King's Diversity Space Tool: A Leap Forward for Inclusion in Gaming

[Syncr]

This is what it says, right from the page:



They eliminated studies that weren't on the topic at hand, which is the well being of adults after gender transition. That's the normal way you do an analysis. You cast a wide net and then narrow it down to the studies that are about the topic at hand. You are just desperate to disregard this, like a coward, because you don't have an intellectually honest way to address the fact that I have data and you have "just google it".

If you had data, you'd provide it, not flail around embarrassing yourself like this.

Yes on topic,

Interventions: Any medical service that affirms the individual’s self-identified gender identity; a relevant medical service was any service, treatment, or procedure indicated for the treatment of gender dysphoria in the accepted expert Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender-Nonconforming Individuals maintained by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (version 7, 2011)

So we narrowed it down from

“Transitioning can lead to increased suicides”

To

“Adults, not any minor whatsoever, who have had any treatment whatsoever for gender dysphoria that doesn’t include any research with any physical outcomes of these procedures”

Do you understand that when someone is saying transitioning can increase suicide rate, that when you narrow it down so far like this it doesn’t actually show anything.

Now I’m not suggesting that this is true, but it is possible that the majority (or at the very least a big chunk) of transitions that have happened during these time frames started in teenage years. So all those studies could have a wild suicide rate post transitioning and it would never be shown in this article. Because it only chose studies that for whatever reason specifically didn’t include any non adults, and any study that even remotely talked about physical outcomes.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that the question “does suicide rates go up or down after transitioning” is not answered by this article. And it for SURE isn’t a “globally accepted scientific consensus”

[Kallisto]

Then use that evidence. Saying "well these doctors all agree so it must be true" is a poor argument for the reasons I put out. Also, I'd argue that the current wave of this situation is so drastically/radically different than historically. Rates of transitioning have jumped so high in the last 5 years - millennials are 30(?)% up while Gen Z is 50% up from where they were. Any data gathered on this will be shallow at best for the potential impact. IMO, we'll have an accurate example of how things are *maybe* ten years from now.

And no, the two are not the same at all.

pre-1900 "Left-handed people are Satanists and must be shunned, beaten and killed if they don't change."
Post 1900 "We were wrong about left-handed people"



See when people are not attacked for who they are, are shown representation of others being the same as them, well people tend not to hide their true selves.

This is why we're seeing a major uptick in LGBT people coming out. Not because there are more of us, but because in the west, fewer and fewer assholes are trying to push against us that it is safer for us to be ourselves. We were always here, we just are fed up with hiding.

[Talon8669]

Just like how the democrats have been coming for your guns over the last 40 years...

- - - Updated - - -



It's been over 8800 seconds since this post and I've been searching online for a sign that this has
been weaponised and...nothing. Maybe it's you who is a threat here. I mean what is so threatening that is causing you to be so hysterical?

- - - Updated - - -



You actual cluster fuck didn't "saw" nothing. Try reading it slow before reacting. Then you probably won't insult the plight of those people in those other countries.

- - - Updated - - -



What happened to not derailing a thread? You sound like that old man staggering down the street with only one shoe on mumbling about birds not being real.

Hey thanks for responding cupcake, like I mentioned to someone else I didn't read the full article and thought this tool was being used to measure a companies diversity and hiring. I went back and read the full thing and think it's still just as fucking silly but honestly thanks for responding sport, have a great day.

[Goatfish]

https://whatweknow.inequality.cornel...gender-people/

I've gone over this Cornell study before, and it has quite a lot of flaws as others have pointed out.

They ignored any studies looking at physical outcomes, because apparently physical effects aren't a factor in "well-being". They didn't impose any restrictions for length of study nor methodology of the study. They looked at no comparison analysis. Most of the studies are pay to view only, so to double check their research you'd have to drop hundreds of dollars on just the studies they picked, many of which are studies directly funded by aggressively trans positive groups such as the Scottish Transgender Alliance and the Trans Resource and Empowerment Centre (TREC).

When you actually start reading into the studies they cite, provided you can even view them. Almost all of them state a high dropout rate, a high level of bias, and directly report that the data should be interpreted with caution and that no conclusions can be drawn despite essentially positive results.

It's one thing to say we should research this more in depth and more accurately, and quite another to say "well this study shows it's good so there is scientific consensus that this is the best thing we could ever do for trans people." Even on the Cornell site you linked it states: "More research is needed to adequately characterize and address the needs of the transgender population."

