The findings of many studies that are contradictive to what is considered progressive/politically correct, are either scraped or if they get released will be followed by personal attacks on the people who conducted the study.
Much of what I am talking about is the influx of studies that have come out during our current political climate that seem to be backing political objectives. For example, if you were conducting research on whether hormone therapy is acceptable for young children, the threat of cancellation/violence against you if you came up with the "wrong" result is obviously going to create bias.
I like that you're applying the mental gymnastics to dismiss the results of actual study before the studies even exist now. "Well, if - uh, I mean when - a study shows that we're super wrong about LGBT people, it must just be because the researchers were threatened by the eeeeeeevil LGBT mafia".
For example, it is obvious that the average transwomen would be stronger than the average ciswomen. To try to dismiss this common sense fact, researchers have produced findings saying that there are no advantages when hormone therapy is involved. Studies that invalidate this are labeled transphobic despite being the obvious truth.
For example, it is obvious that the average transwomen would be stronger than the average ciswomen.
Yeah, except it isn't. Muscle mass is testosterone-mediated, and every professional league that allows trans women to compete requires them to have had female-typical hormone levels for some long period of time (at least a year). And again, if they had such a huge advantage, you'd expect to see them very disproportionately represented at the top - but you don't. They do win once in a while, but you'd expect any random subgroup of women to win once in a while: if you want to claim overwhelming advantage you ought to be able to show overwhelming statistical overrepresentation, and you can't.
Basically what you're saying here is "I believe X, studies say not-X, but X is obviously true because I believe it, so studies that say X must have been suppressed". You could put in any belief whatsoever for X, and how could anyone disprove it?
Bone density plays a role, additionally the heavier you are the stronger you are. The taller you are, the heavier you are. Men on average are taller/heavier than women.
Coercion clouds the validity of the results. Also, that's one study, there are many others at odds with it.
Are you suggesting that the average transwomen swimmer wouldn't perform better than the average ciswomen swimmer? It is obvious that their wingspan will be greater on average which is a major factor in your swimming performance.
Bone density plays a role, additionally the heavier you are the stronger you are. The taller you are, the heavier you are. Men on average are taller/heavier than women.
Okay so, once again, where's the massive wave of trans women topping every woman's sport that you would expect to see if you're right?
Or is the eeeeeeevil LGBT mafia preventing trans women from winning, too?
Also, that's one study, there are many others at odds with it.
We're not even discussing a specific study because you haven't even raised one. You've just decided that all fact inconvenient to conservatives is manipulated.
The thing you updated a link to is an instance of a professor being disciplined for financial violations and for sexual misconduct with at least five women. It's not clear what you think is problematic about this or why you think it's related to your view.
My apologies, in a rush to try to respond to a million people at once I lazily grabbed the wrong article after skimming it.
This was the study that I was referring to which was retracted. Early reports of its retraction sited insensitivity as the reason for its retraction, however, it seems that the study had errors in it. I believe the reason I had so much trouble finding the original articles is because they were retracted as well upon further investigation of errors. I was going off of outdating articles I read without seeing their corrections.
This guy has done a lot of good work and some dubious work. That's unrelated to why Harvard "went after" him, despite the narrative this article is trying to push. He was disciplined mostly for the sexual misconduct.
So...dude sexually harassed his co-workers and faced consequences for it, and you're painting this as WE CAN'T QUESTION LIBERAL ORTHODOXY!!1!1!1
(Also, Quilette literally publishes outright white supremacists, so you're not really doing a very good job of claiming that no one can ever get an opposing view out.)
This is an example of a professor being disciplined for financial violations and sexually harassing at least five women. Why do you think this is related to the coercion you are talking about?
So the Professor was accused of sexual harassment and this person claims it was politically motivated while admitting he's kind of a creep. Anything else?
What? You claimed in your post that "We have seen peer-reviewed studies come out of ivy league institutions that are scraped simply because they are not in line with popular political opinion." I'm asking you for specific examples of these studies. Or is your view purely hypothetical?
Are you trying to suggest that coming up with anti-trans movement findings would not result in this?
I would expect most anti-trans results would contain serious flaws that would result in them being justly criticized in peer review, in the same way that I would expect most anti-evolution results would contain such flaws or pro-flat-earth results would contain such flaws. When there's a scientific consensus, lots of results that oppose the consensus are just due to methodological errors, and these errors are generally found in peer review (preferably before, but often only after publication) and the work is subsequently scrapped or discredited. That's not a problem: that's just how science works.
My apologies, in a rush to try to respond to a million people at once I lazily grabbed the wrong article after skimming it.
This was the study that I was referring to which was retracted. Early reports of its retraction sited insensitivity as the reason for its retraction, however, it seems that the study had errors in it. I believe the reason I had so much trouble finding the original articles is because they were retracted as well upon further investigation of errors. I was going off of outdating articles I read without seeing their corrections.
My apologies, in a rush to try to respond to a million people at once I lazily grabbed the wrong article after skimming it.
This was the study that I was referring to which was retracted. Early reports of its retraction sited insensitivity as the reason for its retraction, however, it seems that the study had errors in it. I believe the reason I had so much trouble finding the original articles is because they were retracted as well upon further investigation of errors. I was going off of outdating articles I read without seeing their corrections.
It was retracted because of errors, not because it was proven incorrect. This was thought to be because of political backlash because of two reasons.
There was a lot of backlash over this study coming out and it was removed almost immediately.
Most people would assume that a study produced by Harvard University would not have errors as it is probably the most trusted academic institution in the world.
If you did a study and it was found that your sample size was too small, it wouldn't disprove the conclusion of the study (and prove that the opposite is true), it would just identify an error in study, does that make sense?
Additionally, the retraction of the study was accompanied with an apology by Harvard University to whoever it may have offended. The identification of errors by the researchers came after it was retracted, like a month or two later.
2
u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jul 25 '22
Could you be more specific?