No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

seems that its as good as anything the Williams Institute has put forth or it wouldn't have been published?

The Williams Institute put out a whole study. Yvette just said it was biased. The only reason you think the opinion is any good is because you agree with her. Opinions don't trump facts though. If the study is biased and flawed, you should show it in the methodology.

good thing the good people of mass will ultimately decide
public referendums are a good thing

Yep the deeply liberal state of MA will decide this.

a reply to: underwerks

His argument is apparently that LGBT groups sponsoring studies are inherently biased and untrustworthy, but the Christian groups putting out kneejerk denials are credible.

a reply to: underwerks

from the ops link

Yvette Ollada, a consultant for Keep MA Safe, called it “totally biased” and claimed “there was an obvious conflict of interest on the part of the researchers and publishers.” Ollada alleged the study’s researchers shared their findings with those in favor of keeping the nondiscrimination law in place before it was available to the public and denied that same early access to Keep MA Safe. “This speaks to the bias of the researchers and publishers at UCLA, that they would withhold the study from one political campaign and share it with another,” Ollada said.

you have info that disputes Yvette Ollada's review of the research please by all means present it

just remember this is in the op
i did not bring it to the thread

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Can you actually prove the methodology is flawed or are you just jumping to conclusions because you don't want to trust this guy?

First, the author is a female, not a guy. Second, the onus of proof is on the study, itself. When said study comes from a highly skewed source, they're going to have to do a little more work. For starters, the entire study centers on Brookline and Cambridge, MA. I don't know about you, but I can safely say the city I live in is pretty damn different from any city found in Massachusetts. Their study, if it proves anything, proves it for a wealthy city of 60,000 citizens where JFK and RFK were born and an extremely liberal city of 110,000 with a larger than average portion of poor people. None of this relates easily to a usable sample size which is relevant outside of MA.

Then there's this...

Amira Hasenbush declares that she has no conflict of interest.

As I've already said, this is a disingenuous statement being made from someone who makes their living off of LGBT legal cases.

There were fewer overall incidents in the group with clear GIPANDOs when compared to the matched localities,

How much improvement is worthwhile actually seems to be what all of this hangs on. The study shows lower crime numbers following passage of these bathroom bills... but the study is arguing that they're not statistically important differences, a point on which I disagree, particularly given the nonrepresentative of the nation statistical size and geographic constraints.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Wow, we agree on something fully. That is a rarity.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The only reason you think the opinion is any good is because you agree with her.

really? you will quote that for me as i seemed to have missed that?
i will wait......

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So how many cases of perverts using bathroom laws to tear apart the law and order of your fair city are there then?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The only reason you think the opinion is any good is because you agree with her.

really? you will quote that for me as i seemed to have missed that?
i will wait......

Just an inference I'm making because you are putting more weight on someone's opinion over a study that says something (that I'm again guessing) you don't want to be true.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The only reason you think the opinion is any good is because you agree with her.

really? you will quote that for me as i seemed to have missed that?
i will wait......

Just an inference I'm making because you are putting more weight on someone's opinion over a study that says something (that I'm again guessing) you don't want to be true.

oh so then you will retract this?

The only reason you think the opinion is any good is because you agree with her.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I stand by my inference. You haven't said or done anything to make me doubt it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

I stand by my inference. You haven't said or done anything to make me doubt it.

other than you make it all up
or please go ahead and quote me

a reply to: shooterbrody

Whatever. With all the times you insert my argument for me in other threads, I'm not really worried about the one time I've done it to you. Are you done talking about the OP topic now?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

More lies from you
or will you please reference anytime i have "insert my argument for me" at this forum
you can not

what is hilarious is all i did was quote from YOUR linked article
i made no judgement other that it is good that people actually get to vote
you on the other hand do nothing but lie
tlb

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks

from the ops link

Yvette Ollada, a consultant for Keep MA Safe, called it “totally biased” and claimed “there was an obvious conflict of interest on the part of the researchers and publishers.” Ollada alleged the study’s researchers shared their findings with those in favor of keeping the nondiscrimination law in place before it was available to the public and denied that same early access to Keep MA Safe. “This speaks to the bias of the researchers and publishers at UCLA, that they would withhold the study from one political campaign and share it with another,” Ollada said.

you have info that disputes Yvette Ollada's review of the research please by all means present it

just remember this is in the op
i did not bring it to the thread

How does who the data was shared with effect whether it’s true or not?

Either it’s true or it isn’t, and if it isn’t you should easily be able to point out where it’s wrong.

Who the data is shared with doesn’t effect the veracity of the data at all. I’m seriously puzzled why you think the data is no good because it wasn’t shared with a Christian lobbying organization.

We cannot even see the study or the methodology. Saying “it’s nice that science is corroborating it” without reading the study is very unscientific.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
We cannot even see the study or the methodology. Saying “it’s nice that science is corroborating it” without reading the study is very unscientific.

It’s right there in the link in the OP.

link.springer.com...

a reply to: shooterbrody
Are you going to talk about the OP anymore? Or are you going to continue to fake being offended because I inferred your opinion?

a reply to: underwerks

I have no idea
All I know is that it was important enough to include in the same article as the study touted by the op.
I never said the data is no good, nice try tho.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody
Are you going to talk about the OP anymore? Or are you going to continue to fake being offended because I inferred your opinion?

thats a really kind way of saying you lied about what I posted and got called on it

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks

I have no idea
All I know is that it was important enough to include in the same article as the study touted by the op.
I never said the data is no good, nice try tho.

That's because good reporters strive to give both sides of the story.