Thread by @TwisterFilm

1./ Would you like to read a brilliant takedown of second rate science? I love when a researcher digs deep into someone else's work and finds glaring flaws. That's what Michael Biggs has just done with the most recent work by the awful Jack Turban. So what's the truth?
1 of /12.

2./ Puberty blocker promoter Turban is a darling of the US woke media who've rushed to embrace his latest paper because it claims there is no trans 'social contagion'. But Turban's claim turns out to be based on a wilful misreading of his own evidence.
nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-he…

3./ Turban argued in his paper in @aap_peds that it's a myth more girls are identifying as trans. But the only way to be sure of this is if the trans kids who answer the question “what sex are you” describe themselves using biological sex. But what if they don't?

4./ Turban claims “several studies have found that trans youth are likely to understand ‘sex’ to be sex assigned at birth.” But when Biggs analysed the three articles Turban cited he found they actually failed to support Turban’s assertion. That’s devastating.

5./ Biggs also details many other eminent studies that confirmed what we all know that many more girls are now identifying as trans than boys. Turban's paper is so anomolous it better have fantastic evidence. Instead it's cobbled together like something from Blue Peter.

6./ Biggs went back to the original source Turban used, the CDC survey of Schools, and discovered in many states a proportion of kids who said they were trans, refused to answer the question about sex. So Turban's claim about proportion of males to females is null and void.

7./ Then Biggs turned to other data in the Survey that Turban ignored. Take height. "Transgender respondents who identified as male were on average 2.5 cm shorter than non-transgender male respondents". Why does this matter? Natal females are shorter on average than natal males.

8./ There was though no discernible height difference between transgender respondents who identified as female and non-transgender female respondents. This is surely evidence some of the transgender respondents who identified themselves as male were natal females.

9./ Michael Biggs's conclusion is suitably barbed: "No conclusion about the sex ratio of transgender youth can be drawn from this survey. The article does, however, provide considerable insight into the editorial standards maintained by Pediatrics." Amen to that.

10./ The comment about editorial standards was added after they rejected his letter ..within an hour. Children's health no longer seems to be an overriding concern of this Pediatrics journal. Go figure. Biggs describes Turban's work as incredible. It's not a compliment.

11./ Jack Turban’s unfailing record of poor research, overhyped claims and deceptive use of evidence continues. One day hopefully he'll be held to account for it. In the meantime you can read Michael Biggs’s full letter here.👇
END
figshare.com/articles/journ…

12./ You can read this thread on my substack too if you subscribe for free. You can also access my detailed investigations of the pseudo science and dangerous academic notions that support gender identity nonsense with a paid subscription.
END
👇
malcolmrichardclark.substack.com/p/turban-even-…