Charity stream hosted to spite transphobic tosser Graham Linehan [split topic]

[Pdine]

You'd have thought that the 'reasonable concerns' brigade would at least have had the good sense to disentangle themselves from Linehan by now. If you want to be taken seriously, probably best to cut the 'beard' guy loose

In this case though, how do you do that? If that pdf describes bad scientific practice, do we have to ignore that because acknowledging it means we have to accept that Linehan was semi-right about one thing (and that the paperpdf's cunty author might occasionally do decent research)?

[Monsieur Verdoux]

...as you saw in the pdf though, some of his claims are based on information published by the Tavistock itself. I don't have any sympathy with his general activist bent, but I do think that - if the profile of the study is as he says - then they should publish their results. That's not particularly controversial, I'd have thought, and it was all I was arguing.

But again, you're operating on the very weighted presumption that his characterisation of the study is accurate, when there's very little reason to suspect that it is, based on the limited amount he knows and his general activist bent skewing his projections.

[Cuellar]

Given unrelenting pressure from Mermaids and GIRES, supported by the climate of opinion among the Guardian-reading classes, the Tavistock arguably had to concede to the demand for GnRHa below the age of 16

From his Conclusion section. Nothing in the essay up to this point supports this. 'Arguably had to concede', mealy-mouthed.

What evidence is there that the Tavistock took the 'climate of opinion among the Guardian-reading classes' into consideration? He says the NHS ethics committee originally rejected the study on the grounds that it wasn't randomized enough, so they explained why there were issues with randomization in this case, and resubmitted it to a 'different Ethics Committee' and it passed. Which ethics committee this time? He doesn't say. Is this standard practice when proposing studies? He doesn't say.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

In this case though, how do you do that? If that pdf describes bad scientific practice, do we have to ignore that because acknowledging it means we have to accept that Linehan was semi-right about one thing (and that the paperpdf's cunty author might occasionally do decent research)?

No of course not, but there's still very little reason to believe that this embellished Transgender Trend blog post has any veracity to it, or makes any supportable projections. The 'if' in 'if it describes this' is doing a shitload of heavy lifting

[Pdine]

But again, you're operating on the very weighted presumption that his characterisation of the study is accurate, when there's very little reason to suspect that it is, based on the limited amount he knows and his general activist bent skewing his projections.

I'm assuming, I guess, that if his central assertion (that a study was conducted but that the only published results were cherry-picked) is true then it should be trivial to show that by linking to the comprehensive, properly analysed published results that he's lying about. That way we don't need to concern ourselves with his biases, just his failure to reflect the truth in his writing. However I have to say that in my work I see many, many examples of the kind of bad practice he's talking about, so I don't find the fundamental accusation outlandish.   

From his Conclusion section. Nothing in the essay up to this point supports this. 'Arguably had to concede', mealy-mouthed.

Yes, that's the other line that made me cringe out loud.

[Pdine]

What evidence is there that the Tavistock took the 'climate of opinion among the Guardian-reading classes' into consideration? He says the NHS ethics committee originally rejected the study on the grounds that it wasn't randomized enough, so they explained why there were issues with randomization in this case, and resubmitted it to a 'different Ethics Committee' and it passed. Which ethics committee this time? He doesn't say. Is this standard practice when proposing studies? He doesn't say.

In my experience Ethics Committee shopping can indicate poor study design.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Well lets just hope they publish the results and then we can see whether the "transphobia is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons" guy is onto something.

[Pdine]

Well lets just hope they publish the results and then we can see whether the "transphobia is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons" guy is onto something.

Nice reductive bullshit, well done!

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Oh don't get so fucking snippy about it, I'm basically agreeing with you

[Pdine]

Oh don't get so fucking snippy about it, I'm basically agreeing with you

Yes, I think that's why it's frustrating.

[Jerzy Bondov]

so what if it is a paper, so what if it's published in the Oxbridge Big Book of Irrefutable Very Clever Academic Writing for Brain Men, some sociology geezer banging on about some shit, who cares!!!! Sitting around chin stroking over whether you should be allowed to say you're a girl. ohh let's have a reasoned debate NAH. i'm not trans and nobody has to have a reasoned debate about if I exist and where I can go for my smelly shits.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Yes, I think that's why it's frustrating.

Again, the frustration betrays a level of investment in bigots being proven right that you seem inclined to be coy about

[Pdine]

so what if it is a paper, so what if it's published in the Oxbridge Big Book of Irrefutable Very Clever Academic Writing for Brain Men, some sociology geezer banging on about some shit, who cares!!!! Sitting around chin stroking over whether you should be allowed to say you're a girl. ohh let's have a reasoned debate NAH. i'm not trans and nobody has to have a reasoned debate about if I exist and where I can go for my smelly shits.

