This has all the earmarks of a sham “review,” as the author details. I have zero confidence in the AAP and the medical establishment. This madness will end only when physicians, medical associations, and health insurance companies pay tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits.
Well, lawsuits worked to bring down Tavistock in the UK, and England is less litigious than the USA, and just as politically woke, especially re: gender theory. Perhaps Chloe Cole’s litigation will be a turning point here (if they don’t bribe her to settle).
The insurance companies could turn out to be our best friends. They've broken other such medical strangleholds in the past, by simply refusing to pay for treatment which their own evidence showed didn't work.
If I had an organization behind me, that's probably where I'd focus my efforts. I'd demonstrate to major insurers that they are wasting money.
Unfortunately, insurers don’t always have a choice about whether to pay for certain treatments; state law mandates certain coverages, and insurers must comply or cease to do business in that state.
That would be a good cause for the Republicans to jump behind; requiring insurers to pay for the damage they've done. Boy oh boy will we see a pullback then!
BTW I'm NOT a Republican; I can't stand them, but they're on the right side of science and history on this one issue.
I’m sorry, I can’t understand your allegation that “insurers pay for the damage they've done”. Why do you think that INSURERS, who have been forced by law to pay for procedures they don’t want to pay for, are the people responsible?
It’s the government who are “responsible” for this, along with the doctors/facilities,policymakers and most of all -- the universities and activists (aka lobbyists)! This is one thing that you cannot blame on insurance. And btw -- if, as you suggest, insurance is forced to pay for both transition AND de-transition, expect ever higher premium rates for everyone, because insurance is simply a method of loss spreading.
The solution is to stop this pernicious, life-destroying “gender theory” at the societal level. A big task, yes, and maybe no longer possible.
Okay, fair enough. I had forgotten about the government's role in this. I pay a bit less attention to the US news now that I've got two countries to keep track of.
Although I'll bet lawsuits are the best way to end this atrocious abuse.
"Yes the Republicans are taking the right side, but their reasons have nothing to do with science."
True, but better to do the right thing for the wrong reason than the wrong thing for any reason, in particular for the left on this issue, the wrong reason. The left's obsession with inclusivity and phobia of being called some dumb pejorative, or compared to the Republicans <Janet Leigh scream> is what's brought us here.
I'm now finishing up Helen Joyce's 'Trans' book and she states boldly what I realize we've got to stop pretending isn't true: The right-wing media are the ones covering and calling out the appalling abuses of women, gayfolk and children by the trans set. If a transwoman rapes a woman, beats all women on a sports team or parades his dick around a formerly single-sex space, you won't hear about it in the left-wing press. Yet we're terrified of being identified as being 'right wing' or a 'Republican' - the pejorative labels *we* fear, rather than TERF, Nazi, transphobe, etc. If you can stop caring about the labels you take their power. Because they can't shut you down or force you to backpedal - I know I have sometimes back-pedaled at charges I'm right-wing - but now I'm simply stating, 'No, I'm on the left, not the right,' and I'm also beginning to speak out more and say the right is wrong about a lot of things, but not on this issue. And gee, isn't it weird that the right is on the right side of science for a change and the left has abandoned it? That's how I got deplatformed from CounterSocial - my recent article with a headline stating exactly that.
"I think a lot of us are very uncomfortable to find ourselves on the same side of an issue as the republicans like Ron DeSantis. I know I am." Exactly. Thank you.
Chris: Good points. I have the same issue with my friends. They don't understand why as a life-long liberal, I am seemingly siding with the worse of the Right, such as Gov. DeSantis. I point out that it's mainly sheer coincidence--we both happen to agree on a single issue, because the American Right, like a stopped clock, can still be right twice each day. The other issue is the reason for siding with the Right is because the Left has been totally cowed by the trans movement and dares not utter a single word of skepticism, for fear of being labeled 'transphobic.' It's insane.
I believe if it’s mandated by the Affordable Care Act (which it is), it doesn’t matter what state mandates are, insurance companies are required to pay for it. Before ACA, insurance companies were regulated by the state.
