The peer reviewed journal articles on trans issues in psychology are pervasively corrupted. The articles I looked at would not have been accepted from undergrad students prior to about 20 years ago. Scientific standards and ethics were openly disregarded, and the research designs indicated lack of competence.
The peer reviewed journal articles on trans issues in psychology are pervasively corrupted. The articles I looked at would not have been accepted from undergrad students prior to about 20 years ago. Scientific standards and ethics were openly disregarded, and the research designs indicated lack of competence.
Psychology was captured earlier and more thoroughly than bio science, but at this point I would be very skeptical of any data, analysis or conclusions reported in peer reviewed journals for any field of study.
"The peer reviewed journal articles ... psychology are pervasively corrupted."
Indeed, and absent the qualification. Apropos of which and ICYMI, you might "enjoy" an article by Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico on the "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender" -- an article that Colin had tweeted about several years ago.
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences [and by Emma Hilton and Company] is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce [present tense indefinite] small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce [present tense indefinite] large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)."
Hilton's definitions are likewise "purely descriptive" and "lack a functional rational" -- i.e., by her definitions, one doesn't actually need to be able to reproduce to qualify as male or female:
Thank you, Steersman! I plan to go back through the articles I reviewed and make notes on their deficiencies. Need to wait until I finish my taxes. I’ll post more detailed critiques on this site after I do.
Yeah, I guess when I was pondering this I wasn't thinking of psychology as actual science... Sorry, lol, but I'm trained as a sociologist and I also don't think of any of the social sciences as even attempting to be scientific anymore. It's sad. And scary. :(
The peer reviewed journal articles on trans issues in psychology are pervasively corrupted. The articles I looked at would not have been accepted from undergrad students prior to about 20 years ago. Scientific standards and ethics were openly disregarded, and the research designs indicated lack of competence.
Psychology was captured earlier and more thoroughly than bio science, but at this point I would be very skeptical of any data, analysis or conclusions reported in peer reviewed journals for any field of study.
"The peer reviewed journal articles ... psychology are pervasively corrupted."
Indeed, and absent the qualification. Apropos of which and ICYMI, you might "enjoy" an article by Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico on the "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender" -- an article that Colin had tweeted about several years ago.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346447193_Ideological_Bias_in_the_Psychology_of_Sex_and_Gender
A relevant quote:
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences [and by Emma Hilton and Company] is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce [present tense indefinite] small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce [present tense indefinite] large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)."
Hilton's definitions are likewise "purely descriptive" and "lack a functional rational" -- i.e., by her definitions, one doesn't actually need to be able to reproduce to qualify as male or female:
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
Whole field of psychology is culpable to a not inconsiderable extent for the corruption of biology.
Thank you, Steersman! I plan to go back through the articles I reviewed and make notes on their deficiencies. Need to wait until I finish my taxes. I’ll post more detailed critiques on this site after I do.
Yeah, I guess when I was pondering this I wasn't thinking of psychology as actual science... Sorry, lol, but I'm trained as a sociologist and I also don't think of any of the social sciences as even attempting to be scientific anymore. It's sad. And scary. :(