| ▲ | gopher_space 7 days 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. |
|
| ▲ | codocod 7 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > 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. |
| |
| ▲ | gopher_space 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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? | |
| ▲ | miltonlost 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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 7 days ago | parent [-] | | > 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-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 7 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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? | |
| ▲ | Nevermark 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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. | |
| ▲ | 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
