you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Good_As_You 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I have just started to look into the original paper and... WOW! The quality of the data is appalling, to say the least: missing values everywhere, information like sex or dosage not reported, physical measures' scores wildly changing back and forth probably because the N=44 shrunk to N=24 and N=14, etc.

We're doomed if this is what they refer to when talking about "settled science" that we need to trust.

I will read it all and post a reply with more details on the flaws I'm able to identify, but it's baffling that this got peer-reviewed and published, even if PLOS One isn't the greatest of journals.

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

Yikes, but I'm not surprised. I haven't looked at the actual dataset yet. I can't decide whether to laugh or be pissed off. This is reflective of how little trans "rights" activists care about the health and well-being of GNC people, LGB people, and "trans" people, who they claim to want to protect...

We're doomed if this is what they refer to when talking about "settled science" that we need to trust.

Agreed, and it's worth mentioning, very, very few phenomena are agreed upon as "settled science," lol. 9/10 times when I hear this phrase I am immediately suspicious. It's a phrase designed to deter further investigation and sometimes people who are invested in a particular possibility say it even about findings that are not politically charged but that they are personally invested in.

but it's baffling that this got peer-reviewed and published

The BBC article says it hasn't been peer reviewed yet, actually. But I haven't looked st the study itself yet so I'll go ahead and do that too, hopefully later today. Thanks for looking :)

[–]Good_As_You 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's the new re-analysis that hasn't been peer-reviewed, the original 2021 study has been. You can even read the comments by the anonymous reviewers: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/peerReview?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243894