/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15397156
Musk is a chud

>>15397156
It appears to be very low.
Average human population has about a 1-2% suicide rate.
Troons average 40%.
That is much more than simply 2-3 times more.

>>15397156
>troons neuter themselves
>new babies born are hyper resistant to faggotry
literally eugenics

>>15397188
Eugenics doesn't exist, it's literally 20th century fascist pseudoscience

>>15397156
Didn't Grimes dump him for a tranny? Is this how he's gonna cope?

>>15397156
Are you fucking kidding me? Holy shit that's fucking retarded. Are people this innumerate? Really? They have different fucking base rates. I don't care what the answer is, I'm just fucking amazed people are genuinely this retarded.

1. 2-3x a base rate of 1 would be an absolute value of 1-3.
2. 2-3x a base rate of 2 would be an absolute value of 4-6

If age-standardized suicides per capita average around 40, if gender dysphoria has a 2-3x base rate that would be 80-120 per capita. However, if you're looking at subpopulations suicide rates could differ markedly due to characteristics of that population as well. Such as those pursuing surgery having qualitatively far higher problems and more severe problems.

My point is you can't just shit out thoughtless crap like this without any consideration for population characteristics, base rates, and so on. This is really basic middle-school statistics. I cannot fucking believe people are this stupid.

>>15397208
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
Forgot to post the actual study. Because researchers aren't as retarded with numbers they've a far more sensible conclusion.
>The overall mortality for sex-reassigned persons was higher during follow-up (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 1.8–4.3) than for controls of the same birth sex, particularly death from suicide (aHR 19.1; 95% CI 5.8–62.9). Sex-reassigned persons also had an increased risk for suicide attempts (aHR 4.9; 95% CI 2.9–8.5) and psychiatric inpatient care (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 2.0–3.9). Comparisons with controls matched on reassigned sex yielded similar results. Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls.
Notably they've far higher risks in the short term than long term "final sex" matched controls. That's what the control is. This study doesn't imply anything like what Elon thinks it implies, on top of his apparent innumeracy. ONE of the concerns is there is insufficient psychiatric and medical care in conjunction with reassignment and therefore reassignment in and of itself should not be treated as a one-stop shop due to its higher risks relative to long term reassigned controls.

>>15397221
>"I'm a troon!"

>>15397221
If elon is talking about another cohort study other than that 2011 one I don't know of it and please post it if you have the newer one. I'm dumb and can't find it.

>>15397208
Please don't kill yourself

>>15397156
Musk is a chad

>>15397181
The 40% is attempted suicide, not completed suicide

>>15397251
Rookie numbers. Gotta pump those numbers up!

This is the way.

>>15397269
>this kills the human

>>15397221
Even if it implied what he said, examining raw suicide rates doesn't say much either way - there is no way to differentiate between healthy individuals who became suicidal as a direct result of reassignment, and people who already were suicidal before, and reassignment was a last ditch effort that didn't live up to their expectations. Looking at changes in psychological profile post reassignment would be more useful.

>>15397290
Considering that 100% of people diagnosed with gender dysphoria also have another personality disorder, I can't see why people are allowed to give them major plastic surgery in the first place. It violates every code of medical ethics to allow someone who is mentally unstable to mutilate their body.

>>15397290
Well yeah, more data and granularity is always better. It is possible using long term post-assigned as control would not capture changing characteristics of the treated population, though that should be capturable in long term data one assumes medical professionals ought be able to get. This was in 2011 so I am not sure if there's a mechanism indicating such a change. Either way, and maybe it's "horrible" to say it, but I really don't care about that. I was more fucking astounded people are so innumerate.

Regardless of the ultimate answers the direct fact is Elon and most of the people involved do not even understand basic percentages or rates. That's fucking insane.

>>15397301
Oh no, you're not the midwit narcissist are you?

>>15397294
>100% of people diagnosed with gender dysphoria also have another personality disorder
Was the name of your statistics teacher Elon Musk by any chance?
>I can't see why people are allowed to give them major plastic surgery in the first place. It violates every code of medical ethics to allow someone who is mentally unstable to mutilate their body.
It depends on the degree of instability. If they can give informed consent and if it helps their psychological well-being in the long run, then why not. We can't cure the cause, but alleviating the symptoms is better than just leaving them to suffer. However, I'm not saying that SRS does that. It's a very controversial and pretty risky procedure to say the least.

>>15397331
It's against clinical guidelines to give cosmetic surgery for every body dysmorphic disorder.

>>15397188
Yea, presuming it's genetic and not due due to childhood trauma or parasites.

>>15397156
So many words to say almost nothing

>>15397290
More data is always better, unfortunately it's basically verboten to conduct these kinds of long term follow-up studies anymore, or really have any kind of serious discussion about alternative therapy-based approaches to treating dysphoria. Literally every major study on mental wellness and satisfaction with reassignment surgery results published post-Dhenje has cut off followup to basically two years or less, which is well within "I'm going in for my fourth corrective surgery, this time it'll work for sure" territory, and far too soon to draw any conclusions about long-term well-being.

>>15397156
I've seen the study in question and like every fascist statisticaster on this website, he egregiously misreads it. The study compared mortality for all causes among post-op trans individuals relative to the general population. Notably, this doesn't tell us how they compare to pre-op trans individuals. The study goes out of its way to mention the vast body of evidence in favour of the efficacy of sex reassignment and explicitly warns against the exact conclusions Musk draws here.

Actual conclusions of the study:
>Post-op trans individuals still have a higher mortality rate compared to the general population, but it is much reduced when compared to pre-op individuals
>The increased mortality could be explained to an extent by the scope of the study, which used data gathered over decades without distinction, and so includes people from a time when transgender care and acceptance were in a far worse state than today
>Trauma inflicted before transitioning and unhealthy coping mechanisms arising from it could be another contributing factor
>Whilst transitioning has been shown to work over and over again, there is still a lot to be gained in terms of aftercare and societal acceptance

Elon Musk is not a scientist. He is a pretender. Every single thing he claims to be an expert in, he turned out not to be, usually by a long shot. The only thing he's good at is marketing his public image, and that's what he's doing here by regurgitating bog-standard fash talking points you can find within five minutes of trawling /v/. Pure virtue signalling to his base.

>>15397156
I'll just copy the perfect response
>How long before Elon Musk comes out against chemotherapy because people on chemo are statistically more likely than the general population to die of cancer?

