Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

Every piece called out here is clearly labeled "opinion" - did they even read the normal news and analysis sections? Countless newspapers and outlets and actual scientific journals have opinion/editorial sections that are generally very well firewalled from the factual content. You could collect the worst hot takes from a few years of nearly any site with a dedicated opinion page and pretend that it has gone downhill. But that this the whole point of having a separate opinion section — so opinions have a place to go, and are not slipped into factual reporting. And many opinion pieces are submitted by others or solicited as a way to show a view that the newsroom doesn't or can't espouse.

Whether the EIC of SciAm overstepped with her own editorializing is probably not something we as outsiders can really say, given the complexities of running a newsroom. I would caution people against taking this superficial judgment too seriously.

The linked article itself is an opinion piece.

Reason does interesting stuff, sure, but no mistake it has a bias and that is a right centre libertarian view that loads factual content toward a predetermined conconclusion that individual free thinkers trump all.

As such they take part in a current conservative habit of demonising "Science" to undermine results that bear on, say, environmental health, climate change, on so on that might result in slowing down a libertarian vision of industry.

I still read their copy, I'm a broad ingestor of content, but no one should be blind to their lean either.

The examples given in the article are quite egregious, and the authors of those pieces are not notable.

SciAm nonetheless made the decision that those particular opinions should be published under their banner, and it’s not clear on what basis that decision was made other than editorial discretion.

If an editor of a science magazine chose to publish op-eds about how 5G causes cancer and then went on a Twitter rant along those lines that impugns her credibility and judgment as a whole. Similarly here.

I'm unsure that helps things? Maybe if some of the excerpts were jokes? The criticism of JEDI is particularly laughable. If sad. I say that as someone that finds the acronym cringe worthy.

So, yeah, I agree that the standards are lower in these sections. I question if they are non existent.

I agree people should be aware of the bias of their sources (all of them), but there's no reason for anyone to be mistaken about Reason. (Please forgive the wording, I couldn't think of better.)

Unlike many other sources, Reason doesn't pretend to be neutral. They admit:

"Reason is the nation's leading libertarian magazine."

https://reason.com/about/

Are you saying the linked is meant to demonize science? The impression I got was that he was doing the exact opposite: saying that SciAm's editorial direction was harming the public perception of science, which could have far-reaching effects. I don't see that as an anti-science stance.

> Every piece called out here is clearly labeled "opinion"

True if one stopped reading half-way through.

The author's little trans tirade is a great example, and you can start with his "I'm something of a medical expert" line. Pure ideology.

I can't find where the author writes "I'm something of a medical expert". But for myself, I'm not up to date on the research. Does this article misrepresent the current state of scientific understanding?

Does libertarianism take a position on transgender issues? (This seems to be one focus area of the article.) I can see the author has a strong view but I don't know how libertarianism informs it.

> Most importantly, [the article] falsely claimed that there is solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates adolescent suicidality, when we absolutely do not know that to any degree of certainty.

There's solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates suicidality. Cherry picking from a single study is dishonest.

It doesn't make it clear that the author's issue appears to be solely with the editorial opinion pieces and thus feeds into trending mythology that "(modern) science is bad", has replication, DEI, woke, etc. crisis.

This is the "old science" good, "new science" bad leaning that lends itself to ignoring climate costs and anything else that libertarians of various shades might object to.

Opinion: Astrology should be seriously considered...

That label doesn't give carte blanche to publish non-scientific nonsense. Does it?

And unscientific.

To be clear - the accusation isn't SciAm was politicised, but that it was politicised in an ideologically unacceptable way.

I doubt we'd hear a squeak of complaint if a new editor started promoting crackpot opinion pieces about how all research should be funded by markets instead of governments (because governments shouldn't exist), or that libertarianism is the highest form of rationality.

I'll take its deeply-felt concern for science and reason seriously when it starts calling out RFK Jr for being unscientific. (Prediction: this will never happen.)

Libertarianism theoretically could go either way. Theoretically, do what you want with your bodies.

However, libertarianias as they exist tend to be socially conservative - somehow they end up agreeing with GOP position on social issues. In this case, convervatives hate trans people, so libertarians too.

I hope this view is "people are free to do whatever they want", because if libertarianism is only about ownership freedom, it would be the less consistent ideology ever.

> There's solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates suicidality.

