Thank you for this. I'm depressed that this crappy paper was published, and that as usual the media are happy to promote "findings" that aren't even slightly supported by the data. It's bad enough when the topic doesn't matter, but he's making claims about what is best for children's medical care. Disgusting.
Isn't he curious about what happened in 2017? I can't tell from the summary if he has an explanation for the apparent decrease in kids saying they're trans. But if his theory is true (trans kids haven't been influenced; they are just innately trans) shouldn't he wonder why the number went down?
I checked Google Trends, and it seems that 2016-2017 were peak years for people searching the word "transgender." Caitlyn Jenner came out in 2015. "I Am Jazz" also premiered in 2015. The word "trans" is more steady--but if you add the two lines together you get more people searching in 2016-17 than 2018-19. Here is the chart:
I don't know if the issue was actually more prominent in 2017 than 2019 (someone would need to do an actual study) but this is one of any number of explanations that could have been considered before drawing conclusions.
That’s a really good point. If trans ID is innate, like sexual orientation, you’d expect it maybe to increase a bit with social acceptance but certainly not decrease again.
You’d expect it to become stable over time.
Instead what you see is a flat lines among Boomers and Gen X, a modest increase over time among Millennials, and a very sharp increase among Gen Z.
Why why why? If there are trends, there need to be explanations for the trends.
And I agree. It’s very depressing that such a stupid article was published and got a ton of media attention from people who, guaranteed, didn’t read it.
You did a good job debunking this flawed piece of ideological garbage but I'd like to add that there is now some very outspoken criticism of this shitty paper on the Pediatrics website. Including by Lisa Littman herself. The comment from Elle Lett, who herself is a trans activist, is also very interesting: She points out that the data is insufficient to draw any conclusions: It's two samples, two years apart, from a limited number of states (9 states in 2017, 14 in 2019) and in each year sampling different states.
So even if you go with Turban's faulty logic the dataset is simply not suited to draw any conclusions about national trends in trans identification.
Another really good piece, on several levels. The whole ROGD issue with adolescents is disturbing, and what is called “gender-affirming care” is in my view actually state-sanctioned child abuse.
Also of interest in this story- the rules of logic require that conclusions must follow from the premises. We seem to have lost that basic connection nowadays.
All men have eyes.
John has eyes.
Media conclusion: John is a man.
Me: It’s also possible John is a dog.
Media: Science denier! Conspiracy theorist!
We have seen this type of faulty reasoning far, far too often in the last several years. Many people seem to believe that as long as the premises are true and factual, their conclusions are also facts. WSJ had an interesting opinion piece by Barton Swaim about this topic.
Thanks for showing how wrong and dangerous bad reasoning can be.
Is there not something that should be done about this? Why is this guy allowed to walk around publishing these field recordings of a lake of ducks that are quite literally influencing policy? Obviously I don't want to do anything outside of the normal process of exposing a nutjob, that's why I ask here. But my instinct says this guy should have a national spotlight of shame on him at the least and at the most revoke his license.
Yes. I truly don’t understand it. Anyone who’s been personally harmed (ie a patient) can complain to the medical board and/or get a lawyer to sue him. But there’s no recourse really, for being a quack, an idiot, who’s enabled by prestigious universities and medical journals.
I don’t know. I think the administrators mindlessly suppose that “trans is the new gay”-- it’s innate, they’re supporting oppressed people, and there’s no downside to that.
And they perhaps also mindlessly suppose that anyone who suggests that there might be social contagion is a politically regressive dick with nothing valuable to say -- no downside to being mean to politically regressive dicks, either.
It’s like, who’s to stop them from dunking on outcasts? Who, in a mindlessly liberal university, is going to stand up for the people labeled socially unacceptable bigots? You can call them bigots and have done with it. Problem solved.
I think they are literally too arrogant to suppose they could be wrong.
To them, it’s as self-evident as “slavery is wrong” or “beating up gay people is wrong.”
Thank you for this. I'm depressed that this crappy paper was published, and that as usual the media are happy to promote "findings" that aren't even slightly supported by the data. It's bad enough when the topic doesn't matter, but he's making claims about what is best for children's medical care. Disgusting.
Isn't he curious about what happened in 2017? I can't tell from the summary if he has an explanation for the apparent decrease in kids saying they're trans. But if his theory is true (trans kids haven't been influenced; they are just innately trans) shouldn't he wonder why the number went down?