Your own "indisputable proof" admits that the research is insufficient to even characterize the needs of transgender people adequately, let alone address them. I know you want to virtue signal and pretend you are fighting for the downtrodden, but if you are going to do so, at least do it honestly.

Here's another meta analysis talking about quality of life. If you stop after the first sentence of the conclusion it sounds like supporting this treatment is the way to go, but if you read the 6 sentences after it tells a much different story. Most of the misconceptions about this topic come from people who just read that first sentence but completely ignore the rest. I would hate to be a researcher in the internet age because as soon as something comes up even potentially positive for a political side they latch onto it regardless of the caveats.

Edit: I really hope you at least read through some of the studies. Some of them show that victimization is not a significant factor in trans depression for instance. Some of them state that even without treatment they get better over time, probably because people become more habituated to their new identity. Like... there is a lot here that goes directly against your narrative even within the group of studies you linked.

[NineSpine]

Yes on topic,

So we narrowed it down from

“Transitioning can lead to increased suicides”

To

“Adults, not any minor whatsoever, who have had any treatment whatsoever for gender dysphoria that doesn’t include any research with any physical outcomes of these procedures”

Do you understand that when someone is saying transitioning can increase suicide rate, that when you narrow it down so far like this it doesn’t actually show anything.

Now I’m not suggesting that this is true, but it is possible that the majority (or at the very least a big chunk) of transitions that have happened during these time frames started in teenage years. So all those studies could have a wild suicide rate post transitioning and it would never be shown in this article. Because it only chose studies that for whatever reason specifically didn’t include any non adults, and any study that even remotely talked about physical outcomes.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that the question “does suicide rates go up or down after transitioning” is not answered by this article. And it for SURE isn’t a “globally accepted scientific consensus”

Because data on teens is significantly more limited and may have lots of separate factors that would obfuscate the findings. You are literally attacking this methodology for having the high level of responsibility to only address adults, in order to produce better results. The fact that it only addresses adults is a feature, not a bug. It means this data is more reliable and focused.

Nobody is arguing that this data tells us anything about teens, so I don't even understand why you are hung up on this point. If you want to say "I concede, the scientific literature clearly shows that transition is the best treatment for gender dysphoria in adults, but what about teens" that would be perfectly reasonable, but to say we should throw this out because it explicitly does not address teens is ridiculous.

Notice how post after post you just keep rambling and rambling finding excuse after excuse to disregard the data rather than PRESENTING YOUR OWN. Show me YOUR meta-analysis of the literature. Show me YOUR 50+ studies with a comprehensive, focused criteria. Oh, you don't have one, do you?

[Zolaris192]

it's sad that we live in a world now where people are more concerned with what a person looks like rather than what kind of person they are

[NineSpine]

I've gone over this Cornell study before, and it has quite a lot of flaws as others have pointed out.

They ignored any studies looking at physical outcomes, because apparently physical effects aren't a factor in "well-being". They didn't impose any restrictions for length of study nor methodology of the study. They looked at no comparison analysis. Most of the studies are pay to view only, so to double check their research you'd have to drop hundreds of dollars on just the studies they picked, many of which are studies directly funded by aggressively trans positive groups such as the Scottish Transgender Alliance and the Trans Resource and Empowerment Centre (TREC).

When you actually start reading into the studies they cite, provided you can even view them. Almost all of them state a high dropout rate, a high level of bias, and directly report that the data should be interpreted with caution and that no conclusions can be drawn despite essentially positive results.

It's one thing to say we should research this more in depth and more accurately, and quite another to say "well this study shows it's good so there is scientific consensus that this is the best thing we could ever do for trans people." Even on the Cornell site you linked it states: "More research is needed to adequately characterize and address the needs of the transgender population."

Your own "indisputable proof" admits that the research is insufficient to even characterize the needs of transgender people adequately, let alone address them. I know you want to virtue signal and pretend you are fighting for the downtrodden, but if you are going to do so, at least do it honestly.

Here's another meta analysis talking about quality of life. If you stop after the first sentence of the conclusion it sounds like supporting this treatment is the way to go, but if you read the 6 sentences after it tells a much different story. Most of the misconceptions about this topic come from people who just read that first sentence but completely ignore the rest. I would hate to be a researcher in the internet age because as soon as something comes up even potentially positive for a political side they latch onto it regardless of the caveats.

It's hard to address this many lies, so I'll sum it up with one:

The analysis you provided says "The available study data show that sex reassignment surgery has a positive effect on partial aspects—such as mental health/wellbeing, sexuality, and life satisfaction—as well as on quality of life overall."

