Havard offers course on healthcare about LGBT "from Infants to adults"

[mishkin]

Not sure what the doubling of transgenderism among young adults or libertine sexual fetishes more generally has to do with the observation that bisexual fetishes seem to be the most popular

sorry you are including transsexuality in "libertine sexual fetishes"? what are you talking about when you talk about "libertine sexual fetishes" and "bisexual fetishes"?

[antaeus]

So you agree, again, that social norms have sufficient impact to influence which sexual behaviors are more or less en vogue, including straight people identifying as something else because it’s cool.

I’ve highlighted the dishonesty of intersex people somehow being representative of LGBTQ, since the official statement from Havard claimed the “context” of the course on LGBTQ people is about intersex people. The purpose is to demonstrate that an elite medical course on how to care for children with supposedly innate sexual fetishes can’t seem to medically justify the gulf between 2% intersex and 20% LGBTQ. To infer the latter from the former is bizarre enough, let alone to claim kids can be aware of these innate fetishes before they are even born - you know, when they are inert bits of organic tissue hosts should have the right to dispose of on demand.

Lovely straw man there Lord.

Of course fashion is going to influence anything to do with personal expression when society allows for it. But my statement didn't talk about fashion. It talked about freedom of choice. People making their mind up to do things because they can, when previously that would have landed them in prison. In some cases that would be fashion. But you can't make that statement definitive without further study.

Suggesting that someone deciding that they can express themselves in a way they couldn't previously is dishonest simply because it could be a response to fashion is itself dishonest and dismissive of a million different scenarios that could be at play, only one of which might be fashion. When it is easy to argue that it is the exact opposite. People are free to do what they choose, rather than bottle it up and live life miserable.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Of course fashion is going to influence anything to do with personal expression when society allows for it. But my statement didn't talk about fashion. It talked about freedom of choice.

You accuse me of concocting a strawman, only to reiterate we’re talking about choices.

People making their mind up to do things because they can, when previously that would have landed them in prison. In some cases that would be fashion. But you can't make that statement definitive without further study.

It’s a bit odd to talk about further study when your whole argument is to infer that up to half of people could be living a lie at any given time for all of recorded history up to now, and have only just been “liberated” from a global conspiracy of oppression that transcends time, geography and culture, forcing 20-40% people be heterosexual. That’s a much taller order than anything I’ve presented.

Suggesting that someone deciding that they can express themselves in a way they couldn't previously is dishonest simply because it could be a response to fashion is itself dishonest and dismissive of a million different scenarios that could be at play, only one of which might be fashion. When it is easy to argue that it is the exact opposite. People are free to do what they choose, rather than bottle it up and live life miserable.

Again, if you’re going to reiterate that at least 20-40% of people were “bottling it up and living miserable” until now because they were utterly subjugated by the other half whose agency they apparently do not share, it’s easy to argue the same mechanisms are changing to promote a very different agenda. Punishment for failure to conform to that agenda can range from economic to social to legal. I’m not even allowed to say “Hi guys” in an email ffs. By contrast, to conform is to be one of the good guys. When a celebrity “comes out,” it’s like they cured cancer or something. Sex education in public schools presents gay porn in the classroom as the norm. In that sort of environment, it’s no wonder many kids choose to not only conform but to participate, because as you put it, being plain old heterosexual can be perceived as uncool or out of touch, even by someone who is heterosexual. You can’t have it both ways, at least not if we’re talking about evidence.

[Cyclops]

There's a bit of a flood of "sex bogey" threads cropping up in a number of fora, is Putin doing badly in Ukraine again?

I've noticed a confluence (just anecdotally, maybe I should do some FOX style 10-person sample size surveys) that people with a "submission to Putin" fetish also start "Satanic/trans-panic" nothing burger walls of text.

No one ITT of course.

