To claim there are not really any other candidates for a skew (in that direction or the other) you would have to (like Shrier herself) go out of your way to not bother to talk to trans people, or their doctors, or their families, or sociologists, or talk to any of the people who spend their lives researching gender, what it means, how it affects us, what assumptions we make, whether those ideas stack up when confronted with empirical research, etc etc. I'm not really interested in discussing further with a 30 minute old account.

▲

nuggets 3 days ago | parent [-]

What is your alternative explanation for why referrals have so sharply skewed towards girls who want to be boys, within the past decade or so?

It is doctors who first drew attention to this phenomenon. See for example Tavistock whistleblower David Bell.

▲

pryce 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Increasing social acceptibility and awareness is not mysterious to people who understand that many perceptions about gender are constructions that occur in social contexts.

Why do I owe you any specific "explanation" when the context here is that you are treating Shrier's pseudoscientific book that literally tells parents in the closing chapters that if their kid has a trans friend they should consider moving cities to get their child away from their trans friend as though we are supposed to take transphobic hate literature at face value.

Maybe a better step than me agreeing to do that is that instead you should take the entire corpus of medical literature on the subject, as well as the voices of trans people on the subject of trans people at face value first.

I have no interest in your JAQing off[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Asking_Questions

▲

nuggets 3 days ago | parent [-]

You don't have to suggest an explanation for this demographic change if you don't want to.

▲

defrost 3 days ago | parent [-]

The statistical evidence for a change in the paper you linked and the other papers in the area is extremely weak.

At one end of the scale is very little data that gives an unreliable picture with a high degree of variability, at the other end of the not very long in time scale is somewhat more data that provides a better picture.

To make such a fuss about " this demographic change " indicates a lack of exposure to such statistics.

Why are you attempting to make such a big deal of bad data here?

	▲	alchemism 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

▲

beepbooptheory 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe just think critically, without conspiracy about it for two seconds. With anything else, I'm sure you'd see the classic survivorship bias error you are making here.

	▲	nuggets 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Could you elaborate on what you're alluding to, please?
	▲	nxor 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]