Yes, they need to be forced to choose between being liable for lawsuits or not covering the "trans" mutilation. In this case, their greed will actually help us end the madness.
I agree once the malpractice insurers get hit with huge verdicts, insurers will exclude gender affirming care from coverage. It’s surprising how few lawsuits there have been. There are two in California but not the best venue. I think both cases are against Kaiser so the cases will likely go to binding arbitration and not be decided by a jury.
So, do we believe this systematic review of the evidence will be legit? Or will they find a way to torque the “evidence” to show that “gender-affirming care” is beneficial to minors?
I agree that it looks like this will be a sham review. However, I am hopeful that they see the writing on the wall, and are simply taking the path of least resistance in laying the groundwork that they think they will need to wiggle out of some of those future lawsuits. Their slippery wording and upfront assumptions are, in my opinion, to avoid bringing down the wrath of the TRAs against them right now.
Would love for some of the current lawsuits (e.g., Chloe Cole) to be found in favor of the plaintiffs before this review is completed. I think it would force them to come to a more definitive conclusion.
According to the Affirmation Generation movie, a group of pediatricians who are AAP members already did a systematic review and tried to present it to the AAP leadership, but they refused to look at it. That review must still be in the AAP's possession and they continue to ignore it. Will it ever resurface? Sorry I don't remember the name of the doctor in the movie who talked about this.
I am still shocked that they will continue to provide this so-called "gender affirming care" or, what might be called uncalled for mutilation and sterilization, without having performed a systematic review, and in the face of the systematic reviews that have all resulted in other countries pulling back on these treatments. First do no harm would seem to necessitate that they not provide medical interventions without first determining if they are truly beneficial! What am I missing here?
I'm shocked! Shocked to find such hypocrisy and self-aggrandizement going on there ... 😉🙂
Though nice to see that you and Colin at least -- not sure about SEGM -- put "gender affirming care" in quotes. A more odious euphemism is scarcely imaginable.
Apropos of which and of your closing, "what am I missing here?", Upton Sinclair:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
This is true, and the financial motivations are clear. However, the potential litigation when (not if) it is finally realized that there is no medical basis for these invasive medical interventions is another financial consideration that they appear to be ignoring. Plus, even with the short-term financial gains to consider (and how many in the AAP are performing these surgeries and actually reaping those benefits?), there is still a certain regard for life that most people have, and that the AAP appears to be ignoring as well. The sheer recklessness of this decision to keep going while aware of the lack of scientific basis for these medical interventions is still shocking, even after considering any potential financial gains and the desire to appease a certain vocal portion of the population. Right?
Before sex Lysenkoism (either as cover for groomers or to save the planet from overpopulation) had reached my life in the form of some of my friends' and husband's colleagues' teenagers, I had noticed that preferred outcome driven interpretation of evidence was corrupting foster care children's dependency cases. Drug rehab graduates are not studied for enough years or with sufficient depth of investigation to justify the blind faith that fuels drug court confidence in the rehabilitative process. One case manger in in Broward County Courthouse told a judge that the urine test could not be adulterated or diluted by drinking a gallon of water and other methods about which I expressed concern (because the drug abuse in that case had bragged about previous success with cheating drug tests). The case worker's statement counted as the voice of science for that specific court case despite the fact that her words directly contradicted the words of the director of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. I was so disturbed by a dilute lan report being overlooked by this court that I later brought scientific journal articles from the International Journal of Toxicology and from John's Hopkins University, us a copy of the transcript from a Congressional hearing to the judge's secretary to ace in the judge's mailbox. I was determined to have real science inform that case and not let it be predetermined by a social worker job performance metrics or a political agenda. The Annie E. Casey Foundation does have reports of findings that DCF and ChildNet do have metrics that pressure social workers to close cases, not based on child safety and well-being but on their own organizational goals.
One huge thing has been left out: put male to female and female to male in separate categories for data analysis. Crazy that they have not been doing this so far.
I’m fascinated by the idea that they will bring in child and adolescent psychiatrists - child and adolescent psychiatrists are NOT pediatricians. They do not seem to have a any whatsoever on their board when I glanced. They are physical doctors generally, and their “support” of a given psychiatric direction is as meaningless as an endocrinologist making psychiatric evaluations, a dentist making psychiatric evaluations, or a podiatrist.
