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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Medussa posted...

do you want the "Vaccines cause autism" study to be preserved, too? Because that's what this "study" is.

I'll admit I haven't read this study, so I can't really judge. If the science behind it is faulty or false, then I would agree that it should be removed.
---

thelovefist posted...

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

muh feelings

CyricZ posted...

It has been preserved, and it's been roundly debunked and mocked. It still exists, though. The guy who did it will never be able to walk away from it.

Yeah, and this paper still exists after the university took it down from their website, no? In fact, the uni just removed their press release.
---

CyricZ posted...

It has been preserved, and it's been roundly debunked and mocked

fair, I guess. but has it been preserved as a study, in places where valid studies appear? or just as a known bit of disinformation floating around the tubes? (I'm seriously asking.)
---

Sheep007 posted...

Medussa posted...

do you want the "Vaccines cause autism" study to be preserved, too? Because that's what this "study" is.

I'll admit I haven't read this study, so I can't really judge. If the science behind it is faulty or false, then I would agree that it should be removed.

When the best evidence someone can provide for denouncing something is a whataboutism then chances are they're on shaky ground.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Yeah, and this paper still exists after the university took it down from their website, no? In fact, the uni just removed their press release.

Yeah, that's fair.

Brown determined that removing the article from news distribution is the most responsible course of action.

Removing it from "news distribution" is not the same as banning it outright or striking it from history. My bad on not catching that earlier.
---

CyricZ posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

You implied that he would hurt a transwoman simply because he doesn't agree that ciswomen and transwomen should be counted together. Now you have the gall to be surprised he was offended by that?

I say "improper behavior" and everyone jumps to murder right away.

Clearly it's a soft fucking spot for more than one person ITT.

I didn't say murder.

Here's your kettle.

Sheep007 posted...

I'll admit I haven't read this study, so I can't really judge. If the science behind it is faulty or false, then I would agree that it should be removed.

the link I posted earlier has a great explanation, but the cliff notes:

2016: ROGD is coined on a couple blogs.
2018: "researcher" surveys parents from those very same blogs to prove the condition that they created.
---

CyricZ posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Yeah, and this paper still exists after the university took it down from their website, no? In fact, the uni just removed their press release.

Yeah, that's fair.

Brown determined that removing the article from news distribution is the most responsible course of action.

Removing it from "news distribution" is not the same as banning it outright or striking it from history. My bad on not catching that earlier.

Just another case of intentionally misleading topic titles on CE. :)
---

scar the 1 posted...

Just another case of intentionally misleading topic titles on CE. :)

Guh, and I fell for it.

*fainting couch*
---

Remember the university is nothing but a business, and when the consumers receive a product they are not happy with, they file their protest with the business so that they can get what they pay for in a revised product.

The board of directors don't want to lose any investment in their financial endeavor, so they are keen to keep their consumers happy.

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

Deedice 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

How does this make sense?

a BLT is a sandwich

it is different from a grilled cheese sandwich, but that doesn't make it any less of a sandwich

Lol you mean a BLT is a sandwich and all sandwiches have bread in them so stove top stuffing is a sandwich
---

the emperors new dress

So I'm looking through the study now, and I don't see the criticisms in terms of rigor. They're open about all experimental criteria, they received IRB approval which means their study was approved by a neutral third party company that specifies in study rigor in human subjects testing, they fully acknowledge the small-N nature of the number of subjects they recruited, and most importantly they don't prescribe a "solution" to the conclusion... they simply report the results.

I could understand people worrying about the web sites that the parents were pulled from, but according to the study's data, those parents replied 88% that they believed trans people deserved the same rights as everyone else, so if the purpose of highlighting the web sites is to try and argue that it's a haven for bigots... the data doesn't match that claim.

Like... you can hate the conclusion, but everything I'm seeing in the report is really well written and the study itself carefully designed and executed.
---

s0nicfan posted...

they received IRB approval which means their study was approved by a neutral third party company that specifies in study rigor in human subjects testing,

Lol. That's not how that works.
---

And isnt it kind of stupid to equate transgender people to sandwiches? Seems disingenuous and overly simplified
---

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

they received IRB approval which means their study was approved by a neutral third party company that specifies in study rigor in human subjects testing,

Lol. That's not how that works.

Maybe you could explain how it does work since you seem to have more of an idea
---

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

they received IRB approval which means their study was approved by a neutral third party company that specifies in study rigor in human subjects testing,

Lol. That's not how that works.

Yes it is. You can't perform a generalizable study on humans without first receiving IRB approval. The process involves detailing the experimental procedure, information like data protection for at least 3 years, you must provide samples of consent forms, the survey, detailed resumes on the people to perform the experiment....
---

Deedice posted...

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

they received IRB approval which means their study was approved by a neutral third party company that specifies in study rigor in human subjects testing,

Lol. That's not how that works.

Maybe you could explain how it does work since you seem to have more of an idea

his gimmick is to just be condescending and vague

Deedice posted...

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

they received IRB approval which means their study was approved by a neutral third party company that specifies in study rigor in human subjects testing,

Lol. That's not how that works.

