Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[TheMysteriousGX]

And the reason those people don't like her getting healthy is because they lost some celebrity to point to that looks like them while thinking it's also OK to look like that, that's why they didn't like her losing weight and that's pretty fucking sad.

And I can find a million people with dumbass opinions. It's really not hard

Why would you have to bring up how someone looks to teach them to eat healthy?

Dunno, but it seems to be the go to whenever a woman is called pretty while being overweight

The study debunked was an older study and thus had more time to be debunked...?

Which means less than nothing for the newer study

You don't get to decide who is transphobic without actual proof. And nothing they said was transphobic, it just didn't 100% agree with your opinion on trans people so you decide to call them transphobic vs just debating them on a couple issues you didn't like their take on.

I mean he lied about his dead friend, but I'm more interested on how you'd empirically prove somebody was transphobic.

 

[Silvanus]

If someone has demonstrated poor analysis ability, why would I believe their future analyses?

Firstly, someone's opinion about comedy has absolutely zero bearing on their research/scientific eval ability.

Secondly, it's not "poor analysis ability". The clips were very widely seen as transphobic, and I can very easily see why. They're pretty contemptuous (and I say that as a fan of a lot of Gervais' earlier stuff).

SEGM said what the correction was accurately, even the headline is correct.

...And then proceeded with a slew of factually incorrect extrapolations down the body of the article, tailored to turn people against trans people. Because they're an anti-trans lobbying group.

How is their figure about suicides wrong? That's data straight from the study.

It's factually incorrect that gender affirming therapy increases the risk of suicide. It dramatically decreases it. This is a false association, being bandied about by (again I have to say it) an anti-trans lobbying group.

Funny how Paul Offit voted against bivalent boosters because there's no data for them...

Funny how you become enamoured of 1 or 2 specific researchers for a little while, and then we get to hear their name 50 times a day for the next few months.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And I can find a million people with dumbass opinions. It's really not hard
Dunno, but it seems to be the go to whenever a woman is called pretty while being overweight
Which means less than nothing for the newer study
I mean he lied about his dead friend, but I'm more interested on how you'd empirically prove somebody was transphobic.

The fact is more and more people are getting said bad opinion which is overall bad for the community.

"And I can find a million people with dumbass opinions. It's really not hard"

If the new study used the same way to measure mental health outcomes it would.

That they actually treat trans people worse than others. Just because they don't agree with some talking point doesn't make them transphobic.

Firstly, someone's opinion about comedy has absolutely zero bearing on their research/scientific eval ability.

Secondly, it's not "poor analysis ability". The clips were very widely seen as transphobic, and I can very easily see why. They're pretty contemptuous (and I say that as a fan of a lot of Gervais' earlier stuff).



...And then proceeded with a slew of factually incorrect extrapolations down the body of the article, tailored to turn people against trans people. Because they're an anti-trans lobbying group.



It's factually incorrect that gender affirming therapy increases the risk of suicide. It dramatically decreases it. This is a false association, being bandied about by (again I have to say it) an anti-trans lobbying group.



Funny how you become enamoured of 1 or 2 specific researchers for a little while, and then we get to hear their name 50 times a day for the next few months.

LMAO @ "widely seen as transphobic"

Everything they stated was in the proper place on the article based on the subsection descriptions. They said this study was corrected and why accurately. They said their own takes in the section that is labeled as their own takes and they don't say their takes are factually true or proven, it's just their takes. Are opinions not allowed? I guess only when you don't agree with the opinion, they are not allowed. I didn't even read that part initially because I don't care about some group's takes if they don't have the data to back it up.

That is data literally straight from the study. The group that had surgeries had more hospitalizations due to suicide attempts than the group that didn't get surgeries. How is that factually inaccurate? That's literally what happened and you're gonna say what happened, didn't happen?

Again, you provide no actual reasoning why someone is wrong just ad-hominem attacks. You don't even know his reasoning do you? Let alone any reasoning that would make his reasoning wrong.

 

[Gergar12]

The rise of Kwarteng, Badenoch and Cleverly must change the face of Labour | Michael Eboda

For too long, the progressive party has done too little to show its black members they can reach the top. There can be no more excuses, says former journalist and publisher Michael Eboda

www.theguardian.com

This Guardian article belongs in the literal trash bin. And I know I am biased since the conservative finance minister Kwarteng's personality is very close to my own personality, and the fact we both grew up privileged in good schools, and are both aloof, yet not out of touch, and unbiased when the occasion demand it.

