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...

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.