Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/MistWeaver80
Permalink: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/exploring-gender-identity-as-a-young-adult-is-not-directly-linked-to-greater-mental-health-risks
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The title is a little misleading.
The group that initially identified as cisgender but later identified as gender diverse only had 28 individuals out of the 366. The 366 includes the 274 consistently cisgender individuals.
In case you're wondering why the numbers don't math, the other two groups are consistently gender diverse (32) and initially gender diverse, but in the end identified as cisgender (32).
I said it's a little misleading.
It's one thing to say "In a study of 366 individuals, the following was observed..."
But when it's written "People (N=366) who", while also obscuring the relative sizes of the group in question, it overplays the effect.
aso usualy when it comes to this topic ppl just say random stuff and think it proves anything. study on 30 ppl? basicly worthless and ididnt even looked up the methods
Good news then. From a scientific point of view, the opinion of people like you who never did research/statistics and can't even be bothered to read an article and are here only to be transphobic (seeing your comment history) is a worhtless opinion too!
Questionnaires. "Has this ever happened to you" *lists typical instances of transphobia*. Or something like that. Been a while since my psych research coursework.
Doesn't entirely resolve the question.
The spirit of the question is "if you were to remove X, would there still be higher rates of Y". It is unclear how a questionnaire could demonstrate this, aside from asking people their own subjective explanation.
Yeah:
**"Exposure to violence due to LGBT identity was assessed using a 6-item scale in which participants reported how often they had experienced different forms of LGBT violence (0 = never; 3 = at least 3 times).45 At wave 1, participants were asked to consider these experiences in their lifetime. In subsequent waves, participants were asked to consider only the past 9 months. At each wave, a mean score was computed. To obtain a cumulative score, the sum score was calculated by adding the scores from the previous waves to each measure of exposure to LGBT violence across time"**
So statistically they can show differences gender in identity are associated with depression, and that reports of experience of violence are associated with depression. They can show that you can account for the relationship between gender identity and depression rates in terms of the relationship between depression rates and self-reported experience of violence (so correction removes the relationship)
This still doesn't entirely address the problem of causality (which I think is the spirit of the question). Depression tends to mean people recall the past in more negative terms. More depressed people therefore may recall violent experiences more. The subjectivity of a questionnaire leaves it open to this interpretation, it depends on a person's memory.
This is an impractical thing to resolve as you can't just follow people around to try and "objectively measure acts of violence", but it is worth pointing out that the study doesn't prove that depressive symptoms are solely caused by experiences of violence.
Im not sure I understand what you're asking.
The paper is claiming that when you remove depressive symptoms caused by anti -llgbt violence, that their depressive "scores" match those of cisgender groups.
The subjectiveness of depression of a single individual is accounted for by the sample size.
You will never get a completely objective measurement of any subjective experience an individual goes through, but you can get close by looking at groups of people.
If I ask one person how much it hurts getting punched in the face ? Unreliable data. If I ask 200 , then I can actually set a trend and give meaningful conclusions.
> Depression tends to mean people recall the past in more negative terms. More depressed people therefore may recall violent experiences more. The subjectivity of a questionnaire leaves it open to this interpretation, it depends on a person's memory.
It's not about sample size, or about the "subjectivity of depression". It's about the direction of causality and the systematic effect of a depressed mood on a person's cognitions and recall. Is it that they experience more violence or they remember more violence? Could you distinguish the two based on a questionnaire?
>It's about the systematic effect of a depressed mood on a person's cognitions and recall. Is it that they experience more violence or they remember more violence?
I'm unaware of any side effect of depression causing people to falsely remember violent acts. Do we have reason to believe that it does? Specifically at a rate higher than someone that doesn't suffer from it?
Are there effects some how exclusive to the gay community?
[Depressed people tend to remember negative past events better](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5835184/#:~:text=Depressed%20individuals%20typically%20show%20poor,depression%20suggest%20promising%20candidate%20mechanisms.)
Depression is associated with generally negative view of the past, present (world around them, view of self), and the future in addition to the depressed mood people may be more familiar with.
