перевод ниже>дочь говорит, что она транс (девятый класс школы)>че_делать. / родители и дети :: английский :: Перевод :: тредшот

Ну если ты такой зависимый - тогда будь зависим и делай что говорят.
А если самостоятельный то да - зарабатывай на свои хотелки.

А то, как траповать - так мы взрослые, а как отвечать за свой выбор - так прикрываемся малолетством.

Или трусы или крестик короче говоря.

А так отличный план ты предложил - стал самостоятельным и делай что хочешь.

При том что мы рассуждаем это тренд или нет,
если это не тренд и всегда было в людях и мы только сейчас пришли к пониманию проблемы и принятию трансгендеров обществом, то у нас должна быть большая выборка всех возрастов, но мы этого не видим. Или ты хочешь сказать что те кому раньше соц рамки и давление со стороны близких и общества не давали проявить все это не захотели бы сменить пол не взирая на возраст?

дочь, тебя что-то беспокоит? хочешь рассказать/поговорит? я выслушаю"
и

А вот это обоюдоострый меч.
Прежде чем отрезать хер - можно к предкам подойти и поговорить. Они не экстрасенсы нихуя. Но нет, корзиночка особенная, все должны предугадать и стелиться ниц.

Writing for Slate, Daniel Engber criticized the project, saying that "one could have run this sting on almost any empirical discipline and returned the same result".[12] Similarly, Sarah Richardson, Harvard University professor of women's studies, criticized the hoaxers for not including a control group in their experiment, telling BuzzFeed News: "By their own standards, we can't scientifically conclude anything from it."[28] n+1 magazine published a critical article that cited a survey by the science writer Jim Schnabel of similar hoax attempts, summarizing Schnabel's conclusion as "the educated public makes a decision based not on the scientific merits of the hoax but on the relative orthodoxy of the hoaxer and hoaxee. In effect, the result of the trick is decided in advance by the power relations of the field." The article goes on to assert that the relative orthodoxy in this case was "not an orthodoxy of scientific legitimacy but rather the emerging consensus of tech bros, Davos billionaires, and alt-right misogynists".[29]

In UnHerd, Chivers noted that while the so-called "grievance studies" fields "probably" contain more "bullshit… than most scientific fields", the project distracted attention from problems of shoddy scholarship across the entirety of academia. He highlighted that several weeks prior to the project's public revelation, professor of food behaviour Brian Wansink had resigned from his position at Cornell University following exposure of instances of scientific misconduct on his part.[19]

Carl T. Bergstrom, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, says: "the hoaxers appear woefully naïve about how the system actually works". Peer review is not designed to remove fraud or even absurd ideas, he claimed, and replication will lead to self-correction.[21] In the same article, David Schieber said he was one of the two anonymous reviewers for "Rubbing One Out", and argued that the hoaxers selectively quoted from his review. "They were turning my attempt to help the authors of a rejected paper into an indictment of my field and the journal I reviewed for, even though we rejected the paper."[21]

Ten professors at Portland State University signed an open letter saying the hoax was not comparable to the Sokal affair, the latter taking place during "a time of debate and exploration in the field of philosophy and science", and that the trio were only exploiting "credulous journalists interested mainly in spectacle" to conduct academic fraud. They compared the trio's style to "Trumpist politics" and wrote that "[d]esperate reasoning, basic spite and a perverse interest in public humiliation seem to have overridden any actual scholarly goals."[30] The authors asked to remain anonymous, alleging Boghossian had targeted academics at other institutions and that they would likely receive "threats of death and assault from online trolls".[30]

In an article in the journal Science, Technology, and Human Values, Mikko Lagerspetz analyzed the project's experimental design and its possible results, based on the peer reviews and editorial decisions available through the project's website. He sums up as follows:[31]

(1) journals with higher impact factors were more likely to reject papers submitted as part of the project; (2) the chances were better, if the manuscript was allegedly based on empirical data; (3) peer reviews can be an important asset in the process of revising a manuscript; and (4) when the project authors, with academic education from neighboring disciplines, closely followed the reviewers' advice, they were able to learn relatively quickly what is needed for writing an acceptable article. The boundary between a seriously written paper and a "hoax" gradually became blurred. Finally (5), the way the project ended showed that in the long run, the scientific community will uncover fraudulent practices.

He concludes that the experiment was flawed both experimentally and ethically, and failed to provide the evidence it sought.[32] It is unclear, on what grounds the project group decided what journals to target.[33] One third (7) of the 21 final editorial decisions the authors received were positive, two thirds of the decisions were negative. In the absence of a control group, it is impossible to tell whether this ratio could have been lower or higher within some other disciplines.[34]

> Давай вот так.

Нет, на "давай вот так". Так наука не работает.

> Текущая ситуация состоит в том что люди страдают от гендерной дисморфии

Нет, нет и ещё раз нет. Количество людей, которое страдают от гендерной дисФории, очень маленькое. В данный момент кастрируют детей и взрослых, у которых нет никакой дисфории.

> "Трансы просто все поехавшие на голову, и их надо пиздить ремнем пока не вылечатся

Где я такое говорил? Ну вот где?

> Найди мне научное исследование где говорится что большинство прошедших операцию жалеют об этом, что мода прошла, а член уже не вернуть

Эта хуета ТОЛЬКО НАЧАЛАСЬ. Никаких исследований ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКИ быть не может.

Это хуета действительно антинаучная. То, что некоторые современные научные институты захватили антинаучные идиоты и продвигают свою "лоботомию", не делает их пропаганду "научной".

Как ты можешь заметить, они даже не могут привести консистентное определение используемым терминам. Король у них голый.