>>15398212
>>15398250
Adding to this anon, or two anons, or whatever, there's also a name for the middle school statistical fallacy Elon made, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

So you have a very easy comparison to demonstrate just how incompetent he really is. The man literally can't understand base rates. 5th and 6th graders learn about base rates. He is so bad at math he can't do 6th grade math.

>>15397175
COPE and SEETHE trannie

>>15397156
https://youtu.be/eJK1gLHbOxA?t=1136
https://youtu.be/52dVfhgt_T4?t=694

>>15397772
But anon, personality is genetic.

>>15398359
Don't insult your parents like that

>>15398373
>when something bad happnens
i can't help it, its muh genetics
>when something good happnens
look what i did!

>>15398359
see >>15388780

>>15398250
is the implication that not feeling comfortable in your body and wanting to be a troon is already a death sentence like cancer?

>>15397221
>comparing trans people to cis people of their birth sex in order to determine efficacy of SRS
Who came up with this? Really weird study design.

>>15397156
I reject critical sex theories and denounce them as crimes against humanity

>>15400317
>trans people

>>15397269
>giwtwm

>>15400385
It's nice that you think science is a matter of opinion but you're wrong.

>>15400520
Not in this case, those theories have all been disproved scientifically

>>15398212
>like every fascist statisticaster on this website
You need to go back troon.

>>15398212
No anon you're very simply just over reading what he said. The point he made is that post op individuals have a disproportionate suicide risk, meaning surgical intervention is evidently insufficient in ameliorating the issue. The only answer to this is a laundry list of unquantifiable traumas that 'obviously' explain it away. Even considering marginal improvements post op, we're still talking about suicide rates that eclipse controls by about a factor of 30.

>>15397156
Error bars on their own don't say anything about the validity of a result.

>>15397208
>My point is you can't just shit out thoughtless crap like this without any consideration for population characteristics, base rates, and so on
There is no reason to assume he made a base rate error. You gave that wall of text but didn't even quote what he said. He compared the sweden study to "that other study." You've given no reason why "that other study" has a different base rate because you didn't even bother to mention it.
Your empty tirade suggests you are merely upset at Elon for personal reasons and want him to be wrong.
>>15397221
>Because researchers aren't as retarded with numbers they've a far more sensible conclusion
You are biased as hell for saying that because it's well known they ambiguously worded the greentext you quoted and it has led to massive misunderstanding over the past decade. Your greentext as stated necessarily dictates the interpretation that SRS makes things worse. You have to dig through the study to realize the control group was basically apples to oranges and "SRS makes things worse" is not really what they meant.
>Notably they've far higher risks in the short term than long term "final sex" matched controls
That is not said in your greentext and is definitely the opposite of reality. During the short term honeymoon phase depression always goes down. You claim it goes up?
>This study doesn't imply anything like what Elon thinks it implies, on top of his apparent innumeracy
Are you transgender? You obviously do not have a clear perspective on this.

>>15401808
>There is no reason to assume he made a base rate error.
The "Sweden study" itself explicitly warns against it. He (and you) committed it anyway. Stop being a fucking retard relying on greentexts and headlines and read the fucking study. Actually, it seems like you did and you know you're wrong, and you're still saying
>Ah yes, well, you are right of course as per the study, but still, if you pretend to be a fucking idiot for a second, this wrong conclusion seems the more sensible, which you really need a clear and unbiased perspective to see

I personally avoid doing any research on a given topic before giving my opinion, so as to be as unbiased as possible.

How do trannys dovetail believing "i was born in the wrong body" with their atheism?
There must've been some god which intended the correct body, but how can that be if there is no god?
If they aren't atheists, how do they presume to know god's intentions?

>>15402372
>He (and you) committed it anyway
Please, explain where and how it was exactly made, and be specific.

>>15402372
>He (and you) committed it anyway
No, we didn't. Once again, you blissfully ignore the fact you haven't compared the base rates in "that other study" to the "sweden study" so your claim this fallacy was committed is based upon nothing.
You are a triggered activist, most likely a troon, and all you've done is regurgitate the hivemind weak talking points you found in /lgbt/ that you don't even understand.
>Stop being a fucking retard relying on greentexts and headlines and read the fucking study
Cope. I've red and debated it many times in the last 5+ years.
The greentext quoted did not imply what you said, so I pointed this out because it demonstrates your lack of comprehension
>Actually, it seems like you did
why would you even type this? You just made yourself look like a capricious fool
>and you know you're wrong
The cope is unreal. Go back to /lgbt/ you tourist
>>Ah yes, well, you are right of course as per the study
Reality is so difficult for troons to accept. You greatly prefer fantasy such as this greentext

>>15403047
He won't. He doesn't understand the talking points his fellow activists are making, which are wrong anyway.
Many people do make a base rate fallacy regarding the "sweden study" simply because the abstract is poorly worded and directly states sex reassignment surgery "patients" fare worse than controls..... but the controls are normal people who have no "gender incongruity" so it's apples to oranges. LGBT activists have used that expected misunderstanding for victory points for years and reflexively thought Elon made the same mistake. He didn't. He's comparing the results to "that other study" and not comparing the results to the control group within the study.
The troon who is arguing here doesn't realize that.

Elon's conclusion is correct. There is no benefit to SRS (and thus it should be regarded as cosmetic and not funded by insurance). And this is sending massive trigger ripple waves throughout the entire internet

>>15403047
>>15403221
No one cares about the unspecified "other study", stable geniuses. The point is, the Swedish study found that post-op transgender people have a higher mortality compared to the general population, and you and Musk therefore wrongly conclude that this surgery increases mortality, when the study says the opposite.
>I've red and debated it many times in the last 5+ years.
So you're just a liar then? Because otherwise you surely must've come across this part:
>Given the nature of sex reassignment, a double blind randomized controlled study of the result after sex reassignment is not feasible. We therefore have to rely on other study designs. For the purpose of evaluating whether sex reassignment is an effective treatment for gender dysphoria, it is reasonable to compare reported gender dysphoria pre and post treatment. Such studies have been conducted either prospectively[7], [12] or retrospectively,[5], [6], [9], [22], [25], [26], [29], [38] and suggest that sex reassignment of transsexual persons improves quality of life and gender dysphoria.
Or this:
>It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism. In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality.
Because to argue that "SRS makes things worse" is a reasonable conclusion to draw from an out-of-context greentexted quote would then seem to be very deliberate cherry-picking on your part and fly explicitly in the face of the study's own conclusions.