[Muizer]

I did a google search for 'transgender percentage population united states "2022"'

If we disregard sexual orientation and focus only on those identifying as trans:

1: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...united-states/
0.5% of the total population, 1.4% amongst adolescents

2:https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...gned-at-birth/
0.6% total population, 2% of people in their 20s

3: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new...er-2022-06-10/
cites 1

4: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...20427b-eng.htm
0.8% among people aged 18 and older

5: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/s...al-survey.html
cites 1

6: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_d..._United_States
10% of 7.1% = 0.7% of all adults

7: https://www.census.gov/library/stori...-identity.html
1.7% of 18+

8: https://www.thepinknews.com/2019/04/...er-statistics/
cites 1 and https://www.glaad.org/files/aa/2017_...Acceptance.pdf
2% of 18-34 year olds, 1% 35-51, 0.5% >51

Anyone coming across the figure 10% would be justified to treat it with suspicion.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I did a google search for 'transgender percentage population united states "2022"'

If we disregard sexual orientation and focus only on those identifying as trans:

1: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...united-states/
0.5% of the total population, 1.4% amongst adolescents

From the report:

Our estimate of the number of youth who identify as transgender has doubled from our previous estimate.

That’s what I said. The BRFSS data your first reference here uses is also known to undercount the number of trans people due to selection bias and other factors, which is why I said it’s fine to use as a lower bound.

Whether the invisibility of transgender and gender nonbinary experiences in sexual and reproductive health research is the result of study design and analysis practices that lack consideration of transgender and gender nonbinary experiences or of transgender and gender nonbinary people choosing not to participate in research because of a long history of discrimination and mistreatment, the result is the same—selection bias and invisibility about the needs of transgender and gender nonbinary people. One example of this is in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a national system of health-related telephone surveys conducted in the United States.

An estimated 1–1.4 million adults (0.4–0.6% of the adult population) in the United States are transgender,5,6 although this number is almost certainly an underestimate.6,7 Population proportions may be substantially higher among the next generation; for instance, a study from the GLAAD Institute found that 12% of people aged 18–34 years in the United States identify as a gender other than cisgender.8

https://journals.lww.com/greenjourna...Gender.10.aspx

For the record, that’s 3 times higher than what my source reported, and higher than the total you find so suspicious.

2:https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...gned-at-birth/
0.6% total population, 2% of people in their 20s

It appears Pew could also be undercounting if other representative samples produce larger results by orders of magnitude, but again, lower bound.

4: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...20427b-eng.htm
0.8% among people aged 18 and older

Based Canada?

6: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_d..._United_States
10% of 7.1% = 0.7% of all adults

Cites 1?

7: https://www.census.gov/library/stori...-identity.html
1.7% of 18+

Ok, so already almost triple what I said can work as a lower bound.

Anyone coming across the figure 10% would be justified to treat it with suspicion.

First you said the numbers are unsurprising, then you accused me of making them up, then retreated to “just Google 8 links that are actually 4 sources,” only to arrive at the realization the figure you find suspicious was actually in the middle range and some sources come to higher conclusions. What’s the point of all this? Is this "it's not happening and if it is that's good?" Is that what's happening right now?

[Coughdrop addict]

There's a bit of a flood of "sex bogey" threads cropping up in a number of fora, is Putin doing badly in Ukraine again?

I've noticed a confluence (just anecdotally, maybe I should do some FOX style 10-person sample size surveys) that people with a "submission to Putin" fetish also start "Satanic/trans-panic" nothing burger walls of text.

No one ITT of course.

It all goes in a predictable cycle. The Republican party cannot exist without a 'them' because without fear of 'them' all they have to run on is funneling more and more wealth up to the mega-rich, with the eventual goal of turning the U.S. into a combination of Putin's Russia and France before the revolution. If they outright said that was the entire reason their party exists they might even lose in a few of their gerrymandered red states. So instead they drum up hatred and paranoia of 'them' as a mask over their true purpose. Currently trans people are 'them', and before that it was Hispanics, and before that Blacks, and before that Muslims. I'm guessing within a year or so it will start over with Muslims once again as 'them'.

