LGB NewsPeer-reviewed research article: Among 139 boys formally diagnosed with gender dysphoria, 88% total desisted, and 64% total were either bisexual or gay.

submitted by reluctant_commenter from self.LGBDropTheT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]insta 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Not to be blackpilling or anything but just about nobody cares about studies.

If you think the majority of people on twitter or reddit are reading anything beyond the abstract (if not just the title of a news story covering it) you're fooling yourself.

Studies are good to have in your back pocket but just about nobody changes their mind about something because the Brookings institute released a new peer reviewed piece of shit. The whole "Believe in Science" crowd is complete bluff. They agree with positions out of moral issues and they just pull up a study that agrees with them to confirm their bias. You're also never going to "out science" the TRAs. For any study we might squeak out there will be 10 more telling us how transwomen make the best tops.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I understand the sentiment! I know that diehard TRAs, much like diehard fundamentalist Christians, don't give one flying fuck about science.

However, I wanted to give people here a heads up about it because:

  • Ultimately, science does inform public discourse and also legal decisions. Like the Keira Bell case-- the Tavistock had no evidence and so the jury ruled accordingly.

  • Also there are a lot of fellow science nerds on here who find this stuff interesting. :)

It's gonna take more than one study to make a dent, but the fact that this got through peer review and is being publicized is awesome.

edit: Also, I wouldn't say it's a bad thing that people read just the abstract-- usually that's supposed to cover the main points, anyway. And, transwomen may have a ton of money behind their movement but they don't have objective reality behind it, and that's what matters. It took like 60 years for the sugar industry's research manipulation and corruption to be widely publicized, but it did have to come out eventually.

[–]insta 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Also, I wouldn't say it's a bad thing that people read just the abstract

I do. For the vast majority of studies (that I can read for free, I ain't paying no psych journal $20 to read something some Twitter dot com user linked me) I go right to the methodology. Generally that's where the biases are hidden. IMO lots of corrupted social science starts with a faulty premise that's hidden somewhere in the methodology. Just reading the abstract isn't enough.

science does inform public discourse and also legal decisions

I'll give you legal decisions, I agree. However, for the most part I think public discourse is informed by a handful of empty talking points that people just repeat back to each other to sound like they didn't come to their decision emotionally. I think the big flaw, especially in online discourse, is us all pretending that humans are just robots that can take data X and come to conclusion Y.

I don't need some study to tell me that gay marriage should be legal, I don't need a study to tell me free speech is a good thing. I think far too many people delude themselves into thinking that their positions are rational and not just a gut instinct. We then go back to rationalize our political opinions with some half baked study we didn't read that we found on Twitter dot com.

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman🇬🇧🌳🟦 8 insightful - 7 fun8 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

You take your well-grounded training in the scientific method and begone, TERF! Recant your findings. The earth revolves around the sun? Transphobia. The planets revolve around wherever the grand wizard of Trans happens to be that day.

☀️🏳️‍⚧️☀️

[–]emptiedriver 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

However, for the most part I think public discourse is informed by a handful of empty talking points that people just repeat back to each other to sound like they didn't come to their decision emotionally.

But where do the emotions come from - I think a lot of people have very general and therefore malleable emotions, and will be convincible based on how something is framed. A bunch of people may want to do what's fair and good and allow everyone to love who they love, right? If trans rights are seen as another aspect of that, and people against it are seen through a lens of oppressors who are trying to stop trans people from living their happy lives, then emotionally they will want to support Trans Rights! and when the Bad Guys say anything they are presumed to be making it up or skewing statistics or otherwise just lying. But if enough information comes out to show that the view the "Bad Guys" were trying to communicate was actually sensible and irrefutable, and really, to support love and fight oppression you have to fight Big Pharma and not support trans... then the whole perspective has to shift. And people go through that kind of mental switch all the time. Sure, it's all emotional, and people don't do a lot of rational comparison to reach conclusions, but they can switch paradigms.

