Yesterday an article from NBC News made some surprising claims: “ ‘Social contagion’ is not driving an increasing number of adolescents to come out as transgender, according to a new study published Wednesday in the journal Pediatrics. “The study also found that the proportion of adolescents who were assigned female at birth and have come out as transgender also has not increased, which contradicts claims that adolescents whose birth sex is female are more susceptible to this so-called external influence.”
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Thanks for this great analysis. This is how science communication works.
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 :')