The focus of my article wasn't on "debunking" the Littman paper, whose flaws have been the focus of many other articles, including on Slate. My article only sought to use the misuse of my interviewee's work by Littman as a jumping off point to discuss that work.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Ever critiqued/interviewed anyone re: K Olson's study of the mental health of transitioned pre-pubescent children? It uses similar -yet less extensive - measures. No, because you aren't really interested in bias or method. You're interested in disparaging inconvenient results.
I don't believe Olson's study is even complete, but to my knowledge she hasn't attempted to find evidence of a new medical condition by speaking only to people purporting to be parents who frequented specific sites where that very condition had been conceived and popularized.
-
-
I believe the term is social contagion? A site where a certain idea was created and popularized is the wrong place to start if you're looking for evidence to support that idea.
-
I would have thought that parents who believe this ROGD phenomenon is real would insist on independent evidence that verifies it in the larger gender dysphoric population- the hypothesis is that this ROGD thing is affecting actual kids, not the minds of certain parents, right?
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.