Professors have been publishing papers advocating for legal bans of gender affirming care for ages. They've been publishing papers on gender dysphoria and the medical impact of transition for ages. Heck, there are law professors on topics like "against civil rights."

For covid, there are not only oodles of papers on the topic you describe here, but entire books written by academics on the topic. These people remain employed at premier institutions. The question of the cost benefit analysis of remote schooling (costs to education outcomes and costs to parents having less available childcare against costs to public health) has been a particular vigorous topic of discussion.

▲

Jensson 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Professors have been publishing papers advocating for legal bans of gender affirming care for ages

Tattoos are banned on anyone under 18 for good reasons. Protect the children, parents shouldn't have the freedom to ruin their kids lives, kids have a right to grow up with a healthy body and not get experimented on.

Kids can't even consent to sex, changing your sex has much bigger consequences than having sex, why should you be allowed to transition before the age of consent?

Parents has way too much influence over kids for kids to be said to be their own, its only when they become adults that they should be allowed to make these kind of life altering decisions.

I don't think there are many books written about banning gender affirming care for adults, just for children, and for children it makes sense, all other such body modifications are banned for kids.

▲

analog8374 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Entire books you say.

▲

UncleMeat 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, even ones that are expressly critical of the policies.

In Covid's Wake is a rather famous recent example. The authors are both professors at a prestigious university. They were interviewed by all sorts of outlets, including left leaning outlets. The idea that doing a cost-benefit analysis of various covid policies would get academics expelled from the academy is just not based in fact.

▲

analog8374 9 hours ago | parent [-]

My first criticism is the unity of popular opinion. (Ironic, yes). I see this majority, holding the exact same opinion, offering the exact same arguments in support of that opinion, implementing that opinion in exactly the same way. In lockstep.

There's a definite lack of natural chaos.

That's fishy. That reeks of a finely crafted propaganda campaign.

▲

UncleMeat 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I have no idea what is going on here.

The claim above seemed to have been that professors who went against particular narratives regarding transgender affirmation and public health efforts surrounding covid were silenced or even expelled from the academy. This is just observably not the case. Some sense that the academy demands absolute conformity to left wing positions is something people often say but it is ill supported.

	▲	analog8374 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's what mathematicians refer to as a "tangent".

▲

immibis 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't. I see lots of arguments. You're engaging in one right now. COVID arguing was Reddit's most popular subreddit, back before Reddit was an AI slopfest.

Is it possible that the majority opinion is the correct one and the majority arguments are the reasons why it's correct? I mean, that's how it works with the blue sky, round earth, and fiber optic internet narratives.

	▲	analog8374 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Irrc, dissent from the official narrative about covid on reddit got culled with extreme prejudice. And the protofascistic multitudes were overjoyed to play along.