"A revelation that's as shocking as finding out water is wet"
September 27, 2024 12:16 PM Subscribe
This is mass murder.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:05 PM on September 27 [6 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:05 PM on September 27 [6 favorites]
The cruelty is the point. Getting weirdos to take themselves out is the point. If you feel like you literally can't fit in the world and it's not okay to be you and you obviously can't fake being "normal," this is where it goes.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:07 PM on September 27 [8 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:07 PM on September 27 [8 favorites]
The dysfunction is the point. The goal of modern conservatives in the USA is to direct all tax revenue to private corporations. By intentionally making public schooling as stressful, dangerous and ineffective as possible, they further this goal.
If a few kids get killed along the way, well that's just the cost of doing business.
posted by kzin602 at 2:06 PM on September 27 [3 favorites]
If a few kids get killed along the way, well that's just the cost of doing business.
posted by kzin602 at 2:06 PM on September 27 [3 favorites]
Mr. Know-it-some, Can you please be more thoughtful? Are you saying that your choice of control group is so clearly superior to the ones used by the authors that it's really true that "the evidence isn't sufficient to determine whether they do"?
Or, perhaps on a forum with a lots of trans people, whose friends are reporting significant increases in suicidality, can you be a bit less flippant about an important study that does have controls?
re preregistration: Is it true that they should have pre-registered when they are relying on annual survey data? I don't think the annual surveys from the Trevor project could have anticipated years before the increase in anti-TGNC hate-laws that there would be such laws and so they could have pre-registered their study. Or maybe this analysis could have been pre-registered even though the data already existed. This isn't quite my field.
To be clear, the current, state of the art of the anti-trans movement is absolutely shoddy science, and that makes it all the more important that science highlighting the harms of that movement needs to be held to the highest standards. They should have included that control group as well.
And amusingly, you can pull the data yourself here: https://wonder.cdc.gov/
Just letting you know that the emotional reaction I had to you saying that this study has no value, is like a gut punch of you saying I have no value. I'm not saying that was your intent, just that it landed really badly on me personally.
In other words, when you nitpick victims of terrorism, you might want to do so a bit more carefully.
posted by lab.beetle at 7:30 PM on September 27 [11 favorites]
Or, perhaps on a forum with a lots of trans people, whose friends are reporting significant increases in suicidality, can you be a bit less flippant about an important study that does have controls?
re preregistration: Is it true that they should have pre-registered when they are relying on annual survey data? I don't think the annual surveys from the Trevor project could have anticipated years before the increase in anti-TGNC hate-laws that there would be such laws and so they could have pre-registered their study. Or maybe this analysis could have been pre-registered even though the data already existed. This isn't quite my field.
To be clear, the current, state of the art of the anti-trans movement is absolutely shoddy science, and that makes it all the more important that science highlighting the harms of that movement needs to be held to the highest standards. They should have included that control group as well.
And amusingly, you can pull the data yourself here: https://wonder.cdc.gov/
Just letting you know that the emotional reaction I had to you saying that this study has no value, is like a gut punch of you saying I have no value. I'm not saying that was your intent, just that it landed really badly on me personally.
In other words, when you nitpick victims of terrorism, you might want to do so a bit more carefully.