Nothing after that indicates that that is wrong, just that the data should still be considered inconclusive. It never turns around and says "Actually this is terrible for people and the outcomes are awful" but you are portraying it like it actually indicates the opposite of what it says in the first sentence. Urging caution in the results is not the same as saying the results are meaningless.

[AutismBoi]

It's hard to address this many lies, so I'll sum it up with one:

The analysis you provided says "The available study data show that sex reassignment surgery has a positive effect on partial aspects—such as mental health/wellbeing, sexuality, and life satisfaction—as well as on quality of life overall."

Nothing after that indicates that that is wrong, just that the data should still be considered inconclusive. It never turns around and says "Actually this is terrible for people and the outcomes are awful" but you are portraying it like it actually indicates the opposite of what it says in the first sentence. Urging caution in the results is not the same as saying the results are meaningless.

We get it, you are trans.

[Tyris Flare]

We get it, you are trans.

Be real, only a straight white dude desperate to be perceived as "one of the good ones" has this kind of posting energy.

[LionSinMaikeru]

"The majority believes..." is about an argument from popularity, not an argument from authority, so you don't even have your fallacies straight.

TIL that you can only make one logical fallacy at a time. I'm done responding to you. You're nothing but hostile to literally everyone you're having a conversation with who doesn't agree with you.

But you're not entirely wrong in that peer-group pressure DOES exist and DOES skew results; it's just that in the present day, this is much rarer and much harder to pull off because people will pounce on any chance to prove something wrong. There is no "science community" the way people like to portray it, certainly not in the way it existed in the 19th century and earlier, where it was an elitist in-group in many ways. These days anyone can provide groundbreaking results, and it does happen.

Personally, I believe that it's more widespread in the present day due to the rise of social media and the impact it has on just about everything. I feel like it's also more difficult to get unbiased findings. I'm not going to respond to everything you said because I do agree with a large portion of it and I respect you for not being hostile. But I don't think there's no easy solution here, ultimately.

pre-1900 "Left-handed people are Satanists and must be shunned, beaten and killed if they don't change."
Post 1900 "We were wrong about left-handed people"



See when people are not attacked for who they are, are shown representation of others being the same as them, well people tend not to hide their true selves.

This is why we're seeing a major uptick in LGBT people coming out. Not because there are more of us, but because in the west, fewer and fewer assholes are trying to push against us that it is safer for us to be ourselves. We were always here, we just are fed up with hiding.

So I'm LGBT, and I don't draw the same conclusions as you are. I feel like if what you're saying is true, you'd see a steady progression across the board. But that's not what's happening.

If you look at this image from Gallup:



You'll see that the trend in people who self-identify as LGBT has skyrocketed in the last 4 years among Millennials and Gen Z exclusively. I don't think it's a coincidence when you factor in that Millennials and Gen Z tend to be online more. Obviously, I know LGBT people exist. But I do believe it has become trendy to identify as such.

[Goatfish]

It's hard to address this many lies, so I'll sum it up with one:

The analysis you provided says "The available study data show that sex reassignment surgery has a positive effect on partial aspects—such as mental health/wellbeing, sexuality, and life satisfaction—as well as on quality of life overall."

Nothing after that indicates that that is wrong, just that the data should still be considered inconclusive. It never turns around and says "Actually this is terrible for people and the outcomes are awful" but you are portraying it like it actually indicates the opposite of what it says in the first sentence. Urging caution in the results is not the same as saying the results are meaningless.

When did I ever say it was terrible? I'm merely pointing out that your narrative of transitioning being the end all best treatment is incredibly overblown. You're making decisions based off incredibly limited, biased, and inconsistent data because you feel it's the right choice. I agree that the data is essentially positive so far, but if you don't even recognize the caveats when arguing for this then you are playing Russian roulette with peoples lives by endorsing treatments.

Honestly the best thing you could say is "There is some data that shows potentially positive results but they aren't conclusive, people should not lightly make the decision to have this treatment based off the current data." Is that so hard?

[Syncr]

I love this so much lol. Ninespine gets absolutely destroyed when he finally links an article by his side and that article is clearly 100% flawed.

People call it out for what it is.

And all he says is “your lying”

If we actually want to make any progress here, actual progress not perceived progress, people like him need to leave the conversation.

Trans people and the science behind it needs a lot of areas it needs to improve in and transitioning is with out a doubt a very great course of action for some of them. But with people like him who just ignore the facts, nothing is going to get better because we will never figure out what DOESNT work because people like him refuse to acknowledge that sometimes it DOESNT work.