Basically there was the main point that The Labour Party needs to be more diverse. Well that's okay, Corbyn's shadow cabinet was as diverse as a Trump rally, and I would argue the Trump rally had more POC.

It then goes on to state a person's opinion that because these three ministers aren't leftists/on the left that they are basically white people translators. How on Earth is that not racist, but since it's the left/the Guardian they get a pass on it. It also states that because they aren't helping working class people they suck as human beings. (I am paraphrasing here)

One the current finance minster literally says he's willing to deficit spend in part due to spending billions of pounds/UK money on subsidies for the poor, try doing that in the US.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

Two if the US had a conservative party as progressive as the UK Cons are, I would be racing to vote republican. They are literally deficit spending to help offset high energy costs, meanwhile Joe Biden hasn't done the same thing in the US despite falling life expediency, and increasingly high energy costs.

Three the UK Cons are doing a Green New Deal Lite, have the best healthcare in the world for the poor, and basically has free college.

So it's complete non-sense on the aprt of the Guardian to distract from the fact that people like Corbyn, and Labor are unelectable buffoons.

 

[Silvanus]

Everything they stated was in the proper place on the article based on the subsection descriptions. They said this study was corrected and why accurately. They said their own takes in the section that is labeled as their own takes and they don't say their takes are factually true or proven, it's just their takes. Are opinions not allowed? I guess only when you don't agree with the opinion, they are not allowed. I didn't even read that part initially because I don't care about some group's takes if they don't have the data to back it up.

The reason is I don't trust their analytical ability, or their willingness to report things accurately, if they're a fucking lobbying group on the topic in question.

To begin with: it's not even accurate from the headline. It's titled "no evidence", based on a single study having been corrected. But that's not the only study. There's a weight of other evidence.

Secondly, the AJP reply wasn't a "correction" as they characterised it. It was a response. In which the conclusion stands.

Psychiatry Online

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

That is data literally straight from the study.

Actually, it's not. The SEGM provided a graphic formed from them manipulatively sampling the data present in the study-- in a way that suits them, and ignores proper scientific process.

Read their actual response to the concerns raised. It agrees to some concerns, in moderation. It does not negate the findings of the original study.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The reason is I don't trust their analytical ability, or their willingness to report things accurately, if they're a fucking lobbying group on the topic in question.

To begin with: it's not even accurate from the headline. It's titled "no evidence", based on a single study having been corrected. But that's not the only study. There's a weight of other evidence.

Secondly, the AJP reply wasn't a "correction" as they characterised it. It was a response. In which the conclusion stands.

Psychiatry Online

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

Actually, it's not. The SEGM provided a graphic formed from them manipulatively sampling the data present in the study-- in a way that suits them, and ignores proper scientific process.

Read their actual response to the concerns raised. It agrees to some concerns, in moderation. It does not negate the findings of the original study.

They did report things accurately... Read the whole headline...

"Correction of a Key Study: No Evidence of “Gender-Affirming” Surgeries Improving Mental Health"

No evidence from THAT study, not no evidence ever found. Also, the big more recent study that looks like evidence for surgery came out after even the correction to the Swedish study so they could possibly even claim no evidence ever because at the time it might have been true, but they didn't.

AJP Correction...

Psychiatry Online

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

How did they manipulate the data? It's exactly what's in the study. I saw the study's figure and their chart, they didn't manipulate anything. Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't make it not true. Where are you on all the CDC's manipulation of data? Yet you're mad at this one instance that isn't even manipulating data. At most you can accuse them of possibly cherry picking, but the data isn't wrong and most people would agree something like suicide attempts with regards to this type of research is a rather important metric. You're acting like they're trying to do something like doctors found more scarring on the surgery group indicating they did more bodily harm when that is probably caused by the surgeries obviously vs mental health issues leading to self-inflicted harm.

 

[Silvanus]

They did report things accurately... Read the whole headline...

"Correction of a Key Study: No Evidence of “Gender-Affirming” Surgeries Improving Mental Health"

No evidence from THAT study, not no evidence ever found.

Except they then reiterate further down that they believe there's no evidence at all.

Also, the big more recent study that looks like evidence for surgery came out after even the correction to the Swedish study so they could possibly even claim no evidence ever because at the time it might have been true, but they didn't.

Plenty of evidence predates this.

AJP Correction...

Psychiatry Online

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

Ah, my mistake. They do indeed correct to say the conclusion they originally drew was "too strong". My bad there.

