| It seems like you are shifting the goalposts somewhat. In my comment, the claim I'm responding to is that the idea that trans-identification is a social contagion is "an entirely scientifically baseless idea". To rebut that claim I linked scientific research supporting that idea. You, in turn, replied that the research I linked was not very good. This is shifting the goalposts from "entirely scientifically baseless" to research that satisfies some unknown and nameless criteria of yours. You also mention that it "had to be corrected after publication and has been widely criticised for its poor methodology." That's an interesting point, but to my knowledge, the critics that drove that correction were trans activists rather than scientists. It "had to be corrected" (to the state it currently is in today where it makes the argument I reference) because of protests from these activists. The wikipedia summary of the controversy surrounding this paper says[1]: "Criticism was voiced by transgender activists, and two weeks after publication, PLOS One responded by announcing a post-publication review of the paper. In March 2019, the journal concluded its review and republished Littman's revised and corrected version." It's also not really a coherent criticism to say that, when I was faced with a claim that something is entirely non-scientific, I responded by citing the most frequently cited scientific paper to rebut that claim. Okay, it's a frequently cited scientific paper. That still rebuts the idea that the social contagion hypothesis is entirely non-scientific. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_onset_gender_dysphoria_c... |