XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.transgendered, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

Appeals to "science" have gained independent status in our cultural mind.
At their best, our experts enable our modern way of life. At their worst,
they are the witch doctors of western civilization, accessing secret
knowledge and handing down dictums from on high.

Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published a study
informing us that it had debunked the `social contagion' theory of transgenderism's spread, also known as "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria." The study's findings were immediately picked up by legacy news outlets.

NBC confidently reported that "`social contagion' is not driving an
increasing number of adolescents to come out as transgender," while The
Hill went as far as to say, "Transgender adolescents do not identify as transgender because they are influenced by external factors like social
media or their peers."

The study then concluded in its findings that the `social contagion' theory "should not be used to argue against the provision of gender-affirming
medical care for TGD [transgender and gender diverse] adolescents."

But how were these "findings" discovered?

Researchers used a tax-funded grant from The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) to compare numbers from 16 states included in the CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) in 2017 and 2019. In 2017, 2.4% of adolescents identified themselves as transgender. In 2019, these 16 states saw a slight drop to 1.6%, the majority of which were born male. The study concluded
that this disproves the idea that transgenderism is spreading, particularly among adolescent girls.

It should be noted that the top-line numbers only included those who
checked "yes" for "are you transgender?" As can be seen from the CDC's additional 2017 report, which outlined more specific questionnaire data,
94.4% of students answered, "No I am not transgender." Others either
answered, "I am not sure" or "I do not know what this question is asking." However, even if we only use the 2.4% and 1.6% figures, the problem with
the conclusion is much deeper.

In short, according to these taxpayer-funded experts, a decrease in the percentage of trans teens in these states from 2017-2019 proves there is no social spread.

Pro-trans researchers are not known for intellectual consistency. Are we to presume that, based on the logic used, an increase in trans identification would prove social contagion? Does the pre-2017 world count?

In 2003, the trans population in Germany was estimated at between 1/42,000
to 1/48,000 inhabitants. In 2009, the Gender Identity Research and
Education Society issued a national report on the transgender population in
the UK, remarking on the steep rise from about 8/100,000 in 1998 (0.008%)
to about 20/100,000 in 2009 (0.02%). The numbers in the US are similar.

In 2016, the NIH estimated that the proportion of trans people had
quadrupled over the past decade. The national average at the time was
estimated at 0.39%. It should be noted that the 2017 rate reported for high schoolers (2.4%) was already six times higher than the national average.

According to our experts, when the percentage of trans teens doubles in a
few years, this has nothing to tell us about social contagion. On the other hand, a short-term 30% decrease (2.4% to 1.6%) in a sampling of high school students in 16 states over two years definitively debunks all those
conspiracy theories about transgenderism's spread.

But the massive increase in trans identification is not the only problem.
If smallpox numbers in a country remained relatively steady (let's say
exactly 1% of the population got sick every year), could we safely conclude that smallpox is not contagious? Certainly not. To determine that, we would need to look at the local level.

If transgenderism was spreading by social contagion, it would be more
common in some areas and among some groups than elsewhere. We might expect
the 2022 transgender population update to report that 3% of 13- to 17- year-olds in New York identify as transgender, while just 0.6% do so in Wyoming. We might even be able to find discussions from 13 years ago about
the "buddy effect" and the "uneven geographic dispersion of people with
gender dysphoria." All of this would, of course, make it difficult to
`debunk' the social contagion theory.

This is not the first time pro-trans studies have tried to attack the
social contagion data.

Just last year, The Journal of Pediatrics published a study debunking a previous study that used parental reporting to describe "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria." These parents explained that their children (mostly teenage
girls) had never exhibited signs of gender dysphoria until suddenly coming
out as trans along with their peer group. Researchers from "Trans Youth
CAN!" responded by polling 173 children younger than 16 who were receiving treatment at Canadian gender clinics about when they first found out they
were trans.

They concluded that there is no evidence for "rapid onset" gender dysphoria since, unsurprisingly, "I just found out" wasn't the most common answer.
The immense social pressure to say "I've always felt this way" was not considered by the "Trans Youth CAN!" researchers.

As mentioned, such "studies" are explicitly aimed at justifying access to so-called "gender-affirming" medical treatment for minors. But this is
where bad science takes a turn from the laughable to the dark. The same sleight-of-hand techniques are routinely used by researchers to argue that
such treatments reduce the risk of suicide. In fact, the opposite is true.
The result of nearly every "gender-affirming" therapy is an increase in the long-term suicide attempt rate.

As the 2014 National Transgender Discrimination Survey found, those who "wanted" hormone treatment, but had not had it, had a lifetime suicide
attempt rate of 40%. Those who "have had it" had a suicide attempt rate of
45%. In every category, those with the lowest suicide attempt rate were
those who "do not want it," i.e., those who had not fully embraced medical transition. The 2014 study's "Do Not Want It" data was promptly removed
(not replaced - removed) by a 2019 update of the same study.

Perhaps all this can be explained. After all, if our experts believe that "truth" itself is an oppressive societal construct, that explains their
strict and assiduous avoidance of anything that resembles it.


--
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

And since I trashed all my social media accounts over a year ago, the
only time I check in here is when I boot up to check out my external SSD
backup drive.

So you shouldn't expect I'll see any replies... but feel free to knock
yourself out!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)