Still doesn't validate the lobbying group's false headline, ignorance of the weight of other evidence, and anti-trans rubbish littering the bottom of the article.

If you want to discuss the correction, its a good idea to just link to the correction to begin with, rather than linking to an anti-trans lobbying group lying about it first.

How did they manipulate the data? It's exactly what's in the study. I saw the study's figure and their chart, they didn't manipulate anything. Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't make it not true. Where are you on all the CDC's manipulation of data? Yet you're mad at this one instance that isn't even manipulating data. At most you can accuse them of possibly cherry picking, but the data isn't wrong and most people would agree something like suicide attempts with regards to this type of research is a rather important metric. You're acting like they're trying to do something like doctors found more scarring on the surgery group indicating they did more bodily harm when that is probably caused by the surgeries obviously vs mental health issues leading to self-inflicted harm.

Cherry picking is manipulation. They ignore data adjustments and methodologies intentionally chosen to present the data in a reliable way.

You and I both know that you can take ostensibly "true" statistics, and present them in such a way as to lead to a misleading conclusion. See those charts intending to show that the globe isn't warming, which show a cooling over a few years... then you put them back into the context of the last two centuries, and it's an insignificant blip in an overall trend of dramatic warming.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Except they then reiterate further down that they believe there's no evidence at all.



Plenty of evidence predates this.



Ah, my mistake. They do indeed correct to say the conclusion they originally drew was "too strong". My bad there.

Still doesn't validate the lobbying group's false headline, ignorance of the weight of other evidence, and anti-trans rubbish littering the bottom of the article.

If you want to discuss the correction, its a good idea to just link to the correction to begin with, rather than linking to an anti-trans lobbying group lying about it first.



Cherry picking is manipulation. They ignore data adjustments and methodologies intentionally chosen to present the data in a reliable way.

You and I both know that you can take ostensibly "true" statistics, and present them in such a way as to lead to a misleading conclusion. See those charts intending to show that the globe isn't warming, which show a cooling over a few years... then you put them back into the context of the last two centuries, and it's an insignificant blip in an overall trend of dramatic warming.

Where? In the article, their own position/analysis/opinion section is the following "It is SEGM’s view that the data presented in the original study and the subsequent re-analysis do not support the claim of an expected 'reduction in mental health treatment as a function of time since completing such treatment'. After the reanalysis of the data, we conclude the following:" Notice how their take is specific to just the one study itself? Where is this blanket statement that you claim at?

Good evidence? Trans health studies are extremely recent, there isn't much evidence on it yet. We can't even get nutritionists to say that cholesterol directly from food intake doesn't affect your own cholesterol levels that we've known for 50+ years, it takes time for studies and consensus to form. You can look at articles comparing the health of normal burgers and beyond/impossible burgers that will cite that a pro of the plant-based burger is no cholesterol but that isn't a pro (or con) at all.

I already did link the correction and quoted a block of text from it in a previous post.

OMG, the headline isn't false, what other evidence are they ignorant of (the article is just about a single study and that's it and it's reiterated throughout the article)?

Cherry picking can be manipulation but is usually useful and needed. It's like saying prejudice is itself bad when it's usually good and you do it all the time. You have to condense and pull out the important stuff out of a large data set. I would say suicide attempts is an important metric for said mental health studies/research, would you not? And every single metric from Table 1 of the study showed the control group had less of it all. You act like they just pulled out the suicide data and ignored everything else that showed improved results.

 

[Silvanus]

Good evidence? Trans health studies are extremely recent, there isn't much evidence on it yet.

2010: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2265.2009.03625.x

We identified 28 eligible studies. These studies enrolled 1833 participants with GID (1093 male-to-female, 801 female-to-male) who underwent sex reassignment that included hormonal therapies. [....] after sex reassignment, 80% of individuals with GID reported significant improvement in gender dysphoria; 78% reported significant improvement in psychological symptoms; 80% reported significant improvement in quality of life

2010: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-009-9551-1

Most outcome measures were rated positive and substantially equal for MF and FM. [...] In conclusion, almost all patients were satisfied with the sex reassignment; 86% were assessed by clinicians at follow-up as stable or improved in global functioning.

2013: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24344788/

A marked reduction in psychopathology occurs during the process of sex reassignment therapy, especially after the initiation of hormone therapy.

2014: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/960745/

The results of the present study confirm the generally stable and favourable function of TS individuals following SRS. [...] [The core principles of care] include providing care that affirms gender identity.