>>15403250
musk;
>then doing surgery or chemical sterilization on minors GAINS NOTHING
you:
>wrongly conclude that this surgery increases mortality

nigger you can't read and it's annoying to watch you continue to be unable to read

>>15403264
Ah yes, clearly I am wrong for ever-so-slightly misrepresenting the extent to which Musk misrepresented the study, even though I am also talking to people in this thread who actually did misrepresent the study to that extent. Clearly I am undone; the fact that I glossed over Musk's idiotic tweet and focused on your response instead entirely excuses you glossing over the study you're pretending to be an expert on.

Musk is wrong. You are wronger still. Both for the same reason. Neither of you understands the study in question.

>>15403264
>>15403303
Honestly though who the fuck is coping now?
>H-he won't be able to respond!
>[reads detailed response]
>Oh fuck uh uh uh shit well you misquoted the tweet
Right after I pointed out what a desperate cherry-picker you are, too. How about you show me that you're able to read by responding to the quoted parts of the study that entirely discredit your (AND Musk's) interpretation of it?

>>15403303
Yes you are clearly undone. You threw a tantrum in this thread over something that wasn't said. "Wrong for the same reason," lelelel pull that cognitive bias out of your ass and pay attention to what people are actually saying.

>>15403250
>No one cares about the unspecified "other study",
It's the 1st half of the fundamental point he's making, if he does not mention that study then he had no reason to make the tweet
>The point is, the Swedish study found that post-op transgender people have a higher mortality compared to the general population, and you and Musk therefore wrongly conclude that this surgery increases mortality
WRONG! He's establishing SRS gives no benefit. I just said that at the end of my last post. He's not saying it increases mortality. You just proved you are regurgitating someone else's talking points you don't understand.
>"SRS makes things worse" is a reasonable conclusion to draw from an out-of-context greentexted quote
It is a necessary conclusion from the quote, but it is false, that is why one needs to add the rest of the context exactly as I said.
>would then seem to be very deliberate cherry-picking on your part and fly explicitly in the face of the study's own conclusions.
You were the one that quoted just the abstract which, by itself, is definitively misleading.
Again, you are repeating someone else's talking points. I've debated this study many times and am well aware of the mistake most people make.

However, I did not make that mistake, Musk did not make it either.

>otherwise you surely must've come across this part:
Not that you deserve any further engagement, but the Sweden study is garbage anyway due to the abysmal patient retention rates. Longitudinal studies always have that problem but this one went to the extreme. The obvious reason is troons were killing themselves at higher rates than expected but they were merely recorded as "no followup."
Some day a 30 year study will deliberately track every participant cradle-to-grave and we'll get to see how genital surgery actually makes these troons far worse off because obviously it's masking an untreated deeper problem. But until then...

>>15403349
>pull that cognitive bias out of your ass and pay attention to what people are actually saying.
How ironic, because that's what I've been asking you several times now. You not only failed to read the study, but also my repeated requests for you to read the study. This entire thread, in fact, is about some twat's tantrum over something that wasn't said.

>>15403366
>you and Musk therefore wrongly conclude that this surgery increases mortality
>>15403264
>I am also talking to people in this thread who actually did misrepresent the study to that extent
To clarify/repeat, I already said this "increaseed mortality" is not a correct interpretation of the study once you read the whole study. Ctrl+f above where I said:
"You have to dig through the study to realize the control group was basically apples to oranges and "SRS makes things worse" is not really what they meant."

Get rekt and learn to read

>>15403366
>He's establishing SRS gives no benefit.
He's not actually establishing shit, though, at least not based on this study, whatever he tries to compare it to. And if you further go on to declare that the study is garbage anyway, well then, how is it that Musk is able to draw perfectly valid conclusions from it even though they're not in line with what the study actually says, but anyone who points out what the study actually says is wrong because the study is garbage?
Post the other study, then. Let us compare and see how valid these conclusions actually are. Because it looks like the first half of the fundamental point he's making is still fundamentally based on the same exact mistake that has been repeatedly called out here.
>You were the one that quoted just the abstract
Not that personal identity matters here, but no, I wasn't. Why does it matter though? Supposedly you already read the study and are intimately familiar with it, so why are you making us consider the hypothetical misunderstanding that a hypothetical other person might have based on reading just the abstract? Based on reading just Musk's tweet and my familiarity with the Swedish study, isn't it definitively reasonable to conclude that he's wrong?

>>15403366
lol your smarmy semantics handwringing is entirely misguided because earlier in the same twitter thread, Elon specifically links the Swedish study with the following words:
>Comprehensive study in Sweden shows *increased* suicide!
You are wrong, Musk is wrong in exactly the way I and everyone else already said, go fuck yourself.

Also, here's the other study, which is what I actually went looking for:
https://www.cureus.com/articles/145464-suicide-related-outcomes-following-gender-affirming-treatment-a-review#!/
Cannot actually find the statistic Musk appears to be quoting here, but I think he's responding to this part:
>73.3% of the sample reported a history of suicidal ideation; this percentage dropped to 43.4% following the initiation of gender-affirming treatment.
I assume he is talking about a 2-3x *reduction* and then concluding, based on the other study that found a 3x higher risk of mortality, that they cancel each other out and therefore, there is no gain. Which is still committing the same error, because it fails to take into account mortality without intervention. This is simply Musk trying to maintain his wrong conclusion after being called on his mistake, by doubling down on it.

>>15403378
>He's not actually establishing shit, though, at least not based on this study, whatever he tries to compare it to.
Not an argument and you just said who cares about 2nd study
You are being a mindless contrarian at this point
>And if you further go on to declare that the study is garbage anyway, well then, how is it that Musk is able to draw perfectly valid conclusions from it even though they're not in line with what the study actually says, but anyone who points out what the study actually says is wrong because the study is garbage?
The Swede study is garbage because it likely hides detrimental effects of SRS (a bunch of suicides they are not aware of). A better study would only verify the same thing OR make SRS look worse
Hence, Musk is either
1.)right as things stand, OR
2.)understating the reasons why children should not get these ridiculous surgeries.

