37 ms·

The author's little trans tirade is a great example, and you can start with his "I'm something of a medical expert" line. Pure ideology.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
I can't find where the author writes "I'm something of a medical expert". But for myself, I'm not up to date on the research. Does this article misrepresent the current state of scientific understanding?
- gopher_space 2y ago
  > Most importantly, [the article] falsely claimed that there is solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates adolescent suicidality, when we absolutely do not know that to any degree of certainty. There's solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates suicidality. Cherry picking from a single study is dishonest.
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    And unscientific. To be clear - the accusation isn't SciAm was politicised, but that it was politicised in an ideologically unacceptable way. I doubt we'd hear a squeak of complaint if a new editor started promoting crackpot opinion pieces about how all research should be funded by markets instead of governments (because governments shouldn't exist), or that libertarianism is the highest form of rationality. I'll take its deeply-felt concern for science and reason seriously when it starts calling out RFK Jr for being unscientific. (Prediction: this will never happen.)
    - strken 2y ago
      Did we read the same article? It literally has a section calling out RFK Jr, as follows: > If experts aren't to be trusted, charlatans and cranks will step into the vacuum. To mangle a line from Archer, "Do you want a world where RFK Jr. is the head of HHS? That's how you get a world where RFK Jr. is appointed head of HHS." What is this, if not an explicit call-out? I don't agree with or see a need to defend Reason very often, but what more do you want from them, here?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Nevermark 2y ago
      > I doubt we'd hear a squeak […] Perhaps, especially in a dialogue specifically about scientific, reasoning and factual quality, we should avoid arguments based on counterfactual conjectures. A type of argument so weak it facilitates any viewpoint. If you have even weak evidence, better to reference that.
  - codocod 2y ago
    > There's solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates suicidality. Not at all true, there is no solid evidence of this. That's why it's so controversial, because ideologues are pushing for these pharmaceutical and surgical interventions on children despite the paucity of evidence.
    - miltonlost 2y ago
      > ideologues are pushing for these pharmaceutical and surgical interventions on children despite the paucity of evidence. And you're pushing anti-trans propaganda that surgical interventions are happening on children despite paucity of evidence that it's happening. Not to mention lumping together puberty blockers with surgery, which you should not.
      - codocod 2y ago
        > And you're pushing anti-trans propaganda that surgical interventions are happening on children despite paucity of evidence that it's happening It is well documented that it's happening. See for example https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-tran..., specifically the section titled "U.S. patients ages 13-17 undergoing mastectomy with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis". That's not propaganda, it's data from medical insurance claims. There is other evidence too, including peer-reviewed research published in medical journals, and recordings of clinicians discussing this.
        jl6 2y ago
        It’s become something of a cliche to see this exchange: “it never happens”, followed by clear evidence of it happening. One wonders if it ever leads to the person questioning what other misconceptions they’ve been fed.
    - gopher_space 2y ago
      It's mainly the parents pushing for medical intervention. Keep in mind that the impetus is generally a suicide attempt or self-mutilation by their 10 year old. There's nothing fun or trendy or exciting about this for child or family. Deeply embarrassing, far worse than getting your first hernia check if your memory goes back that far. The one thing we absolutely did. not. need. through all of this were politicians and the peanut gallery weighing in on a private medical situation while ignoring the point of our effort. Nothing in this article, and none of the comments here mention the life of the child in question. Too busy scoring points to think about reality or humanity in any way. What do you think that looks like from my perspective?
- crote 2y ago
  Yes, it absolutely does. The Cass Review mentioned was composed by a group of authors who are well-known to be opposed to trans healthcare, its methodology and conclusions are heavily criticized by subject experts (basically, "there is no evidence if you ignore all the evidence"), and even Cass herself has stated after publication that it is flawed. It does not represent the current scientific understanding of trans healthcare, so criticizing SciAm and even calling it "dangerous" for pointing this out is rather dubious. The Cass Review was written primarily for political reasons. It isn't a peer-reviewed article written by neutral subject experts, and it should not be treated as such. The fact that Reason treats it as ground truth and ignores all the subject experts opposing it should say enough about their view on science.
  - xiixin 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    I don't think what you're saying is true. I'm unaware of any indication that Hilary Cass for example is opposed to trans healthcare, and indeed she's explicitly stated that she agrees some young people benefit from it.
    - VikingCoder 2y ago
      Video with references talking about Cass. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI57lFn_vWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI57lFn_vWk
      - sso_eol 2y ago
        [flagged]
        VikingCoder 2y ago
        Nice ad hominem attack. If you prefer reading (and again, references), here ya go: https://www.patreon.com/posts/106206585 https://www.patreon.com/posts/106206585 That provides lots of valuable context that Cass ignores, such as from organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and every other major medical organization in the US.
- Interesco 2y ago
  Not quite "medical expert" but the author does establish (or attempt to) as a leading figure on this topic in paragraph 11: "This is one of the few scientific subjects on which I've established a modicum of expertise" Long way from medical expert but it does imply a higher-level understanding of the science here. Whether writing a few articles makes someone an expert is up to the individual to decide.
- VikingCoder 2y ago
  "This is one of the few scientific subjects on which I've established a modicum of expertise"