Maybe you could explain how it does work since you seem to have more of an idea

He doesn't do that. He prefers ambiguous snark.

s0nicfan posted...

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

they received IRB approval which means their study was approved by a neutral third party company that specifies in study rigor in human subjects testing,

Lol. That's not how that works.

Yes it is. You can't perform a generalizable study on humans without first receiving IRB approval. The process involves detailing the experimental procedure, information like data protection for at least 3 years, you must provide samples of consent forms, the survey, detailed resumes on the people to perform the experiment....

I've submitted several IRB applications, the IRB doesn't ensure scientific rigor. Their job is to ensure that each experiment is performed in the most ethical form that it can be performed. That is all.
---

Medussa posted...

Sheep007 posted...

I'll admit I haven't read this study, so I can't really judge. If the science behind it is faulty or false, then I would agree that it should be removed.

the article I posted earlier has a great explanation, but the cliff notes:

2016: ROGD is coined on a couple blogs.
2018: "researcher" surveys parents from those very same blogs to prove the condition that they created.

If that is the case then it's a joke this is even being talked about. I'd heard of the term before but didn't know it was effectively made up as a buzzword. My bad, I probably should have actually read about the issue before responding with a stock reply to controversial articles.
---

It's literally parents trying to explain why they never noticed their kid was trans. Much more accurately "Sudden Awareness of Gender Dysphoria in Others"
---

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

they received IRB approval which means their study was approved by a neutral third party company that specifies in study rigor in human subjects testing,

Lol. That's not how that works.

Yes it is. You can't perform a generalizable study on humans without first receiving IRB approval. The process involves detailing the experimental procedure, information like data protection for at least 3 years, you must provide samples of consent forms, the survey, detailed resumes on the people to perform the experiment....

I've submitted several IRB applications, the IRB doesn't ensure scientific rigor. Their job is to ensure that each experiment is performed in the most ethical form that it can be performed. That is all.

Then we're just using different definitions of rigor in this context. A human subjects study that is fully ethically compliant is rigorous to me because the questions have to be designed as to be unbiased to get approval. For this type of study, that's rigor enough. I can see your point though that in a more general sense it doesn't necessarily cover all variables.

But since you clearly know your stuff... what is your take on the validity of the report? Did you find something in it that you believe invalidates the study, or at least puts it on sufficiently questionable grounds that it needed removing? What flaws do you think it has?
---

s0nicfan posted...

questions have to be designed as to be unbiased

The scientific questions themselves aren't what the IRB are usually looking at. They are looking at how you are asking the questions, not whether or not they will reliably and unbiasedly get at the issues.
---

Medussa posted...

It's literally parents trying to explain why they never noticed their kid was trans. Much more accurately "Sudden Awareness of Gender Dysphoria in Others"

Gee, if only the study acknowledged that. Oh wait...

Another limitation of this study is that it included only parental perspective. Ideally, data would be obtained from both the parent and the child and the absence of either perspective paints an incomplete account of events. Input from the youth would have yielded additional information. Further research that includes data collection from both parent and child is required to fully understand this condition. However, because this research has been produced in a climate where the input from parents is often neglected in the evaluation and treatment of gender dysphoric AYAs, this research supplies a valuable, previously missing piece to the jigsaw puzzle. If Hypothesis 2 is correct that rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) represents an ego-syntonic maladaptive coping mechanism for AYAs, data from parents are especially important because affected AYAs may be so committed to the maladaptive coping mechanism that their ability to assess their own situation may be impaired. Furthermore, parents uniquely can provide details of their childs early development and the presence or absence of readily observable childhood indicators of gender dysphoria are especially relevant to the diagnosis. There are, however, obvious limitations to relying solely on parent report. It is possible that some of the participating parents may not have noticed symptoms of gender dysphoria before their AYAs disclosure of a transgender identity; could have been experiencing shock or grief from the disclosure; or even could have chosen to deny or obscure knowledge of long term gender dysphoria. Readers should hold this possibility in mind. Regardless, the 200 plus responses appear to have been prepared carefully and were rich in detail, suggesting they were written in good faith and that parents were attentive observers of their children's lives. Although this research adds the necessary component of parent observation to our understanding of gender dysphoric adolescents and young adults, future study in this area should include both parent and child input.

---

s0nicfan posted...

Then we're just using different definitions of rigor in this context. A human subjects study that is fully ethically compliant is rigorous to me because the questions have to be designed as to be unbiased to get approval.

uhh, no? The purpose of an ethics review is that you're not submitting the subjects to unethical experimentation.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Gee, if only the study acknowledged that. Oh wait...

a shitty study admitting it's own shittiness doesn't make it stink any less.
---

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

questions have to be designed as to be unbiased

The scientific questions themselves aren't what the IRB are usually looking at. They are looking at how you are asking the questions, not whether or not they will reliably and unbiasedly get at the issues.

But since you clearly know your stuff... what is your take on the validity of the report? Did you find something in it that you believe invalidates the study, or at least puts it on sufficiently questionable grounds that it needed removing? What flaws do you think it has?
---

s0nicfan posted...

