Zone1 Transgender redux

[JoeMoma]

Maybe you found it difficult to follow along but why does it matter to the discussion I was having that he hasn't competed with boys?

Dam, you missed the whole crux of the argument.

 

[Curried Goats]

Dam, you missed the whole crux of the argument.

What argument? What do you think I was arguing?

 

[JoeMoma]

So you're only okay with trans athletes when they don't have any success?

Dam, you missed the whole crux of the argument.

 

[Curried Goats]

Dam, you missed the whole crux of the argument.

Yes. You said that already.

 

[Curried Goats]

That's not what happened. He/she just doesnt want to address the actual argument so they are playing dumb. Which is easy for them, it comes naturally.

Which is what? I started this thread, I think I know what the argument is. No one on your side has even addressed the scientific findings in the OP, which is what I started this thread to talk about.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Where are the women's rights groups?

Allowed themselves to be shouted down by gender deniers.

 

[JoeMoma]

There being statistical differences in the distributions related to brains of males and females does not mean there is such a thing as a male brain and a female brain.

Men are usually taller than women; however, being over 6 feet tall doesn't turn a female into a male and she shouldn't have surgery because the characteristic of her height is more "male" than "female". Same is true if a female has a characteristic of her brain that tends more toward the distribution of the brains of males. Having such doesn't mean that she should have a hunk of her arm removed to construct a penis for her.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Which is what? I started this thread, I think I know what the argument is. No one on your side has even addressed the scientific findings in the OP, which is what I started this thread to talk about.

I addressed it, you just didn’t like the way I addressed it.

I said it was a one-year study of must over one hundred people, conducted as a PhD project, not as a piece of professional research. In was conducted in partnership with the Seattle Children’s Gender Clinic, or some such. Definitely not an unbiased approach to the topic.

To be fair, the article you posted does not call it a “scientific finding.” It was you who made that leap. No actual research has shown statistically significant benefits in mental health from giving hormones and surgeries to minor children.

“Scientific findings” would have to come from a study in which one group of purportedly transgender children was randomly split into two groups, and then one group provided the chemical and surgical interventions and the other group not. Then they would be tracked over several years and differences in outcomes looked for. Then any differences would have to be analyzed statistically so determine if the differences were significant.

You have any examples of that to make your point?

 

[Curried Goats]

I addressed it, you just didn’t like the way I addressed it.

I said it was a one-year study of must over one hundred people, conducted as a PhD project, not as a piece of professional research. In was conducted in partnership with the Seattle Children’s Gender Clinic, or some such. Definitely not an unbiased approach to the topic.

To be fair, the article you posted does not call it a “scientific finding.” It was you who made that leap. No actual research has shown statistically significant benefits in mental health from giving hormones and surgeries to minor children.

“Scientific findings” would have to come from a study in which one group of purportedly transgender children was randomly split into two groups, and then one group provided the chemical and surgical interventions and the other group not. Then they would be tracked over several years and differences in outcomes looked for. Then any differences would have to be analyzed statistically so determine if the differences were significant.

You have any examples of that to make your point?

Yes, I noted you attacked the source and not the data.

Here's another one done by Standford that's a lot more comprehensive and shows a 222%, 153% and 81% decrease in psychological distress for patients who underwent hormone treatment at early adolescence, late adolescence and adulthood. There's a control group for this one as well.

Better mental health found among transgender people who started hormones as teens

 

[JoeMoma]

Yes, I noted you attacked the source and not the data.

Here's another one done by Standford that's a lot more comprehensive and shows a 222%, 153% and 81% decrease in psychological distress for patients who underwent hormone treatment at early adolescence, late adolescence and adulthood. There's a control group for this one as well.

Better mental health found among transgender people who started hormones as teens

222% and 153% decrease ... someone is bad at math.

 

[Curried Goats]

222% and 153% decrease ... someone is bad at math.

You?

 

[Seymour Flops]

222% and 153% decrease ... someone is bad at math.

I'm guessing Curried just misunderstood. I'll look at his article later. If it is valid I'll say so.

 

[JoeMoma]

For the mathematically challenged, the most you can decrease something by is 100% unless you are crossing over to negative amounts.

 

[Curried Goats]

I'm guessing Curried just misunderstood. I'll look at his article later. If it is valid I'll say so.

Or he doesn't know how math works. Let's say the Bills are +2 favorite against the Dolphins at Buffalo and then right before the game Josh Allen is injured and ruled out for the game and the Dolphins become a +2 point favorite. That's a decrease of 200%.

 

[JoeMoma]

Or he doesn't know how math works. Let's say the Bills are +2 favorite against the Dolphins at Buffalo and then right before the game Josh Allen is injured and ruled out for the game and the Dolphins become a +2 point favorite. That's a decrease of 200%.

Yes, going from a +2 to a - 2 point swing (margin of winning) is a 200% decrease in point margin of winning. Not the same as a 200% decrease in the probability of winning. The smallest a probability can be is Zero.

Edit to add question:
Do the trans people that had destress before surgery and hormones have negative destress afterward? Does that make sense? The data is not included with the article so it's difficult to see how something can decrease by more than 100 percent. More than a 100 percent decrease can only make sense if one can have a negative amount.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yes, going from a +2 to a - 2 point swing (margin of winning) is a 200% decrease in point margin of winning. Not the same as a 200% decrease in the probability of winning. The smallest a probability can be is Zero.

So in conclusion 200% decreases are a thing in context. Thanks for conceding.

 

[Curried Goats]

Edit to add question:
Do the trans people that had destress before surgery and hormones have negative destress afterward? Does that make sense? The data is not included with the article so it's difficult to see how something can decrease by more than 100 percent. More than a 100 percent decrease can only make sense if one can have a negative amount.

Here's a link to the actually study, you can download the pdf from there.

Access to gender-affirming hormones during adolescence and mental health outcomes among transgender adults

 

[JoeMoma]

So in conclusion 200% decreases are a thing in context. Thanks for conceding.

I am not conceding anything. As I said in a previous post, you cannot have a 100% unless you are crossing into negative amounts. Also note the the 222% decrease is a decrease in "odds" of distress. What are they doing.. are they taking bets to compute odds... or is that referring to odds as in probability. Seems to me the is some strange math going on with that article/study. Negative probabilities don't make sense.

 

[JoeMoma]

Here's a link to the actually study, you can download the pdf from there.

Access to gender-affirming hormones during adolescence and mental health outcomes among transgender adults

I may take a look at that if I find the time later. That said, it seems quite strange that the article/study is reporting about a decrease in "odds" of distress rather than simple making comparisons about actual distress reported. Methinks someone is trying to make the results seem much more favorable to the side of the issue for which they advocate than what the results really are.

 

[Curried Goats]

I may take a look at that if I find the time later. That said, it seems quite strange that the article/study is reporting about a decrease in "odds" of distress rather than simple making comparisons about actual distress reported. Methinks someone is trying to make the results seem much more favorable to the side of the issue for which they advocate than what the results really are.

You got that having read none of it yet have you?