A window in to the evil that is the trans grooming movement
(cutdowntree.substack.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (51)
sorted by:
That's bullshit. Experts are just credentialed individuals who agree with the regime. And when you actually drill down on the science it generally doesn't actually match what "the experts" say.
One study that is widely quoted (and probably the one you are thinking of) shows that brain scans of MtF are closer to females than males are and contrariwise. They try to portray this as scans of MtF are more similar to females than males, but that isn't the case. On the PCA the centroid of the MtFs are 5% away from the centroid of males and 95% from the centroid of females and completely overlapped by males.
So if you were given a point that was an unlabeled and it was an MtF you'd be best off guessing male. Put another way you could easily separate males and MtFs (which is to say other males) from females and FtMs (which is to say other females), but you couldn't separate MtFs from males or FtMs from females.
The actual conclusion one should take from that study is that MtFs are males and FtMs are females. Even the studies author puts the average 5% difference down to neuroplasticity.
Additionally there was a recent study that was widely reported to show "gender affirmation treatment" as being effective for teenagers. The problem with it is that the untreated side of the study had like 90% attrition, so the study couldn't show anything either way. They didn't even try to explain the attrition; they just ignored it all together. Maybe they left the study so they could get "girl juice" elsewhere or maybe they naturally desisted (as most teenagers do if you leave them alone and don't pump them full of hormones).
The studies will (almost) always support the regime. We saw this with masks and ivermectin. Masks studies always showed a small positive effect within the margin of error. Early on there was that Dutch (I think) study that showed masks didn't work to protect the wearer. It was widely criticized. Funnily it actually shows a small positive effect within the margin of error, but the conclusion was masks don't work. Thereafter any study with a small positive effect within the margin of error would have a conclusion that states masks work well. Even with the effect always being small and positive you can't draw any conclusions because you don't see the studies that aren't published.
IVM was the opposite of masks. Almost all studies (including those used by NIH to conclude IVM doesn't work) showed a strong positive effect but within the margin of error because the studies were always wildly underpowered. But an effect within the margin of error was suddenly not good enough because the science will always agree with the regime.
Climate change. Glyphosates. Anything. The science will always agree with the regime. And the regime will agree with what gives them power (including agreeing with corporations that their wildly profitable products are indeed safe). Remember the 80s food pyramid? Again, the studies actually showed that high carb diets were bad but the conclusions said they were good. It only fell apart because everyone got fat and diabetic. 'Eat the wheat' was the original 'eat the bugs.'
There’s been a lot of discussion about just how rotten the academy is in terms of research. You can’t just trust the papers abstract or conclusions because often enough, either through malice or incompetence, the published data is the opposite of what the authors conclude.
oh god yeah, you had that dutch study on the effectiveness of the vaccine against omicron, and it was showing negative effectiveness after 2 months
In the discussion/conclusion they were clearly forced to come up with excuses for why that was, how it was maybe changed and risky behavior in the vaccinated, and how its still valuable and useful at the current schedule...
I don't know if it's the same study, but the one I saw was pretty similar, and then on top of it admits at the end that the trans people were taking hormones, too. Way to admit your entire study is basically trash because it fails to account for a hugely important factor in your last paragraph, assholes. And yet even with that fundamentally compromising bias in favor of brain difference, their brains were STILL more like their actual gender than their claimed gender.
And the real kicker was that it was cited by a tranny in an argument trying to prove they are real. So god only knows how damaging the studies are that aren't cherry picked by trannies themselves. Or the studies that don't get done at all, or don't get published, because there's a huge bias towards pro-lefties going into the social sciences to begin with, and even the ones that might be tempted to be honest have got to be aware of the fact that trying to execute or publish an anti-trans study might end their career.