This is what fucks me off about this. Just because (possibly) a study into puberty-affecting drugs was done poorly, doesn't mean anything about where you can take a shit. This whole debate feels like Katamari Damacy - everything gets stuck together into this huge, messy mixed up ball that some people are determined to push and some are determined to stop. It gets aggregated to a level where no useful debate can happen: it's just you guys or us guys.

Again, the frustration betrays a level of investment in bigots being proven right that you seem inclined to be coy about

Not really; I'm just concerned that it will become impossible to oppose bad practice just because some cunt also says it's bad practice. 

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Yes, that is an extremely likely scenario and not just crank paranoia and/or concern trolling for transphobes

[Pdine]

Yes, that is an extremely likely scenario and not just crank paranoia and/or concern trolling for transphobes

It's what's happening in this thread now. That post of yours:

Well lets just hope they publish the results and then we can see whether the "transphobia is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons" guy is onto something.

is a perfect example of it.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Yes, I must apologise, my post was eerily reminiscent of passages in George Orwell's 1984. Because I made a jokey post on an internet forum, medical/academic standards have slipped overnight due to my outsized influence on the field. Fucking get over yourself for christ's sake

[Pdine]

Yes, I must apologise, my post was eerily reminiscent of passages in George Orwell's 1984. Because I made a jokey post on an internet forum, medical/academic standards have slipped overnight due to my outsized influence on the field. Fucking get over yourself for christ's sake

"You guys"...

I don't know. I should probably just keep out of this thread. I do keep hoping I can get a decent, non-cunty conversation on the odd related topic here, but it just never seems to pan out.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

"You guys"...

Yes, you got me, that was me calling the boys to hound the wrongthinkers out of academia. It was a hex. Not just some frustrated generalisation made by some guy on an internet forum. You're definitely a victim here, and people disagreeing with you on the internet is definitely evidence that medical standards will drop! Get a sense of perspective.

[Baron von Klaus]

Yes, you got me, that was me calling the boys to hound the wrongthinkers out of academia. It was a hex. Not just some frustrated generalisation made by some guy on an internet forum.

You guys are always so quick to excuse yourselves in some way. You've never done anything wrong even when you're in the wrong, all because you have the 'right' ideology.

[Pdine]

Yes, you got me, that was me calling the boys to hound the wrongthinkers out of academia. It was a hex. Not just some frustrated generalisation made by some guy on an internet forum. You're definitely a victim here, and people disagreeing with you on the internet is definitely evidence that medical standards will drop! Get a sense of perspective.

I'm just expressing frustration too.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

You guys are always so quick with an excuse for yourselves. You're never really wrong even when you're in the wrong, all because you have the 'right' ideology.

What was I specifically wrong about, there is a group of people who are very invested in this blog post being 'right' because it would confirm their ambient discomfort about certain things. I think that's absolutely self-evident

[chveik]

"You guys"...

I don't know. I should probably just keep out of this thread. I do keep hoping I can get a decent, non-cunty conversation on the odd related topic here, but it just never seems to pan out.

grow up you soft cunt.

[Baron von Klaus]

What was I specifically wrong about

Well, it was you basically admitting you were making some cheap, quick generalisation (which is what you are in the wrong for) only to mitigate it with your "I was just expressing my frustration. Don't hold me to account for not filtering my feelings".

Basic Twitter behaviour.

there is a group of people who are very invested in this blog post being 'right' because it would confirm their ambient discomfort about certain things. I think that's absolutely self-evident

Yeah, there's a lot of that around.

[chveik]

it's not that difficult to understand that the mere fact to start debating with these bigot cunts reinforces their position. they only deserve abuse and/or indifference.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Well, it was you basically admitting you were making some cheap, quick generalisation (which is what you are in the wrong for) only to mitigate it with your "I was just expressing my frustration. Don't hold me to account for not filtering my feelings".

Basic Twitter behaviour.

I'm not actually wrong about the generalisation though, the commonality is in the level of investment. But it's obviously no totalitarian project to make that generalisation, which is the hysterical assertion I was responding to. You've responded with a (presumably ironic?) generalisation so you can't really complain about bringing down the level

[Pdine]

it's not that difficult to understand that the mere fact to start debating with these bigot cunts reinforces their position. they only deserve abuse and/or indifference.

Thanks; you make my point better than I could.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Yeah, there's a lot of that around.

Ah yes, the stealthy 'no u'. Brilliant insights.

[chveik]

Thanks; you make my point better than I could.

sigh. in fact, your the real bigot something something

[Pdine]

Ah yes, the stealthy 'no u'. Brilliant insights.

It's true though... tribalism is making this debate much much harder. (Putative) bad research into certain drugs should be a concern to everyone.

[Pdine]

Just not keen on this, really:

grow up you soft cunt.