3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoVideo 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 agoNice 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.
- sso_eol 2y agoI've skimmed the video previously but thanks for the transcript. It just confirms that her message is basically that she doesn't understand it, couldn't be bothered to read it and think about it herself, so here are some people who disagree with it. Plus the usual ranting about transphobes, i.e. people who disagree with her beliefs. She even acknowledges that she waited to be told what to think about it. Yet she still styles herself as a "skeptic". Ridiculous, but quite amusing.
- VikingCoder 2y ago"so here are some people"? That's how you describe the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and every other major medical organization in the US? If you're not convinced by the preponderance of peer-reviewed evidence, then I don't know how to help you make good decisions in life. Maybe talk to some of your trans friends about their life experiences?
- sso_eol 2y agoWell, if she'd bothered to read Chapter 9 of the Review then she might have had some inkling as to why deferring to the AMA and the AAP isn't such a great idea. Fortunately, the researchers commissioned by the Cass Review took a genuinely skeptical approach to assessing other medical organizations' treatment guidelines, unlike the author of this video. Also maybe you should read it yourself instead of relying on videos like this to misinform your opinions.
- 2y ago
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoThis video correctly states that the Cass Review explicitly supported trans healthcare in general. It does not seem to describe any particular author of the review who is opposed to trans healthcare. The host notes that Cass met with people who do oppose trans healthcare - but wouldn't it be problematic for a review of a new field of medical science to categorically exclude people who think it's bunk?