The entire basis for the “assessment” to me is suspect.
The assessment must begin with answering the question why do pediatricians believe they are psychiatrists? What are their qualifications to say anything about child and adolescent psychiatry? And why should we care about their “evaluation” any more than an evaluation by dentists?
I fully expect no change in the policy as a result of this review. The AAP has been captured and will not be brave enough to follow evidence objectively, but will, rather, stick to what is politically correct and "kind."
One must ask them why are advanced European and Scandinavian nations are coming to a very different conclusion, despite similar populations and treatments? Then watch them squirm and fire off accusations of transphobia.
"captured", indeed. Though, as you probably know, there's clearly a rising chorus of those in the medical profession who are "sounding the alarums". For examples, see:
Of particular note in the latter is that government's more or less solid endorsement of some "useful" definitions for "male" and "female":
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female."
Something that should warm the cockles of Emma Hilton's heart as those are more or less the same as those she had had published in the letter section of the UK Times -- a decent enough newspaper, though still hardly a peer-reviewed biological journal:
UK Times: "Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
Only marginally better than folk-biology, though still much better than the Kindergarten Cop versions -- i.e., boys have penises and girls have vaginas. But while they fall short of the standard biological definitions promulgated in various biological journals and dictionaries, it is still a welcome step in the right direction.
Think you're reading a sneer into those phrases since I didn't quote them. In addition to which, there's solid justification for them -- for the former, see the article on folk taxonomies:
As for the latter, see my note on a post by Christopher Rufo where he talks about "sex-change interventions" and a subsequent conversation with him where he defended that phrase on the basis of it being "immediately understandable to the public and much more accurate"
How else can that be so unless he thinks, or he thinks the public thinks, that changing one's sex is just a matter of changing one's genitalia -- i.e., the Kindergarten Cop definitions? Will be interesting to see how he responds to the Oklahoma definitions -- should be painfully obvious that those "interventions" most certainly don't change one type of reproductive system for the other type, working or not.
Much of the whole transgender clusterfuck turns on sloppy, incoherent, self-serving, and/or risibly unscientific definitions for the sexes -- and for "gender", though that's a horse of different colour.
As for "standard biological definitions", I have yet to see you table anything other than unevidenced opinion to the contrary.
I'm not claiming to be an expert, I'm only quoting people who are. Like the Oxford Dictionary of Biology, like the article in the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, one of whose authors has an FRS to his name.
Do you seriously think that asking -- politely -- someone to jump off a bridge is sufficient to oblige them to do so? 🤔🙄
As for "gender", even Colin recognizes that its definition as sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types has some currency. As did the late Justice Scalia and as does the British Medical Journal and as do no few other equally credible and authoritative sources ...
An irony I noticed during my 2 years of searching for any information that could help me understand the current state of child dependency law, trends, and science, is that a medical doctor, who owns a drug rehab in Broward county, openly admitted that many types of drug test cheating occurs. He described all sorts of types of cheating and did not think rehab and drug testing was infallible, which is how the case worker described it to the drug court linked to the child dependency court case I was referring to prior. Judges seem to have to rule based on what presented to them during the court hearings. If what's presented is poor quality, then justice is probably not going to be served. It's the same as with scientific research.
How refreshing to have actual scientists advocating for and specifying the protocol for an evidence-based review. I agree, though, with other commenters, that in these United States, it's likely lawsuits, not evidence, will eventually ashcan "gender-affirming care." The only thing more powerful than politics is profit. When it becomes financially unattractive -- or even financially dangerous -- to providers, they will conclude that gender-affirming care is unsupported by evidence.
We know a good portion of published research is garbage. Now factor in hundreds of millions of dollars to be made off of this and I’m going to bet the scale will be heavily tipped.
Thought this would be of interest.....I suspect you will hear more about this. Thoughts from anyone?