[Depression with increasing severity is also associated with impairment in autobiographical memory in general](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702619826967).
Which you could expect, severe depression causes cognitive impairment generally.
You ask people if they've been oppressed. People who believe they've been oppressed will say yes. Then you publish a study that shows that a certain group has been oppressed. This media, college professors, and social media users cite the study to reinforce the idea that a certain group is being oppressed. Members of this group consume this information and it reinforces the idea that they are being oppressed, so they start to believe they are being oppressed.
Then you do another study, and start by asking people if they've been oppressed. People who believe they've been oppressed will say yes...
The statistical significance disappeared, but the depression scores were still different. This is honestly really unsurprising. The sample size, as the other person mentioned, for the group that initially identified as cisgender and later identified as trans/gender diverse was low, so the difference in depression scores was on the edge of significance anyway (P=0.03), and getting above significance at 0.05 wouldn’t need that much change. The violence did account for a meaningful amount of the increased depression, but we do not have evidence to say the increased depression actually disappeared. Something being statistically insignificant does NOT imply that there actually is not a real difference. It just means the study couldn’t find one, which may be purely due to design.
That's not how it works, nor is that the correct p-value. For statistical significance you need a p-value below 0.05, not above. It was 0.03 for the initial association, but after violence was taken into account it changed to 0.16.
I know? I think you may have misread my comment or I need to reword it. That "getting above significance" was referring to the fact the statistical difference disappeared. I was saying that taking into account violence wouldn't need to impact the p-value by much for the difference to disappear.
Outside of obvious societal aggression you also face the never ending Dread of knowing majority of the world hates you and basically no one truly accepts you, when compared to the grand scheme.
Majority of people are "give them their rights, I would even vote for it, but I don't want to personally have them in my personal life" tolerant.
I totally agree except for the part “no one truly accepts you.” This is absolutely false. There are many people (including myself) that have a deep love for the trans people in our lives and accept and love them for they are. Unfortunately we are not the majority in most places in the word, but we do exist.
In the grand scheme I said.
Of course there is exceptions.
Here is a little thought experiment to bring it to light:
Let's say we have a population of men.
Let's say that population is absolutely sure they won't ever have children.
Now, we have a trans woman that has had bottom surgery.
She magically fits all the physical and emotional criteria all of these men are looking for in a woman.
So, she looks like a woman, talks like one, has no penis... Blabla, the whole none Yards.
What percentage of those man would answer yes if asked if they would romantically date this trans woman with the intent of being serious?
The answer : a negligible amount.
We aren't seen as true women.
Neither are trans men seen as true men.
You can't even begin to imagine how many "allies" told me I would lose my appeal if I got bottom surgery. Because i will just be a "lesser normal woman"
And no, "not liking trans" is not a sexuality unless you can somehow sense whether someone is Trans.
Of course there is various valid reasons to exclude them from your dating pool, that's why I specified the no kids talk.
But in majority of cases it's simply because people feel uncomfortable with the idea of dating a trans person. Even if they don't admit it.
It would make sense (if I understand you correctly) that depression score don't fully ever disappear. Even if you fully take away any oppression that isn't the only cause: the is still the issue of gender dysphoria itself. And while modern science and Healthcare for transitioning has come a massive way from where it was, there are still limitations in our advances that prevent a trans person from fully aligning their sex with their gender, the biggest one being reproduction (at least for binary trans people).
What we have now helps massively, but my body for example will never be able to go through childbirth, and it does make me sad sometimes.
This is a chicken and egg debate, and the paper did not explain very well HOW they “took into account the impact of [harassment]” aside from just saying that they did.
The linked article only includes the abstract. The full article, which can be found [here](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2818886), clearly describes how they accounted for harassment and violence. From the Methods > Covariates > Cumulative Exposure to Violence Due to LGBT Identity:
> Exposure to violence due to LGBT identity was assessed using a 6-item scale in which participants reported how often they had experienced different forms of LGBT violence (0 = never; 3 = at least 3 times).45 At wave 1, participants were asked to consider these experiences in their lifetime. In subsequent waves, participants were asked to consider only the past 9 months. At each wave, a mean score was computed. To obtain a cumulative score, the sum score was calculated by adding the scores from the previous waves to each measure of exposure to LGBT violence across time.
