NYTimes elevates personal commentary above peer reviewed research to further anti trans pseudoscience
NYTimes elevates personal commentary above peer reviewed research to further anti trans pseudoscience
This article puts non peer reviewed press releases above peer reviewed research and multiple recommendations by professional health bodies. Not once does the article mention "peer review". The article calls the A.A.P. "left-leaning". The article also uses sciency sounding words such as "systematic reviews", but the authors of the studies in the links are all ppl who ask co-write the same non peer-reviewed "gender care for teens is bad" articles.
Oh, NHS England is funding all this shit.
Another website calls out the article author for her regular transphobia. It seems she's pulled shit a few times.
I don't want to shit on doctors, but an individual doctor is not a researcher. Quite a few of them have had bad opinions, especially on topics that are outside their specialty.
Edit: people with much more knowledge than me have debunked this much better than I could have.
From the what the trans take down
to provide information about detransition, which they support with a 2022 study by Eva van den Bussche which sourced its participants from r/detrans (a highly politicised reddit forum, in which only 44% of users are actually detransitioned)
They used the trans equivalent of r/asablackman as source
I don't want to shit on doctors,
I do, lmao. Fuck em.
People were worried that we threw out anything that wasn’t a randomized controlled trial, which is the gold standard for study design.
Trying Random Control Trials on human beings, children especially, is kinda frowned on. Given the context... what... what even would you be "randomly controlling" for? If two 6 year old AFAB, children are like, "hey everybody, I'm a boy." Wouldn't the randomized trial be something like, "We'll give Subject A puberty blockers and Subject B placebo when they get closer to puberty age", and see what kind of mental issues they develop? Or would it be something like, "Subject A is allowed to socially transition and be treated in any way reasonably possible as a boy while Subject B would be ... well... forced to present and be treated as a girl"? That just seems like torturing a kid.
We were really clear that this review was not about defining what trans means, negating anybody’s experiences or rolling back health care.
And yet...
Also it's not possible to do a double-blind test on pubescent kids. Even if you aren't told whether the kid is on puberty blockers, or hormones, or nothing, it'll be obvious just by looking at them.
I'm imagining a "its just a phase" type of test. Pretty sure there's some elements of the "social contagion" somewhere in the assessment.
The one on the placebo will just "grow out of" wanting to be the opposite gender. It won't matter that puberty will be obvious, its not the physical characteristics the researchers are wanting to observe. Their testing whether or not a kid who says "I'm transgender" at a prepubescent age will still have those feelings when they hit puberty, are going through puberty, get to the other side of puberty.
doctors suck lol