Today's an exciting day for my lab as a paper came out for which we collected data for 4 years and then spent 3 years writing up the results. With contributions from nearly everyone in my lab at the time--this one gets a special thread. pnas.org/content/early/… The main findings: overall, the 300+ trans kids don't differ from 500+ cis kids (including sibs of trans kids) on measures of gender development, in terms of means + distributions.

One other point on this paper. Something I still struggle with: What happens when the stats that are best for a paper are stats that 95% of the field and esp readers won’t understand? We tried out best to explain them, but if we’re honest, even all of us don’t fully understand. Getting an editor + reviewers who were savvy was key. But it is unrealistic that everyone will understand increasingly complex analyses & it’s unlikely that non-scientists will. What do we do? Is it ok that so many people do not understand many details of the results section?