How many of us have said that to our parents after years of soul searching until we realize that we can’t go on living a lie.
Well the right-wing has developed a name for it.
Using disgruntled parents who cannot accept their child’s transition kind of slightly bias the survey [satire]. I sometime explain this type of sampling as going to a prison and finding most prisoners smoke cigarettes and come to the conclusion that smoking cigarettes causes criminal behavior.
For my brother when I told him in 2004 it was “Rapid Onset Gender Dyshphoria” but for me I suffered with gender dysphoria all my life.
There is a lot of “junk science” out there, the right like to cut and paste what they want to use to support their claims and ignore the conclusion of the report*.
I am very surprised that Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine would publish something that doesn’t follow standards of research practices, it belittles them.
The public doesn’t really understand anything about us so they don’t know what is true and what is junk.
The right-wing religious groups like to do that with not just us but also with other issues. In Hartford the city council had to pass an ordinance to ban fake doctors. In their zealousness they have open and anti-abortion clinic right next door to a women’s clinic. Even though they were not doctors they had people out in front of the women’s clinic in lab coats directing people to the anti-abortion office to argue not to have an abortion, some women complained to the city that they wanted only to have other medical tests when they were corralled in to the anti-abortion offices.
Well the right-wing has developed a name for it.
'Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria' Is Biased Junk ScienceThe article goes on to list the reasons why this is garbage…
A frighteningly biased piece on trans youth was published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, says Brynn Tannehill, who breaks down why it's so wrong.
The Advocate
By Brynn Tannehill
February 20, 2018
Recently, a new anti-transgender narrative has emerged among the right wing. The narrative states that teens, particularly those assigned female at birth, are going on the internet and convincing themselves that they are transgender because being transgender is “trendy.” It treats transgender identities as a form of social contagion. This theory has been picked up on by numerous hate groups and conservative news outlets, including LifeSite, Barbara Kay, the Catholic Institute for Marital Healing, the Minnesota Family Council, MercatorNet, the Illinois Family Institute, the Family Research Council, the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal, and an advocacy group of anti-gay therapists.
The entire theory is based on a single poster abstract in 2017 by Dr. Lisa Littman. Poster abstracts are often published when not only is the material too weak to be a journal article, but of insufficient quality to even be accepted for oral presentation at a conference. As such, the academic bar for a poster abstract getting accepted is very low. It was, however, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health.
1. The sample group has a heavy and unacknowledged bias which affects the resultsTalk about a “convenience sample”
Littman posted a survey on three websites asking parents about their transgender teens. What she failed to mention in her abstract is that all three websites — 4thwavenow.com, transgendertrend.com, and YouthTransCriticalProfessionals.org — are all dedicated to parents who do not recognize the gender identities of their children, and do not support their transitions. Littman did not post her survey to sites where parents of transgender adolescents support their children or even neutral sites.
Using disgruntled parents who cannot accept their child’s transition kind of slightly bias the survey [satire]. I sometime explain this type of sampling as going to a prison and finding most prisoners smoke cigarettes and come to the conclusion that smoking cigarettes causes criminal behavior.
2. One of her survey questions appears to be a deliberate attempt to hide her biasWhen I came out to my brother one of the questions he asked how long have I been trans and I told remember in 1962 when came home from work for lunch and you found me in bed at noon? Of course he didn’t but for me it was burned into my memory because of the panic of him pulling into the driveway and I was crossdressed, and I panicked.
One of the survey questions asked respondents whether they believe “transgender people deserve the rights and protections as other people.” The abstract notes that 87.7 percent answered yes, and is presented in such a way as to suggest that the respondents did not harbor anti-transgender animus. However, this question, and statistic, appear to be deliberately misleading.
This phrasing suggests a deliberate attempt to hide bias in the study, because even people who are vehemently against transgender people are likely to answer yes. For over a decade, anti-LGBT hate groups have framed protections for LGBT people, and even marriage equality, as “special rights.”
[…]
3. The unacknowledged bias in Littman’s sample leads her to ignore plausible explanations for her data supported by extant literature
Littman asks “before and after” coming out questions in her survey. This includes things such as whether the parent-child relationship improved or got worse after they came out, and whether the mental well-being of the child improved or declined after the child came out. Based on parents’ perceptions, both declined according to her survey. She notes that this observation contradicts the existing body of research, which shows improvement when trans youth come out.
[…]
4. The conclusions reached by this abstract rely on poor logic and what appears to be a deliberately biased sample
The abstract concludes that “rapid onset gender dysphoria” is dangerous, real, and is caused by interactions with friends and people on the internet. This conclusion is based on some rather heroic leaps of logic.
The most grievous logical error is the conclusion that this is a new phenomenon, when current literature in the context of youth living in unsupportive homes would explain the observations. The abstract conclusion also seems to imply that sources of information which encourage parents to reject the identities of transgender youth are mainstream voices.
“Rapid Onset Gender Dyshphoria” [sic] was first proposed as a diagnosis on anti-transgender websites in 2016, and this study appears to be a naked attempt to legitimize anti-transgender animus with a veneer of academic respectability. In the process, however, Littman’s work shreds all standards of academic integrity.
For my brother when I told him in 2004 it was “Rapid Onset Gender Dyshphoria” but for me I suffered with gender dysphoria all my life.
There is a lot of “junk science” out there, the right like to cut and paste what they want to use to support their claims and ignore the conclusion of the report*.
I am very surprised that Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine would publish something that doesn’t follow standards of research practices, it belittles them.
The public doesn’t really understand anything about us so they don’t know what is true and what is junk.
Our question this week: Should children be allowed to select their own gender? Let us know by email or in the comments below.When cisgender people read an article they don’t know what is right and what is a lie, if it has a highfaluting sounding name like “American College of Pediatricians” they don’t know that there are only about 200 religious conservatives compared to the American Academy of Pediatrics that has 66,000 pediatricians.
By OZY Editors
In 2011, The Toronto Star reported on a controversial baby, Storm Stocker-Witterick. Storm’s parents had decided not to reveal the sex of their child and to let Storm determine which gender she or he wanted to identify with. The public outcry in response to the story was overwhelming. Angry letters came pouring in; drivers rolled down their windows to shout “Boy!” at the Stocker-Wittericks as they walked down the street. When The Star revisited the family more than five years later, it found that the young Storm now confidently identified herself as a “she.”
[…]
In Storm’s native Canada, accommodating a child’s gender identity or gender expression is now protected by the nation’s human rights code. It remains a raging debate in Canada’s neighbor to the south, with many arguing that children should not be afforded that option. For example, according to a recent statement issued by the American College of Pediatricians, a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other health care professionals, “[a] person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.”
Such self-knowledge is not confused thinking, says Morgane Oger, chair of the Trans Alliance and founder of the Morgane Oger Foundation, and there are several recent research studies to support the benefits of allowing transgender children to socially transition (like adopting changes to appearance, name and pronouns) at an early age. A recent study in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, for example, found that allowing transgender children to socially transition was beneficial to their mental health, and they did not demonstrate any higher levels of depression or anxiety to their peers. What can create mental issues, on the other hand, is being stigmatized or not allowed to transition.
The right-wing religious groups like to do that with not just us but also with other issues. In Hartford the city council had to pass an ordinance to ban fake doctors. In their zealousness they have open and anti-abortion clinic right next door to a women’s clinic. Even though they were not doctors they had people out in front of the women’s clinic in lab coats directing people to the anti-abortion office to argue not to have an abortion, some women complained to the city that they wanted only to have other medical tests when they were corralled in to the anti-abortion offices.
No comments:
Post a Comment