Pick your poison

>You were the one that quoted just the abstract
>Not that personal identity matters here, but no, I wasn't. Why does it matter though?
lol like I believe you
>Why does it matter though?
Because it proves "whoever" did post just the abstract had no clue what he was talking about. I already said "The greentext quoted did not imply what you said, so I pointed this out because it demonstrates your lack of comprehension"
>Post the other study, then
Not going to waste 10 mins finding it after you just blatantly proved you can't read
You find it, post it, and I will explain it
>Supposedly you already read the study
You are in such coping denial
>so why are you making us consider the hypothetical misunderstanding that a hypothetical other person might have based on reading just the abstract?
BC you and "other" anon accused me of making this generic misunderstanding. Are you seriously this lost?
>Based on reading just Musk's tweet and my familiarity with the Swedish study, isn't it definitively reasonable to conclude that he's wrong?
Post the other study and let's find out

>>15403414
>The Swede study is garbage because it likely hides detrimental effects of SRS (a bunch of suicides they are not aware of). A better study would only verify the same thing OR make SRS look worse
lol
>The study is wrong because if it disagrees with me it must not be taking everything into account

>BC you and "other" anon accused me of making this generic misunderstanding.
Right, so then you argue that that misunderstanding, which isn't yours, is still entirely understandable based on partial information and therefore defensible, even though you didn't have to defend it? What a tiresome tangent this is, and I don't give a shit about it at all.

Anyway if you'd just refreshed the thread you could've spared yourself the embarrassment of posting that wall of text right after it had been pre-emptively BTFO'd just one post above

oh i get it now this is one of those weird bot responding to bot moments, lemme check out of this degenerating spiral

>>15403411
>>Comprehensive study in Sweden shows *increased* suicide!
>You are wrong, Musk is wrong in exactly the way I and everyone else already said, go fuck yourself
More of your desperate cope
It is increased. The question is "increased compared to what?"
So he made a true statement, the study does show increase suicidality, but it needs need context that the increase is compared to average population and it's NOT an increase before vs after SRS (he did NOT say that), it's merely an increase vs average population.
Even the braindead "factchecks" have already begun on this and they agree. His tweet merely needs context
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-musk-says-trans-study-shows-higher-suicide-rate-after-surgery-1797082

*newsweek is politically neutral

>Also, here's the other study, which is what I actually went looking for:
Great. I'll come back and BTFO you later tonight, maybe.

>>15403431
>It is increased. The question is "increased compared to what?"
>So he made a true statement
You know that's probably not how he intended his words to be read, and definitely not how most of his sycophants took them.
>it needs need context that the increase is compared to average population and it's NOT an increase before vs after SRS (he did NOT say that)
Context that Musk deliberately omitted and likely never took into account himself. In fact, since you're so hot on context, the context of his tweet was that he was replying to someone arguing that SRS leads to a decrease in depression and suicide, and the general tenor of Musk's other tweets is that SRS does not work. You cannot, in good faith, argue that Musk was "technically right" and not at all misrepresenting the study here. He is clearly attempting to argue that SRS is harmful. Your problem is simply that (unlike Musk) you know that's not what the study says but you also don't want to admit that Musk is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. So you have to make it look like he's basing his conclusions on a real understanding of this study, even though you couldn't actually arrive at his conclusion from the study if you properly understood it and all the surrounding context heavily suggests he's clueless.
>Even the braindead "factchecks" have already begun on this and they agree. His tweet merely needs context
Right, they only had to write an entirely article to explain how the study actually says something other than what Musk seems to imply, but they completely agree! Actually, they agree with the study, and for that reason, provide the vital missing context. Despite how you may have interpreted the headline, they are not fact-checking whether or not Musk made that claim, they are fact-checking Musk as if he had made that claim.
>I'll come back and BTFO you later tonight, maybe.
Maybe. Probably not.

>>15403431
>(he did NOT say that (explicitly (in those literal words (in this particular tweet))))
Where will the goalposts move next? It's interesting that you're trying at least as hard to argue that Musk wasn't technically incorrect here as you are trying to argue that Musk is right when he says things that do entirely conflict with the study's conclusions. Either he's right or he isn't. Either the study is right or it isn't. But he can't be technically correct in one tweet and then contradict himself in another and somehow be right both times. You're missing the forest for the trees by looking at tweets in isolation, probably in a deliberate attempt to distract from the larger argument he is making (which is simply not supported by the research he cites).

Musk is not very intelligent. His only patents are design patents after 20 years of owning engineering companies. As someone who writes patents for a living, this is pathetic. It's the patent equivalent of copyright and they'll give one to almost anyone.

All Musk did to get wealthy is buy someone else's company, force his own name on it, lie to the press to trick the government into giving him money, then sit back and let the money roll in while he pretends he's a paragon of invention. The only sad thing about this story is people like you guys believe he deserves any attention whatsoever.

>>15397208
>per capita average around 40
The average suicides per person is 40? How do you kill yourself 40 times?

>>15403531
>t. jealous poorfag

>>15403531

>>15403459
>>So he made a true statement
>You know that's probably not how he intended his words to be read
Not an argument
>Context that Musk deliberately omitted and likely never took into account himself
Not an argument and this is well poisoning.
>You cannot, in good faith, argue that Musk was "technically right"
Pure desperation. He was "right" and there's no technicality about it.
>He is clearly attempting to argue that SRS is harmful
No, he's not. That is your triggered delusion
>even though you couldn't actually arrive at his conclusion from the study
That's why he compared it to another study.
>Right, they only had to write an entirely article to explain how the study actually says something other than what Musk seems to imply, but they completely agree! Actually, they agree with the study, and for that reason, provide the vital missing context. Despite how you may have interpreted the headline, they are not fact-checking whether or not Musk made that claim, they are fact-checking Musk as if he had made that claim
hilarious word salad. Musk did not make a wrong claim. You said he did.
The only person who has been wrong so far is you and you have to cope via writing a wall of irrelevant half-truth weasel worded text

>>15403476
>he says things that do entirely conflict with the study's conclusions
No he didn't. That is a pure lie.
>Either he's right or he isn't
Either or fallacy, but he's right anyway so ...
>But he can't be technically correct in one tweet and then contradict himself in another and somehow be right both times
He didn't contradict. You are so triggered you have to dig back through his history and try and find a contradiction when nobody in this thread cared about his other tweets. We are only concerned about OP tweet and its conclusion.
What you are doing is a mark of pure desperation. You are clearly an activist and no amount of reality will change your opinion that Musk did not say anything wrong, and he is simply right, no "technicality"
>You're missing the forest for the trees by looking at tweets in isolation
Cope. There is nothing wrong with his statements in OP post. You have to move the goalpost to now say "oh look look he's ACKSHULLY contradicting himself according to this other stuff I desperately looked up but don't quote I promise so don't listen to him okay?!?!"
>probably in a deliberate attempt to distract from the larger argument he is making (which is simply not supported by the research he cites).
The funniest and most ironic thing so far is that I definitely think SRS makes troons worse off mentally, there's no fixing of a mental illness via surgery, but Musk has not implied that at all. You are so insanely desperate to pretend he did. I wish he did.