Not at all true, there is no solid evidence of this. That's why it's so controversial, because ideologues are pushing for these pharmaceutical and surgical interventions on children despite the paucity of evidence.

What does diversity and trans and such have to do with climate science? They seem to be entirely separate topics.

The opinion pieces in pretty much every major newspaper are mixed in with the “factual” content, so for the average person reading, there is no difference. See for example “top links” sections, which include both.

Libertarians, at least the ones that subscribe to Reason, are not socially conservative. Just read a few articles and this is very apparent.

The 2024 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate was a pro-trans gay man.

Any serious libertarian would say it (like most things) is absolutely none of the government's concern, at least with regards to consenting adults. There's probably a range of views when it comes to kids, though. Conversely, they wouldn't be interested in having the government policing the treatment of trans people between private parties, so they'd oppose things like legislation that protects them (or anyone) from discrimination in hiring, as an example.

FWIW, the author - Jesse Singal - is a writer I've followed for a while. I like him a lot - I find him level-headed and intellectually honest. I don't think he'd characterize himself as a libertarian rather than a liberal, despite being published by Reason here. He's just a science writer who ended up on the "trans kids healthcare" beat and has written about it extensively. I think he'd characterize his position as just "a lot of medical treatments for kids are being pushed on [in his opinion] flimsy science for [in his opinion] ideological reasons"; and he'd say that this is a scientific position rather than a political one. Of course he takes a lot of crap for this, and of course he's also attracted a fanbase of bozos for this. But his writing, generally, deserves better than either.

Not true, this is not labeled anywhere I can see as opinion, but does include an editors note to a suicide helpline, and a correction...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-are-puberty-...

Why do opinions need a place to go? Why can't we just demonize professionals who lack the ability to report factual content without mixing in their opinions as unfit to be writing?

When I was in my 20s, I believed you.

Now that I'm in my 30s, I think we need a nanny police state making sure everyone is rational.

We also maybe have to deal with the common misconception that a fact proceeds somehow from an absolute objective perspective. But as far as humans are concerned, there are only human points of views grounded in human cognition and human interests. Some human points of views might try to encompass more than the direct individual own experience might otherwise limit to, sure, but that is still human endeavor.

Fact and factitious have a common Latin root for a reason.

Even the carefully engineered autonomous probe will only gather data according to some human conceptions of what matter to be recorded or dismissed, what should be considered signal rather than noise.

You can't make people rational after their education, that's the whole insanity of all this: education is the key, critical thought, not creating gullible fools. But religion and many political ideologies depend upon gullible people or they would not exist, so the powerful members of those tribes impel society (for the children!) to denigrate education to produce morons. The United States is filled with them, they may have graduate degrees but they can't logically identify a con man.

You have to understand the current US culture context to understand the answer to that question.

Right wing propaganda outlets will often link topic like these with farcical statements similar to “from the people that brought you men in women’s’ bathrooms (trans) comes a demand that you get rid of your gas stove (climate change, indoor air health).”

Well, that sounds like a very interesting theme to study scientifically indeed: what makes astrology such a resilient and widespread cultural practice in contemporary citizens?

Because expert opinions are sometimes the only data available. "What will computer architecture look like in 20 years?" Clearly there's no factual content to answer that question, but I would argue that it's still an interesting question to ask an expert.

You'd honestly have to ask the people that dislike modern science for it's acceptance of diversity, discussion of intersex genetics, publishing of climate science papers, and so forth.

They're vocal enough in forums about the place, near as I can tell these things are all harbingers of the decline and death of science as they know it.

Did we read the same article? It literally has a section calling out RFK Jr, as follows:

> If experts aren't to be trusted, charlatans and cranks will step into the vacuum. To mangle a line from Archer, "Do you want a world where RFK Jr. is the head of HHS? That's how you get a world where RFK Jr. is appointed head of HHS."

What is this, if not an explicit call-out? I don't agree with or see a need to defend Reason very often, but what more do you want from them, here?

Libertarians have a "my body my choice" position for things like raw milk and vaccines, and a "no you shouldn't be allowed that" position for abortion and hormones, because they've ended up on the rightwing side of the culture war.

Warp Drive is impossible? So never ever write about it or you are an evil person spreading false information?

Speculation is also about looking to the future, 'what might be possible'. These are opinions.

And. 'A Lot' of people confuse raw data with 'facts'. Every single paper or news report is taking 'raw data' and 'figuring out what it means'.

