Outstanding reporting in this flawed study. You break it down brilliantly. Let's hope that other media and medical associations share your view and/or confirm your analysis.
Why dafuq do pedo billionaires keep funding fake ass studies to try and prove we don’t exist when we clearly have been around for millennia? Do they think the internet will forget?
For people so obsessed with definitions, anti-trans scum don’t seem to understand the definitions of “study” or “science.”
Performing such deliberately poor research for the sake of harming people you don’t like should be criminalized. Anti-trans fanatics are so sick and so incredibly dangerous.
Sounds like Kaltiala operates in the same “transphobic/pseudo/dubious science” space as Jacky Davis (a vocal BMA “representative”).
Perhaps we need a list… of all the transphobic/pseudoscience dudes (such as Kaltiala) out there - a sort of “rogues gallery” to keep their messaging front and centre… and our responses primed…
Credit to you Erin, for the work you do in reading and critiquing these dire articles it’s a lot of work. Thank you
I wonder too where their funding comes from… I see a trend…
Okay, I gotta be honest. I got as far as the percentages (the 9.8% before vs. 60.7% after) and a vibrantly bright red flag started flying.
Phrased rather more coherently than my initial response, it was "Wait - they're comparing the mental health of folks who got and didn't get GAC based on psychiatric visits after an initial one? But if someone was at that initial visit to obtain GAC, getting additional counseling would be a pretty normal part of the process of transitioning. Of course they'd have more visits than the general population!"
And that was before learning that they might have years of visits before they could even start actual medical transitioning (i.e. GAHT) - not to mention the history of the study author.
Outstanding reporting in this flawed study. You break it down brilliantly. Let's hope that other media and medical associations share your view and/or confirm your analysis.
Keep up the great work!
Why dafuq do pedo billionaires keep funding fake ass studies to try and prove we don’t exist when we clearly have been around for millennia? Do they think the internet will forget?
Or do they WANT the blood of trans kids on their hands?
I believe so, seriously. Nazi leaders were not hesitant to claim responsibility for their actions against Jews, Roma, and LGBTQ+ people
They know that if they can't keep the masses distracted with culture war bullshit, we're one good recession away from guillotines.
For people so obsessed with definitions, anti-trans scum don’t seem to understand the definitions of “study” or “science.”
Performing such deliberately poor research for the sake of harming people you don’t like should be criminalized. Anti-trans fanatics are so sick and so incredibly dangerous.
Oh, whoopie. Another Cass “report,” only now in Finnish. Yay.
We need to write to the journal’s editors to have it retracted, otherwise it will keep being cited with malicious intent as “evidence”.
It will be anyway- just look at how antivaxxers are still citing Wakefield, even though the study was pulled 𝘢𝘯𝘥 its author lost his license.
Sounds like Kaltiala operates in the same “transphobic/pseudo/dubious science” space as Jacky Davis (a vocal BMA “representative”).
Perhaps we need a list… of all the transphobic/pseudoscience dudes (such as Kaltiala) out there - a sort of “rogues gallery” to keep their messaging front and centre… and our responses primed…
Credit to you Erin, for the work you do in reading and critiquing these dire articles it’s a lot of work. Thank you
I wonder too where their funding comes from… I see a trend…
She slipped a little “transgender identifying” in there… they’re not hiding it anymore.
What's this- a new steaming pile of transphobic propaganda masquerading as science? Thanks, I hate it.
What is wrong with these so-called scientists. They need to walk in other’s shoes. Anything to publish. Whether it’s bullshit or not.
Wow! Whodathunkit? A 'phobes lies.
So, does anyone think the "flaws" in this study are honest error? Or is it part of their plan?
TY, Erin.
Okay, I gotta be honest. I got as far as the percentages (the 9.8% before vs. 60.7% after) and a vibrantly bright red flag started flying.
Phrased rather more coherently than my initial response, it was "Wait - they're comparing the mental health of folks who got and didn't get GAC based on psychiatric visits after an initial one? But if someone was at that initial visit to obtain GAC, getting additional counseling would be a pretty normal part of the process of transitioning. Of course they'd have more visits than the general population!"
And that was before learning that they might have years of visits before they could even start actual medical transitioning (i.e. GAHT) - not to mention the history of the study author.
And this tripe got published? Just wow.