It’s kind of sad actually. I guess you know what they say about the road to hell

[Goatfish]

You'll see that the trend in people who self-identify as LGBT has skyrocketed in the last 4 years among Millennials and Gen Z exclusively. I don't think it's a coincidence when you factor in that Millennials and Gen Z tend to be online more. Obviously, I know LGBT people exist. But I do believe it has become trendy to identify as such.

The online activist crowd only believes in social contagion when it comes to turning people into white nationalists and MAGA. It couldn't possibly be that children are extremely malleable and easily convinced of things that aren't true!

There is very little in life that I hate, but the intellectual dishonesty around this topic is definitely on that list. It's just pure cognitive dissonance, and even when you can prove it to their face they hold onto that dissonance like a religious zealot.

[Rumred]

So we are going to assign value points based on ethnicity, culture and body type ect. Sounds like something the Germans did from the 33-45

[NineSpine]

When did I ever say it was terrible? I'm merely pointing out that your narrative of transitioning being the end all best treatment is incredibly overblown. You're making decisions based off incredibly limited, biased, and inconsistent data because you feel it's the right choice. I agree that the data is essentially positive so far, but if you don't even recognize the caveats when arguing for this then you are playing Russian roulette with peoples lives by endorsing treatments.

Honestly the best thing you could say is "There is some data that shows potentially positive results but they aren't conclusive, people should not lightly make the decision to have this treatment based off the current data." Is that so hard?

I think that you are confusing things a little and not understanding me. Transition and acceptance is widely considered an effective treatment. Do we need more data? Absolutely, but the fact is that it is widely considered an effective treatment. That doesn't mean it is the right treatment for everyone in every situation. For example, the data is absolutely not strong enough to recommend everyone with dysphoria get gender reassignment surgery immediately. There's a reason these decisions are typically made after years of consultation with mental health professionals.

What I am saying is that how we handle these treatments is ALREADY in line with the reliability of the current data. Of course people shouldn't get diagnosed with dysphoria and be given hormones tomorrow, or schedule surgeries next week. But that is ALREADY how we handle this. The typical course doesn't even get to hormones until a long period of time after treatment begins, let alone surgeries which are years and years into treatment in the typical case.

This isn't a binary, where it either is or is not the right treatment. The best decision for someone is the one they make in consultation with their mental healthcare professionals, preferably with second opinions and a lot of serious consideration. The best thing for the rest of us to do is to listen to those professionals and provide the "acceptance" part that the treatment demands.

- - - Updated - - -

I love this so much lol. Ninespine gets absolutely destroyed when he finally links an article by his side and that article is clearly 100% flawed.

People call it out for what it is.

And all he says is “your lying”

If we actually want to make any progress here, actual progress not perceived progress, people like him need to leave the conversation.

Trans people and the science behind it needs a lot of areas it needs to improve in and transitioning is with out a doubt a very great course of action for some of them. But with people like him who just ignore the facts, nothing is going to get better because we will never figure out what DOESNT work because people like him refuse to acknowledge that sometimes it DOESNT work.

It’s kind of sad actually. I guess you know what they say about the road to hell

You are lying. You keep insisting that vocally, intentionally limiting the scope to adults or to mental health outcomes is "cherrypicking" and meanwhile I am still waiting for you to post one single piece of data backing up your case.

- - - Updated - - -

The online activist crowd only believes in social contagion when it comes to turning people into white nationalists and MAGA. It couldn't possibly be that children are extremely malleable and easily convinced of things that aren't true!

There is very little in life that I hate, but the intellectual dishonesty around this topic is definitely on that list. It's just pure cognitive dissonance, and even when you can prove it to their face they hold onto that dissonance like a religious zealot.

White nationalism and MAGA are ideologies. LGBT is not an ideology. It's a gross comparison to make.

[Utrrabbit]

I love how so many of your are paranoid. It shows how shallow and lacking your life is.

[NineSpine]

So I'm LGBT, and I don't draw the same conclusions as you are. I feel like if what you're saying is true, you'd see a steady progression across the board. But that's not what's happening.

\If you are insisting that we should see people who are 80 years old changing their identity to LGBT as quickly as we see 15 year olds do so... that's so unreasonable that I can't imagine you really mean that.

[Biomega]

Personally, I believe that it's more widespread in the present day due to the rise of social media and the impact it has on just about everything. I feel like it's also more difficult to get unbiased findings.

You might be confusing two different kinds of "findings" here - the ones that are made by scientists, and the ones that are reported by the media. A lot of the information we get isn't actually from scientists, it's from people reporting ON scientists. The chief reason for that being that scientific findings are published in ways that can be quite inaccessible to the layman - not everyone can read a scientific paper and properly parse what it says.