I checked Google Trends, and it seems that 2016-2017 were peak years for people searching the word "transgender." Caitlyn Jenner came out in 2015. "I Am Jazz" also premiered in 2015. The word "trans" is more steady--but if you add the two lines together you get more people searching in 2016-17 than 2018-19. Here is the chart:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore/TIMESERIES/1659658200?hl=en-US&tz=240&date=2015-01-01+2021-01-01&geo=US&q=transgender,trans&sni=3
I don't know if the issue was actually more prominent in 2017 than 2019 (someone would need to do an actual study) but this is one of any number of explanations that could have been considered before drawing conclusions.
That’s a really good point. If trans ID is innate, like sexual orientation, you’d expect it maybe to increase a bit with social acceptance but certainly not decrease again.
You’d expect it to become stable over time.
Instead what you see is a flat lines among Boomers and Gen X, a modest increase over time among Millennials, and a very sharp increase among Gen Z.
Why why why? If there are trends, there need to be explanations for the trends.
And I agree. It’s very depressing that such a stupid article was published and got a ton of media attention from people who, guaranteed, didn’t read it.
This whole episode is gonna be really weird to explain in 10 years
I hope so!
Whenever I read that something is "debunked," I just assume that it's more likely to be true.
The fact of the matter is we're all seeing this trend and asked to pretend that we're not seeing it.
💯
You did a good job debunking this flawed piece of ideological garbage but I'd like to add that there is now some very outspoken criticism of this shitty paper on the Pediatrics website. Including by Lisa Littman herself. The comment from Elle Lett, who herself is a trans activist, is also very interesting: She points out that the data is insufficient to draw any conclusions: It's two samples, two years apart, from a limited number of states (9 states in 2017, 14 in 2019) and in each year sampling different states.
So even if you go with Turban's faulty logic the dataset is simply not suited to draw any conclusions about national trends in trans identification.
How does this pass muster? Such an embarrassment.
This story is also discussed in a new Blocked&Reported episode today. I think it's even public: https://www.blockedandreported.org/p/no-rogd-hasnt-been-debunked
Thanks very much for sharing this, Tilman! I’ll check out both!
Another really good piece, on several levels. The whole ROGD issue with adolescents is disturbing, and what is called “gender-affirming care” is in my view actually state-sanctioned child abuse.
Also of interest in this story- the rules of logic require that conclusions must follow from the premises. We seem to have lost that basic connection nowadays.
All men have eyes.
John has eyes.
Media conclusion: John is a man.
Me: It’s also possible John is a dog.
Media: Science denier! Conspiracy theorist!
We have seen this type of faulty reasoning far, far too often in the last several years. Many people seem to believe that as long as the premises are true and factual, their conclusions are also facts. WSJ had an interesting opinion piece by Barton Swaim about this topic.
Thanks for showing how wrong and dangerous bad reasoning can be.
Thanks Heyjude!
And I’m pretty sure John is a dog! :)
Is there not something that should be done about this? Why is this guy allowed to walk around publishing these field recordings of a lake of ducks that are quite literally influencing policy? Obviously I don't want to do anything outside of the normal process of exposing a nutjob, that's why I ask here. But my instinct says this guy should have a national spotlight of shame on him at the least and at the most revoke his license.
Yes. I truly don’t understand it. Anyone who’s been personally harmed (ie a patient) can complain to the medical board and/or get a lawyer to sue him. But there’s no recourse really, for being a quack, an idiot, who’s enabled by prestigious universities and medical journals.
Thanks for this great analysis. This is how science communication works.
Thank you, Chris!
It's sad that people like this not only get the position of a professor, but also no repercussions when conducting horrible "studies".
Why is FLICC not a requirement....
Was he put into this position by someone? Is he getting paid or voicing the opinion of a group for benefits?
These are questions that come to my mind.
Certainly he is not doing it for the affected people :')
He is very much a ruthless self-promoter. I think UCSF grabbed him because he is Twitter-famous and is always making “news” with his ridiculous ideas.
Why is every liberal institution willing to tank its credibility over this issue?
I don’t know. I think the administrators mindlessly suppose that “trans is the new gay”-- it’s innate, they’re supporting oppressed people, and there’s no downside to that.
And they perhaps also mindlessly suppose that anyone who suggests that there might be social contagion is a politically regressive dick with nothing valuable to say -- no downside to being mean to politically regressive dicks, either.
It’s like, who’s to stop them from dunking on outcasts? Who, in a mindlessly liberal university, is going to stand up for the people labeled socially unacceptable bigots? You can call them bigots and have done with it. Problem solved.
I think they are literally too arrogant to suppose they could be wrong.
To them, it’s as self-evident as “slavery is wrong” or “beating up gay people is wrong.”
Zero self-doubt.
Who needs data when you have zero self-doubt???
I think Bob Dylan explains it well:
When you ain’t got nothin (as far as credibility), you got nothin to lose.
He's sure built a shiny prestigious career for himself though.