Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

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.

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/

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

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

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).”

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.

> 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?

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.

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)

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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?

Also maybe you should read it yourself instead of relying on videos like this to misinform your opinions.

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...

> 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...

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.

> 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.