Vol. II Chapter 5: It's A Numbers Game
WPATH Redefines Epidemiology and Makes Up a lot of Stuff And CDC Is Helping
WPATH is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. WPATH is the publisher of a constantly revised publication called the “Standards of Care”. This years edition, WPATH’s eighth, is called SOC8.
Here is WPATH’s History and Purpose. I encourage you to read it.
Why is WPATH important? WPATH is important because it sets the table for every other transgender, woke organization in North America as being the “scientific” source of all ESTIMATES of a growing population of Transgender Gender Diverse (TGD) people of ALL ages in the United States. WPATH does this by legitimizing the illegitimate and perpetuating the myth of a growing population of medically underserved and socially discriminated against children and adults. And they do all of this in SOC8, Chapter 3 Population Estimates.
The purpose of Chapter 3 is to convince the world that the number of TGD people is increasing every year. A proposition which on its surface makes no sense and is at the core of WPATH’s argument that the standard epidemiological measures of “incidence” and “prevalence” are irrelevant to determining the percentage of TGD people in America. And so WPATH dismisses “incidence” and “prevalence” as follows:
In reviewing epidemiologic data pertaining to the TGD population, it may be best to avoid the terms “incidence” and “prevalence.” Avoiding these and similar terms may preclude inappropriate pathologizing of TGD people (Adams et al., 2017; Bouman et al., 2017). Moreover, the term “INCIDENCE” may not be applicable in this situation because it assumes TGD status has an easily identifiable time of onset, a prerequisite for calculating incidence estimates (Celentano & Szklo, 2019). For all the above reasons, we recommend using the terms “number” and “proportion” to signify the absolute and the relative size of the TGD population. (emphasis added)
WPATH’s central argument is that there are an ever-increasing number of LGBTQ+ (including eunuchs) members of the US population and that they are not receiving adequate health care because they know that they will be discriminated against and, therefore, not receive adequate health care. According to WPATH this is particularly true of transgender children and adolescents.
In order to make their case WPATH needs to demonstrate this quantitatively by “proving” that the numbers of TGD people underlying their claims are real and are an accurate reflection of the true extent of TGD people in the United States. But to do that they have to overcome reality.
The reality in epidemiology is that it is population based. In other words, epidemiologists are always, ALWAYS, ALWAYS trying to determine what the true incidents of an outcome is within a well “defined population”. Depending on the outcome being measured that “defined population” can be the number of workers in a factory, people living in a well defined geographic area, OR when the point is to make a determination of the extent of an attribute in an entire defined population in which case the total number of people in that population must be used. In other words if you want to know the true percentage of TGD people in the United States then you need to have 1) an accurate count of of OBJECTIVELY identified TGD people using agreed to standard clinical criteria 2) an accurate denominator. In this case that denominator should be the entire population of the United States.
And THAT is where WPATH has a problem.
If WPATH uses 330,000,000 people as the denominator than the incidence of transgenderism in the US would be extraordinarily small even much lower than the number of otherwise healthy people under 20 killed by COVID-19 which CDC believe to be effectively “0”. To offer such an insignificant number would be to undermine the efforts of GLSEN, GLAAD and a host of other TGD organizations - including WPATH itself as they push their way into the White House, Congress, the board room, our school boards, and make no mistake about it — our churches — for the sole purpose of increasing their power base and sowing confusion and division among the people. The agenda has nothing to do with health and everything to do with gaining political power.
So what exactly did WPATH do to make the number of TGD people appear to be greater than it is?
In epidemiology there is a thing called “selection bias”. Selection bias occurs when a study’s investigators intentionally or unintentionally chose a study population known to be particularly rich in people who are most likely to have the attribute of concern. The data generated by WPATH was not just prone to “selection bias” it was dependent on it.
WPATH went out of its way to use only those sources where they knew they would TGD people in need of healthcare — health insurance companies and healthcare systems. Among the studies that WPATH relied were those that used the Veterans Administration records and records from Medicare and Kaiser Permanente. WPATH also relied on data from CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).
According to the CDC:
The BRFSS is an annual, state-based, random-digit-dial telephone survey that collects data from non-institutionalized U.S. adults regarding health conditions and risk factors. Since 2009, 48 states plus the District of Columbia have included ACE questions for at least one year on their survey.
ACE is the acronym for adverse childhood experiences. The BRFSS survey is “restricted” to people over the age of 18. Keep in mind that there is no way of truly knowing the age of a person on the other end of a telephone conversation. Included in the ACE questionnaire are these questions:
9) How often did anyone at least 5 years older than you or an adult, ever touch you sexually?
10) How often did anyone at least 5 years older than you or an adult, try to make you touch them sexually?
11) How often did anyone at least 5 years older than you or an adult, force you to have sex?
Granted, these questions most likely have nothing to do with TGD identification but they do show that CDC has no problem with conducting flawed surveys. This particular survey is flawed by what is well known by ALL epidemiologists as “recall bias”.
Recall bias is a systematic error that occurs when participants do not clearly recollect previous events or experiences accurately or remember the details of those events. Recall bias is a problem in all studies that use self-reporting — the BRFSS is one of those studies.
This what WPATH says about the results from the BRFSS:
”In contrast to results from the health system-based studies, findings from survey that relied on self-reported TGD status produced much higher estimates.
In other words, WPATH knows that the health system based studies that they are relying on are flawed so they now rely on the equally flawed BRFSS because it asks people allegedly over the age of 18 for information about their gender and sexual identity. Stating that the respondents are all over the age of 18 is an unverifiable assertion.
The BRFSS is comprised of 28 modules. Module 28 is titled “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” and it consists of two questions which ask people to assert their sexual orientation or their gender identity. Again it is essential to keep in mind that the people asking the questions have no way of verifying the age of the person responding OR knowing whether the person responding is telling the truth. CDC knows this but they dismiss it by telling us that they have a computer program that allows them to reduce “the potential for bias”. Reduction of bias is not the elimination of bias or the determination of the extent of the bias.
Flawed data is flawed data and it forms the basis for the WPATH estimate of TGD people in the United States.
“Current data indicate that people who self-identify as TD represent a sizable and increasing proportion of the general population. This proportion may differ, depending on inclusion criteria, age, and geographic location, but well-conducted studies of similar type and design tend to produce comparable results.”
Every bit of data offered by WPATH to support that assertion is so deeply flawed as to render any conclusions in Chapter 3 meaningless.
Case in point, this is the WPATH summary of the findings in Chapter 3:
Notice that the percentage of children and adolescents who claimed to be transgender was 1.2-2.7% which is four to five times greater than the number of adults in the same category.
Why?
If the population of TGD people is “a sizable and increasing proportion” of the general population why is the proportion of adults only one-fourth to one-fifth the the proportion of self-identified TGD children? What happened to all those transgender children and adolescents when they grew up? Did they out grow their TGD identities? Or were they lying in all the surveys?
How can the percentage of TGD people be decreasing so dramatically from childhood to adulthood but yet be characterized by Zhang et al. and, therefore, WPATH as being a “sizable and increasing proportion of the general population”?
This is the lie upon which EVERYTHING is based.
I could write more about the flaws in the WPATH chapter on Population Estimates but why? Here is the bottom line:
The assertion that we have a growing number of TGD children is a hoax. It is a fraud. It is a lie.
“Their malice may be concealed by deception, but their wickedness will be exposed in the assembly.” Proverbs 26:26
Union, Kentucky
16 November 2022
Everything is a lie these days.