Evan Urquhart

Jones is a writer who has investigated and publicized the potential links between denationalization and gender dysphoria. I don't know what you think your classism, sexism, or prudishness is adding to that picture.

Considering that Evan offered no critique of the pro-child transition paper using even more limited, self-selected parental assessment to assert pro-transition claims, one can see that the real controversy re: Littman's paper is that transactivists don't like the results.

My article wasn't a critique of Littman but an investigation into potential connections between gender dysphoria and depersonalization, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Others have critiqued Littman & I agree: her methods were a case study in how to get so biased a sample that your results shed no light on the q at hand. But, I didn't write a critique of Littman myself. Can't think of any articles I've written critiquing a single study, tbh.

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.