So, there is always bias, but also it is impossible to report anything without trying to 'infer' information out of the raw data. There is no such thing as 'just report the facts'.

Informed opinion, clearly labeled so, on interesting but non-controversial non-ideological topics can be great instigators of curiosity.

What might have come before the Big Bang?

Do quantum superpositions really collapse somehow based on some as yet uncharacterized law, or does our universe produce a web of alternate futures, still connected but where straightforward links are quickly statistically and irreversible obscured?

There is a science friendly basis for interesting opinions of particular experts, in areas of disagreement or inconclusive answers, when clearly labeled as opinion, whose opinion, and why that experts opinion is of special interest.

Also, opinion on the state of science education, funding or other science relevant non-scientific topics, with all due modesty of certainty makes good sense.

But injecting ideological opinions, and poorly or selectively reasoned ones, or unestablished conjectures falsely posed as scientific truth, into a format that claims to be representative of science based information, is a tragedy level disservice.

Not to mention, with respect to Scientific American in particular, a betrayal of many decades of higher standards, work and reputation.

Should a publication with science in its name publish opinions with obviously (to a scientifically skeptical mind) incorrect factual statements?

When we see opinions leaning very consistently one way at a publication it invariably turns out their non opinion pieces have some of that bias.

That bias always includes ignoring scientific accuracy in favor of political ideals.

Yes, it absolutely does.

The Cass Review mentioned was composed by a group of authors who are well-known to be opposed to trans healthcare, its methodology and conclusions are heavily criticized by subject experts (basically, "there is no evidence if you ignore all the evidence"), and even Cass herself has stated after publication that it is flawed. It does not represent the current scientific understanding of trans healthcare, so criticizing SciAm and even calling it "dangerous" for pointing this out is rather dubious.

The Cass Review was written primarily for political reasons. It isn't a peer-reviewed article written by neutral subject experts, and it should not be treated as such. The fact that Reason treats it as ground truth and ignores all the subject experts opposing it should say enough about their view on science.

You re making it sound as if every opinion is valid to go in there. For the same reason why they wouldn't publish eugenicist opinions, they should shy away from obvious cringebait.

Afaik science has not yet ran out of much more interesting opinions than the ones mentioned

Simple advertising too. It is a constant reinforcer of subconscious anti-rational thought.

Even if you imagine you never buy anything due to exposure to advertising, advertising is still hammering away, with its manipulative motivated based impressions on our minds.

If some source of information is worth consuming, at least for me it is worth paying to consume without advertisements if that is an option.

The fact that YouTube video advertising isn’t scratching the chalkboard level unacceptable to many people is all the evidence I need to know they have been deeply impacted by ad programming.

I love and hate this quote by Carl Sagan in 1995

I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...

The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”

Statistically there are absolutely robust correlations between month of birth and certain traits, but because of stuff like age-at-starting-school not voodoo about the stars. So it's not surprising people keep noticing such patterns, they're just incorrect at identifying the root causes.

I don’t think “prophet” was to a title he aspired to, but like other insightful forward thinkers, he managed to be one.

What isn’t factual in this article? Is it political because it discusses puberty blockers and transgender adolescents?

I agree that there seems to be, on the whole, a downward trend of educated, critically thinking populace. The statistics and anecdotes align to make this clear. But I struggle to pick the cause. Certainly I don’t buy into the idea that there are rooms of politicians and school board members discussing how to keep the population uneducated.

Behind every outcome is an incentive. So what do you think is the incentive that’s behind the decline?

I don't really identify as a libertarian myself, but I'm friends with several people who do and sympathetic enough to the idea that I find your accusation of paedophilia pretty distasteful.

> there are only human points of views grounded in human cognition and human interests.

“Only”? No.

The entire point of having a scientific approach, an ever longer list of ways to weed out mistakes and misperceptions, is that raw human cognition can be improved upon.

Repeatable results, independently reproduced results, peer review, control elements, effect isolation, … the list is actually very long.

Not every one of the methods we have collected applies to every step in knowledge, but every step we take can be validated by as many of them as apply.

And new ways of falsifying false conclusions continue to accumulate.

Correctly so, as it is fact and not opinion.

I think GP agrees it is factual. It is also called out in the OP ("contained countless errors and misinterpretations").

