This is getting out of hand. There are so many inaccuracies in your rebuttle that it is not even worth the time. Let’s start with an obvious one, however. Equating a survey of Fox news viewers with randomly selected representatives of the overall population to determine Biden’s popularity is not equivalent to the trans survey. The trans survey was taken solely by trans people. The people who identify as detransitioners were once trans and they’re also eligible to participate. This is absolutely the proper community to ask the question of. Your nonsense about the Covid vaccine is just that nonsense. I’m not even going to go into it. It is not a matter of opinion. You hide behind scientific methodology, as if I am ignorant of it. I have two medically related graduate degrees, and part of my curriculum was the proper study and use of statistics. I had to know how to use them properly and I know how they are often used to mislead the public, especially in marketing situations.

You also take a bunch of diverse studies which are unrelated in terms of methodology and target group and try to equate them together. The trans community is not homogenous. In addition to binary people, there are people who are gender fluid or gender nonconforming. Their needs and attitudes are different. You also use studies that talk mostly about hormone therapy and lump them together with those who have had surgical intervention. You need to separate the groups to get the proper statistics as to each group. However, the trans survey is open to all different kinds of trans people and its statistics are the best window we have to understanding, the composition and attitudes of the trans community as a whole. People who are not trans could never understand the experience. To suggest they can is hubris.

I encourage you to keep doing your investigation, but don’t try to impress me with your references to stochastic methods and control groups. I have a scientific background. They do not impress me, unless applied to a very particular research study, and a very particular set of facts. General references are not impressive nor convincing. They come across as an attempt to say you are more knowledgeable than you may really be. Real scientists don’t argue like that.