"The Myth Of "Low Quality Evidence" Around Transgender Care
Recent discussions among legislators and think tanks opposed to gender-affirming care highlight a recurring claim: "There is no high-quality evidence." It's time to address this misconception."
It's utter BS. Firstly it makes the argument that two wrongs make a right, in saying that because we have poor evidence for some treatments, then it is OK to mutilate and sterilize children with only poor evidence. And her examples of current treatments with poor evidence are pretty awful choices. Statins? We can certainly argue about giving them prophylactically to people with no heart disease, but the fact remains they have dramatically changed outcomes for people with heart disease. Mammograms? Please tell that to all the women who discovered their breast cancers when they were too small to feel and were cured. Radiotherapy? Rarely a cure but certainly life extending in sensitive tumours. Gallbladder surgery? One would not wish biliary colic on the author but should she (he?) ever suffer an attack.... And finally, "neonatal medicines" - what? All of them? As in no treatment whatsoever for newborns? When they suffer from RDS we withhold surfactant? Or antibiotics when they are septic? Don't be bloody silly!
In a sense he is correct. Most of the medicine developed in the past half century is low quality and probably makes people worse, including "trans-care".
Satins are rather dubious. Also things like antidepressants and nearly all psychiatric drugs. Frankly nearly all modern medicine is focused on treating symptoms and not underlying causes.
This has all the earmarks of a sham “review,” as the author details. I have zero confidence in the AAP and the medical establishment. This madness will end only when physicians, medical associations, and health insurance companies pay tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits.
Well, lawsuits worked to bring down Tavistock in the UK, and England is less litigious than the USA, and just as politically woke, especially re: gender theory. Perhaps Chloe Cole’s litigation will be a turning point here (if they don’t bribe her to settle).
The insurance companies could turn out to be our best friends. They've broken other such medical strangleholds in the past, by simply refusing to pay for treatment which their own evidence showed didn't work.
If I had an organization behind me, that's probably where I'd focus my efforts. I'd demonstrate to major insurers that they are wasting money.
Unfortunately, insurers don’t always have a choice about whether to pay for certain treatments; state law mandates certain coverages, and insurers must comply or cease to do business in that state.
That would be a good cause for the Republicans to jump behind; requiring insurers to pay for the damage they've done. Boy oh boy will we see a pullback then!
BTW I'm NOT a Republican; I can't stand them, but they're on the right side of science and history on this one issue.
I’m sorry, I can’t understand your allegation that “insurers pay for the damage they've done”. Why do you think that INSURERS, who have been forced by law to pay for procedures they don’t want to pay for, are the people responsible?
It’s the government who are “responsible” for this, along with the doctors/facilities,policymakers and most of all -- the universities and activists (aka lobbyists)! This is one thing that you cannot blame on insurance. And btw -- if, as you suggest, insurance is forced to pay for both transition AND de-transition, expect ever higher premium rates for everyone, because insurance is simply a method of loss spreading.
The solution is to stop this pernicious, life-destroying “gender theory” at the societal level. A big task, yes, and maybe no longer possible.
Okay, fair enough. I had forgotten about the government's role in this. I pay a bit less attention to the US news now that I've got two countries to keep track of.
Although I'll bet lawsuits are the best way to end this atrocious abuse.
"Yes the Republicans are taking the right side, but their reasons have nothing to do with science."
True, but better to do the right thing for the wrong reason than the wrong thing for any reason, in particular for the left on this issue, the wrong reason. The left's obsession with inclusivity and phobia of being called some dumb pejorative, or compared to the Republicans <Janet Leigh scream> is what's brought us here.
I'm now finishing up Helen Joyce's 'Trans' book and she states boldly what I realize we've got to stop pretending isn't true: The right-wing media are the ones covering and calling out the appalling abuses of women, gayfolk and children by the trans set. If a transwoman rapes a woman, beats all women on a sports team or parades his dick around a formerly single-sex space, you won't hear about it in the left-wing press. Yet we're terrified of being identified as being 'right wing' or a 'Republican' - the pejorative labels *we* fear, rather than TERF, Nazi, transphobe, etc. If you can stop caring about the labels you take their power. Because they can't shut you down or force you to backpedal - I know I have sometimes back-pedaled at charges I'm right-wing - but now I'm simply stating, 'No, I'm on the left, not the right,' and I'm also beginning to speak out more and say the right is wrong about a lot of things, but not on this issue. And gee, isn't it weird that the right is on the right side of science for a change and the left has abandoned it? That's how I got deplatformed from CounterSocial - my recent article with a headline stating exactly that.