So it's a counterexample to the claim "Every piece called out here is clearly labeled 'opinion'"

> exist tend to be socially conservative - somehow they end up agreeing with GOP position on social issues. In this case, convervatives hate trans people, so libertarians too

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think you're conflating a few groups that I see as distinct:

Republicans vs. conservatives, and

(Holding various views about the best public policies regarding transgender issues) vs. (hating transgender persons)

> I doubt we'd hear a squeak […]

Perhaps, especially in a dialogue specifically about scientific, reasoning and factual quality, we should avoid arguments based on counterfactual conjectures. A type of argument so weak it facilitates any viewpoint.

If you have even weak evidence, better to reference that.

Did you vote for or do you support the "opposite team"? Because if your standard is "easy to accuse of 'ism' based on association", you might be in for a rude shock.

> Not to mention, with respect to Scientific American in particular, a betrayal of many decades of higher standards, work and reputation.

It's hard to deny science itself is under attack by the same people who try to establish alternative facts and truths based on what's politically convenient to them, even if nothing of that is backed by objective reality. Science will always be a force pushing against such agendas.

How is the best way to serve the higher standards of SciAm? Would it be ignoring the elephant in the room, this new shiny fake reality where vaccines cause autism, the Earth is flat, that scientists have been hiding perpetual motion machines from the public? Or would it be to risk being labeled "biased" or "political" and actively label and fight against these anti-science movements?

Science is politics. It is the strong belief that there is one single objective reality, that anyone with the proper tools can observe and verify, and that going against these cornerstones for political expediency is wrong and, ultimately, against the interests of our species.

I'm not American nor do I live in the US. The mere fact that there are only two teams, and everything has to be the opposite (oh, you don't support X? you must be from party Z because they hate X, and if they hate it, I love it!) even if it's basic scientific facts is infuriating.

And one of the teams is actively racist and sexist, has shown a blatant disregard for rules, norms laws and ethics, and now has full power over all branches of government. There's no scenario this ends well in the long term, and it's sad to look at from across the pond.

Science can touch on politics, but that doesn’t mean science is coextensive with politics. You selected examples where science bears on politics, but Helmuth’s fixation wasn’t on how many people believe vaccines cause autism. As demonstrated by her closing screed, it was about non-falsifiable moral assertions (“sexism,” “racism,” and the “moral arc of the universe”).

Indeed, the point of the Reason article is that if scientists want to have credibility on questions where their expertise applies, they should avoid opining in their official capacity on political questions where their expertise doesn’t apply.

Science has much to say about politically important issues like climate change and vaccines! But people will blow off those assertions if scientists lend the imprimatur of their authority to advance social causes, for example by opining that it’s “racist” to vote to deport illegal immigrants.

One part that isn’t factual is the statement on safety of GnRHs which cites their use in treating precocious puberty, which is a completely different indication and treatment (age of treatment, length of treatment, purpose of treatment), and does not consider the impact on psychosexual development, nor consider the impact on desistance of non-trans kids. The “safe and reversible” narrative originates in medical consensus amongst doctors and activists, not evidence from scientific enquiry. The difference between consensus-based medicine and evidence-based medicine eludes most participants in this debate.

I think this is a universal law of human nature.

Or maybe that cycle of the inferior by circumstance work hard to become the superior and displace the complacent superior. “history is filled with the sound of silken slippers going downstairs and wooden shoes coming up.”.

Realize first that there is no single incentive, there is a diversity of incentives to "let others do it", "let others worry about it" and various other variations of "let others...". A nearly helpless person is good for business, a frightened with money person is also good for business, and a reasoned careful, informed consumer is not good for business. These basic truths end up running nearly all of society, which creates the drive to prevent consumers from ever becoming discriminating informed and critically aware in virtually all things they are not paid to be "the expert".

The anti-trans outrage was rather major aspect of public life in last two years or so. Manufactured from the conservative groups that set politicizes for GOP, the ones that set the agenda. As far as public political life goes, these things are quite related and quite large source of votes for republican party. And it is very consistent - range goes somewhere between "not talking about it at all" to "being vocal in the outrage". However, I have yet to see politicians or public intellectuals on that side of spectrum to defend trans people or defend policies that makes life easier for trans people.

And just about last thing that is productive is to play again the euphemism game where we pretend that side of political spectrum does not mean what they say when it sounds ugly. We played it with abortions and it turned out, yep, they wanted to make them illegal and actually succeeded.

