LGBT shuts down science

[The Grand Nudger]

Still waiting on some clarity as to whether this is junk science, a product of the push to publish...or LGBTQ shitting on good science.

[RoadRunner79]

Here are some of the critisism of peer review.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/



One if it's suggestions was an openness of the process and ideas.  Which I would agree with.

From the conclusion:

Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative,

This is the thing about science. It is self correcting. It can even improve the scientific method, which is what is happening here. But if someone has a superior alternative to peer review then please do say. As it is though, no one has come up with a better alternative and until they do peer review will stay.

I’m not against peer review, just when people elevate it beyond reason. In this I am talking of the process the journals go through. I am for open discourse of ideas.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I’m not against peer review, just when people elevate it beyond reason. In this I am talking of the process the journals go through.  I am for open discourse of ideas.

Fair enough. But bear in mind that it normally happens when the alternative is a religionist pushing ideas about the nature of reality that have had zero peer review.

[Amarok]

Some valid methodological objections to the study 

* The study was based on parental reporting rather than evidence from the children themselves.
* The study was advertised, and participants were collated from websites who are well known to be anti-trans and was not representative of the general population. The published research into “rapid onset gender dysphoria” consists entirely of one 2017 abstract of an online survey of 164 parents sourced from anti-trans groups!
* There are no clinical features of “ROGD” that have been identified to distinguish it from the traditional form of dysphoria.
* What appears to a parent to be a “rapid” onset may not have been rapid for their child at all, as it is based wholly on parental reports
* There is no evidence presented to support the claim that children became gender dysphoric as a result of social coercion.

Not mention the study has issues in regards to the null hypothesis .

---

The original study (though the whole things appears to be an abstract that sets off some serious red flags )

https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-...0/fulltext

---

Here's Trans group against the study and there case for why they object to the study on scientific grounds unlike Beta's false framing of the issue .

https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2018...nk-science

[Divinity]

You know, we should just stop calling Christianity "Christianity" and just call it outright Bigotry. That's all it is anymore. Christians don't do anything positive for anyone. They just attack minority groups.

[robvalue]

I would be surprised if a single scientist would claim that there aren't mistakes made in peer review, or agenda-driven results at times. So I don't know what the point of this thread is.

I have no idea what the truth of the original claim is, or of the objections. All I would care about is the truth coming out eventually. The way to best guarantee this is continued peer review. People don't get to find a result they like and then contest that any errors found must be agenda driven.

[RoadRunner79]

I’m not against peer review, just when people elevate it beyond reason. In this I am talking of the process the journals go through.  I am for open discourse of ideas.

Fair enough. But bear in mind that it normally happens when the alternative is a religionist pushing ideas about the nature of reality that have had zero peer review.

This seems to be a bias against those of faith, which bias is one of the issues.   Also remember the discussion that peer review isn't just the initial review of the publishing journal.  If there is good reason to argue against a specific study, then I think that should be presented and discussed, rather than making hyperbole about "zero peer review".

[The Grand Nudger]

Reality has a well known bias against the contents of peoples faiths.  Take it up with the universe, it's your problem.

[RoadRunner79]

Reality has a well known bias against the contents of peoples faiths.  Take it up with the universe, it's your problem.

Do you have an example for how you came to that conclusion?   I don't find the same in regards to my faith.

[Amarok]

I would be surprised if a single scientist would claim that there aren't mistakes made in peer review, and agenda-driven results at times. So I don't know what the point of this thread is.

I have no idea what the truth of the original claim is, or of the objections. All I would care about is the truth coming out eventually. The way to best guarantee this is continued peer review. People don't get to find a result they like and then contest that any errors found must be agenda driven.

The point is to bash trans advocates or undermine science and to place people who accept both in a false catch 22 in an attempt to be clever .

Too bad Beta Fail lacks the ability to pull it off .

---

Do you have an example for how you came to that conclusion?   I don't find the same in regards to my faith.

The universe and everything in it