posted by lab.beetle at 7:30 PM on September 27 [11 favorites]
Mod note: One removed: what comes off as a sort of "I, a random guy on the internet who just looked at it 10 minutes ago am pronouncing this a lousy study." If you somehow have special qualifications to evaluate above and beyond existing peer/academic review existing for this, or sources that do, please include that info. Otherwise, it would be reasonable to express doubts about aspects of the study in a more questioning or conversational manner ("I'm curious about / confused about / would like to know more about X"), as opposed to a flat "Bad research; source: Me" kind of thing.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:54 AM on September 28 [6 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 1:54 AM on September 28 [6 favorites]
Yes, I think we could all bear to trust study results published in Nature, one of the two most prestigious journals in American science and therefore one with a lot to lose if it lowers its standards, especially for something politically charged that will be scrutinized intensely, unless we have a truly extraordinary reason not to. I am grateful for the authors’ explanation of the devastating effects of these terrifying laws, and hope against hope that reporting on them leads to greater compassion outside of the hard right, where of course this is the hoped-for result. It is hard out there for trans people, and often the modern medical consensus that we deserve treatment is used against us; we’re seen as somehow a terrifying orthodoxy that demands an iconoclastic view, even as we’re also presented as a rare phenomenon that would be easy to destroy for good with prompt action. This is par for the course in moral panics — and the facts, expressed in such a mainstream publication, do mean a lot. My heart goes out to the young people who are suffering, who deserve autonomy over something as simple as their bodies, clothing, and what they call themselves.
posted by thesmallmachine at 8:27 AM on September 28 [5 favorites]
posted by thesmallmachine at 8:27 AM on September 28 [5 favorites]
Thank you for posting this.
posted by joannemerriam at 6:55 AM on September 29
posted by joannemerriam at 6:55 AM on September 29
The science is sound, even if the subject matter remains uncomfortable for many. The report merely validates what I would hope is common sense. That said, I don’t expect it to be the catalyst for change it could be. Anyone who is raising children in these times knows how difficult it is to determine what ‘the right thing to do’ the moment a child sees there are non-binary people out there and asks the question ‘am I one of them?’ There’s no widely agreed on, easy playbook for that yet. The fact that we’re getting this part wrong still I think is contributing more to the suicide statistics than we realize. We have to create a broadly accepted playbook that is compassionate, respectful, and affirming and gets us closer to suicide rate of zero.
posted by WorkshopGuyPNW at 12:57 PM on September 29
posted by WorkshopGuyPNW at 12:57 PM on September 29
Mr. Know-it-some, Can you please be more thoughtful? Are you saying that your choice of control group is so clearly superior to the ones used by the authors that it's really true that "the evidence isn't sufficient to determine whether they do"?
i'd like to also point out that a weird insistence on requiring control groups (in a manner that is considered unethical for similar conditions) for trans health care is a common thread in a lot of anti-trans bigots' decision to disregard any science supporting trans people.
posted by i used to be someone else at 7:59 AM on September 30 [6 favorites]
i'd like to also point out that a weird insistence on requiring control groups (in a manner that is considered unethical for similar conditions) for trans health care is a common thread in a lot of anti-trans bigots' decision to disregard any science supporting trans people.
posted by i used to be someone else at 7:59 AM on September 30 [6 favorites]
i'd also like to point out the reason why the focus on the minutiae of methodology, like "are there appropriate control groups?" and such is precisely because it's much, much easier to hide any anti-trans sentiment using dispassionate sounding language that just makes it seem like they're asking questions and looking for rigor.
but regardless of how many studies are published, how much data is received, there will always be skepticism; there will always be a way of redrawing the lines. it's how you get the conclusions of the cass report: motivated reasoning with the idea that trans people do not know themselves.
it is and has been an ongoing pattern.
posted by i used to be someone else at 1:52 PM on September 30 [3 favorites]
but regardless of how many studies are published, how much data is received, there will always be skepticism; there will always be a way of redrawing the lines. it's how you get the conclusions of the cass report: motivated reasoning with the idea that trans people do not know themselves.
it is and has been an ongoing pattern.
posted by i used to be someone else at 1:52 PM on September 30 [3 favorites]
« Older Dame Maggie Smith | "I can feel the pinch. Something pointed that... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
And that's here in California and at a school that's pretty damn open and accepting (unlike some of the parents in the area - it's the part of LA that is half adjacent to Trumpism).
It's been a devastating pair of weeks for the kids and the teachers and you look around and see that some of these asshole politicians and school boards want to score power points by putting vulnerable kids through hell.
posted by drewbage1847 at 12:25 PM on September 27 [4 favorites]