[mishkin]

the number of people who declare themselves LGTBI+ is increasing because it is no longer something so socially condemned. the risk of being beaten up for declaring it in any way or kicked out of the house by your parents has been reduced.

Lord Thesaurian, why do you think the increase in the number of people who declare themselves to be transsexuals is alarming? Do you also find the increase in the number of people who declare themselves gay alarming? what the hell were you talking about when you talked about "libertine sexual fetishes"?

[Coughdrop addict]

Lord Thesaurian, why do you think the increase in the number of people who declare themselves to be transsexuals is alarming? Do you also find the increase in the number of people who declare themselves gay alarming?

Because it's a conspiracy!

https://en.as.com/latest_news/marjor...da-gun-laws-n/

Outspoken Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has been in the news again after posting a series of bizarre claims on Twitter, suggesting that the heterosexual people could soon be extinct.
As Pride Month kicked off, Greene took to Twitter to suggest that “they” will soon ensure that there are no straight people in the US. She did not outline who she was referring to.

[mishkin]

I have been reading media reports that highlight the increase in the numbers in transsexuality and homosexuality and thought it was a truly nauseating underworld. I see^ that it is not exactly an underworld, these clearly homophobic and transphobic politicians and communicators are not so afraid of coming to light. Which I suppose in one sense is good, but confronting people with these ideologies, with this total disrespect for anything other than the normative society of sixty or seventy years ago... these liberal thinkers, brave dissidents fighting against gender ideology, the new science and cultural Marxism in general. With a totally biased survey in one hand and the bible in the other.

[alhoon]

At the same time, lifelong indoctrination of older generations to think of themselves as cis-gendered heterosexuals (or face hell / being an outcast) has no doubt skewed the results for the older generations. So what are we actually witnessing? The rise of a fad, the disappearance of one, or both?

The fact that the older generations with the "cis-gender indoctrination" are much happier than angry youths shows that it wasn't an indoctrination as much as embracing reality instead of reacting angrily to your parents by the latest cultural fad.

I did a google search for 'transgender percentage population united states "2022"'

If we disregard sexual orientation and focus only on those identifying as trans:

1: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...united-states/
0.5% of the total population, 1.4% amongst adolescents

2:https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...gned-at-birth/
0.6% total population, 2% of people in their 20s

3: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new...er-2022-06-10/
cites 1

4: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...20427b-eng.htm
0.8% among people aged 18 and older

5: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/s...al-survey.html
cites 1

6: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_d..._United_States
10% of 7.1% = 0.7% of all adults

7: https://www.census.gov/library/stori...-identity.html
1.7% of 18+

8: https://www.thepinknews.com/2019/04/...er-statistics/
cites 1 and https://www.glaad.org/files/aa/2017_...Acceptance.pdf
2% of 18-34 year olds, 1% 35-51, 0.5% >51

Anyone coming across the figure 10% would be justified to treat it with suspicion.

Those seem correct numbers.
Furthermore, in some cases adolescents may still decide that they are cis-gendered after all. Detransitions do happen and there are cases where kids thought they were transgender when they were not. I have in the past mentioned articles about evil progressive doctors that have been over-zealous in declaring people transgender (for example the marine that regrets being used as a flag for this dangerous practice). These doctors have effectively preyed on confused young men, cutting off their genitals or feeding them dangerous hormones and pocketing the money for the expensive treatment.

Anyway, my point is that adolescents may change their mind about being transgender. So it is not surprising that their numbers are higher.

[mishkin]

The fact that the older generations with the "cis-gender indoctrination" are much happier than angry youths shows that it wasn't an indoctrination as much as embracing reality instead of reacting angrily to your parents by the latest cultural fad.

I'm sure you have data that supports your claim that non-cis people in the past didn't suffer at all from having to hide their condition.

Are you suggesting that transsexuality* is not something real? Could you affirm or deny unequivocally if you believe that it is a real phenomenon or not?

* Merriam-Webster definition:of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity is opposite the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth

[Muizer]

From the report:

Here we go again. When the numbers are low, focus on the increase factor instead.

