3 ms·

> despite some orgs claiming there is a "transgender trend", we are just not seeing this in the data.' Rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a well documented phenom

> despite some orgs claiming there is a "transgender trend", we are just not seeing this in the data.' Rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a well documented phenomenon. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(16)30765-0/abstract https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(16)30765-0/abst... https://statsforgender.org/since-the-turn-of-the-millennium-there-has-been-a-twenty-fold-rise-in-the-number-of-young-people-seeking-medical-transition-cross-sex-hormones-and-surgeries/ https://statsforgender.org/since-the-turn-of-the-millennium-...

Ralfp 7mo ago
It is not. Lisa Littmans research behind „rapid onset gender dysphoria” is a survey amongst parents recruited on three anti-trans internet sites and communities: https://psychcentral.com/lib/there-is-no-evidence-that-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-exists https://psychcentral.com/lib/there-is-no-evidence-that-rapid... The study was based on 256 responses to an online survey of parents recruited from these three websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_c... That by itself means its heavily biased research on a weak sample. „Stats for Gender” site is ran by Genspect, which is also a biased source on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genspect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genspect
- appreciatorBus 7mo ago
  > Genspect, which is also a biased source on the subject: Organization that supports position <x> supports position <x>. If Genspect can be discarded as being a biased source, then so can WPATH and every other org supporting gender ideology. Given the fraught nature of the debate, Wikipedia seems like a poor source for determining the bias of players in the debate - the most passionate debaters have plenty of time to just edit Wikipedia.
  - Ralfp 7mo ago
    Can you explain what „gender ideology” is supposed to mean? The primary issue with Genspect is poor scientific rigour applied to their publications, as I have shown above. Pretty much „if it fits our platform, we will spread it”.
    - appreciatorBus 7mo ago
      WPATH : if it fits our platform, we will spread it.

Ralfp 7mo ago

It is not. Lisa Littmans research behind „rapid onset gender dysphoria” is a survey amongst parents recruited on three anti-trans internet sites and communities: https://psychcentral.com/lib/there-is-no-evidence-that-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-exists https://psychcentral.com/lib/there-is-no-evidence-that-rapid... The study was based on 256 responses to an online survey of parents recruited from these three websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_c... That by itself means its heavily biased research on a weak sample. „Stats for Gender” site is ran by Genspect, which is also a biased source on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genspect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genspect

appreciatorBus 7mo ago
> Genspect, which is also a biased source on the subject: Organization that supports position <x> supports position <x>. If Genspect can be discarded as being a biased source, then so can WPATH and every other org supporting gender ideology. Given the fraught nature of the debate, Wikipedia seems like a poor source for determining the bias of players in the debate - the most passionate debaters have plenty of time to just edit Wikipedia.
- Ralfp 7mo ago
  Can you explain what „gender ideology” is supposed to mean? The primary issue with Genspect is poor scientific rigour applied to their publications, as I have shown above. Pretty much „if it fits our platform, we will spread it”.
  - appreciatorBus 7mo ago
    WPATH : if it fits our platform, we will spread it.