"I think a lot of us are very uncomfortable to find ourselves on the same side of an issue as the republicans like Ron DeSantis. I know I am." Exactly. Thank you.
Chris: Good points. I have the same issue with my friends. They don't understand why as a life-long liberal, I am seemingly siding with the worse of the Right, such as Gov. DeSantis. I point out that it's mainly sheer coincidence--we both happen to agree on a single issue, because the American Right, like a stopped clock, can still be right twice each day. The other issue is the reason for siding with the Right is because the Left has been totally cowed by the trans movement and dares not utter a single word of skepticism, for fear of being labeled 'transphobic.' It's insane.
> but their reasons have nothing to do with science.
Given how easily science gets corrupted, you really ought to reconsider your worship of it.
I believe if it’s mandated by the Affordable Care Act (which it is), it doesn’t matter what state mandates are, insurance companies are required to pay for it. Before ACA, insurance companies were regulated by the state.
Yes, they need to be forced to choose between being liable for lawsuits or not covering the "trans" mutilation. In this case, their greed will actually help us end the madness.
I agree once the malpractice insurers get hit with huge verdicts, insurers will exclude gender affirming care from coverage. It’s surprising how few lawsuits there have been. There are two in California but not the best venue. I think both cases are against Kaiser so the cases will likely go to binding arbitration and not be decided by a jury.
So, do we believe this systematic review of the evidence will be legit? Or will they find a way to torque the “evidence” to show that “gender-affirming care” is beneficial to minors?
I agree that it looks like this will be a sham review. However, I am hopeful that they see the writing on the wall, and are simply taking the path of least resistance in laying the groundwork that they think they will need to wiggle out of some of those future lawsuits. Their slippery wording and upfront assumptions are, in my opinion, to avoid bringing down the wrath of the TRAs against them right now.
Would love for some of the current lawsuits (e.g., Chloe Cole) to be found in favor of the plaintiffs before this review is completed. I think it would force them to come to a more definitive conclusion.
According to the Affirmation Generation movie, a group of pediatricians who are AAP members already did a systematic review and tried to present it to the AAP leadership, but they refused to look at it. That review must still be in the AAP's possession and they continue to ignore it. Will it ever resurface? Sorry I don't remember the name of the doctor in the movie who talked about this.
I am still shocked that they will continue to provide this so-called "gender affirming care" or, what might be called uncalled for mutilation and sterilization, without having performed a systematic review, and in the face of the systematic reviews that have all resulted in other countries pulling back on these treatments. First do no harm would seem to necessitate that they not provide medical interventions without first determining if they are truly beneficial! What am I missing here?
I'm shocked! Shocked to find such hypocrisy and self-aggrandizement going on there ... 😉🙂
Though nice to see that you and Colin at least -- not sure about SEGM -- put "gender affirming care" in quotes. A more odious euphemism is scarcely imaginable.
Apropos of which and of your closing, "what am I missing here?", Upton Sinclair:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/21810-it-is-difficult-to-get-a-man-to-understand-something
This is true, and the financial motivations are clear. However, the potential litigation when (not if) it is finally realized that there is no medical basis for these invasive medical interventions is another financial consideration that they appear to be ignoring. Plus, even with the short-term financial gains to consider (and how many in the AAP are performing these surgeries and actually reaping those benefits?), there is still a certain regard for life that most people have, and that the AAP appears to be ignoring as well. The sheer recklessness of this decision to keep going while aware of the lack of scientific basis for these medical interventions is still shocking, even after considering any potential financial gains and the desire to appease a certain vocal portion of the population. Right?