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

I can't find where the author writes "I'm something of a medical expert". But for myself, I'm not up to date on the research. Does this article misrepresent the current state of scientific understanding?

gopher_space 2y ago
> Most importantly, [the article] falsely claimed that there is solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates adolescent suicidality, when we absolutely do not know that to any degree of certainty. There's solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates suicidality. Cherry picking from a single study is dishonest.
- TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
  And unscientific. To be clear - the accusation isn't SciAm was politicised, but that it was politicised in an ideologically unacceptable way. I doubt we'd hear a squeak of complaint if a new editor started promoting crackpot opinion pieces about how all research should be funded by markets instead of governments (because governments shouldn't exist), or that libertarianism is the highest form of rationality. I'll take its deeply-felt concern for science and reason seriously when it starts calling out RFK Jr for being unscientific. (Prediction: this will never happen.)
  - strken 2y ago
    Did we read the same article? It literally has a section calling out RFK Jr, as follows: > If experts aren't to be trusted, charlatans and cranks will step into the vacuum. To mangle a line from Archer, "Do you want a world where RFK Jr. is the head of HHS? That's how you get a world where RFK Jr. is appointed head of HHS." What is this, if not an explicit call-out? I don't agree with or see a need to defend Reason very often, but what more do you want from them, here?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nevermark 2y ago
    > I doubt we'd hear a squeak […] Perhaps, especially in a dialogue specifically about scientific, reasoning and factual quality, we should avoid arguments based on counterfactual conjectures. A type of argument so weak it facilitates any viewpoint. If you have even weak evidence, better to reference that.
- codocod 2y ago
  > There's solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates suicidality. Not at all true, there is no solid evidence of this. That's why it's so controversial, because ideologues are pushing for these pharmaceutical and surgical interventions on children despite the paucity of evidence.
  - miltonlost 2y ago
    > ideologues are pushing for these pharmaceutical and surgical interventions on children despite the paucity of evidence. And you're pushing anti-trans propaganda that surgical interventions are happening on children despite paucity of evidence that it's happening. Not to mention lumping together puberty blockers with surgery, which you should not.
    - codocod 2y ago
      > And you're pushing anti-trans propaganda that surgical interventions are happening on children despite paucity of evidence that it's happening It is well documented that it's happening. See for example https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-tran..., specifically the section titled "U.S. patients ages 13-17 undergoing mastectomy with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis". That's not propaganda, it's data from medical insurance claims. There is other evidence too, including peer-reviewed research published in medical journals, and recordings of clinicians discussing this.
      - jl6 2y ago
        It’s become something of a cliche to see this exchange: “it never happens”, followed by clear evidence of it happening. One wonders if it ever leads to the person questioning what other misconceptions they’ve been fed.
  - gopher_space 2y ago
    It's mainly the parents pushing for medical intervention. Keep in mind that the impetus is generally a suicide attempt or self-mutilation by their 10 year old. There's nothing fun or trendy or exciting about this for child or family. Deeply embarrassing, far worse than getting your first hernia check if your memory goes back that far. The one thing we absolutely did. not. need. through all of this were politicians and the peanut gallery weighing in on a private medical situation while ignoring the point of our effort. Nothing in this article, and none of the comments here mention the life of the child in question. Too busy scoring points to think about reality or humanity in any way. What do you think that looks like from my perspective?
crote 2y ago
Yes, it absolutely does. The Cass Review mentioned was composed by a group of authors who are well-known to be opposed to trans healthcare, its methodology and conclusions are heavily criticized by subject experts (basically, "there is no evidence if you ignore all the evidence"), and even Cass herself has stated after publication that it is flawed. It does not represent the current scientific understanding of trans healthcare, so criticizing SciAm and even calling it "dangerous" for pointing this out is rather dubious. The Cass Review was written primarily for political reasons. It isn't a peer-reviewed article written by neutral subject experts, and it should not be treated as such. The fact that Reason treats it as ground truth and ignores all the subject experts opposing it should say enough about their view on science.
- xiixin 2y ago
  [flagged]
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  I don't think what you're saying is true. I'm unaware of any indication that Hilary Cass for example is opposed to trans healthcare, and indeed she's explicitly stated that she agrees some young people benefit from it.
  - VikingCoder 2y ago
    Video with references talking about Cass. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI57lFn_vWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI57lFn_vWk
    - sso_eol 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - VikingCoder 2y ago
        Nice ad hominem attack. If you prefer reading (and again, references), here ya go: https://www.patreon.com/posts/106206585 https://www.patreon.com/posts/106206585 That provides lots of valuable context that Cass ignores, such as from organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and every other major medical organization in the US.
Interesco 2y ago
Not quite "medical expert" but the author does establish (or attempt to) as a leading figure on this topic in paragraph 11: "This is one of the few scientific subjects on which I've established a modicum of expertise" Long way from medical expert but it does imply a higher-level understanding of the science here. Whether writing a few articles makes someone an expert is up to the individual to decide.
VikingCoder 2y ago
"This is one of the few scientific subjects on which I've established a modicum of expertise"