>>15403411
>Also, here's the other study, which is what I actually went looking for
>Cannot actually find the statistic Musk appears to be quoting
Not going to get into another argument with an activist living in abject denial if you cannot be certain you are even using the right study.
Figure out how to verify that is the study he referred to.
Or don't. I don't care. You have been BTFO'd so much it doesn't even matter if I walk away.

How the fuck does one decide they are trans? Seems like its actually just a degenerate sexual fetish.

>>15405806
Lmao you are so fucking sad. This doesn't even merit a full response. Just go "nuh-uh" at every argument.
>You are so triggered you have to dig back through his history and try and find a contradiction when nobody in this thread cared about his other tweets. We are only concerned about OP tweet and its conclusion.
M8, you were the one banging on about context. I actually went back to find the study in question (which was, of course, buried in the tweet thread) and in the process I stumbled upon Musk very explicitly committing the exact fallacy that you're so desperately denying he committed. Which should kind of inform our reading of his other tweets, shouldn't it?

Anyway, I also already explained to you that even if we restrict ourselves to the OP tweet, he is still wrong for much the same reasons. But somehow you seem to really care about defending Musk online, and the trans issue is merely an afterthought?

>>15405841
>Not going to get into another argument with an activist living in abject denial
lol, of course. Absolutely pathetic.
>if you cannot be certain you are even using the right study
I am 100% using the right study, the question was whether Musk quoted it correctly. I'm guessing you actually did read it and realised you can't defend his egregious misreading so now you're trying to gracefully bow out.

>>15405806
>>15405999
So, to recap, my arguments:
>Musk clearly explicitly did what you denied him doing: denying the efficacy of SRS because of an "increase" in mortality, which is an obvious misreading of "increase" in this context.
>Even if we look at this tweet in isolation, he's still wrong for much the same reason, and his comparison doesn't really alter the fundamental flawed assumption in his argument, because:
>Neither study he cites agrees with him and he, through deliberate malice or incompetence, misrepresented their contents and conclusions

Your arguments:
>Well he's technically correct if we take the most gracious interpretation of his words AND ignore the context in which he said them AND supply missing context, but we'll just pretend that was there all along, people can just click through you know?
>We can't rely on context from his other tweets to determine what argument he's making, don't click through to anything, focus on the tweet itself, but also you can't comment on the tweet unless you read the studies from other tweets that he's referencing. But you can't reference the tweets themselves!
>I'm going to read that study and BTFO you, actually no wait I changed my mind it's totally not worth the effort, is it even the right study, how can we know anything for sure really??? Other tweets? Who cares?
>Y-you're just an activist, Musk can't be wrong, triggered!!! This is totally beneath me

The thread is like four tweets. You can easily read it yourself, find the study, find the tweets Musk is replying to, and confirm that I'm right. Or you can keep pretending the world outside this thread doesn't exist and words have no meaning and we'll never know what Musk really meant (except that he was right of course). Contemptible little sycophant.

>>15405999
>>15406041
The funny thing is either inference, "increased" or "remains the same", violate the note in the study stating to not make such inferences. In either case also constitute inferring base rates in such a way as to make a base rate fallacy.
>You can easily read it yourself, find the study, find the tweets Musk is replying to, and confirm that I'm right.
Considering one of them quoted Elon doing exactly what the study said not to as some kind of "own" I think you overestimate the literacy of the anons you're dealing with.

>>15405825
>Either he's right or he isn't
>Either or fallacy
>Musk's genius is such that he remains in a quantum superposition of both right and wrong as long as we never check the results of the studies

>>15406122
I quit reading the thread too soon that is fucking gold

>>15397190
>Eugenics doesn't exist. Cows and apples were always this big.
KYS, retard.

>>15405861
thats what it is

>>15398212
You're reading way more into what he said. All he said is that if post-op trannies have 3x the mortality rate of normies assuming one study is accurate, and pre-op trannies have 2-3x suicide rate than normies assuming another study is correct, arguing for minor SRS is not justified by concerns about suicide. I don't see anything in your spaghetti that actually addresses what he said, you just read something in that's wrong so you could say he was wrong.

>>15406041
nobody gives a fuck about you. what you're saying is irrelevant to the op AND irrelevant to the point that was argued in op pic so stop having such a defensive narcissistic meltdown trying to hijack the thread. you follow up misreading the op by misreading everyone who responds to you, you're unhinged.

>>15408245
Shut up narcissist your hollow empty projection is fucking obvious to everyone

>>15408195
Okay, the thing with that is that Musk is still entirely misreading the studies in question and his conclusions don't actually follow. In fact, the second study outright says that gender-reaffirming treatment drastically reduced suicidal ideation.

I guess it's hard to determine what Musk is actually trying to say because he's being extraodrinarily vague and it doesn't relate to the studies cited, so we're just guessing at how he managed to misinterpret them. You're also just assuming he's talking about "pre-op" because he doesn't mention that at all. So perhaps it's just better to point out that Musk is an idiot and that the studies both explicitly say that gender-affirming treatment is effective. You simply can't get around that. Whatever point he might be trying to make here, it's wrong unless it acknowledges that.

There seems to be a slight disconnect between both sides of the argument here. Whereas one side is mostly concerned with whether the studies are represented correctly, the other is mostly concerned with whether Musk is represented correctly. The overall point seems of secondary concern to them. Above all, they are out to demonstrate that Musk reasoned well. That's why they disregard context whenever it suits them and keep coming up with alternative readings of his words. Their goal is simply to come up with the most charitable interpretation of Musk's tweet(s).
I think an undercurrent in this thread is that certain meritocratic assumptions make it difficult for some to accept that the richest man in the world, CEO of three companies, at the head of a commercial space programme, is in fact a bumbling fool with delusions of competence that has been paid undue deference for decades.

>>15400520
Being critical of science isn't science.

>>15397276
kek'd

>>15402992
>How do trannys dovetail believing "i was born in the wrong body" with their atheism?
Hormones misfiring.
>There must've been some god which intended the correct body
Nope, just a hormone profile that is more consistent with the general trends of the opposite sex than the sex of their birth.

