Re: Disturbing Video Shows Transgender Woman Being Attacked on NYC Train as Riders Wa
But wait... what about calamity's 65%? It doesn't exist. The researchers cite it... but then, they cite a completely different number when they use the statistics. This is the one area where the researchers did not do a good job in differentiating of scores. They used a Likert scale to gauge satisfaction with one's lives. The Likert Scale is ordinal, and their scale was from 1-10. They listed the raw scores, but did not assign them values. Based on the raw scores 6.9% of respondents were in the dissatisfied category (raw score of 1-3). 38.2% were in the fairly satisfied category (4-7) and 54.9% were in the satisfied/very satisfied category (8-10). So, what does this mean? Well the researchers of the study say it themselves:
Regardless of surgical results, over half of patients (54.9%) were in the top third (“completely satisfied”) and a further 38.2% in the middle third (“fairly satisfied”) of the general life satisfaction scale.
That gives us a 93.1% rate of satisfaction in the general life satisfaction scale. There are no statistics that substantiate the 65% number. The researchers themselves state, above, that 93.1% would be accurate.
Now, I do have issue with the question used to obtain this measure. The question is this:
5. How satisfied are you with your life now, on a scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 10 (very satisfied)?
From a research perspective, this is a very poorly worded question because it is far too ambiguous. This is odd, since the authors of the study did a great job with making all of their other questions VERY specific. The question above does not address how satisfied one is with the RESULTS of SRS, which is what I have been presenting. The question asks a general "how satisfied are you with your life, now?" There are other components that could have gone into this question, making the question itself ambiguous, causing confounds. Anyone who has done research knows that the wording of the question is the KEY to getting valid results. This question does not achieve reliablity, as there are unknown variables that could be included. The question SHOULD have read, "How satisfied are you with your life now
as a result of SRS, on a scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 10 (very satisfied)?" That would have yielded far more meaningful results, and results that would have actually addressed my position more clearly. However, I do find it interesting that the 93.1% number is nearly identical to my 92.9% number. I prefer my number because it is more statistically accurate and doesn't run into the confound of the question used for the 93.1%.
So, calamity failed when he first reported the results, citing an incorrect number, an incorrect measure, and behaving in a misogynistic way. calamity THEN failed by citing a number that is not justified with the statistics in the study, missed the actual number representing the measure, and both failed to consider the confounds of a poorly worded question and a measure that did not meet, specifically, the criteria of my challenge. The CORRECT figure, based on the statistics of the study and based on my position challenge, would be somewhere in the range of 92%, well within my >90% position. So, in other words, calamity failed, yet again.
Oh, and to add insult to injury, the study cited OTHER studies. Here's what they had to say:
Löwenberg reported
92% general satisfaction with the outcome of gender reassignment surgery.
Imbimbo et al. found a similarly high satisfaction rate (
94%)
In the authors’ own study population (Hess, et al), general satisfaction with surgery was achieved in
87.4% of patients.
Happich found more than
90% satisfaction with gender reassignment.
Sohn et al., subjective satisfaction rates of
80% can be expected following gender reassignment surgery.
Now, what have we learned? We have learned that my 90% position is largely and overwhelmingly accurate. Sure, there are a few studies that are less. But they are outliers. Most demonstrate a 90% satisfaction rate after SRS.
So, this is an excellent example of calamity's shoddy debating and shoddy research examinations. It is also a great example of calamity's dishonesty and manipulation tactics in debate. Finally, and not surprisingly, it demonstrates my complete superiority over calamity on this issue.
Now, my prediction is that calamity will either lie about what I've posted, divert or dodge, make some really dumb one-liner that refutes nothing of mine and supports nothing of his, or ignore this all an hope it goes away.
It won't.
Pwned.
