Remix.run Logo
appreciatorBus 2 hours ago

> despite some orgs claiming there is a "transgender trend", we are just not seeing this in the data.'

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a well documented phenomenon.

https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(16)30765-0/abst...

https://statsforgender.org/since-the-turn-of-the-millennium-...

Ralfp 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It is not.

Lisa Littmans research behind „rapid onset gender dysphoria” is a survey amongst parents recruited on three anti-trans internet sites and communities:

https://psychcentral.com/lib/there-is-no-evidence-that-rapid...

    The study was based on 256 responses to an online survey of parents recruited from these three websites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_c...

That by itself means its heavily biased research on a weak sample.

„Stats for Gender” site is ran by Genspect, which is also a biased source on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genspect

appreciatorBus an hour ago | parent [-]

> Genspect, which is also a biased source on the subject:

Organization that supports position <x> supports position <x>.

If Genspect can be discarded as being a biased source, then so can WPATH and every other org supporting gender ideology.

Given the fraught nature of the debate, Wikipedia seems like a poor source for determining the bias of players in the debate - the most passionate debaters have plenty of time to just edit Wikipedia.

Ralfp 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

Can you explain what „gender ideology” is supposed to mean?

The primary issue with Genspect is poor scientific rigour applied to their publications, as I have shown above. Pretty much „if it fits our platform, we will spread it”.

appreciatorBus 12 minutes ago | parent [-]

WPATH : if it fits our platform, we will spread it.