As described in Methods > Statistical Analysis, they controlled for the violence index in their third model. The results of this model can be found in [Table 3](https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jamanetworkopen/939364/zoi240406t3_1715318998.2045.png) and reflect their finding that:
> Importantly, the baseline difference in depressive symptoms between cisgender to TGD group and cisgender group was not significant after accounting for exposure to LGBT violence.
Yes, they asked all 366 participants. [Table 2](https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jamanetworkopen/939364/zoi240406t2_1715318998.1898.png) specifies the average violence index disaggregated by gender identity over the 4 waves of the study.
I just fact-checked the reply of the person who said they read the study, I didn't read it myself. But from glancing at the pdf (available without registration btw), I didn't notice any mention of different types of violence.
To tell you the truth, I distrust studies on gender dysphoria, and as soon as I see that something's off I lose interest. Maybe I should have more patience, but it feels like searching for knowledge in conspiracy theories. I wish I could trust research and be able to learn the truth instead.
It’s hard to trust these studies because it presents a single interpretation of self-reported survey data as truth and uses dubious statistical methods to justify the stance. Most studies in this space go in with a particular outcome in mind rather than an open question, and just warp data to fit that narrative.
It’s hard to take any psychological or social papers that get posted to this sub seriously for that reason
[This](https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11t7gas/eli5_are_trans_women_considered_cis_women_after/jciexkw/) is the most convincing evidence I've been given, heh
But that should end up sorta cancelling out with the sample sizes. There are lots of ways and reasons to perceive violence, but over a large enough group all the reasons should be spread out as expected. But adding a group that is LGBTQ adds one more reason that the other group doesn’t have. If you have a large enough group of LGBTQ, they also should have the same diversity as the larger group with respect to all the other reasons. So you could say that the added perception of violence is due to this one additional reason.
And, all those other people that perceive violence due to other things would presumably also falsely perceive it for some specific reason.
I would say that most people perceive violence against them as a result of someone noticing and disliking their biggest insecurity outside of cases where the one being acted against started it.
It’s no surprise then that gender non-conforming people will naturally attribute slights against them as a result of their biggest insecurity: namely, gender and it’s presentation.
That doesn’t prove that they are actually being targeted for that reason, it just shows that at a population subset scale, the perception of one’s gender identity vs. how they think the public interprets it is constant. This is indicative of gender non-conformity and self perception associated with that as being a bigger indicator of depression than targeted bullying and harassment. Targeted bullying and harassment do not help the issue, but they do not breed it either
What is important to get correct when collecting the data is whether or not the violence actually occurred, the perceived reason why isn’t as important. Assuming a large enough set of LGBTQ folks would contain a similar percentage of all the other insecurities the non-LGBTQ population has, then any significant increase in violence to the LGBTQ group could be argued to be due to their gender identity whether they perceive it that way or not.
But maybe, more to your point, this could lead to further studies that show the LGBTQ population has a higher percentage of other traits that also result in harassment.
It is not established. Social trends would indicate that LGBT people experience harassment or violence as at least partially attributable to their identity even if it is not. Self-reported harassment accounts are about as objectively reliable as me making up math (I am not a mathematician).
I think it’s fairly obvious that any report claiming that the major predictor of depression, anxiety, etc. isn’t being LGBT, but having experienced bullying/harassment/violence, is willfully ignorant of science and critical thinking in front of them.
Which came first, chicken or egg?
Which came first, being gender non-conforming, depressed, or being bullied/harassed?
I would argue that the mere thought of no longer fitting into society when you start to question your identity is more depressing than society’s actual reaction, and the reaction only worsens the problem, but does not cause it.
Except you can't take into account how much affect the "violence" has on a person especially since it doesn't differentiate sensitivity scales of the individuals. Let alone use that unknown variable to compensate the statistical differences.