2015: http://europepmc.org/article/med/25690443

Participants reported high degrees of well-being and a good social integration. Very few participants were unemployed, most of them had a steady relationship, and they were also satisfied with their relationships with family and friends. Their overall evaluation of the treatment process for sex reassignment and its effectiveness in reducing gender dysphoria was positive. Regarding the results of the standardized questionnaires, participants showed significantly fewer psychological problems and interpersonal difficulties as well as a strongly increased life satisfaction at follow-up than at the time of the initial consultation.

2021: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2779429

This study demonstrates an association between gender-affirming surgery and improved mental health outcomes. These results contribute new evidence to support the provision of gender-affirming surgical care for TGD people.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Here's one. Apparently if you don't go see "The Woman King" you're now telling Hollywood that you don't want Black women to succeed in the box office.......



Oh how I find it kind so almost manipulative trying to see going to see a film or not going to see it as a political act and some indication of your beliefs.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to see how long until Hannah John Kamen's film Unwelcome comes out.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

..and yet, none of what he said has supports your version of events or attributes any blame to a mysterious cabal of evil "wokes".

Incidentally, DC has now claimed that the alternate version of his art was simply a variant created as part of the "internal creative process" and which was promoted by mistake, and has committed to releasing the original cover. So their version of events doesn't match up with yours either.



So, here's what feminist geek culture e-zine the Mary Sue had to say about the covers.

https://www.themarysue.com/theres-more-to-people-than-food-but-dc-comics-didnt-get-the-memo/

https://www.themarysue.com/dc-comic...response-to-hispanic-heritage-month-backlash/

They love diversity. It's literally in the first paragraph of their "about us" page, and yet.. wait.. They aren't mindlessly applauding the woke agenda of showing superheroes eating ethnic food. In fact, they're criticizing DC, and referencing twitter discussions which also seem to be highly critical of DC.

What about over on that hive of scum and villainy Resetera? Surely they are gushing woke tears of joy at the ammount of representation on offer in those delicious, delicious tamales..

https://www.resetera.com/threads/cn...ods-on-hispanic-heritage-month-covers.626473/

..oh no, looks like they're broadly critical of the changes to, although there's also a fair contingent of Latin folks who seem to find the alternate cover enjoyable anyway. I guess the Resetera hivemind was broken that day..

Wow, it's almost like you have no idea what progressive opinion actually is and are just assuming that anything you don't like in media is down to the influence of woke culture.



Actually, the opposite.

My opinion is that using ethnic food as a stand in for groups of people is bigoted and kinda racist. It's not the worst form of bigotry, but it suggests an unwillingness to explore anything about a culture that can't be literally consumed by white people, because ultimately that's the motivation here. The editorial decision here is being made because someone in DC was scared "non-woke" white people wouldn't get or would be turned off by the art on the left, not because the imagine on the right was deemed more progressive or representative.

I'm not going to tell anyone from the culture in question how they should feel about bigotry directed against them, but personally it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I think DC made the right decision in backtracking.



Do you not read?



So why does "my side" pretty much universally hate it?

Where are these gullible wokes being suckered into indulging racism in the name of diversity and inclusion?

Oh right, they don't exist. They never existed. You made them up to explain the failings of an industry you pretend to like, because it's easier than admitting that industry is (and always was) run by out of touch white men who think Latin culture is limited to what you can eat, and who are absolutely terrified that anything they don't personally understand or recognize won't net them enough money.

"Go woke go broke", as you people love to say. That cover on the right is what happens when you don't go woke, when you create an environment that views representation as a creative risk, that strives to dial back any form of inclusiveness to the most easily digestible forms. It's what happens when you systematically avoid "politics" (because something something woke SJW cancel culture) and consequentially have to make everything light, accessible and very, very stupid.

Simple, it got pointed out and mocked by the Anti-woke side and so the woke side didn't want to look bad so decided to drop it despite this being the kind of shit regularly done by the woke side lol.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

2010: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2265.2009.03625.x



2010: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-009-9551-1



2013: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24344788/



2014: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/960745/



2015: http://europepmc.org/article/med/25690443



2021: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2779429

All the studies were observational and most lacked controls.

And, again, good evidence?

---

Cue the hilarity @2:32

Food is completely neutral and the only bad foods are those that you're allergic to or that's spoiled...

We were all incorrectly taught because the food pyramid was a bunch of bullshit that said to eat bread all day and not eat much meat or fats...

---


@ 28:20 - this is how a normal person (a top scientist in fact along with the 99% of the population) reacts to referring to pregnant women as pregnant people.

