Isn't that the very reason why they should be careful not to endorse a particular treatment? The whole point of Singal's article is that they seem to have have

Isn't that the very reason why they should be careful not to endorse a particular treatment? The whole point of Singal's article is that they seem to have have decided in advance what they want to be true and are presenting and extremely one sided view of the available evidence to back up their choice. If anyone is wondering if they're making an honest mistake, this paragraph taken from their article, with the sources annotated by Singal, is the kicker: "Furthermore, the fact that young children may alter their identity as they mature is based on highly flawed research, studies with methods so fatally flawed that the results cannot be trusted, let alone cited as facts. [<-- this finding mostly comes from the Dutch clinic] But even if this statistic were reliable, it is less relevant to the discussion. As stated above, there are no medical interventions for this group of children. Medical gender-affirming interventions are reserved for adolescents and older. The data on adolescents is very different. While more data is certainly desired, the statistics we have indicate that nearly all adolescents who identify as trans maintain that identity into adulthood. [<-- this finding mostly comes from the Dutch clinic]" At best, Gorski & Novella should explain why they're calling this data fatally flawed when it disagrees with them but are happy to cite it when it doesn't. In the same paragraph, without highlighting this contradiction or explaining their own double standard