Not quite "medical expert" but the author does establish (or attempt to) as a leading figure on this topic in paragraph 11:

"This is one of the few scientific subjects on which I've established a modicum of expertise"

Long way from medical expert but it does imply a higher-level understanding of the science here. Whether writing a few articles makes someone an expert is up to the individual to decide.

I don't think what you're saying is true. I'm unaware of any indication that Hilary Cass for example is opposed to trans healthcare, and indeed she's explicitly stated that she agrees some young people benefit from it.

>What might have come before the Big Bang?

Singularity.

The statement regarding precocious puberty is entirely factual, and the statement linking that claim to supplying the same hormones to trans kids is linked to an article containing more detail (including a discussion of possible downsides and links to actual papers). I'd agree wholeheartedly that the difference between consensus and evidence-based medicine eludes most participants in the debate, but frankly that seems to apply far more to the side of the debate whose higher quality analysis is of the form of "it appears the systematic studies the other side have done might exhibit researcher bias, so rather than do our own retrospective on the same research subjects we'll just move for speedy consensus to ban the practice altogether"

> ideologues are pushing for these pharmaceutical and surgical interventions on children despite the paucity of evidence.

And you're pushing anti-trans propaganda that surgical interventions are happening on children despite paucity of evidence that it's happening. Not to mention lumping together puberty blockers with surgery, which you should not.

Video with references talking about Cass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI57lFn_vWk

"This is one of the few scientific subjects on which I've established a modicum of expertise"

> And you're pushing anti-trans propaganda that surgical interventions are happening on children despite paucity of evidence that it's happening

It is well documented that it's happening.

See for example https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-tran..., specifically the section titled "U.S. patients ages 13-17 undergoing mastectomy with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis".

That's not propaganda, it's data from medical insurance claims. There is other evidence too, including peer-reviewed research published in medical journals, and recordings of clinicians discussing this.

'Singularity' is just a placeholder for 'we have no idea what's going on here'.

Huh?

"I'm not questioning your standards; I'm denying their existence entirely."

It is certainly not factual to claim that a drug which is safe in treatment X (precocious puberty) is also safe in treatment Y (gender dysphoria). The article conflates both as “puberty delaying treatments”, as if the learning from one is completely transferable to the other. It is not. The differences I mentioned are material.

The “side” (scare quotes, for there are multiple positions available, not just those that come through the lens of US politics) with the higher quality analysis is that expressed in the Cass Review, which does not call for a ban, but rather for clinical trials and a data linkage study (for which data linking adult outcomes to pediatric gender interventions has so far been withheld by the relevant clinics - draw your own conclusions about why they would not want that to be surfaced).

It’s become something of a cliche to see this exchange: “it never happens”, followed by clear evidence of it happening. One wonders if it ever leads to the person questioning what other misconceptions they’ve been fed.

> The 2024 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate was a pro-trans gay man.

And is pro-choice (but anti-government funding for abortion). And Reason seems positive about him: https://reason.com/2024/11/06/chase-oliver-calls-libertarian...

Huh? AFAIK singularity is a dense object of zero size.

This video correctly states that the Cass Review explicitly supported trans healthcare in general. It does not seem to describe any particular author of the review who is opposed to trans healthcare. The host notes that Cass met with people who do oppose trans healthcare - but wouldn't it be problematic for a review of a new field of medical science to categorically exclude people who think it's bunk?

The differences may well be material, but as I mentioned in the post above it's simply false to claim SA conflate the two when they link (multiple times) to an article looking at trans people specifically and also mention that they are healthy and safe when prescribed to other young people for other reasons. An article which links to an article discussing outcomes of a drug in young people that also mentions below that it's routinely and uncontroversially prescribed in old people would not be factually inaccurate, even though young people and old people are evidently not identical and it is not impossible the two have different outcomes.

The Cass Review itself offers no evidence the blockers are dangerous or inevitably irreversible (or if one takes a less cautious approach, cause patients more problems with irreversibility than not using them), merely finding that only two papers providing evidence for the treatment being safe and optimal were of "high quality" with others being of "moderate" quality or "low" quality and calling for another trial. It did not find higher quality papers drawing opposing conclusions. People more knowledgeable and cynical than me have suggested that treatments for other, less politically-charged but complex conditions may also suffer from the literature that supports clinicians preferred approach being of "moderate" quality but seldom face shutdown as a result. The side that trumpeted this conclusion (because it very much is political, even in the UK) delightedly concluded that as the favourably-disposed evidence mostly fell short of excellence, all gender affirming care must be shut down permanently. Perhaps you view things differently and would very much like to see the new clinics opened and a clinical trial designed to Ms Cass' liking devised, but it's safe to say most of the people trumpeting it as the last word in the debate would not.

