"In the 1st study of trans teens, Lisa Littman at Brown U found that 63% had been diagnosed with at least 1 mental health disorder prior to the onset of their gender dysphoria (anxiety, depression, ADHD, OCD, self-harm, eating disorders, bipolar, autism) These are troubled kids."
Nancy Pearcey
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330
There's nothing to see here, it's just a coincidence.
20 comments:
I'm sorry. Are you hinting that anxiety or depression can lead someone who is actually a male to want to become female??
And many folks on the autism spectrum would object to being called "troubled kids..." fyi.
Until you have some data that isn't bigotry-based, I'll pass on taking mental health tips and theories from you.
Dan
I'm sorry. Are you hinting that anxiety or depression can lead someone who is actually a male to want to become female??"
No, I'm reporting on what the data tells us.
"And many folks on the autism spectrum would object to being called "troubled kids..." fyi."
Impressive that you feel that you can speak for "many folks on the autism spectrum".
"Until you have some data that isn't bigotry-based, I'll pass on taking mental health tips and theories from you."
Interesting. Your ability to make these sorts of objective, factual, determinations about the motivations of the people who did the study in question is quite impressive. It's almost like your prior commitments to a narrative prevent you from actually considering anything or anyone that questions the narrative, regardless of the actual data.
I have to note that you haven't actually made or demonstrated any problems with the actual data, or the methodology of the study in your detailed and incisive critique. You've instead chosen to attack the personal motivations and character of some unidentified people. I believe that this method of attacking the character of those making an argument, rather than attacking the actual argument, has a name. I also believe that this logical fallacy is one that you are quick to accuse others of, yet equally quick to engage in yourself.
The fault lies not in the data
Dear Horatio
But in thy conclusions.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Science 101
Dan
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never jump to conclusions based upon correlation. "
"The fault lies not in the data
Dear Horatio
But in thy conclusions."
Condescension is such a bad look from you, yet one you show so often. In this case, it's even worse, because it shows your penchant for jumping to conclusions based on your prejudices, preconceptions, and assumptions.
As we've seen here, you've jumped to the mistaken conclusion that I am drawing conclusions from this research study, when I've merely posted it as one bit of data, with no conclusions drawn.
"Correlation does not equal causation."
Again, I'm not claiming causation, merely noting the existence of data that raises some interesting questions.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never jump to conclusions based upon correlation."
Interesting. Especially the fact that you've managed to jump to this false conclusion despite the complete absence of evidence.
I'll simply note that you've claimed that I've jumped to a conclusion, without actually identifying what that conclusion is or providing any evidence from my actual words to bolster your hunch.
It is reassuring when you revert to type like this and immediately react with made up bullshit, and Ad Hom attacks.
Still not one actual example of problems with the data, just Ad Hom and bullshit.
I literally posted a quote from a college professor, a link to a study, and a brief editorial comment, and Dan's drawn all sorts of crazy conclusions from that. I guess that my brief editorial comment was pretty accurate though.
"I'll simply note that you've claimed that I've jumped to a conclusion"
I'll simply note that I asked a QUESTION because YOUR words are implying causation. So, I asked to get clarity.
If you don't write in such a way as to imply causation, then we wouldn't have to ask such questions.
Dan
"Until you have some data that isn't bigotry-based, I'll pass on taking mental health tips and theories from you"
Oh, look! The liar has jumped to a conclusion! On what factual basis can this boob dare suggest the study is "bigotry-based"? On only one: the built in, biased belief that any who dare oppose the LGBTQ+ agenda is a bigot.
The hypocritical irony of Dan's response is beyond compare. You pointed out how he offers no legitimate criticism of the study itself, no indication their methodology is flawed, no nothing. Only the assertion that because it suggests mental disorder in 63% of those examined, by golly, only bigotry can explain it. What a sad buffoon! It would be logical to assume that examining more would lower that percentage. What if examining more raised it?
And of course, the study ignores the disorder of the choice to transition itself. It sets that aside, though any rational person can see such a choice can only be the result of some degree of disorder. Normal people simply don't do such things.
I haven't looked at the study yet. What I have looked at are all the lame attempts by Dan to indicate actual science supporting the claims of the LGBTQ+ community and how not a one fails to have blatant flaws in either the study itself, or the conclusion resulting from the data presented. Talk about bias!
"I'll simply note that I asked a QUESTION because YOUR words are implying causation. So, I asked to get clarity."
I could copy/paste the quotes, but they're right up there for everyone to see. But you didn't "ask a question", you stated twice that I had "jumped to a conclusion".
"If you don't write in such a way as to imply causation, then we wouldn't have to ask such questions."
The fact that you might have inferred something based on your prejudices and preconceptions, does not demonstrate that I implied anything. At MOST, I am suggesting that this data is worthy of consideration and further study. Nowhere do I, or Pearcey" imply causation. I understand that your commitment to the narrative is such that any data that questions that narrative must be ridiculed, ignored, and minimized. I'm just not following your script.
Art,
Obviously Dan's responses are riddled with problems, and deserving of ridicule.