>>15408576
>I guess it's hard to determine what Musk is actually trying to say because he's being extraodrinarily vague
I don't think it's vague at all. He very clearly made inferences contrary to warnings in the sweden study. As concerns mortality he very non-vaguely demonstrated he cannot do basic 5th grade math and made a base rate fallacy. There's no vagueness there. He fucked up explicitly in both cases. At a higher level he further fucked up by using a study not designed to estimate general population frequencies to make inferences about population risks.

Point is, from the level of a child to a college undergrad, the man got everything as wrong as it is possible to get wrong. In spite of very plain words in the Sweden study explicitly saying "do not do this". The only way he could be less vague about being wrong is with a direct contradiction like "1 = 5".

>>15408755
The vagueness mostly resides in his characterisation of the second study. It's unclear who or what he's comparing or which statistic he is attempting to cite.

>>15408765
>It's unclear who or what he's comparing or which statistic he is attempting to cite.
Not at all. Happy to explain. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1651261302268997634
>Comprehensive study in Sweden shows *increased* suicide!
pre/post operative suicide risks are not assessed.
If mortality, "[All-cause mortality (ACM)] did not reach statistical significance for the period 1989–2003."
"[...] survival of transsexual persons started to diverge [...] after about 10 years [...]"
So the only significant and meaningful difference is 6 years of the study, or 20% of the time.There is no way Elon is not wrong or wrongly inferring.

Then there's Elon's goalpost shifting schizophasia.
>If we take as given that the [sweden] study 2-3X suicide rate is correct, then doing surgery or chemical sterilization on minors gains nothing in reduced mortality.
This is incoherent. The study did not assess independent effect of intervention. Lowest age of sample was 20, so effect on minors was definitely not even incidentally/accidentally assessed.
>My position is simply that we should wait until an individual is mature enough to make their own decisions
This is just a statement of disposition and does not follow from the cited study. Goalpost shifted. Hard.
>The counter to my position would be that if we don’t make the changes when they’re a minor, they may never reach adulthood due to suicide.
This is a false dichotomy. There are many counters, including other factual refutations e.g. as outlined above. Also including values e.g. "Suffering and its effects compounding suffering are sufficient to do so".
>However, that counterargument does not hold water if mortality is essentially unchanged, which it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Anyone being wrong doesn't make Elon right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact%E2%80%93value_distinction
Nor would Elon being factually right make his value judgment "true".

Not vague at all to me.

>>15408749
This is trivially falsified by the fact that you can inject hormones or modify the endocrine system of a person and it does not induce gender dysphoria

>>15397156
I thought the counter was that if they don't make the changes when they're minor, they won't pass later due to testosterone making them look masculine? is this guy retarded or disingenuous on purpose?

>>15409095
>is this guy retarded or disingenuous on purpose?
It could easily be both

>>15408945
Eh, fair enough. We don't need to try to divine what argument he thinks he's making when every argument he could possibly be making is wrong.

>>15409500
>Eh, fair enough. We don't need to try to divine what argument he thinks he's making when every argument he could possibly be making is wrong.
You'd be surprised how often it has to come to proof by exhaustion with proof by contradiction. Deal with hypocritical moving goalposts of what "sufficient reason" is for long enough and at some point you just resign yourself to always delivering an exhaustive proof by exclusion every fucking time. Kind of warps my idea of what constitutes "vague" I suppose.

Granted anyone can just shit out nonsense when cornered, and that is a distinguishing unique feature of narcissistic personality disorder. I mention that as I think Elon has narcissistic personality disorder on that same basis. I can't get traction to get funding to publish a study on it, but I swear that being confronted with "proof by contradiction" reliably triggers narcissistic schizophasia every single time in every single case. Uniquely to narcissistic personality disorder. Since the only way out of admitting "I fucked up" when every alternative involves still more falsehood is by reaching for nonsense, and the mere superficial perception of truth. That is exactly what Elon did by shifting the goalpost to personal value judgments.

So either that or he has professional training in dishonestly managing public perception, which I could very well believe could involve training people to behave like someone with NPD.

>>15397772
20% retard genes and 80% abuse from trannies. it's how fags reproduce, they rape kids, and those kids grow up to be faggot trannies.

>>15398212
>the vast body of evidence in favour of the efficacy of sex reassignment
hey look it's fucking nothing! hmm yes a number of self reported studies WITHOUT FUCKING CONTROL GROUPS which show negligible results aaaand... that's fucking it! Wow! You just self-reported yourself to be a complete retard, and I just finished filling out the latest Penis Size survey (2,000,000 inches, by the way).

>>15409959
>I mention that as I think Elon has narcissistic personality disorder on that same basis.
You're probably right. Which makes this >>15408245 defence of Musk rather ironic.

>>15409995
>You're probably right. Which makes this >>15408245 defence of Musk rather ironic.
You'll see that quite a lot once you learn about NPD. You can look into research on attempts to evaluate treatment options for NPD. There's rather strong disagreement on this but I think the general notion that NPD can't be cured is sadly true. They take everything they learn and use it as further tools for manipulation. Someone with NPD would then just try to preemptively accuse others of being a narcissist as one method of trying to exert their whims and cover their own manipulations, and often on very arbitrary grounds.

The key difference is always superficiality and contingency. A narcissist so accused on the basis of specific falsifiable evidence would resort to schizophasia and manipulation tactics, including preemptively accusing others of what they're doing or qualities they have. People earnestly trying to understand or point out narcissism do so on the basis of very clearly communicated and very much falsifiable grounds, and generally not preemptively but descriptively. For example, it is possible my notion on the reactance from proof by contradiction is wrong. No strings attached. I'd just be wrong. My values or intuitions don't factor into it. For the narcissist there can be no such thing as "no strings attached", and if they're "wrong" it's only because they were actually right. That's why it's fucking impossible to cure them.

The difficulty of following such slim difference, especially in real time, is also why dealing with a real narcissist is fucking exhausting. Especially if you've become their obsession. Even professionals don't want to touch them with a ten foot pole. I think people enjoy being around literal psychopaths more.

>>15397156
Why is it ethical for adults to be allowed to take permanently damaging actions upon their lives? If someone even suggests that they need a gender change, they no longer are capable of consenting to having one. Get the libertarian shit framing out of here

Did anyone look at the one trial in his sample to verify that there was even a single successful test? What if the only data point showed a failure and he lied?