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

questions have to be designed as to be unbiased

The scientific questions themselves aren't what the IRB are usually looking at. They are looking at how you are asking the questions, not whether or not they will reliably and unbiasedly get at the issues.

But since you clearly know your stuff... what is your take on the validity of the report? Did you find something in it that you believe invalidates the study, or at least puts it on sufficiently questionable grounds that it needed removing? What flaws do you think it has?

You realize I've posted in this topic before, yes?
---

s0nicfan posted...

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

questions have to be designed as to be unbiased

The scientific questions themselves aren't what the IRB are usually looking at. They are looking at how you are asking the questions, not whether or not they will reliably and unbiasedly get at the issues.

But since you clearly know your stuff... what is your take on the validity of the report? Did you find something in it that you believe invalidates the study, or at least puts it on sufficiently questionable grounds that it needed removing? What flaws do you think it has?

I asked more or less the same question earlier ITT and the only responses so far have been a whataboutism and a personal attack against me.
---

based
---

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.

And yes, surveys will always be shitty methodology lol.

Are you talking about this post? If your argument was that the sample was biased, how does that explain the overwhelming support those surveyed had for trans rights? You're free to hate surveys in general, but just saying "lol alex jones" isn't a specific counter to the validity of this survey relative to other surveys. The author does due diligence and says that the conclusion should be that there's potentially something there and a more thorough study should be done. If the author was claiming some sort of objective truth you'd be 100% fair in your criticism, but they're NOT. They're doing exactly what you should do with a study: survey the environment to get a sense of whether there's a "there" there before pumping money into a much more expensive process.
---

s0nicfan posted...

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.

And yes, surveys will always be shitty methodology lol.

Are you talking about this post? If your argument was that the sample was biased, how does that explain the overwhelming support those surveyed had for trans rights? You're free to hate surveys in general, but just saying "lol alex jones" isn't a specific counter to the validity of this survey relative to other surveys.

They selected from a particular population which has a high belief in a phenomenon to show...that the phenomenon exists?

No, what they have shown is that there is a belief that the phenomenon exists amongst this specifically sampled population. Which is scientifically meaningless.
---

s0nicfan posted...

how does that explain the overwhelming support those surveyed had for trans rights?

because in their minds, their kids aren't actually trans. this is their desperate way to justify their own shitty behavior.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Are you talking about this post? If your argument was that the sample was biased, how does that explain the overwhelming support those surveyed had for trans rights? You're free to hate surveys in general, but just saying "lol alex jones" isn't a specific counter to the validity of this survey relative to other surveys. The author does due diligence and says that the conclusion should be that there's potentially something there and a more thorough study should be done. If the author was claiming some sort of objective truth you'd be 100% fair in your criticism, but they're NOT. They're doing exactly what you should do with a study: survey the environment to get a sense of whether there's a "there" there before pumping money into a much more expensive process.

Like has been said already, the author being upfront about the methodology being bad doesn't make the methodology less bad. If they had tried to publish this in a serious journal, it would get rejected.
---

Interesting. The article almost describes my sibling exactly, to the point its eerie. I cant speak on their behalf or know first hand their experiences but from an older brothers perspective I think I would be less bias than a parentor at least have a different take.

Which came first the chicken or the egg? Because my sibling didnt show any signs until well after puberty. As a young adult they were heavy into online gaming and nerdier online social groups, or things like MS Paint Adventures. Then went on to college where they were with other similar like-minded and very liberal friends. At this point they became very gender dysphoric. But again, did this constant environment cause it or was it there from the beginning and suppressed?
---

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

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.

And yes, surveys will always be shitty methodology lol.

Are you talking about this post? If your argument was that the sample was biased, how does that explain the overwhelming support those surveyed had for trans rights? You're free to hate surveys in general, but just saying "lol alex jones" isn't a specific counter to the validity of this survey relative to other surveys.

They selected from a particular population which has a high belief in a phenomenon to show...that the phenomenon exists?

No, what they have shown is that there is a belief that the phenomenon exists amongst this specifically sampled population. Which is scientifically meaningless.

It's important to note that they aren't claiming that they are simply studying the beliefs about the existence of a phenomenon, but explicitly claiming this as evidence regarding the phenomenon.

Their data do not reflect what they claim.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Like has been said already, the author being upfront about the methodology being bad doesn't make the methodology less bad. If they had tried to publish this in a serious journal, it would get rejected.

Indeed, and shitty work gets published all the time, even in top tier journals.

The fact that it's shitty isn't going to stop anyone from touting it around as evidence of their previously held belief, especially given the authority of publication.
---

CyricZ posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

You implied that he would hurt a transwoman simply because he doesn't agree that ciswomen and transwomen should be counted together. Now you have the gall to be surprised he was offended by that?

I say "improper behavior" and everyone jumps to murder right away.

Clearly it's a soft fucking spot for more than one person ITT.

We aren't stupid.

We all know transwomen being murdered by men in a "gay panic" is an unfortunate thing that happens. Don't try to pretend that you weren't trying to slyly say "Gee, I sure hope you don't murder someone when you accidentally sleep with a transwoman". Your suggestion was clear and open hostility is the only response you deserve.
---