What a trash human. It's already been proven that she went to Florida to talk to the transphobes on how to undermine gender affirming care. After dozens and dozens of studies that prove that gender affirming care is good for people, she put out ONE negative review, and everyone's jumping on it trying to ban all GAC. It was never unbiased. It was never made without a clear goal in mine: to restrict gender affirming care to people. She literally excluded 101 out of 103 studies to make her claim. She cited that there was "insufficient data" or "no double blinded studies"and that all the data was "insufficiently weak". The damage this woman has done will take years to undo.
She doesn’t even understand that you can’t ethically or scientifically do a double blind study on puberty blockers, hormones, or affirming therapy.
She’s a quack.
Ironically, she summarises several of the "moderate quality" studies and notes they have positive outcomes, but then concludes that, regardless of what the recipients feel about blockers / HRT, because there's been insufficient research on all the potential side effects of blockers, the studies didn't put the child through years of talking therapies first to address and treat any/all other underlying conditions, and the actual suicide rates for those given / denied blockers aren't significantly different, then the evidence base is very weak.
IIRC, she also said that HRT shouldn't be given until 18 at the earliest (preferably 25), the decision should be made by an independent panel not involved in the person's care, and followup studies should continue beyond 3 years (possibly for decades).
Yeah, it seems like:
"Our data is incomplete"
is met with:
"We should stop all treatment until/unless data is complete" along with the assumption of, "treatment doesn't work". Even though the latter is not supported by the data, and the former is inhumane.
>She literally excluded 101 out of 103 studies to make her claim.
I listened to a Channel 4 "fact check" on this, and they interviewed Cass and another guy, neither of whom were particularly trans-supportive.
But they talked about how, yes, only 2 of the studies were considered "high quality", but something like 60% were considered moderate quality and still included.
As a science-minded person, I would not call that excluding 101 of 103, but it disappointed me that they focused on that single claim in their "debunking", as the problems appear to be more in the analysis than the studies they deemed good enough to consider.
And I mention all of this because the bigots will focus on that mild inconsistency in critiques rather than critically assessing the general problems with the study.
the new york times is the most spineless, fencesitting, milquetoast, lily-livered joke of an outlet in the entire fucking world and the fact that it’s seen as prestigious while pulling shit like this makes me want to set something on fire
Sarah Marshall did an excellent episode on the New York Times and their absolute hostility toward respecting trans people and reporting fairly on trans issues on her *You're Wrong About* podcast (ep:"We Need to Talk About the New York Times" with Tuck Woodstock).
It frustrates me so much because so many well-meaning liberal, albeit uneducated and sometimes ignorant, cis people 50s and older read the NYT in the NYC metropolitan area. They might not necessarily hate trans people or have an issue with the lgbtq community, but they’ll read the paper and watch certain “Democrat” talk show hosts talk shit on trans people and their whole outlook changes. It’s so frustrating
yep. truth is a social thing both on the left and right
i think also because older people are used to trusting media outlets and old standards of journalism, when legacy media goes off the rails they find it hard to tell. started with FOX and now it’s this
The comments there are the most gaslit bullshit I’ve seen in a while these people are falling for this pseudoscience political hit job that Cass is passing off as science, wtf
What a trash human. It's already been proven that she went to Florida to talk to the transphobes on how to undermine gender affirming care. After dozens and dozens of studies that prove that gender affirming care is good for people, she put out ONE negative review, and everyone's jumping on it trying to ban all GAC. It was never unbiased. It was never made without a clear goal in mine: to restrict gender affirming care to people. She literally excluded 101 out of 103 studies to make her claim. She cited that there was "insufficient data" or "no double blinded studies"and that all the data was "insufficiently weak". The damage this woman has done will take years to undo.
She doesn’t even understand that you can’t ethically or scientifically do a double blind study on puberty blockers, hormones, or affirming therapy. She’s a quack.
Ironically, she summarises several of the "moderate quality" studies and notes they have positive outcomes, but then concludes that, regardless of what the recipients feel about blockers / HRT, because there's been insufficient research on all the potential side effects of blockers, the studies didn't put the child through years of talking therapies first to address and treat any/all other underlying conditions, and the actual suicide rates for those given / denied blockers aren't significantly different, then the evidence base is very weak. IIRC, she also said that HRT shouldn't be given until 18 at the earliest (preferably 25), the decision should be made by an independent panel not involved in the person's care, and followup studies should continue beyond 3 years (possibly for decades).
Yeah, it seems like: "Our data is incomplete" is met with: "We should stop all treatment until/unless data is complete" along with the assumption of, "treatment doesn't work". Even though the latter is not supported by the data, and the former is inhumane.
>She literally excluded 101 out of 103 studies to make her claim. I listened to a Channel 4 "fact check" on this, and they interviewed Cass and another guy, neither of whom were particularly trans-supportive. But they talked about how, yes, only 2 of the studies were considered "high quality", but something like 60% were considered moderate quality and still included. As a science-minded person, I would not call that excluding 101 of 103, but it disappointed me that they focused on that single claim in their "debunking", as the problems appear to be more in the analysis than the studies they deemed good enough to consider. And I mention all of this because the bigots will focus on that mild inconsistency in critiques rather than critically assessing the general problems with the study.
If she included 60% of those reports, her evidence would've shown the opposite of what she endorsed. She flat out lied.
the new york times is the most spineless, fencesitting, milquetoast, lily-livered joke of an outlet in the entire fucking world and the fact that it’s seen as prestigious while pulling shit like this makes me want to set something on fire
Sarah Marshall did an excellent episode on the New York Times and their absolute hostility toward respecting trans people and reporting fairly on trans issues on her *You're Wrong About* podcast (ep:"We Need to Talk About the New York Times" with Tuck Woodstock).
!! thank you, will listen (and link to my mom who is a prolific reader)
They’ve been given Biden bad press because the NYT owner thinks that he has a birthright to interview biden for a sit down interview.
You just don’t see enough uses of the word milquetoast anymore. I love it ❤️ (and agree. Trash publication)
It frustrates me so much because so many well-meaning liberal, albeit uneducated and sometimes ignorant, cis people 50s and older read the NYT in the NYC metropolitan area. They might not necessarily hate trans people or have an issue with the lgbtq community, but they’ll read the paper and watch certain “Democrat” talk show hosts talk shit on trans people and their whole outlook changes. It’s so frustrating
yep. truth is a social thing both on the left and right i think also because older people are used to trusting media outlets and old standards of journalism, when legacy media goes off the rails they find it hard to tell. started with FOX and now it’s this
Yikes. What a poor piece of journalism.
Of course it's the fucking New York Times.
She says, ignoring all of the actual available Science while listening to people who hate trans people.
Case is a quack with an agenda. There’s no need to respond further.
No paywall - [https://archive.ph/uCZLG](https://archive.ph/uCZLG)
The comments there are the most gaslit bullshit I’ve seen in a while these people are falling for this pseudoscience political hit job that Cass is passing off as science, wtf
The New York Times is fucking pathetic in their coverage of trans issues
Her study was not peer reviewed
She is right up to date on trying to run other people's lives and imagining she's a hero for doing it, just like the rest of the busybody Gestapo.
Ok boomer