What is this thread even about?
Trannies kill themselves?
Mentally ill parents shouldn't be allowed to damage their kids?
Something else, what?

>>15410174
Helene is not the parent. Helene is the sister.
>>15405534

>>15410222
>>15410222
>>15410222
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNR4hKbSH7I

>>15410174
>Are there any other studies similar to the one Musk quotes here? 200%-300% seems like a pretty broad range of results to be considered authoritative, must've been pretty small sample size.

>>15410137
If you're going down that route, we should disallow people from letting themselves be exploited on the labour market, and now you're a communist.

>>15397156
>>15411300
People were too busy responding to Musk to respond to OP, but, OP, dear boy, you realise you could just look up the study in question and see the methodology and results for yourself?

>>15409095
People can get cosmetic surgery to alter their appearance at any age

>>15411792
Reductio ad absurdum

Obviously gender dysphoria and suicide risk are correlated.

I suggest treating the underlying causes instead of playing along with mentally ill kids.

>>15413360
No, if I wanted to do that I could just point out that you're advocating for the banning of smoking, red meat, processed sugars, and gasoline. But this was a serious response. Stress is one of the most harmful things for the human body, and so many people suffer it because of financial struggles and employment. A system that not only allows but actually requires people to routinely subject themselves to this can be called neither moral nor sane. The capitalist mode of production and its associated labour relations are the biggest cause of permanently damaging actions upon people's lives, and if someone even suggests maintaining them, they are no longer capable of consenting to participation in society.

>>15413416
Holy shit why didn't the entire medical community think of that?!?!?

>>15411818
looking more closely at the one study you've already seen is not a solution to the question "are there other studies like this"

>>15413421
>>15413416
>Holy shit why didn't the entire medical community think of that?!?!?
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=etiology+of+gender+dysphoria

>>15398250
A more adequate comparison would be if the mortality rate for cancer patients on chemo were 2-3x higher than general population and the mortality rate for cancer patients who arent on chemo were 3x higher than general population.

The question would then be whether the decrease in quality of life from chemo (I'm assuming chemo has such side effects) is worth a marginal improvement in outcomes.

Either way this is a somewhat flawed line of thinking because it implicitly makes a false equivalence between a psychological disorder and a physical one

>>15413418
Reductio ad absurdum

>>15413497
>The question would then be whether the decrease in quality of life from chemo (I'm assuming chemo has such side effects) is worth a substantial improvement in financial outcomes for the oncologist
I can't do anything, you owe me no money
vs
Here I'll do this bullshit that won't do you any good, now you owe me lots of money

>>15397156
There's not a single study with long term followup and of high quality that came to the conclusion that ANY FORM of "gender affirming care" has a positive impact on the wellbeing.

Most studies stop after 2 years which is when the honeymoon phase starts to wane. You will also see that many studies have a shitton of subjects failing to keep attending the study (off'd or unhappy about the whole thing usually leads to no further study attendance)

There is no proof of a female brain or any form of feminity in men that makes them go m2f. The only one that was found pre HRT is the sexual arousal center being closer to the females than the males. Which is a very malleable structure. Post HRT they start showing changes though.

>>15398212
read my post trannyfag.
>>15414914
not
a
single
STUDY (I analyzed EVERY single study on stanfords pro trans page and many more including one from my own university - Basel)

let that sink in deeper than your dilation tools.

homos are a curse, they're literal demons

>>15413421
Generally it's because it's fashionable to irresponsibly prescribe medications off label with no understanding of the potential long term ramifications.

It's the same reason doctors over prescribed opiates and benzos. Fashion and monetary incentives with a few true believers mixed in.

>>15415574
doctors prescribed junkie pills because the (((sackler))) family bribed them to

>>15414914
>Most studies stop after 2 years which is when the honeymoon phase starts to wane.
If they stop after 2 years how do you know that?
> You will also see that many studies have a shitton of subjects failing to keep attending the study (off'd or unhappy about the whole thing usually leads to no further study attendance)
If they fell off how do you know that?

>>15413451
It would answer the questions about the sample size.

>>15413497
>A more adequate comparison would be if the mortality rate for cancer patients on chemo were 2-3x higher than general population and the mortality rate for cancer patients who arent on chemo were 3x higher than general population.
It would be, if Musk wasn't simply lying his ass off.

>>15413637
You can't just go "reductio ad absurdum" to handwave the consequences of your own logic every time. Reductio ad absurdum isn't even a fallacy. If you don't like the implications of your own logic, maybe you should abandon it.

>>15414914
>There's not a single study with long term followup and of high quality that came to the conclusion that ANY FORM of "gender affirming care" has a positive impact on the wellbeing.
Define your standards. We may not be able to conduct a perfect study, but those we can conduct to the best of our ability do consistently show a positive impact.
>Most studies
So not all?
>off'd or unhappy about the whole thing usually leads to no further study attendance
Speculation
>There is no proof of a female brain or any form of feminity in men that makes them go m2f.
Irrelevant

>>15414918
>>15414914
this is not true at all

>>15414914
>There is no proof of a female brain or any form of feminity in men that makes them go m2f.

https://www.nature.com/articles/378068a0
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18980961/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23224294/
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22941717/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4037295/
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23724358/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18056697/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19341803/
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18761592/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21195418/
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128206836000312

>>15414914
>There's not a single study with long term followup and of high quality that came to the conclusion that ANY FORM of "gender affirming care" has a positive impact on the wellbeing.
wrong, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25690443/

also, 0.6% of post-transition trans people kill themselves: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32072611/

also, the sweden study musk is referencing is retarded.
It doesn't have a control group for trans people who never got srs, the participants weren't even in the study before srs, and the only comparison group was the general population

I could make a claim like "People who have depression who go into therapy kill themselves more than regular people. Therefore, not only does therapy INCREASE suicide, it causes it." What Musk is saying is as retarded as that.
and also, the study says the mortality rate wasn't even statistically significant in the later half of the timeframe of the study

>>15397156
Sure you just have to go to [REDACTED] and then [DELETED FOR HATE SPEECH] and there is a whole study about how [DEBUNKED CLAIM]

>>15416390

>>15417350
Gotta feel bad to get massively BTFO by your pic related and basically, yeah, show everyone that your political views are less sane by far than that person's. How do you recover from that? Now wonder you're so irrationally angry about trannies. The wound to your ego must be immense.