That’s what I said. The BRFSS data your first reference here uses is also known to undercount the number of trans people due to selection bias and other factors, which is why I said it’s fine to use as a lower bound.

12% of people aged 18–34 years in the United States identify as a gender other than cisgender.8::

Again, picking the highest number you believe you can get away with."other than cis-gender" instead of "transgender". If you check the GLAAD report (I gave the link already), you can see they're not complementary and the % transgender is actually 2%

For the record, that’s 3 times higher than what my source reported, and higher than the total you find so suspicious.

3 times higher than what you said would be 30%:

The increase in question was seen across all categories. Even if it weren’t, that wouldn’t constitute evidence that 20%+ of people have always had these hard-coded behaviors and 10%+ of people have always been transgender.

It appears Pew could also be undercounting if other representative samples produce larger results by orders of magnitude, but again, lower bound.

There's a point to me using Google to find info and it's not because it's infallible in producing the truth. I'll get to that later.

Based Canada?

It cites numbers for the US

Cites 1?

quite probably. not the point.

Ok, so already almost triple what I said can work as a lower bound.

It's the upper bound you cited that its suspicious.

First you said the numbers are unsurprising, then you accused me of making them up, then retreated to “just Google 8 links that are actually 4 sources,” only to arrive at the realization the figure you find suspicious was actually in the middle range and some sources come to higher conclusions. What’s the point of all this? Is this "it's not happening and if it is that's good?" Is that what's happening right now?

The point is not that Google will lead us to the truth in all things. It's that everyone who is motivated by a detached curiosity would use it as a way of getting insights. You very clearly go beyond that and make an effort to select data and highlight the most extreme stats.

Going back to the original topic, the title "Havard offers course on healthcare about LGBT "from Infants to adults" does something similar by implying that academics are taught to categorize infants according to sexual orientation, even though the article itself subsequently denies it.

I see it as a kind of deliberate sensationalism used to emotionally manipulate people into joining a cause. When an individual espouses such views, the question is, are they the manipulator, the successfully manipulated or even the self-deceiving manipulators?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The fact that the older generations with the "cis-gender indoctrination" are much happier than angry youths shows that it wasn't an indoctrination as much as embracing reality instead of reacting angrily to your parents by the latest cultural fad. ...

Reality says different.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

• Since 1990, the divorce rate of people over 50 has doubled.
• Researchers predict "gray divorces" will triple by 2030.
• Many factors contribute to "gray divorce," including an increased willingness to face relationship differences after children leave home.

For more than three decades, a silent revolution has been unfolding without much comment, creating a seismic shift in American families and families in other countries. Three to four generations of families are feeling the effects. While the divorce rate in younger age groups has declined, people over 50 are divorcing in record-setting numbers.

The American Association of Retired Persons coined the term "gray divorce" in 2004 when it published a study about divorce at midlife and beyond. In 2012, researchers at Bowling Green State University named this phenomenon the “gray divorce revolution.” Their study found the divorce rate for the U.S. population over 50 doubled in those two decades and more than doubled for those over 65. Since half of the married population is 50 and over, these researchers projected that, as the U.S. population ages, by 2030, the number of persons aged 50 and older who divorce will grow by one-third.

The explosion of gray divorces is not isolated to the United States. The same trends are occurring in Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Europe, Australia, and India. Canada’s national statistical agency indicates that “grey divorce” has been consistently growing among those 55 and over, including those 65 and older. And rates are expected to increase as more people continue to age. The United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics announced in 2018 that the divorce rate among those 55 or older, dubbed “silver splitters” and "silver surfers," has doubled. In the past two decades in Japan, couples married 30 years or more have seen their divorce rate quadruple. The Japanese are calling it “Retired Husband Syndrome.”

Gray divorce is an undeniable worldwide reality that is transforming the social and economic lives of divorcing couples, family members, and society.

Why is this revolution happening?

