How not to undersand how studies work

From here

If we remove self-reporting on victimisation, you lose almost all evidence of lgbtq victimisation. You have posted no shortage of links that use exactly that kind of data and reasoning. You undermine almost all your points by only wanting to include ironclad, court proven victimisation. Again, your intellectual dishonesty is in full display.

The fact that the results of these surveys (that usually have generalized questions)more or less repeat similiar results over and over, and over, raises a question, how many times does similiar results have to repeat before you admit that bias doesn’t seem to be an issue here. These results are very similar to those found in other surveys as well as results gathered historically. This pattern of consistency supports the validity of the results

For the record I dismiss claims made by adults that they were tricked into sex by pedophiles because they apparently didn’t recall hat happened for decades:

What evidence do you realisticly expect someone who at 18 or so discovers that what their father did to them at 6 years old is not normal, but rape and child abuse, what evidence do you realisticly expect them to be able to produce?

And that was because it remined me too much of the Satanic Panic and False Memories.

This person is also a hypocrite

It’s been a couple of years since I’ve spent months going over the data and I’ve got it on a different hard drive that I don’t have with me. I’ll probably get them to you at some point, but it’s going to take some time.

If you want some stats to dig into and get started right away, stats that are equally alarming if not more so, here you go.

Investigate for yourself their accuracy, I’ve not vetted these stats, but they seem somewhat compatible with the other research I’ve done.

I should point out that it particularly relies on kinsey stats, which are always questionable, so I’d avoid those.

Off course when I pointed out that link was BS

Lmao, your aticle relies purely on the self-reported interest of molesters of male children that say “hey, I have no interest in men”. Ever watched dateline? Saw idiot pedophiles defend their positions in autistic online debates? Are they people that generally speak the truth, you think?

Even if you haven’t, active pedophiles are not exactly known for their truthfulness.

Off coruse the studies in their link are the exact same studies she critices…also

Pretty unsurprising that the other points made in this article uses research by the kinsey institute. Kinsey himself did research on how quickly infants and children could be brought to orgasm. Their responses were categorized from “writhing” “fighting” “crying” and a couple of others. The conclusion was that regardlesss of their response the children were said to have gained from the experience because they were brought to orgasm. We’re talking leagues ahead of anything what modern pariah’s like harvey weinstein have done.

So Kinsey is ok for them to use but not me? Hell the part of my link that debunks their study doesn’t even mention Kinsey at all!