No, actually, putting effort into publicizing and discrediting a bad study is totally consistent with caring about good studies
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Yes, it will, because the previous paper she did used a methodology that was just as bad (surveying "ROGD parents" from activist websites dedicated to the concept of "ROGD") and that didn't stop people publishing that either
0 replies 2 retweets 15 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Okay what magical "methodology" is she going to use to "clean up" the fake responses from the real ones, that isn't the same thing as just deciding what the real results should be and throwing out the ones that disagree
1 reply 1 retweet 15 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
There is no possible way to submit medical documents, you can't even give them your email address
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Look what it is is fishing for quotes It's the exact same thing as just starting a thread on Mumsnet saying "Tell me your detransition story" There's just extra rigmarole to make it *feel* more "scientific"
1 reply 3 retweets 12 likes -
When you already have an activist community and you do a "study" that's just of the people in that existing community you're not doing anything different than when the community puts out a position statement or press release You're just disguising it "Opinion laundering"
0 replies 4 retweets 22 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Yes, so again we're back to this galaxy brain shit where the survey is just planted to generate Twitter reactions and that's the REAL study because Lisa Littman is a 5D chessmaster Sure
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.