study is flawed and thus worthy of removal?

Feelings were hurt
---

thelovefist posted...

Can someone explain, in layperson terms, what the objective reasons are for why this study is flawed and thus worthy of removal?

No one here is arguing it SHOULD have been removed but multiple people have made posts outlining issues with the "study".
---

Bio1590 posted...

thelovefist posted...

Can someone explain, in layperson terms, what the objective reasons are for why this study is flawed and thus worthy of removal?

No one here is arguing it SHOULD have been removed but multiple people have made posts outlining issues with the "study".

Ok fair enough. Can someone explain, in layperson terms, what the objective reasons are for why this study is flawed?
---

thelovefist posted...

Bio1590 posted...

thelovefist posted...

Can someone explain, in layperson terms, what the objective reasons are for why this study is flawed and thus worthy of removal?

No one here is arguing it SHOULD have been removed but multiple people have made posts outlining issues with the "study".

Ok fair enough. Can someone explain, in layperson terms, what the objective reasons are for why this study is flawed?

...I mean that's literally the same thing.

Look we get you don't like trans people.
---

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5s2WZv0MXm4/maxresdefault.jpg
---

@Bio1590 posted...

thelovefist posted...

Bio1590 posted...

thelovefist posted...

Can someone explain, in layperson terms, what the objective reasons are for why this study is flawed and thus worthy of removal?

No one here is arguing it SHOULD have been removed but multiple people have made posts outlining issues with the "study".

Ok fair enough. Can someone explain, in layperson terms, what the objective reasons are for why this study is flawed?

...I mean that's literally the same thing.

Look we get you don't like trans people.

I don't dislike trans people....

I support publicly funded gender reassignment surgeries. I support the ending of any discriminatory practices excluding transgendered people from anything.

I do not support statements like, "there are no biological differences between a woman and a mtf person"

All I am asking for are objective reasons for why this is study is flawed so I can better understand the issue at hand.
---

thelovefist posted...

I do not support statements like, "there are no biological differences between a woman and a mtf person"

trans women are women

they are different from cis women, but that doesn't suddenly make them any less of a woman

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

thelovefist posted...

I do not support statements like, "there are no biological differences between a woman and a mtf person"

trans women are women

they are different from cis women, but that doesn't suddenly make them any less of a woman

And dogs are cats. They are different from cats but that doesn't stop me from feeding them cat food.
---

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

thelovefist posted...

I do not support statements like, "there are no biological differences between a woman and a mtf person"

trans women are women

they are different from cis women, but that doesn't suddenly make them any less of a woman

woman is default
trans woman is its own thing

no such thing as "cis woman" except as a rhetorical attempt to try to make the default not the default
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

thelovefist posted...

I do not support statements like, "there are no biological differences between a woman and a mtf person"

trans women are women

they are different from cis women, but that doesn't suddenly make them any less of a woman

woman is default
trans woman is its own thing

no such thing as "cis woman" except as a rhetorical attempt to try to make the default not the default

what

SageHarpuia posted...

And dogs are cats. They are different from cats but that doesn't stop me from feeding them cat food.

that is a completely ridiculous analogy

I'm not particularly keen on trans issues myself, but this sounds pretty suspect to me.
---

Esrac posted...

I'm not particularly keen on trans issues myself, but this sounds pretty suspect to me.

Is it morally right to eat sheep? We asked 95 wolves and 4 French chefs and the guy at the chippy who sold us a deep-fried haggis.

Transsexuality is the same as mass shooters. Everyone could have been doing it this whole time and it probably is based on real emotions, but as it gains in popularity more people start to see it as a valid life choice.
---

I love that the response to people pointing out questionable methodology is little more than "well, I better not catch you being a hypocrite later!"

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

thelovefist posted...

I do not support statements like, "there are no biological differences between a woman and a mtf person"

trans women are women

they are different from cis women, but that doesn't suddenly make them any less of a woman

woman is default
trans woman is its own thing

no such thing as "cis woman" except as a rhetorical attempt to try to make the default not the default

what

He is saying "cis woman" is an illegitimate term because the term "woman" applies as default to women who are not trans. You don't need the "cis" descriptor because you don't need to distinguish the default group. You can just call them women.

You do need the descriptor "trans" for transwomen because transwomen aren't really women. They're transwomen.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

I love that the response to people pointing out questionable methodology is little more than "well, I better not catch you being a hypocrite later!"