Myriad circumstances underlie the meteoric rise in gray divorce over the past 30 years. In the late 1960s and 1970s, a focus on personal happiness and self-fulfillment became prominent. In subsequent decades in most industrialized countries, life expectancy significantly increased, attitudes about marriage as a lifelong institution shifted, divorce became more socially acceptable, and women joined the workforce and became more financially independent.

Couples who married decades ago and have drifted apart or been unhappy for years become willing to face their differences about finances, interests, and emotional fulfillment and acknowledge their unsatisfying relationships. When they experience the empty nest syndrome as adult children leave home, they wonder what they now have in common. Infidelity and addictions often contribute to the decision to divorce. Spouses seek refuge from mental, emotional, and physical abuse. Betrayal from financial improprieties propels spouses to seek relief. People realize they are not living the dream they imagined when they married decades ago and are unhappy and unfulfilled. They look to the remaining decades ahead to pursue personal happiness.

The longest study on happiness

The Harvard Study of Adult Development, one of the world's longest studies of adult life, followed the lives of two groups of men for more than 80 years. A former director of the study, psychiatrist George Vaillant said, "When the study began [in 1938], nobody cared about empathy or attachment. But the key to healthy aging is relationships, relationships, relationships."

In his highly regarded 2015 TED talk, Dr. Robert Waldinger, the current director of the study, said, "It wasn't their middle-aged cholesterol levels that predicted how they were going to grow old. It was how satisfied they were in their relationships. The people who were the most satisfied in their relationships at age 50 were the healthiest at age 80."
Waldinger noted that the study's surprising finding is that taking care of our body is important but tending to our relationships is also a form of self-care. He shared the three lessons learned from the study:

• Social connections are very good for us, and loneliness kills.
• Living in conflict is very bad for our health.
• Good relationships don’t just protect our bodies. They protect our brains.

The quest for personal happiness and self-fulfillment

People ages 50 and older who initiate a divorce report they want something more and different. Many of them grew up experiencing their parents' divorce and divorces of their friends' parents. They came of age in the late 1960s through the early 1980s when divorce became widespread and are more likely to have married as young adults, divorced, and later remarried. Some have lived for decades in marriages with conflict. Some have little or no interaction with wither spouses. They ask, "Is this all there is?" and report feeling lonely and disconnected from their spouses. "Staying in this shell of a marriage is killing me" is a common refrain. The findings in the Harvard Study of Adult Development support what they say and feel. They hope that pleasure, contentment, and joy await them as they move into the next stage of their lives.

Copyright Carol R. Hughes, Ph.D., LMFT
Why the Divorce Rate for Older Couples Keeps Rising | Psychology Today

And we haven't even dived into this numbers, how many divorced because they discovered, how suffocating this old cisnormative role model was.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Those seem correct numbers.

Including the elderly in these estimates isn’t problematic in and of itself, but given his premise is that older generations are indoctrinated to be heterosexual/cisgender, the differential between close to 0% of Boomers vs 12% of young adults claiming to be transgender says more than his estimates based on undercounted data.

[mishkin]

never, never never, have non-cis people made an effort to lead a socially acceptable life.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Here we go again. When the numbers are low, focus on the increase factor instead.

I had to chuckle at this. Thanks. I’ll try to avoid upsetting you by reading your own source material back to you going forward.

Again, picking the highest number you believe you can get away with."other than cis-gender" instead of "transgender".

Well, this is awkward. Here’s what happened when I Googled “transgender” and “cisgender.”

Transgender: denoting or relating to a person whose gender identity does not correspond with the sex registered for them at birth.

Cisgender: denoting or relating to a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex registered for them at birth; not transgender.

If you check the GLAAD report (I gave the link already), you can see they're not complementary and the % transgender is actually 2%

From GLAAD:



That’s 12% trans. If your argument has been reduced to what you believe is the difference between trans and non-cisgender, you don’t have one.

3 times higher than what you said would be 30%:

This tells me you might not know the difference between generational subtotals and the total. The source I cited indicates 4% of Gen Z identifies as trans. When you challenged me on that, you succeeded in revealing your own source posits numbers 3 times higher, and another is known to undercount trans people.