 

[Silvanus]

All the studies were observational and most lacked controls.

And, again, good evidence?

Congratulations, you've done what you always do: found a drawback/limitation from one source, and used it to ridiculously dismiss numerous other sources.

This is why people are more and more unwilling to shovel sources at you when you demand them over and over again. Because you don't approach them critically or rationally. You don't engage. It's so goddamn tiresome. Why the hell should anyone take the time when this weak-ass, zero-effort bull is the response?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Congratulations, you've done what you always do: found a drawback/limitation from one source, and used it to ridiculously dismiss numerous other sources.

This is why people are more and more unwilling to shovel sources at you when you demand them over and over again. Because you don't approach them critically or rationally. You don't engage. It's so goddamn tiresome. Why the hell should anyone take the time when this weak-ass, zero-effort bull is the response?

Because you guys give me shit studies that don't even say what you claim they do half the time as at least one of the studies you just cited doesn't even say what you think it says. You're just googling and copy/pasting all the studies that you can find with positive results and barely even reading them. Just looking at your 1st 3 links, the 1st one isn't strong as I already showed, the 2nd one has no control group (yes, if you give someone a cookie, they will be more satisfied than if you didn't, what's that supposed to prove?), and the 3rd one literally says the surgery had no significant impact (Analysis of the psychosocial variables showed no significant differences between pre- and postoperative assessments).

Why don't you actually give me the good fucking studies instead of all the bullshit? If I gave you a meta-analysis showing ivermectin worked for covid, wouldn't you say the same thing to me that I'm saying to you about the 1st link you gave me on that flawed meta-analysis? I feel like I'm Gene Hackman from Class Action here. It's not on me to do your research. Surely, if this is settled science like you claim, you wouldn't be giving me these very small, bad studies, would you?

And the one from 2021 is the one that's already been mentioned quite a bit and looks like it could be a solid study in favor of gender surgery because it's quite large and has a control group to a degree. But again, it's just one study and the Swedish study was corrected because of poor methods. This is far far far far from settled science it's not even funny.

 

[Silvanus]

Because you guys give me shit studies that don't even say what you claim they do half the time as at least one of the studies you just cited doesn't even say what you think it says. You're just googling and copy/pasting all the studies that you can find with positive results and barely even reading them. Just looking at your 1st 3 links, the 1st one isn't strong as I already showed, the 2nd one has no control group (yes, if you give someone a cookie, they will be more satisfied than if you didn't, what's that supposed to prove?), and the 3rd one literally says the surgery had no significant impact (Analysis of the psychosocial variables showed no significant differences between pre- and postoperative assessments).

Why don't you actually give me the good fucking studies instead of all the bullshit? If I gave you a meta-analysis showing ivermectin worked for covid, wouldn't you say the same thing to me that I'm saying to you about the 1st link you gave me on that flawed meta-analysis? I feel like I'm Gene Hackman from Class Action here. It's not on me to do your research. Surely, if this is settled science like you claim, you wouldn't be giving me these very small, bad studies, would you?

And the one from 2021 is the one that's already been mentioned quite a bit and looks like it could be a solid study in favor of gender surgery because it's quite large and has a control group to a degree. But again, it's just one study and the Swedish study was corrected because of poor methods. This is far far far far from settled science it's not even funny.

You've determined all this dismissive guff on the basis of.... a quote indicating a limitation in one metastudy.

And that apparently indicates not only that you can just entirely ignore the findings of that metastudy, but also that five other ones must also be "shit studies". Without a single fucking reason given as to why.

You don't engage or approach this critically or rationally. You dig for whatever flimsy reason you can find to ignore/dismiss, even just one limitation in one link, then just happily apply it across the board to everything, regardless of whether its applicable or related.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You've determined all this dismissive guff on the basis of.... a quote indicating a limitation in one metastudy.

And that apparently indicates not only that you can just entirely ignore the findings of that metastudy, but also that five other ones must also be "shit studies". Without a single fucking reason given as to why.

You don't engage or approach this critically or rationally. You dig for whatever flimsy reason you can find to ignore/dismiss, even just one limitation in one link, then just happily apply it across the board to everything, regardless of whether its applicable or related.

A meta-study is an analysis of several other studies and the meta-study said all the studies they looked at were observational, which isn't good quality. And most didn't have a control group. I'm not ignoring it but it's not good studies either and it's far far far far from your claim that this is "settled science". We aren't talking about it looks like the data is pointing this way, your claim is it's fucking settled science. Fine, if you wanna take that as settled science, then vitamin d clearly works against covid because of all the observation studies for that showing positive results. If I provided the same quality studies for something I'm trying to claim, I'd expect the same resistance from you.