It's more that people are far more careful about evaluating methodology when the conclusion is something they disagree with, and much more lenient with methodology when the conclusion is something they agree with.

It'd be like Antifar attacking someone for using a poll or some shit. All the usual suspects agreed that this shouldn't have been removed by the university, so basically everyone is in agreement on what really matters. Scholarship should never be taken down by a mob, only refuted and debated and counteracted with better evidence if there is any.
---

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

Esrac posted...

I'm not particularly keen on trans issues myself, but this sounds pretty suspect to me.

Is it morally right to eat sheep? We asked 95 wolves and 4 French chefs and the guy at the chippy who sold us a deep-fried haggis.

I mean, I don't really think of eating sheep as a moral question.
---

Esrac posted...

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

thelovefist posted...

I do not support statements like, "there are no biological differences between a woman and a mtf person"

trans women are women

they are different from cis women, but that doesn't suddenly make them any less of a woman

woman is default
trans woman is its own thing

no such thing as "cis woman" except as a rhetorical attempt to try to make the default not the default

what

He is saying "cis woman" is an illegitimate term because the term "woman" applies as default to women who are not trans. You don't need the "cis" descriptor because you don't need to distinguish the default group. You can just call them women.

You do need the descriptor "trans" for transwomen because transwomen aren't really women. They're transwomen.

Indeed. Anyone trying to force "cis woman" to become some legitimate rhetorical thing is simply trying to erase the concept of woman as a whole.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

It's more that people are far more careful about evaluating methodology when the conclusion is something they disagree with, and much more lenient with methodology when the conclusion is something they agree with.

No, you just assume that they represent that bias because they are the "opposition".

Come off it.
---

COVxy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

It's more that people are far more careful about evaluating methodology when the conclusion is something they disagree with, and much more lenient with methodology when the conclusion is something they agree with.

No, you just assume that they represent that bias because they are the "opposition".

Come off it.

bahahaha pot meet kettle
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I love that the response to people pointing out questionable methodology is little more than "well, I better not catch you being a hypocrite later!"

It's more that people are far more careful about evaluating methodology when the conclusion is something they disagree with, and much more lenient with methodology when the conclusion is something they agree with.

It'd be like Antifar attacking someone for using a poll or some shit. All the usual suspects agreed that this shouldn't have been removed by the university, so basically everyone is in agreement on what really matters. Scholarship should never be taken down by a mob, only refuted and debated and counteracted with better evidence if there is any.

Which I suppose is perfectly reasonable to discuss, but it's a completely different issue. Someone could use double standards when they look at studies, and the one study could still have questionable methodology at the same time. It just sounds so dismissive.

Except I've always been hypercritical about survey methodology in general and have frequently criticized those on the "far left" when the post ridiculous conclusions that the data cannot support.
---

Esrac posted...

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

thelovefist posted...

I do not support statements like, "there are no biological differences between a woman and a mtf person"

trans women are women

they are different from cis women, but that doesn't suddenly make them any less of a woman

woman is default
trans woman is its own thing

no such thing as "cis woman" except as a rhetorical attempt to try to make the default not the default

what

He is saying "cis woman" is an illegitimate term because the term "woman" applies as default to women who are not trans. You don't need the "cis" descriptor because you don't need to distinguish the default group. You can just call them women.

You do need the descriptor "trans" for transwomen because transwomen aren't really women. They're transwomen.

then he needs to get his head out of his ass

Dragonblade01 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I love that the response to people pointing out questionable methodology is little more than "well, I better not catch you being a hypocrite later!"

It's more that people are far more careful about evaluating methodology when the conclusion is something they disagree with, and much more lenient with methodology when the conclusion is something they agree with.

It'd be like Antifar attacking someone for using a poll or some shit. All the usual suspects agreed that this shouldn't have been removed by the university, so basically everyone is in agreement on what really matters. Scholarship should never be taken down by a mob, only refuted and debated and counteracted with better evidence if there is any.

Which I suppose is perfectly reasonable to discuss, but it's a completely different issue. Someone could use double standards when they look at studies, and the one study could still have questionable methodology at the same time. It just sounds so dismissive.

Welcome to internet shitposting and politics
---

COVxy posted...

Except I've always been hypercritical about survey methodology in general and have frequently criticized those on the "far left" when the post ridiculous conclusions that the data cannot support.

LOL I've seen most of your posts and yet I've never seen a single example of this. Got an example?
---