You don't even have to dig particularly deep to find data being used to mislead: at page 24, they present a graph of the sex ratio of adolescents being referred to GIDS between 2009 and 2016,...
You don't even have to dig particularly deep to find data being used to mislead: at page 24, they present a graph of the sex ratio of adolescents being referred to GIDS between 2009 and 2016, where they took care to point out the "exponential rise" starting in 2014.
While I am sure they had good reasons for stopping at 2016 - maybe no-one of them could figure out how to make a graph of their own, and they just had to recycle the one they found in de Graaf et al's 2018 paper - the GIDS website's data goes up to 2022 - or, at least, it used to before it was shuttered - and their curve doesn't look like much of an exponential after 2016.
You don't even have to dig particularly deep to find data being used to mislead: at page 24, they present a graph of the sex ratio of adolescents being referred to GIDS between 2009 and 2016, where they took care to point out the "exponential rise" starting in 2014.
While I am sure they had good reasons for stopping at 2016 - maybe no-one of them could figure out how to make a graph of their own, and they just had to recycle the one they found in de Graaf et al's 2018 paper - the GIDS website's data goes up to 2022 - or, at least, it used to before it was shuttered - and their curve doesn't look like much of an exponential after 2016.
I appreciate this!