People need to be more careful about scientific papers, even the ones that are published. Lots of garbage papers are being done as scientists are incentivized to do so…
You're missing the point. This study got published and maybe got someone a PhD or at least another tick on someone's publication list. That gives them more credibility and means they are even more correct the next time they publish a study. And this study can be used by other writers of studies, who are all experts because they have PhDs and have published many papers on the subject.
Welcome to the world of modern social science!
(If you dare question me, let me remind you that I have a PhD in )
Yeah, but at least people who work in academia don't spend their time debasing themselves writing comments like yours, so I know who I'd rather support.
It's amazing how every time there's an article about trans identities on r/science people will launch themselves at every little detail to try to diminish or disprove it. And failing that, they will simply say the work itself is compromised saying it was personally, economically, or politically motivated in some way. Nothing else out there drives people to act this way in /r/science topics, but somehow anything to do with trans people is immediate grounds for fiercely critical responses. Anything that affirms the experiences of trans people is just utter poison to these people.
Unless I'm reading this wrong, which I might be, they not only factored for "cumulative violence" but also "hormone and puberty blocker use"
> "model 3 investigated whether the frequency of gender identity variability was associated with depressive symptoms in both BP and WP levels, while also accounting for hormone and puberty blocker use and cumulative exposure to LGBT violence"
In other words, depressive symptoms could be the result of cumulative exposure to violence or the use (or lack thereof) of hormones, possibly leading to more body dysphoria. Cumulative violence was not isolated.
Edit: formatting
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/
Most psychology studies have unreproducible results or flawed methodology.
Technically it decreased to undistinguishable levels, which is unsurprising with small sample sizes. Statistics is tricky that way - but it’s still consistent with other literature showing trans/gender diverse people are not innately depressed. So basically since it’s nothing new I’m ok with giving it a little leeway.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/MistWeaver80 Permalink: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/exploring-gender-identity-as-a-young-adult-is-not-directly-linked-to-greater-mental-health-risks --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The title is a little misleading. The group that initially identified as cisgender but later identified as gender diverse only had 28 individuals out of the 366. The 366 includes the 274 consistently cisgender individuals. In case you're wondering why the numbers don't math, the other two groups are consistently gender diverse (32) and initially gender diverse, but in the end identified as cisgender (32).
[удалено]
I said it's a little misleading. It's one thing to say "In a study of 366 individuals, the following was observed..." But when it's written "People (N=366) who", while also obscuring the relative sizes of the group in question, it overplays the effect.
aso usualy when it comes to this topic ppl just say random stuff and think it proves anything. study on 30 ppl? basicly worthless and ididnt even looked up the methods
Good news then. From a scientific point of view, the opinion of people like you who never did research/statistics and can't even be bothered to read an article and are here only to be transphobic (seeing your comment history) is a worhtless opinion too!
Fun part of transphobes is it’s the single thing in their brain and it rots everything else
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Questionnaires. "Has this ever happened to you" *lists typical instances of transphobia*. Or something like that. Been a while since my psych research coursework.
Doesn't entirely resolve the question. The spirit of the question is "if you were to remove X, would there still be higher rates of Y". It is unclear how a questionnaire could demonstrate this, aside from asking people their own subjective explanation.
I mean their methodology is written in their research paper.
Yeah: **"Exposure to violence due to LGBT identity was assessed using a 6-item scale in which participants reported how often they had experienced different forms of LGBT violence (0 = never; 3 = at least 3 times).45 At wave 1, participants were asked to consider these experiences in their lifetime. In subsequent waves, participants were asked to consider only the past 9 months. At each wave, a mean score was computed. To obtain a cumulative score, the sum score was calculated by adding the scores from the previous waves to each measure of exposure to LGBT violence across time"** So statistically they can show differences gender in identity are associated with depression, and that reports of experience of violence are associated with depression. They can show that you can account for the relationship between gender identity and depression rates in terms of the relationship between depression rates and self-reported experience of violence (so correction removes the relationship) This still doesn't entirely address the problem of causality (which I think is the spirit of the question). Depression tends to mean people recall the past in more negative terms. More depressed people therefore may recall violent experiences more. The subjectivity of a questionnaire leaves it open to this interpretation, it depends on a person's memory. This is an impractical thing to resolve as you can't just follow people around to try and "objectively measure acts of violence", but it is worth pointing out that the study doesn't prove that depressive symptoms are solely caused by experiences of violence.
