@EveHarrington, no need to be semantically incorrect and dehumanizing poster just because someone objects inherent cissexism *that skews viewing of the question they asked about*.
As in if there's variations of factors relevant to answering the question? Ignoring them does not benefit answering the question, fully. It's bad science even if it weren't by chance hurting actual people who may, shock, already have PTSD and therefore be the population the question is aimed at and about.
With that I'm out. Not a fan of bad science and ignoring variability.
As in if there's variations of factors relevant to answering the question? Ignoring them does not benefit answering the question, fully. It's bad science even if it weren't by chance hurting actual people who may, shock, already have PTSD and therefore be the population the question is aimed at and about.
With that I'm out. Not a fan of bad science and ignoring variability.