As to the study, I think you're making assumptions regarding the purpose of the study. From what I've seen, it was a very limited study based on those who had already "transitioned", and taking a broader look at other factors that might have played a role in the decision to "transition". At best this study might lead to more extensive work on the topic. But, it's interesting that something that goes against the narrative has managed to be published. It's an interesting step, but no more than that. What's most interesting is seeing how riled up it's gotten Dan. The fact that he's not interested in the data, as much as he is in demonizing and assigning motives to those who conducted the study certainly raises questions.
I made comment based on your post, or rather what was said about the study in your post. It seems clearly to speak of the potential for mental disorder of some type as playing a role in the decision to transition. Unless they intend to dig more deeply, or more to the point, examine in greater depth and focus those of the other 37%, they've indeed...intentionally or otherwise...implied that other 37% are normal people despite butchering themselves in order to appear as if they are of the opposite sex. I think that is quite the fair assumption on my part, again, regardless of whether or not the researchers regard the remaining 37% as "normal".
One thing I know for sure, those like Dan, with no science to back it up whatsoever, insist that men who chop off their johnsons, or women who chop off their racks, can do so and still be "normal". They don't give the same courtesy to those who have fully functioning legs amputated because they believe they're amputees.
Here's another fair assumption based on the limited info: That 63% might not have gone that far...despite being abnormal enough to regard themselves as members of the opposite sex...if they didn't suffer from at least one other mental health disorder.
Art,
I agree that it certainly points that way, although I don't think that one study is definitive. I'm merely trying to allow Dan to demonstrate the lengths he'll go to in defense of the narrative.
I made comment based on your post, or rather what was said about the study in your post. It seems clearly to speak of the potential for mental disorder of some type as playing a role in the decision to transition.
?
It doesn't. It just doesn't. You all are reading into research information that simply isn't there. There's ONE LINE that mentions mental health conditions and it simply doesn't suggest that there is a link to those mental health conditions to their gender dysphoria. It just doesn't.
"Many (62.5%) of the AYAs had reportedly been diagnosed with at least one mental health disorder or neurodevelopmental disability prior to the onset of their gender dysphoria (range of the number of pre-existing diagnoses 0–7)."
It's just mentioned. Nothing else. YOU idiots are the ones reading conclusions into that line that aren't mentioned in the study.
For your information.
Truly, boys, you've GOT to quit reading INTO texts data that just isn't there. From the bible to research, you have a habit of finding conclusions that the text doesn't say and THEN treating YOUR opinions about those conclusions YOU reach as "likely" or actual.
Stop it. Grow up. Learn to read for comprehension.
There's no length Dan won't go to support, promote, defend and celebrate perversion. He's a lefty. It's what they do.
I think it's pretty plain that a person has to have some sort of mental disorder to think they can change their sex from male to female or female to male. They also have to deny basic biology, let alone denying common sense.
"It's just mentioned. Nothing else. YOU idiots are the ones reading conclusions into that line that aren't mentioned in the study."
Once again, you make this claim yet you can't provide one example of my actual words that demonstrates that your claim accurately represents reality.
"For your information."
But to be ignored along with the rest of your hunches.
"Truly, boys, you've GOT to quit reading INTO texts data that just isn't there. From the bible to research, you have a habit of finding conclusions that the text doesn't say and THEN treating YOUR opinions about those conclusions YOU reach as "likely" or actual."
Coming from someone who does this regularly, this is pathetic in a humorous sort of way.
"Stop it. Grow up. Learn to read for comprehension."
Again from someone who's demonstrated his ability to both fail to comprehend and read into things in this very thread, your condescending admonishments are both pathetic and humorous.
Dan,
Since you can't find any conclusions I've drawn, I'll help you a little. The closest thing to a conclusion I've reached based on this would be that it is interesting and should be studied further. But that's hardly a big deal.
Dan want to dismiss what is truly a significant point simply because he's so enamored with disorder and immorality. But the fact that in this study 63% of the subjects suffered from at least one mental disorder apart from the disorder of believing themselves to be of the opposite sex does indeed point to the possibility that they weren't thinking straight (no pun intended). That's not at all "reading into" what the data itself doesn't suggest. I don't think anyone hear gave it any more importance than that, but it's moronic to think it's meaningless or not at all significant.
What one who truly cares about others can indeed say is that perhaps one's desire to "transition" should be put on hold until any of the "at least one disorder" can be properly addressed. If there is any sort of "healing" of the disorders by doing so, it may indeed result in the subject rejecting the decision to "transition" or that the desire itself simply dissipates.
Indeed, anyone who claims to truly care about these people would consider the ramifications of studies like these and the results uncovered by them enough to wonder if indeed the choices and determinations of these people are the result of the "at least one disorder". But not Dan. He's too convicted in the false belief that these people are normal...just different in nature. But that's only true in the same way a cancer cell is "natural" because it's part of nature.
Art,
I think it's reasonably clear that on some topics, Dan is willing to place his commitment to the narrative in front of everything else, including the data he claims to worship.
Obviously we all know that dysphoria was considered a mental condition, up until it magically wasn't. But the possibility that certain other mental health issues might incline people toward dysphoria at a higher rate seems to be sometime worth further study. Obviously those with concern for the individuals involved should desire that their mental health issues be dealt with regardless of what they are. But if those issues drive them to make permanent changes based on temporary circumstances, that should be avoided at all costs.
Post a Comment