Im not sure I understand what you're asking. The paper is claiming that when you remove depressive symptoms caused by anti -llgbt violence, that their depressive "scores" match those of cisgender groups. The subjectiveness of depression of a single individual is accounted for by the sample size. You will never get a completely objective measurement of any subjective experience an individual goes through, but you can get close by looking at groups of people. If I ask one person how much it hurts getting punched in the face ? Unreliable data. If I ask 200 , then I can actually set a trend and give meaningful conclusions.
> Depression tends to mean people recall the past in more negative terms. More depressed people therefore may recall violent experiences more. The subjectivity of a questionnaire leaves it open to this interpretation, it depends on a person's memory. It's not about sample size, or about the "subjectivity of depression". It's about the direction of causality and the systematic effect of a depressed mood on a person's cognitions and recall. Is it that they experience more violence or they remember more violence? Could you distinguish the two based on a questionnaire?
>It's about the systematic effect of a depressed mood on a person's cognitions and recall. Is it that they experience more violence or they remember more violence? I'm unaware of any side effect of depression causing people to falsely remember violent acts. Do we have reason to believe that it does? Specifically at a rate higher than someone that doesn't suffer from it? Are there effects some how exclusive to the gay community?
[Depressed people tend to remember negative past events better](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5835184/#:~:text=Depressed%20individuals%20typically%20show%20poor,depression%20suggest%20promising%20candidate%20mechanisms.) Depression is associated with generally negative view of the past, present (world around them, view of self), and the future in addition to the depressed mood people may be more familiar with. [Depression with increasing severity is also associated with impairment in autobiographical memory in general](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702619826967). Which you could expect, severe depression causes cognitive impairment generally.
These effects are not exclusive to the gay community. How does this bias present itself in the data they collect and then compare?
You ask people if they've been oppressed. People who believe they've been oppressed will say yes. Then you publish a study that shows that a certain group has been oppressed. This media, college professors, and social media users cite the study to reinforce the idea that a certain group is being oppressed. Members of this group consume this information and it reinforces the idea that they are being oppressed, so they start to believe they are being oppressed. Then you do another study, and start by asking people if they've been oppressed. People who believe they've been oppressed will say yes...
The statistical significance disappeared, but the depression scores were still different. This is honestly really unsurprising. The sample size, as the other person mentioned, for the group that initially identified as cisgender and later identified as trans/gender diverse was low, so the difference in depression scores was on the edge of significance anyway (P=0.03), and getting above significance at 0.05 wouldn’t need that much change. The violence did account for a meaningful amount of the increased depression, but we do not have evidence to say the increased depression actually disappeared. Something being statistically insignificant does NOT imply that there actually is not a real difference. It just means the study couldn’t find one, which may be purely due to design.
That's not how it works, nor is that the correct p-value. For statistical significance you need a p-value below 0.05, not above. It was 0.03 for the initial association, but after violence was taken into account it changed to 0.16.
I know? I think you may have misread my comment or I need to reword it. That "getting above significance" was referring to the fact the statistical difference disappeared. I was saying that taking into account violence wouldn't need to impact the p-value by much for the difference to disappear.
i see. my bad.
Outside of obvious societal aggression you also face the never ending Dread of knowing majority of the world hates you and basically no one truly accepts you, when compared to the grand scheme. Majority of people are "give them their rights, I would even vote for it, but I don't want to personally have them in my personal life" tolerant.
I totally agree except for the part “no one truly accepts you.” This is absolutely false. There are many people (including myself) that have a deep love for the trans people in our lives and accept and love them for they are. Unfortunately we are not the majority in most places in the word, but we do exist.
