Truly unreal. The media should report responsibibly, of course, but the assumption that any decrease in referrals to a clinic is BAD (and that the corresponding massive uptick to gender clinics in recent years is GOOD) is astonishingly naive. It's great that people can access gender affirming care if needed. But somehow until very recently the overwhelming majority of people didn't change gender (it's still a majority, but numbers have slipped from 1 in 30000 to 1 in 30, according to some estimates), and still somehow managed to forge their way in the world. Why is it suddenly something that must be medicalized?
This is what bad science looks like. Start with a theory, look for supporting evidence, interpret everything that fits using your theory. Ignore anything that conflicts (i.e., pick and choose your reality).
Importantly, don't test the theory.
Importantly, don't consider alternative explanations, and show why they are less likely.
That last also applies to all those affirmative MDs.
Turns out reality doesn't get to be just what you've decided it should be The kids and their families are paying the price. I hope these doctors and these poorly reviewed journals do, soon, too. They are abetting medical malpractice at a large scale.
This elementary logical fallacy,.which smart kids can recognize in high school, was published in JAMA? Wow. Really?
Jesse Singal's latest on Journalism kinda' helps to explain why so many journalists (those who are bright and talented enough to know better) are afraid to do their "fucking jobs." It's all those so-called other "journalists" who don't know what the job is, and who are mindless minions for the "cult of smart." (see Fredrik deBoer).
It Isn’t Journalism’s Job To Hand-Hold People To The Correct Moral Conclusions
I mean, the "negative coverage"was that the investigative reporters found clinicians saying they didn't understand the rise in cases but hoped and prayed medical intervention was best, that people pushing for or having these interventions said that they'd changed their minds about recommending them based on becoming more informed....
Truly unreal. The media should report responsibibly, of course, but the assumption that any decrease in referrals to a clinic is BAD (and that the corresponding massive uptick to gender clinics in recent years is GOOD) is astonishingly naive. It's great that people can access gender affirming care if needed. But somehow until very recently the overwhelming majority of people didn't change gender (it's still a majority, but numbers have slipped from 1 in 30000 to 1 in 30, according to some estimates), and still somehow managed to forge their way in the world. Why is it suddenly something that must be medicalized?
This is what bad science looks like. Start with a theory, look for supporting evidence, interpret everything that fits using your theory. Ignore anything that conflicts (i.e., pick and choose your reality).
Importantly, don't test the theory.
Importantly, don't consider alternative explanations, and show why they are less likely.
That last also applies to all those affirmative MDs.
Turns out reality doesn't get to be just what you've decided it should be The kids and their families are paying the price. I hope these doctors and these poorly reviewed journals do, soon, too. They are abetting medical malpractice at a large scale.
This elementary logical fallacy,.which smart kids can recognize in high school, was published in JAMA? Wow. Really?
Amen.
And another essay hitting it out of the park!
Thank you!
Jesse Singal's latest on Journalism kinda' helps to explain why so many journalists (those who are bright and talented enough to know better) are afraid to do their "fucking jobs." It's all those so-called other "journalists" who don't know what the job is, and who are mindless minions for the "cult of smart." (see Fredrik deBoer).
It Isn’t Journalism’s Job To Hand-Hold People To The Correct Moral Conclusions
Stop hating your readers
by Jesse Singal
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/it-isnt-journalisms-job-to-hand-hold
I mean, the "negative coverage"was that the investigative reporters found clinicians saying they didn't understand the rise in cases but hoped and prayed medical intervention was best, that people pushing for or having these interventions said that they'd changed their minds about recommending them based on becoming more informed....
Pesky details...?!