| |
| ▲ | VikingCoder 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Nice ad hominem attack. If you prefer reading (and again, references), here ya go: 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 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I'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 6 days ago | parent [-] | | "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 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, 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. | | |
| ▲ | VikingCoder 6 days ago | parent [-] | | She said she read the Review. You're not arguing in good faith. Throughout our entire discussion. And tell me what basis I should judge their excluding other research? How do I know they're not just rationalizing it? That they disagreed with the conclusions and worked backwards to exclude the sources? It comes down to trust, and frankly, you're making me less likely to trust it, with the way you've communicated. I shouldn't blame them for how people talk about them, but you're certainly not doing them any favors. If you genuinely want to be more persuasive, I'd be glad to walk you through the list of mistakes I think you made. Also, I won't ask you to come to your own conclusions, but feel free to read this: https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity... | | |
| ▲ | sso_eol 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Here's what she actually said: > Also, not for nothing but this thing is 388 pages. I do not have the attention span to be sure I wasn't missing something. So I cooled my heels and waited for the people who do have that expertise to weigh in. She clearly did not do any sort of deep reading of the Review herself but instead just parroted what people who already ideologically agree with her have to say about it. If she had read it herself, maybe she could have attempted a skeptical analysis. But she didn't. Thanks for the link to that article by McNamara et al. I've already previously seen it and I would recommend you also read this peer-reviewed paper published in the British Medical Journal, which carefully eviscerates its claims: https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/10/15/archdischild-20... | | |
| ▲ | VikingCoder 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for that link. But again, you are not arguing in good faith, and it severely weakens your arguments. If you wish to convince people, please make a stronger attempt to stick to the facts. You've repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that she did not even read the paper. "If she had read it herself, maybe she could have attempted a skeptical analysis. But she didn't." Quoting her, "So then I read the report myself." Your obstinance on this point is remarkably fruitless. Feel free to argue that she didn't understand it, especially if you can point to statements she made that you can claim are false - and especially if you can cite references that prove your point. I'll also note you didn't respond at all when I suggested you should ask your trans friends what they think. At this point, we're done. I've made repeated attempts to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have demonstrated your unwillingness to change. | | |
| ▲ | sso_eol 6 days ago | parent [-] | | You're nitpicking over the connotation of "read" and missing the broader point that she is by her own admission just parroting the critiques of others without much thought. > At this point, we're done. I've made repeated attempts to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have demonstrated your unwillingness to change. That's fine. To be honest, your condescending attitude was starting to irritate me so I'm pleased not to proceed with this discussion any further. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