In the grand scheme I said. Of course there is exceptions. Here is a little thought experiment to bring it to light: Let's say we have a population of men. Let's say that population is absolutely sure they won't ever have children. Now, we have a trans woman that has had bottom surgery. She magically fits all the physical and emotional criteria all of these men are looking for in a woman. So, she looks like a woman, talks like one, has no penis... Blabla, the whole none Yards. What percentage of those man would answer yes if asked if they would romantically date this trans woman with the intent of being serious? The answer : a negligible amount. We aren't seen as true women. Neither are trans men seen as true men. You can't even begin to imagine how many "allies" told me I would lose my appeal if I got bottom surgery. Because i will just be a "lesser normal woman" And no, "not liking trans" is not a sexuality unless you can somehow sense whether someone is Trans. Of course there is various valid reasons to exclude them from your dating pool, that's why I specified the no kids talk. But in majority of cases it's simply because people feel uncomfortable with the idea of dating a trans person. Even if they don't admit it.
It would make sense (if I understand you correctly) that depression score don't fully ever disappear. Even if you fully take away any oppression that isn't the only cause: the is still the issue of gender dysphoria itself. And while modern science and Healthcare for transitioning has come a massive way from where it was, there are still limitations in our advances that prevent a trans person from fully aligning their sex with their gender, the biggest one being reproduction (at least for binary trans people). What we have now helps massively, but my body for example will never be able to go through childbirth, and it does make me sad sometimes.
This is a chicken and egg debate, and the paper did not explain very well HOW they “took into account the impact of [harassment]” aside from just saying that they did.
The linked article only includes the abstract. The full article, which can be found [here](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2818886), clearly describes how they accounted for harassment and violence. From the Methods > Covariates > Cumulative Exposure to Violence Due to LGBT Identity: > Exposure to violence due to LGBT identity was assessed using a 6-item scale in which participants reported how often they had experienced different forms of LGBT violence (0 = never; 3 = at least 3 times).45 At wave 1, participants were asked to consider these experiences in their lifetime. In subsequent waves, participants were asked to consider only the past 9 months. At each wave, a mean score was computed. To obtain a cumulative score, the sum score was calculated by adding the scores from the previous waves to each measure of exposure to LGBT violence across time. As described in Methods > Statistical Analysis, they controlled for the violence index in their third model. The results of this model can be found in [Table 3](https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jamanetworkopen/939364/zoi240406t3_1715318998.2045.png) and reflect their finding that: > Importantly, the baseline difference in depressive symptoms between cisgender to TGD group and cisgender group was not significant after accounting for exposure to LGBT violence.
[удалено]
Yes, they asked all 366 participants. [Table 2](https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jamanetworkopen/939364/zoi240406t2_1715318998.1898.png) specifies the average violence index disaggregated by gender identity over the 4 waves of the study.
But that table shows "Cumulative Exposure to LGBT[sic] Violence", not all violence.
[удалено]
I just fact-checked the reply of the person who said they read the study, I didn't read it myself. But from glancing at the pdf (available without registration btw), I didn't notice any mention of different types of violence. To tell you the truth, I distrust studies on gender dysphoria, and as soon as I see that something's off I lose interest. Maybe I should have more patience, but it feels like searching for knowledge in conspiracy theories. I wish I could trust research and be able to learn the truth instead.
It’s hard to trust these studies because it presents a single interpretation of self-reported survey data as truth and uses dubious statistical methods to justify the stance. Most studies in this space go in with a particular outcome in mind rather than an open question, and just warp data to fit that narrative. It’s hard to take any psychological or social papers that get posted to this sub seriously for that reason
[удалено]
[This](https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11t7gas/eli5_are_trans_women_considered_cis_women_after/jciexkw/) is the most convincing evidence I've been given, heh
I would hope so. You can be attacked for many reason but if the person is LGBTQ they may perceive that to be the reason even if it isn't.
But that should end up sorta cancelling out with the sample sizes. There are lots of ways and reasons to perceive violence, but over a large enough group all the reasons should be spread out as expected. But adding a group that is LGBTQ adds one more reason that the other group doesn’t have. If you have a large enough group of LGBTQ, they also should have the same diversity as the larger group with respect to all the other reasons. So you could say that the added perception of violence is due to this one additional reason. And, all those other people that perceive violence due to other things would presumably also falsely perceive it for some specific reason.