There's a point to me using Google to find info and it's not because it's infallible in producing the truth. I'll get to that later.

So you believe Google produces inaccurate or biased results? It seems the more likely conclusion in this case is that you’ve derailed the conversation by deflecting to some myopic bit of copium. All you’ve managed to accomplish so far is to highlight that some representative samples produce results 2-3 times higher than what my sources indicated. Reading headlines from the top results on Google to argue online probably isn’t the best way to go about studying a topic for the first time.

It cites numbers for the US

The report is about trans people in Canada.

Other countries have published 2021 data on transgender people using crowdsourcing and non-representative surveys, including Ireland (0.6% among people aged 18 and older), England and Wales (0.6% among people aged 16 and older), and the United States (0.8% among people aged 18 and older).

That’s not what the US Census data you cited says, so…cites 1?

It's the upper bound you cited that its suspicious.

As it turns out, the upper bound comes from your own source.

The point is not that Google will lead us to the truth in all things. It's that everyone who is motivated by a detached curiosity would use it as a way of getting insights. You very clearly go beyond that and make an effort to select data and highlight the most extreme stats.

Your own source cited stats more “extreme” than mine. So I guess I have to thank you again for highlighting my commitment to go beyond the headlines for information, in contrast to your method.

Going back to the original topic, the title "Havard offers course on healthcare about LGBT "from Infants to adults" does something similar by implying that academics are taught to categorize infants according to sexual orientation, even though the article itself subsequently denies it.

I responded to this in my first post here. As I’ve said more times since, Harvard’s deflection to intersex people when responding to commentary on their course about caring for LGBTQ people “across the lifespan, from infants to adults,” indicates their own potential dishonesty, rather than anyone else’s.

I see it as a kind of deliberate sensationalism used to emotionally manipulate people into joining a cause. When an individual espouses such views, the question is, are they the manipulator, the successfully manipulated or even the self-deceiving manipulators?

I think you’ve made a great case on your own for why this whole tangent is a self-defeating projection on your part.

When an individual is aware that the skyrocketing numbers of LGBTQ youth pose problems for his or her “40% of people were just forced to be heterosexual/cisgender til now” theory, they may simultaneously downplay the numbers while insisting they are unsurprising (it’s not happening and if it is that’s good). Unable to refute any of my observations, he or she may opt instead to impugn my heretical motives and thus lack of credibility.

[mishkin]

young people are less prejudiced/inhibited than people raised twenty, thirty, or forty years ago who still make fag jokes. I'm learning a lot of surprising things here, thanks.

[Muizer]

I had to chuckle at this. Thanks. I’ll try to avoid upsetting you by reading your own source material back to you going forward.

They're not my sources. They are what anyone who does a google search without prejudice will find. Your smugness is misplaced. You completely missed the point. It's about you choosing which numbers to cite from a report. If a report finds the absolute numbers are low, you choose to cite a rate of increase instead. Like when you mentioned a '13 fold increase' in certain surgical gender affirming procedures but conveniently failed to mention the sum total of cases over the length of the study was a measly 200.

From GLAAD:



That’s 12% trans. If your argument has been reduced to what you believe is the difference between trans and non-cisgender, you don’t have one.

From the exact same report:


Thanks for proving the point about you insisting on citing the highest number you can get your hands on.

This tells me you might not know the difference between generational subtotals and the total. The source I cited indicates 4% of Gen Z identifies as trans. When you challenged me on that, you succeeded in revealing your own source posits numbers 3 times higher, and another is known to undercount trans people.

I was referring to the 10%

The report is about trans people in Canada.

for the second time, in spite of that it does cite numbers for the us. And again the point of this exercise is not to produce top quality sources. It's to demonstrate what one would find if one went looking for facts in an impartial manner. I.e. a way to establish some sort of benchmark for widely shared data.

As it turns out, the upper bound comes from your own source.

Only if you apply a definition that is extraneous to the source itself.