You mean I dug for some flimsy reason that was literally one of your studies showing that surgery showed no significant difference? I didn't realize a study saying surgery didn't help was a flimsy reason when the whole reason you posted it was to prove surgery worked. The study of all these trans therapies/surgeries is NEW and RECENT, it's far too early for the science to be settled on this stuff. Stuff that's been studied for 50 years hasn't been settled science yet.

Look how long it took for eggs to be mainly no longer deemed as foods to limit. And you're gonna say the mental effect of something (which itself is super hard to prove because the field of psychology has a very hard time duplicating study results) is settled science over like a 10 year or so period? That's some fucking bullshit logic where you totally aren't approaching it critically or rationally and just picking a result because that's what you want it to be. I really have no horse in this race because I really don't care if surgeries are good or not for trans people, I will say that surgeries should definitely be limited to adults though because messing with kids until you know for sure about whatever it is is not good at all.

 

[Silvanus]

A meta-study is an analysis of several other studies and the meta-study said all the studies they looked at were observational, which isn't good quality. And most didn't have a control group. I'm not ignoring it but it's not good studies either and it's far far far far from your claim that this is "settled science". We aren't talking about it looks like the data is pointing this way, your claim is it's fucking settled science. Fine, if you wanna take that as settled science, then vitamin d clearly works against covid because of all the observation studies for that showing positive results. If I provided the same quality studies for something I'm trying to claim, I'd expect the same resistance from you.

You mean I dug for some flimsy reason that was literally one of your studies showing that surgery showed no significant difference? I didn't realize a study saying surgery didn't help was a flimsy reason when the whole reason you posted it was to prove surgery worked. The study of all these trans therapies/surgeries is NEW and RECENT, it's far too early for the science to be settled on this stuff. Stuff that's been studied for 50 years hasn't been settled science yet.

Look how long it took for eggs to be mainly no longer deemed as foods to limit. And you're gonna say the mental effect of something (which itself is super hard to prove because the field of psychology has a very hard time duplicating study results) is settled science over like a 10 year or so period? That's some fucking bullshit logic where you totally aren't approaching it critically or rationally and just picking a result because that's what you want it to be. I really have no horse in this race because I really don't care if surgeries are good or not for trans people, I will say that surgeries should definitely be limited to adults though because messing with kids until you know for sure about whatever it is is not good at all.

Blah blah blah. Even if we accept your reason to entirely dismiss the metastudy (which, to be clear, I don't: that's all common procedure for a metastudy), this is all still applicable to one out of six links.

Why should people spend the time to provide you with the sources you demand if you don't address or even read them? It's a waste of time.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Weeeeeee

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Blah blah blah. Even if we accept your reason to entirely dismiss the metastudy (which, to be clear, I don't: that's all common procedure for a metastudy), this is all still applicable to one out of six links.

Why should people spend the time to provide you with the sources you demand if you don't address or even read them? It's a waste of time.

But you would dismiss a metastudy on ivermectin or vitamin d for covid with the same quality studies, would you not? You have to stay consistent in what you deem is good evidence regardless of what it is. Randomized with a control group is what you need unless it's like something really fucking obvious like parachutes. Long-term mental effect of probably any elective surgeries is not a parachute.

I read the studies you linked more than you did. The one study literally said surgeries had no benefit and you linked it anyway. One was behind a paywall so not much to read there. The one big study was mentioned and talked about pages ago. I looked at like 4 of 5 or 4 of the 6 studies, what more do you want? And I said to link GOOD evidence and you just google and find a bunch, throw paint at the wall, and act like that is proof. Acting like any trans science is settled science at this point literally goes against the scientific process. We are still having to convince people that eggs are good for you, and saying that we know for sure the long-term mental effects (which are hardest thing to prove) of trans treatments in about a decade of time is just plain ridiculous. I might agree with you if your claim was "it looks like" but it's not.

 

[Silvanus]

But you would dismiss a metastudy on ivermectin or vitamin d for covid with the same quality studies, would you not? You have to stay consistent in what you deem is good evidence regardless of what it is.

If you provided multiple sources, I'd address them individually. I would not (and have not) dismissed multiple different sources on the basis of a flaw in one, which is what you're attempting here.

Most of the time what you provide is some lightweight YouTube video of one of about three specific public figures you're currently obsessed with. Which is not a (lol) "quality study".