Before sex Lysenkoism (either as cover for groomers or to save the planet from overpopulation) had reached my life in the form of some of my friends' and husband's colleagues' teenagers, I had noticed that preferred outcome driven interpretation of evidence was corrupting foster care children's dependency cases. Drug rehab graduates are not studied for enough years or with sufficient depth of investigation to justify the blind faith that fuels drug court confidence in the rehabilitative process. One case manger in in Broward County Courthouse told a judge that the urine test could not be adulterated or diluted by drinking a gallon of water and other methods about which I expressed concern (because the drug abuse in that case had bragged about previous success with cheating drug tests). The case worker's statement counted as the voice of science for that specific court case despite the fact that her words directly contradicted the words of the director of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. I was so disturbed by a dilute lan report being overlooked by this court that I later brought scientific journal articles from the International Journal of Toxicology and from John's Hopkins University, us a copy of the transcript from a Congressional hearing to the judge's secretary to ace in the judge's mailbox. I was determined to have real science inform that case and not let it be predetermined by a social worker job performance metrics or a political agenda. The Annie E. Casey Foundation does have reports of findings that DCF and ChildNet do have metrics that pressure social workers to close cases, not based on child safety and well-being but on their own organizational goals.
Science and ethics depend on one another.
One huge thing has been left out: put male to female and female to male in separate categories for data analysis. Crazy that they have not been doing this so far.
Yes, the fact you need so few symptoms for adolescent onset GD is a huge problem. And, yes, those ratio changes happened.
I’m fascinated by the idea that they will bring in child and adolescent psychiatrists - child and adolescent psychiatrists are NOT pediatricians. They do not seem to have a any whatsoever on their board when I glanced. They are physical doctors generally, and their “support” of a given psychiatric direction is as meaningless as an endocrinologist making psychiatric evaluations, a dentist making psychiatric evaluations, or a podiatrist.
The entire basis for the “assessment” to me is suspect.
The assessment must begin with answering the question why do pediatricians believe they are psychiatrists? What are their qualifications to say anything about child and adolescent psychiatry? And why should we care about their “evaluation” any more than an evaluation by dentists?
I fully expect no change in the policy as a result of this review. The AAP has been captured and will not be brave enough to follow evidence objectively, but will, rather, stick to what is politically correct and "kind."
One must ask them why are advanced European and Scandinavian nations are coming to a very different conclusion, despite similar populations and treatments? Then watch them squirm and fire off accusations of transphobia.
"captured", indeed. Though, as you probably know, there's clearly a rising chorus of those in the medical profession who are "sounding the alarums". For examples, see:
https://www.genderclinicnews.com/p/yes-our-evidence-is-weak
https://elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/about-that-reddit-post
You may wish to consider adding your own voice -- and/or that of your wife -- to it. Squeaky wheels and all that.
But, in other news, you might also be encouraged by a couple of stories on Graham Linehan's Substack, one out of Oklahoma in particular:
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-week-in-the-war-on-women-monday-69b
https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/gov-stitt-signs-womens-bill-of-rights-through-executive-order
Of particular note in the latter is that government's more or less solid endorsement of some "useful" definitions for "male" and "female":
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female."
Something that should warm the cockles of Emma Hilton's heart as those are more or less the same as those she had had published in the letter section of the UK Times -- a decent enough newspaper, though still hardly a peer-reviewed biological journal:
UK Times: "Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
Only marginally better than folk-biology, though still much better than the Kindergarten Cop versions -- i.e., boys have penises and girls have vaginas. But while they fall short of the standard biological definitions promulgated in various biological journals and dictionaries, it is still a welcome step in the right direction.
The times, they are a changin' ...
Think you're reading a sneer into those phrases since I didn't quote them. In addition to which, there's solid justification for them -- for the former, see the article on folk taxonomies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_taxonomy
As for the latter, see my note on a post by Christopher Rufo where he talks about "sex-change interventions" and a subsequent conversation with him where he defended that phrase on the basis of it being "immediately understandable to the public and much more accurate"
https://substack.com/profile/21792752-steersman/note/c-16193243
How else can that be so unless he thinks, or he thinks the public thinks, that changing one's sex is just a matter of changing one's genitalia -- i.e., the Kindergarten Cop definitions? Will be interesting to see how he responds to the Oklahoma definitions -- should be painfully obvious that those "interventions" most certainly don't change one type of reproductive system for the other type, working or not.
