7 ms·
Research into trans medicine has been manipulated?
- suggestion 2y agohttps://archive.is/c8nAC https://archive.is/c8nAC
- LorenPechtel 2y ago[dead]
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago[flagged]
- OKRainbowKid 2y ago[flagged]
- ttpphd 2y ago[flagged]
- jokoon 2y agoNot surprising I support LGBT rights, but that doesn't mean we should discount medical advice. It's the typical problem of people who refuse to listen to doctors and want to self diagnose and self medicate.
- slowmovintarget 2y agoThis is worse than discounting medical advice. This is about suppression of medical evidence on the basis of a political agenda.
- vannevar 2y agoThis is an allegation of suppression. No evidence is provided in the article that the supposed suppression actually happened.
- smitty1e 2y agoAs with: - the climate - Covid ...there seems an increased need for skepticism about pretty much all claims.
- autoexec 2y agoWhat it contains is a lot of evidence that they had every intention of suppressing medical evidence, and they repeatedly insisted on having that ability. It's hardly a stretch to say that they've likely made good on those threats when work is submitted to them which never gets published.
- vannevar 2y agoThe content of the article does not support the claim in the headline. No specific evidence is presented that any particular study was changed or suppressed at WPATH's request. The article presents evidence that WPATH requested the authority to approve publications, but also notes that the request was refused by Johns Hopkins. Everything else in the article, including the title, is speculative.
- readthenotes1 2y agoOtoh, WPATH stating "Research must be “thoroughly scrutinised and reviewed to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense,” and there only being one paper published after the checklist came into existence seems to indicate otherwise.
- vannevar 2y agoYou're speculating here. Let me speculate as well: if I were a research institution working with an advocacy group, and the group decided it wanted review and veto authority over my research, I would go ahead and publish my research to that point and stop working with the advocacy group. Which speculation is right? There's no way to tell from the evidence in the article. Which is my point. Research manipulation is a strong claim, and requires strong evidence. There is none in this article.
- Jensson 2y ago> You're speculating here Its not, wanting to review before publication is done to manipulate the research, that is strong evidence of manipulation so you don't have to speculate any longer. The speculation is whether that manipulation was good or bad or even what kind of manipulation they are doing, but we don't have to speculate whether it happens or not.
- Supermancho 2y ago> Its not, wanting to review before publication is done to manipulate the research, This is not fact. There are multiple possibilities that do not include manipulation. If there was manipulation, there would be a recourse to pursue for fraud.
- SubiculumCode 2y agoThere is a lot of insinuation here without a lot of facts. But I can tell you this: If the world treated transgender people with kindness and acceptance and without constant and oppressive threats and hate, barely veiled insinuations about pedophilia, etcetera,then you would not have a reflexive, advocate-first mindset being so dominate. Like begets like, but in opposition. Radicals beget radicals, the right and the left. Male chauvinism ruled the world, but a feminist movement arises, among some, overshoots into female chauvinism, begetting renewed male chauvinistic radicalism. Radicalism is often necessary to effect change, because radicals don't see nuance, and when you don't see nuance, taking action...even risky action, is easier to justify. The story has been told millions of times. If you want better science in gender affirming care: 1) fund it, 2) don't make it scary for the scientists who do study it, as death threats are the norm, 3) dont interpret studies with preexisting agendas. Identifying who will and who will not benefit from gender affirming care is important, but investigating one or the other can't be seen as claiming allegiance to one camp or another.
- finnpy 2y ago[flagged]
- drewcoo 2y ago> radicals don't see nuance Hard disagree. A nuanced view, the ability to tease differences apart, is disruptive to the status quo. Radicalism is often the embrace of nuance that other people deny exists.
- OKRainbowKid 2y agoInteresting interpretation, that seems to be almost diametrically opposed to this definition from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/radical https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/radical "relating to the most important parts of something or someone; complete or extreme"
- haukurb 2y agoThe parent comment was making a philosophical argument, not a semantics one.
- jdgoesmarching 2y agoNot surprised to see The Economist join the list of major publications cave to conservative concern trolling around gender-affirming care. These have done far more damage to the trans community and trans youth than any of these purported risks combined. Case in point, plucking out this single instance of weird behavior and slapping on this clickbait title that implies a much more widespread problem. Journalism has completely given over to feeding “well-actually” transphobia for clicks.
- 1234554321a 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoYour account has already posted quite a few flamewar comments. We have to ban accounts that break HN's rules like this*, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended from now on, we'd appreciate it. * (regardless of $topic or your or anyone else's views on $topic)
- decremental 2y ago[dead]
- drekk 2y agoWhy don't you educate us, then?
- BoingBoomTschak 2y ago[flagged]
- AlexeyBelov 2y agoWhy is it always the relatively new accounts saying this stuff? And zero instances of productive discussion, just "shit in the comments and make a new account in 6 months".
- nneonneo 2y agoThe article title does not end in a question mark. The guidelines say not to editorialize titles - and adding a question mark surely counts as editorializing?
- natehiggars 2y ago[flagged]
- Pfhortune 2y agoScant detail in this article about the papers in question or WPATH's objection. Maybe these papers were rejected for good reason?
- autoexec 2y agoWhile more biased source, a lot more details on this topic can be seen here: https://www.lgbtcourage.org/wpath https://www.lgbtcourage.org/wpath
- aaron695 2y ago[dead]
- shrimp_emoji 2y agoIronic this would be in "The Economist". ;D Manipulating data is all economists do!