And I'd think studies like this can make people peak, bc the orthodoxy is that the percentage of detransitioners is incredibly small, a few percent or something, and that those who do are forced into it due to peer pressure and are less happy than they would be if they had been allowed to remain trans. I never looked into it that far since I was mostly concerned with the issue that even after transition you're still the same sex, but, these numbers are way different from what I've heard people claim. So I'd have to think it would be harder to ignore the contradiction.

[–]insta 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But where do the emotions come from

I’d argue the majority of them come from cultural influence and/or peer pressure. I think Jordan Peterson is correct in his overtones of “You would’ve been a concentration camp guard and you would’ve been okay with it”. I think people’s ethics and what they’re willing to live with are extremely malleable. I think COVID-19 restrictions are also a good example of this. People will live with things simply to get along.

when the Bad Guys say anything they are presumed to be making it up or skewing statistics or otherwise just lying.

This will happen no matter what. This happens frequently with the wage gap and with the whole 13/50 argument. The majority of people don’t care about studies or statistics and will just dismiss them outright with some talking point.

the "Bad Guys" were trying to communicate was actually sensible and irrefutable

I don’t think that will never happen without cultural or social power. The studies around children’s hormone blockers is murky at best yet there are powerful political segments that are willing to go full steam ahead with risking children’s health and future. The studies & reality don’t matter.

And I'd think studies like this can make people peak,

I think men competing in women’s sports makes more people peak. I think cultural issues like that are far more impactful than some random study nobody will ever read or know about.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I go right to the methodology. Generally that's where the biases are hidden. IMO lots of corrupted social science starts with a faulty premise that's hidden somewhere in the methodology. Just reading the abstract isn't enough.

Totally agree on reading the methods sections! Have you tried SciHub? A lot of papers are posted on there for free.

I think the big flaw, especially in online discourse, is us all pretending that humans are just robots that can take data X and come to conclusion Y.

I agree, people are not like this. However, I appreciate having some form of empirical evidence to bring into a discussion, because it's better than nothing. Occasionally people even consider it for a couple minutes, lol.

[–]insta 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

However, I appreciate having some form of empirical evidence to bring into a discussion, because it's better than nothing.

I can appreciate that. You’re a better person than me. I am so tired of arguing with someone and they link me some half baked study that says “11 year olds going on hormone blockers is totally reversible and has no downsides and if you disagree you’re a bigot” and having to read this bullshit to find out where they’re lying or purposefully obfuscating some fact.

It’s like an ideological version of “I, Spy” and it’s exhausting. Especially when discussing things with friends irl as you simply cannot take the time to go through their references and more often than not they can’t even find them on google. It’s all just so exhausting.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I can appreciate that. You’re a better person than me.

I don't know about that, I might just have more energy for it :) these conversations can be insanely exhausting. And they're often with people who refuse to consider evidence that threatens their beliefs. I like to remind myself: I'm arguing to convince the lurkers, never to convince the person I'm arguing with. I used to be a lurker for years before I finally felt compelled to start participating via asking questions. Plenty of people read and watch and take something valuable out of an otherwise seemingly useless discussion.

It's like an ideological version of “I, Spy” and it’s exhausting. Especially when discussing things with friends irl as you simply cannot take the time to go through their references and more often than not they can’t even find them on google. It’s all just so exhausting.

EXACTLY. You've nailed the description of it. For in-person convos, I hope to make a shortlist of resources and links at the ready.

[–]insta 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

For in-person convos, I hope to make a shortlist of resources and links at the ready.

For me, I just try to give them some perspective on the issue. I try to use myself as an example of "Hey, this issue isn't black and white. It's not hate vs love. It's not good vs evil. It's more complicated". People think if you're against these issues you're some basement dwelling troll who is just so full of hate. When in reality we have perfectly reasonable objections.

It's good for people to have someone think "Oh well, /u/insta believes these things and he doesn't want to go around putting trans people on the cross so I think you're being a little dramatic". It's powerful for people to know that they're not insane if they don't fully agree to this. They're not hateful. They're not a nazi. It's good people have examples of this so we're not all cowering in fear.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Completely agree. I'll keep that in mind as well. :)