Her "parting rant" didn't appear in SciAm, a point even the article makes clear, but which you obscure here.

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.

Infinitely dense, which is a math term for "some other realm of existence that makes no sense in our physical world".

When reading the article I do get the impression they try to downplay the potential risks.

quote 1: “These puberty-pausing medications are widely used in many different populations and safely so,” McNamara says.

quote 2: “From an ethical and a legal perspective, this is a benign medication,” Giordano says. She is puzzled by the extra scrutiny these treatments receive, considering their benefits and limited risks. “There are no sound clinical, ethical or legal reasons for denying them to those in need,” she says.

quote 3: Like any medication, GnRHas carry the potential for adverse effects.

Now if you read one of the studies they link (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7497424/).

quote: "Arguments against the use of GnRHa that have been raised include possible long-term adverse effects on health, psychological, and sexual functioning (Laidlaw, Cretella, & Donovan, 2019; Richards, Maxwell, & McCune, 2019; Vrouenraets et al., 2015)."

I really feel like they overstate the strength of their positions with the articles they cite. All of them show clear limitations of the results which clearly show we need more data.

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.

It absolutely does offer that evidence. Blockers are indeed irreversible, they can lead to infertility and inability to orgasm depending on the length of time they're taken. Even shorter periods of puberty blockers will change height, muscle, and skeletal development.

Evidence based medicine doesn't mean that we simply give people treatments unless they're proven to be harmful. It means we don't give treatments unless we know that the effects are positive.

The UK is far from alone in pausing medicalization of gender dysphoric children. This is the case throughout pretty much all of the European continent at this point, prescription of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones is either banned or exclusively permitted as part of clinical trials - which means patients are explicitly told that this is experimental treatment, and the outcomes of patients needs to be tracked and published.

It's mainly the parents pushing for medical intervention. Keep in mind that the impetus is generally a suicide attempt or self-mutilation by their 10 year old.

There's nothing fun or trendy or exciting about this for child or family. Deeply embarrassing, far worse than getting your first hernia check if your memory goes back that far.

The one thing we absolutely did. not. need. through all of this were politicians and the peanut gallery weighing in on a private medical situation while ignoring the point of our effort.

Nothing in this article, and none of the comments here mention the life of the child in question. Too busy scoring points to think about reality or humanity in any way. What do you think that looks like from my perspective?

> For example, you call (presumably Trump) “sexist.”

"Grab ’em by the pussy."

Convicted of sexual assault. Friends with famous pedophile ringleader.

When asked about what he has in common with his teenage daughter, he said sex.

Yeah, I'm calling him sexist.

Trump's position on abortion was obvious from his actions in the past, regardless of what he actually blabbed.

> Not a single EU country recognizes a judicially-imposed constitutional right to abortion. The only constitutional abortion decision runs the other way: the German constitutional court has declared that abortion violates the Basic Law’s right to life. France is the only country with a constitutional right to abortion, and it adopted that right by amending the constitution.

What is this weird strawman? Most EU countries have laws in place that allow abortions up to a certain point. It doesn't have to be a constitutional right for it to be a right. No EU countries have a constitutional right to get emergency medical treatment or to be allowed to be vaccinated either, so this is aggressively irrelevant. Exact healthcare procedures are between a patient, their medical professional(s), and potentially family in some cases.

On Roe, the US legal system is weird and broken. Courts effectively legislate by trying to pretend to understand what vague words from centuries ago mean and how they could relate to today and things that sometimes they couldn't even imagine back then (not abortion of course, there is plenty of written advice from centuries ago about them). In normal law countries, legislators legislate. And thus abortions are legal because legislators decides so, based on popular demand.

Trump getting away with literal treason is also symptomatic of the broken American legal system, where judges and prosecutors are political entities more interested in their careers and ideology than the actual law they should be upholding.

"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?

It’s probative of state of mind.

What do you think Roe actually did? And what do you think overturning it did?

It would have been if you'd described it as such, rather than misleading about it (deliberately or not).