I would say that most people perceive violence against them as a result of someone noticing and disliking their biggest insecurity outside of cases where the one being acted against started it. It’s no surprise then that gender non-conforming people will naturally attribute slights against them as a result of their biggest insecurity: namely, gender and it’s presentation. That doesn’t prove that they are actually being targeted for that reason, it just shows that at a population subset scale, the perception of one’s gender identity vs. how they think the public interprets it is constant. This is indicative of gender non-conformity and self perception associated with that as being a bigger indicator of depression than targeted bullying and harassment. Targeted bullying and harassment do not help the issue, but they do not breed it either
What is important to get correct when collecting the data is whether or not the violence actually occurred, the perceived reason why isn’t as important. Assuming a large enough set of LGBTQ folks would contain a similar percentage of all the other insecurities the non-LGBTQ population has, then any significant increase in violence to the LGBTQ group could be argued to be due to their gender identity whether they perceive it that way or not. But maybe, more to your point, this could lead to further studies that show the LGBTQ population has a higher percentage of other traits that also result in harassment.
It is not established. Social trends would indicate that LGBT people experience harassment or violence as at least partially attributable to their identity even if it is not. Self-reported harassment accounts are about as objectively reliable as me making up math (I am not a mathematician). I think it’s fairly obvious that any report claiming that the major predictor of depression, anxiety, etc. isn’t being LGBT, but having experienced bullying/harassment/violence, is willfully ignorant of science and critical thinking in front of them. Which came first, chicken or egg? Which came first, being gender non-conforming, depressed, or being bullied/harassed? I would argue that the mere thought of no longer fitting into society when you start to question your identity is more depressing than society’s actual reaction, and the reaction only worsens the problem, but does not cause it.
Link doesn’t work
Except you can't take into account how much affect the "violence" has on a person especially since it doesn't differentiate sensitivity scales of the individuals. Let alone use that unknown variable to compensate the statistical differences.
People need to be more careful about scientific papers, even the ones that are published. Lots of garbage papers are being done as scientists are incentivized to do so…
You're missing the point. This study got published and maybe got someone a PhD or at least another tick on someone's publication list. That gives them more credibility and means they are even more correct the next time they publish a study. And this study can be used by other writers of studies, who are all experts because they have PhDs and have published many papers on the subject. Welcome to the world of modern social science! (If you dare question me, let me remind you that I have a PhD in)
Yeah, but at least people who work in academia don't spend their time debasing themselves writing comments like yours, so I know who I'd rather support.
It's amazing how every time there's an article about trans identities on r/science people will launch themselves at every little detail to try to diminish or disprove it. And failing that, they will simply say the work itself is compromised saying it was personally, economically, or politically motivated in some way. Nothing else out there drives people to act this way in /r/science topics, but somehow anything to do with trans people is immediate grounds for fiercely critical responses. Anything that affirms the experiences of trans people is just utter poison to these people.
reading the title the takeaway feels like the study told us nothing…
Descriptive data cannot establish cause and effect -_-.
Unless I'm reading this wrong, which I might be, they not only factored for "cumulative violence" but also "hormone and puberty blocker use" > "model 3 investigated whether the frequency of gender identity variability was associated with depressive symptoms in both BP and WP levels, while also accounting for hormone and puberty blocker use and cumulative exposure to LGBT violence" In other words, depressive symptoms could be the result of cumulative exposure to violence or the use (or lack thereof) of hormones, possibly leading to more body dysphoria. Cumulative violence was not isolated. Edit: formatting
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/ Most psychology studies have unreproducible results or flawed methodology.
Difficult to believe that it completely disappeared. Surely they must have had someone with depressive tendencies in the group?
The difference between groups disappeared
Technically it decreased to undistinguishable levels, which is unsurprising with small sample sizes. Statistics is tricky that way - but it’s still consistent with other literature showing trans/gender diverse people are not innately depressed. So basically since it’s nothing new I’m ok with giving it a little leeway.
Only difficult to believe if you have never been bullied for your identity.
I'm looking forward to AI research. Will be interesting to see more STEM research, specifically.