The problem is that while there's peer review etc. on scientific findings, there's little to no oversight on the reporting process after the fact. If CNN or whatever runs a story on how scientists have found the answer to everything, you rely on THEM properly parsing whatever findings they're reporting on; and very often they're not, or they're portraying it in a way that doesn't really reflect the scientific findings but isn't outright deception either. Many scientific results are incredibly complicated issues that slot into larger contexts; it's very easy to take them out of that context and make them sound like a lot more than they really are. The prime example here is the oft-used "this new compound can kill cancer cells in a petri dish" which then turns into "new anti-cancer drug has been found!" in the media even though that is a VERY VERY different thing. And it becomes more complicated the less straightforward the science is, which tends to be the case with fields like e.g. psychology or sociology much more so than physics or chemistry. And very quickly you go from "we've observed a 1.4% increase in suicide rates in this one specific peer group over this specific time period, and it may be related to <X>" to a headline like "<X> IS KILLING OUR KIDS, AND NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT!". But that's not really the scientists'/science's fault per se (though you could argue they need to do better work in science communication, too).

Where it becomes the biggest problem, imo, is not quite the media though - it's when scientists become public intellectuals, and render opinions in a non-scientific way. The prime example of this would be someone like Jordan Peterson, who definitely has the credentials to be considered a good scientist but isn't actually doing SCIENCE when he talks on public platforms (recordings of his actual lectures aside, of course). But because he's a "scientist" his opinions are then taken with the same level of trust as actual scientific findings - but that's not how it works. Nothing he says in a public form is peer-reviewed, sourced, or backed by any of the rigorous control mechanisms that govern good science. That doesn't mean everything he says is wrong, but it does mean it can't be taken the same way as actual, reviewed science. YET IT VERY OFTEN IS when people cite him as a reference in debates. That's a big, big problem.

[Syncr]

I think that you are confusing things a little and not understanding me. Transition and acceptance is widely considered an effective treatment. Do we need more data? Absolutely, but the fact is that it is widely considered an effective treatment. That doesn't mean it is the right treatment for everyone in every situation. For example, the data is absolutely not strong enough to recommend everyone with dysphoria get gender reassignment surgery immediately. There's a reason these decisions are typically made after years of consultation with mental health professionals.

What I am saying is that how we handle these treatments is ALREADY in line with the reliability of the current data. Of course people shouldn't get diagnosed with dysphoria and be given hormones tomorrow, or schedule surgeries next week. But that is ALREADY how we handle this. The typical course doesn't even get to hormones until a long period of time after treatment begins, let alone surgeries which are years and years into treatment in the typical case.

This isn't a binary, where it either is or is not the right treatment. The best decision for someone is the one they make in consultation with their mental healthcare professionals, preferably with second opinions and a lot of serious consideration. The best thing for the rest of us to do is to listen to those professionals and provide the "acceptance" part that the treatment demands.

- - - Updated - - -



You are lying. You keep insisting that vocally, intentionally limiting the scope to adults or to mental health outcomes is "cherrypicking" and meanwhile I am still waiting for you to post one single piece of data backing up your case.

- - - Updated - - -



White nationalism and MAGA are ideologies. LGBT is not an ideology. It's a gross comparison to make.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/

Literally on the top of Google when you Google what I told you to Google.

Doesn’t necessarily scream “scientific consensus” does it?

Transitioning is 100% the answer for some people, but stop acting like this is something that we have figured out yet. You are not helping your cause. You are only hurting it by denying clear facts and just calling them “lies”.

Your study was a sham. Period. There’s nothing more to it.

[NineSpine]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/

Literally on the top of Google when you Google what I told you to Google.

Doesn’t necessarily scream “scientific consensus” does it?

Transitioning is 100% the answer for some people, but stop acting like this is something that we have figured out yet. You are not helping your cause. You are only hurting it by denying clear facts and just calling them “lies”.

Your study was a sham. Period. There’s nothing more to it.

This is one study about sex reassignment surgery, and all it concludes is that surgery in particular may not decrease suicide rates by itself. Actually... I don't even think it says that. It doesn't compare reassigned individuals to people with gender dysphoria who didn't transition. it just compares them to the general population. That's like saying a depression medication doesn't work because people who used it still had a higher suicide rate than the general population. You have to compare to a control group of people with gender dysphoria, not the general population.

And the data stops in 2003, almost 20 years ago.