Much of the whole transgender clusterfuck turns on sloppy, incoherent, self-serving, and/or risibly unscientific definitions for the sexes -- and for "gender", though that's a horse of different colour.
As for "standard biological definitions", I have yet to see you table anything other than unevidenced opinion to the contrary.
I'm not claiming to be an expert, I'm only quoting people who are. Like the Oxford Dictionary of Biology, like the article in the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, one of whose authors has an FRS to his name.
Do you seriously think that asking -- politely -- someone to jump off a bridge is sufficient to oblige them to do so? 🤔🙄
As for "gender", even Colin recognizes that its definition as sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types has some currency. As did the late Justice Scalia and as does the British Medical Journal and as do no few other equally credible and authoritative sources ...
> The AAP has finally agreed to conduct a systematic review of the evidence for “gender-affirming care.” Here’s how they can ensure it’s done right.
The better question is do they want to do it right.
An irony I noticed during my 2 years of searching for any information that could help me understand the current state of child dependency law, trends, and science, is that a medical doctor, who owns a drug rehab in Broward county, openly admitted that many types of drug test cheating occurs. He described all sorts of types of cheating and did not think rehab and drug testing was infallible, which is how the case worker described it to the drug court linked to the child dependency court case I was referring to prior. Judges seem to have to rule based on what presented to them during the court hearings. If what's presented is poor quality, then justice is probably not going to be served. It's the same as with scientific research.
How refreshing to have actual scientists advocating for and specifying the protocol for an evidence-based review. I agree, though, with other commenters, that in these United States, it's likely lawsuits, not evidence, will eventually ashcan "gender-affirming care." The only thing more powerful than politics is profit. When it becomes financially unattractive -- or even financially dangerous -- to providers, they will conclude that gender-affirming care is unsupported by evidence.
We know a good portion of published research is garbage. Now factor in hundreds of millions of dollars to be made off of this and I’m going to bet the scale will be heavily tipped.
I'm just curious anyone's reaction to this latest study, which surprised me:
https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/08/no-regrets-gender-affirming-chest-surgery-in-adults-has-long-term-satisfaction/
First reaction: what do you think would happen to the researchers if their study reached any other conclusion?
Eugine: Sorry, are you referring to the posted article, or the study I posted today?
Colin et al,
Thought this would be of interest.....I suspect you will hear more about this. Thoughts from anyone?
"The Myth Of "Low Quality Evidence" Around Transgender Care
Recent discussions among legislators and think tanks opposed to gender-affirming care highlight a recurring claim: "There is no high-quality evidence." It's time to address this misconception."
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/the-myth-of-low-quality-evidence
It's utter BS. Firstly it makes the argument that two wrongs make a right, in saying that because we have poor evidence for some treatments, then it is OK to mutilate and sterilize children with only poor evidence. And her examples of current treatments with poor evidence are pretty awful choices. Statins? We can certainly argue about giving them prophylactically to people with no heart disease, but the fact remains they have dramatically changed outcomes for people with heart disease. Mammograms? Please tell that to all the women who discovered their breast cancers when they were too small to feel and were cured. Radiotherapy? Rarely a cure but certainly life extending in sensitive tumours. Gallbladder surgery? One would not wish biliary colic on the author but should she (he?) ever suffer an attack.... And finally, "neonatal medicines" - what? All of them? As in no treatment whatsoever for newborns? When they suffer from RDS we withhold surfactant? Or antibiotics when they are septic? Don't be bloody silly!
In a sense he is correct. Most of the medicine developed in the past half century is low quality and probably makes people worse, including "trans-care".
Satins are rather dubious. Also things like antidepressants and nearly all psychiatric drugs. Frankly nearly all modern medicine is focused on treating symptoms and not underlying causes.
That’s a frightening read.
The good news is that there are good reasons to doubt the "mouse utopia" experiment.
https://gwern.net/mouse-utopia