I responded to this in my first post here. As I’ve said more times since, Harvard’s deflection to intersex people when responding to commentary on their course about caring for LGBTQ people “across the lifespan, from infants to adults,” indicates their own potential dishonesty, rather than anyone else’s.

Lol, the only thing they're guilty of is underestimating the bad faith of journalists and their readers, intentionally seeking the interpretation that, albeit entirely illogical, is most likely to shock people.

When an individual is aware that the skyrocketing numbers of LGBTQ youth pose problems for his or her “40% of people were just forced to be heterosexual/cisgender til now”

oooooh so it is 40% now. Ok .....

[Lord Thesaurian]

They're not my sources. They are what anyone who does a google search without prejudice will find. Your smugness is misplaced. You completely missed the point. It's about you choosing which numbers to cite from a report. If a report finds the absolute numbers are low, you choose to cite a rate of increase instead. Like when you mentioned a '13 fold increase' in certain surgical gender affirming procedures but conveniently failed to mention the sum total of cases over the length of the study was a measly 200.

They’re the sources you cited. Every time you’ve made these accusations, you’ve only prompted me to take a second look that produces figures higher than the ones you claim are implausibly high but also unsurprising and even good.

From the exact same report:

Thanks for proving the point about you insisting on citing the highest number you can get your hands on.

The report further splits off several subcategories from the umbrella term “transgender,” all of which are still higher than the figures you’ve previously argued are representative of all transgenders in the population. All the terms listed on the chart other than cisgender are gender identities that do not match the one assigned at birth, that is, transgender. The purpose of the division was to allow respondents to comment more precisely on how they see themselves, not to suggest their own charts contradict each other. That’s why these subcategories add up to 12% in the category I referenced. Like I said already, if this is your argument, you don’t have one. From the report:

• Transgender: identifying with a gender that does not correspond to the sex you were assigned at birth
• Bigender: or identifying equally as both genders
• Genderqueer: identifying outside of, or beyond, the binary of female and male
• Gender fluid: identifying as male, female, and/or outside the binary at different times

Thanks for confirming your position is so vulnerable to the most basic facts about it as to immediately perish on the hill of semantics.

I was referring to the 10%

The source I cited said the total is nearly 10%, yes, but you’ve since provided a source that claims much higher numbers than that. Even if we just take the 4% figure for Gen Z and apply your premise about previous generations being indoctrinated as heterosexual, that would come out to an even higher total than the original, which is still lower than your own source.

for the second time, in spite of that it does cite numbers for the us. And again the point of this exercise is not to produce top quality sources. It's to demonstrate what one would find if one went looking for facts in an impartial manner. I.e. a way to establish some sort of benchmark for widely shared data.

If you don’t find the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, a source you cited, or the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or my original source credible, I’m not really interested in debating that with you. If your whole argument is that the numbers are both impossibly high and unsurprising, you’ve already done a great job disproving it yourself.

Only if you apply a definition that is extraneous to the source itself.

I applied the definition that is inside the source itself.

Lol, the only thing they're guilty of is underestimating the bad faith of journalists and their readers, intentionally seeking the interpretation that, albeit entirely illogical, is most likely to shock people.

“It’s not happening, and if it is, that’s good.”

In this context, care for infants refers specifically to physical variations in sex development that arise in utero and are present at birth. These include chromosomal, gonadal, and anatomical variations, all of which are relevant to medical care and treatment to ensure healthy development."*

Ok, then 1: how does 2% or fewer intersex people connect to the 20% of people who are LGBTQ?
2: Why does the course description say the course is about caring for LGBT individuals “across the lifespan, from infants to older adults” if the context refers to intersex people?

If you can accurately answer those questions, you’ve already offered a more relevant response than the one concocted by Harvard professionals.

oooooh so it is 40% now. Ok .....

Yes, but I couldn’t have gotten there without your help. You said 20% was too high because I must have made it up or something even though it shouldn’t be a surprising figure anyways, so then I checked again and found another estimate that claimed it’s actually 40%, cited previously. Feel free to go with the lower bound of 20%.