you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Musky[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's an empirical science

My thing is science, yours is more akin to religion.

What are the main flaws in that study?

Bias and shoddy methodology.

In any case it's not the only one

Even if those old studies were valid, and that's doubtful, it doesn't account for the fad-like sociogenic spreading of transgenderism during the last two years.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Bias and shoddy methodology.

What is shoddy about the methodology?

What bias is present?

[–]Musky[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What is shoddy about the methodology?

It's a self reported survey where they didn't bother to follow up with everyone.

What bias is present?

It was funded by trans advocates.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's a self reported survey where they didn't bother to follow up with everyone.

No it wasn't a survey, and it wasn't self reported.

It was funded by trans advocates

Oh, not a bias in the statistics then.

Was there an external funding body? Who was it?

[–]Musky[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No it wasn't a survey, and it wasn't self reported.

... You didn't read it?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes. It's from medical records, not surveys.

What did you read?

[–]Musky[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think that's correct. This study is suss.