> Even shorter periods of puberty blockers will change height, muscle, and skeletal development.

All of which are desired outcomes from the point of view of the patient at the time they request the puberty blockers, and for the duration of the time they keep taking them[1]. You don't conclude an otoplasty is harmful because the patient has less ear afterwards, but you might conclude the practice of otoplasty in minors was harmful if regret was a common outcome. And we know that the proportion of children who choose to cease gender-related treatment, like the proportion of children regretting elective otoplasties, is non-zero[2]. But what Cass absolutely didn't find was evidence to support opponents' presumption that the regret was somehow disproportionate. It just concluded the existing papers on the topic lacked the evidential qualities of some other areas of medical research.

So sure, I'm going to agree there's a good case for raising the quality bar of the existing body of scientific research and doing so carefully, there absolutely is. But that's quite different from concluding that the evidence that is there points to frequency of unwanted side effects seldom found in treatments deemed safe and reversible.

[1]or more specifically, the desired outcome is to prevent more rapid and less reversible physiological changes the patient expressly doesn't want to happen. [2]and in some respects elective otoplasty on minors is more complex: your ears don't rapidly and irreversibly grow if a clinic suggests putting body image aside and deferring the decision until adulthood, and the effects of the surgery are instant, rather than the result of a sustained process where the default is your ear reverting back to roughly the way it would have been was unless you commit to it for an extended period of time.

No, I don't think patients want to have brittle bones that are much more likely to break. I don't think patients wanted to never experience an orgasm. These are not desired outcomes. These are unintended negative side effects of preventing natural puberty.

Again, the claim is that puberty blockers are reversible. A natal male patient that is unsure of their identity and takes puberty blockers for some time then ceases treatment will on average be shorter than if he had never taken blockers. They are not reversible. The effects of puberty blockers are permanent.

The Cass Review found that rates into regretted transition were very limited because they didn't follow up with patients for long periods of time. In particular, the youth gender clinics in the UK didn't follow up with any patients after the age of 18. So when they say that they measured an incredibly low rate of regret, understand that this is a low percentage of patients that reported regret by the age of 18. Someone who started to regret it at 19 or in their 20s is not counted. What the Cass Review found was that bodies like WPATH and AAP were claiming low rates of regret when the evidence base for that claim was extremely weak.

Evidence based medicine doesn't mean we just adopt any anything goes stance until it's been proven that treatment is harmful. Evidence based medicine means we don't give treatment until we have evidence that treat confers good outcomes - at least not outside of a research setting.

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.

I don't think Scientific American are exactly hiding that they hold a position on the issue. But I don't think that they've misrepresented that study, which is an observational study looking for evidence of whether there's any truth to those sorts of arguments (the citations appears to be two letters to the editor and an ethics paper...) which didn't find them, mainly because there weren't many dropouts to study.

I don't think patients who want to be addressed as a women particularly wish to end up 6'4" tall with broad shoulders, but those are unintended side effects of unwanted puberty for a significant number of people currently requesting blockers.

So being smaller is literally an intended effect of choosing blockers. And the relatively small proportion of natal male patients that cease treatment go through puberty, hence the primary effect is not irreversible. Being statistically slightly smaller in stature wouldn't typically be classed as a harmful side effect of any other course of treatment, particularly where the purpose of the treatment was to ensure those choosing to continue successfully avoid more drastic and completely irreversible changes in stature before making a decision on hormones which actually are extremely difficult to reverse. Since we're insisting that WPATH and the AAP's evidence base is a bit thin, I'm sure I'm going to be wowed by the list of citations you produce for puberty blockers causing significant harm in the form of "brittle bones that are much likely to break"...

The Cass Review found that a children's clinic didn't conduct followup exercises with adults and didn't regard other followup studies involving adult cohorts as conclusive. I haven't disputed that, or that medicine is typically more cautious than other sciences. What I am disputing is that the Cass Report concluded that puberty blockers were dangerous and irreversible when prescribed to people with gender dysphoria. I mean, if she actually believed that had been established, she wouldn't be recommending trials, right...

> I don't think patients who want to be addressed as a women particularly wish to end up 6'4" tall with broad shoulders, but those are unintended side effects of unwanted puberty for a significant number of people currently requesting blockers.

For the third time your claim was that puberty blockers are reversible. This is false. If this hypothetical child decided to stop taking puberty blockers, the impact on height would not be reversed. He would not reach the same height if he took blockers and stopped than if he never took blockers at all. Puberty blockers are not reversible.