>>15416366
>>15416377
>>15416390
Average trans rights chad
>>15417350
>>15417737
Average virgin transphobe

>>15417761
kek

>>15397156
WTF IS EVERYONE SO OBSESSED WITH TRANNIES!?

>>15417737
lol

>>15405777
good numbers

>>15397156
most tranny suicides are post surgical

>>15420804
>Source: Anon's arse

>>15420804
this isnt true

>>15418841
World elites are pushing depopulation. Trannyism is being pushed to children where their penises are cut off, their intestines are cut off to make artificial vaginas, to make them sterile.

~20% of American youths now identify as transgender or gay/lesbian. Which means American depopulation propaganda is underway.

Not only is this a cruel ideology against children, its a cruel ideology against humanity itself.

>>15398250
>trooning out is like getting cancer

>>15421231
post surgical suicide rate is 60%
overall tranny suicide rate is only 41%

>>15397156
It obviously sucks getting a troon as a parent. Realistically speaking the troon was already mentally ill before the transition to the degree it would have interferred with a normal life.

The problem might not be the kid trooning out but that the parents started too late on getting kids and not getting enough kids so they have some level of protection if one egg breaks.

>>15421471
>Arse, Anon's (2023). 'Reply no. 15421471'. 4chan. Retrieved from >>15397156 on 05/07/23

>>15421471
this isn’t true at all
you are off by a factor of 100
0.6% of post-transition trans people kill themselves: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32072611/

>>15397156
>i regard cisgender as a slur
thats the only way it's ever used, same as with "white" and "male"

>>15423082
Why the fuck are cis white men so emotional and irrational

Most troons have been created relatively recently, gotta wait and see what happens when they're old men.

>>15423123
they never make it that far

>>15397190
bait

>>15423687
LOL

>>15415843
Reductio ad absurdum

>>15405861
Thats what it is

>>15397156
How do /sci/ midwits cope with the fact that Elon is now a "/pol/" shitposter, posting things most of the people here people "schizo" for posting just a few years ago? Genuinely curious if it makes you feel really stupid or just pretend like it never happened so you don't need self reflect on what a clueless psued hack you are when you thought you were a gigabrain.

>>15426780
people here *called* people schizo for

>>15426780
just goes to prove that 4chan "skizos" are smarter than musk

>>15427824
I wouldnt say smarter, just better informed. Smart people can easily miss things, we all have our focus on certain things in life and things can get past our peripheral vision. Missing something that isnt on your radar isnt really the problem, what is important is whether you can see it when someone comes to you and shows it to you. The vast majority of the psueds here were incapable of either. Now their pied piper is playing a new tune and they will dance to it however because it is le based mars man! Such is the nature of the NPC because they dont follow data, they follow cult of personality

>>15418841
Because the media won’t shut up about them.

>>15397190
so you're saying all of the hatred for white males in the government and in all media sources is both antiquated and evil?

>>15415795
sacklers have never been held accountable, it was all swept under the rug

>>15430525
everyone forgot about oxy because fent came around

>>15397175
>>>/pol/

>>15427857
(((the media)))

k

The Truth About Climate Change
Authors: Jonathan Tooker
https://vixra.org/abs/1309.0069
Climatology occupies the intersection of science policy and public understanding of science. In such a prominent position, the wide spectrum of climate opinions is remarkable. Society has achieved a paradigm in which global warming subscribers and non-subscribers are largely segregated by political affiliation. Since science is non-political, only a misunderstanding of the science can facilitate such a segregation. In the first section we analyze a recent study by Cook \emph{et al.} finding overwhelming scientific endorsement for the greenhouse theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). We find the popular reporting on Cook's result is not accurate. The aim of the following section is to clarify the science behind the most popular climate arguments and introduce the reader to some evidence that is not widely publicized. Even the astute non-climatologist should come away from this report with an enhanced understanding of relevant issues in modern climate science.

>>15432674
>>15432674

>>15397175
>>>/lgbt/

>>15403221
>belatedly admit
3 years later and they're still doing the surgeries. don't seem like anything was admitted, more like ignored

>>15434637
tranny suicide rate increases by 50% post surgery

>>15421339
it might be said that it's ideological cancer, a contagious one either deliberately given to them or at best negligently allowed to be transmitted by the cowardice of adults charged with guiding growing minds, like teachers. Same as doctors who didn't agree with the covid injections: you shut the fuck up or you lose your job.

>>15434873
good

>>15436286
OWNED

>>15397156
>Are there any other studies similar to the one Musk quotes here?
>200%-300% seems like a pretty broad range of results to be considered authoritative
>200%-300% seems like a pretty broad range of results to be considered authoritative
Fuck off back to your containment board, retarded shill.

>>15397190
Back to your containment board, emotional disturbed retard.
>>>lgbt/

>>15397175
You have to go back.

>>15397181
>40%
Anon... It's much higher.

>>15397156

>>15437185
It's much lower, actually. You're simply parroting something you've heard other people say based on a study they misread.
>>15434873
This number, however, is just entirely fictive.

>>15437711
no it isn't, the post surgical suicide rate is 60%

>>15438196
Sure, slap on another 10% every time you reply, it doesn't matter when the numbers are entirely made up.

>>15438205
60% is 50% more than 40%
what are you even doing on /sci/ if you're that bad at math? low iqs aren't allowed on this board

>>15438222
It is a 50% increase or an increase by 20 percentage points.

But it's moot because, again, you made it up.

>>15438234
>t. confused by percentages because low iq

Sometimes you do not need stuides to understand that shit's retarded.
Troonism is one example. Almost everyone on some basic subconscious level understands that troons are an abomination.
The state needs to invest heavily into brainwashing and involve an extensive repressive apparatus to change this exactly because this shit's not organic or healthy.

>>15397156
Who are the controls?

>>15397334
so do they have personality disorders or body dysmorphia? you’re literally just saying psych words at this point

>>15415795
Good thing there are zero financial interests involved in HRT and genital mutilation

>>15438850
I clearly just misread your dumb post and mistook the preposition. But, I cannot reiterate this enough, there's no need to understand your percentages anyway because they refer to nothing in the real world.

>>15440040
>t. confused by percentages because low iq and also upset at being exposed as a mathlet

>>15441067
The only thing that confuses me at this point is your desperation to cling to a number you clearly just plucked straight from your bunghole. Your deflection attempts, however, make perfect sense in that light.

>>15439996