And again, impacts on bone density and inability to achieve orgasm are most certainly not desired and these side effects go entirely unmentioned in your response. I don't know why you imply there's no research on these side effects:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9578106/#:~:text=Re....

> Results consistently indicate a negative impact of long-term puberty suppression on bone mineral density, especially at the lumbar spine, which is only partially restored after sex steroid administration. Trans girls are more vulnerable than trans boys for compromised bone health.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9886596/#:~:text=Pu....

> Puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and genital surgery also pose risks to sexual function, particularly the physiological capacity for arousal and orgasm. It is important to be aware there is a dearth of research studying the impact of GAT on GD youth’s sexual function, but I provide a brief discussion of this important topic. Estrogen use in transwomen is associated with decreased sexual desire and erectile dysfunction and testosterone for transmen may lead to vaginal atrophy and dyspareunia

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...

The context of the rant is clear in the article we all presumptively read.

As I just said, the article itself contradicts the claim you made here. At some length.

It may not have all properties you want, but it can have properties appropriate to its state, makes perfect sense to me, why not. Also it's not infinite density, it's zero size, infinities don't exist. Mass is a property of inertial motion, singularity doesn't have inertial motion, thus no mass.

I'm not sure why you think that bringing up a survey showing moderately reduced bone density following long term puberty suppression and transition (sonething actually referenced by Scientific American, along with a note the cause/effect wasn't settled given that gender dysphoria sufferers also tend to have smaller bone structure than average before starting treatment, plausibly due due exercise effects) is evidence of "brittle bones that break more often" being a significant risk factor, which is your actual claim. For the third time, my point is that the Cass Report concluded that the evidence base that found the treatment safe and regret rates low didn't meet the highest possible bar for quality and coverage, and did not offer supporting evidence of the greater merit of claims made to promote the idea that puberty blockers were unsafe when used for gender dysphoria, relative to other treatments or other use of the same treatment, such as wild insinuations about bone-breaking being a common side effect of their temporary use...

For similar reasons, studies which shows erectile dysfunction is not uncommon in patients who have chosen to continue treatment using oestrogen, (universally agreed to have irreversible consequences; it's literally the point of using puberty blockers rather than going straight to sex hormones) is not a high standard of evidence that using puberty blockers for a few months aged 11 is significantly less reversible than using for a year or two aged nine. The actual claim being made: that the treatment is reversible in the sense that children are able to come off it and go through puberty, isn't really being contested here either.

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...

How could the article “contradict” my statement when I didn’t say anything about where the rant appeared? I didn’t reproduce the content of the rant either. The article provided both the content and context of her parting rant; my post simply referred back to it.

You seem to be assuming my point somehow turns on Helmuth’a statements appearing in SciAm. It does not. Her words are ipso facto indicative of religious and moral fervor, not rationality.

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.

> The actual claim being made: that the treatment is reversible in the sense that children are able to come off it and go through puberty, isn't really being contested here either.

By this logic cross sex hormones are reversible too: someone can stop taking artificial estrogen and stop taking anti-androgens and their body will resume production of natural hormones. You can come off cross sex hormones just like you can come off puberty blockers, under your interpretation of the word "reversible". But that's obviously not what people are talking about when they describe treatment and reversible.

Puberty blockers do indeed leave permanent effects. Yes, you can go off puberty blockers. But years of skipped puberty will have permanent effects. Puberty blockers are as reversible as cross sex hormones: yes, you can stop taking them and resume your body's normal hormone production but the time spent altering hormones will have permanent effects.

The descriptions of puberty blockers promulgated by activist groups like mermaids were so misinformed that the UK government has to force them to change their language: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/24/trans-childr...

> The watchdog asked Mermaids to review its position on puberty blockers, particularly a section on its website stating that the effects of the treatment were reversible. The Cass review found that the evidence base on puberty blockers was “weak”; puberty blockers will now only be prescribed as part of a NHS clinical trial. Mermaids has removed text stating that puberty blockers are an “internationally recognised safe, reversible healthcare option”.

Parents were told for over a decade that puberty blockers were just like a pause button on puberty. Unpause, and puberty would play out and leave their child just like if they had never gone on blockers. This is not the case, and the unfortunate reality is that many parents consented to treatment on account of misinformation.

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.