←back to thread

Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 3 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.701s | source
Show context
stego-tech ◴[12 Jul 25 22:01 UTC] No.44545563[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(13): >>44545616 #>>44545682 #>>44545696 #>>44545710 #>>44545757 #>>44545790 #>>44545791 #>>44545797 #>>44545819 #>>44545845 #>>44545912 #>>44546077 #>>44546515 #
beejiu[dead post] ◴[12 Jul 25 22:56 UTC] No.44545912[source]▶
[flagged]
kennywinker[dead post] ◴[12 Jul 25 22:59 UTC] No.44545926[source]▶
[flagged]
cryptoegorophy[dead post] ◴[12 Jul 25 23:08 UTC] No.44545983[source]▶
[flagged]
kennywinker ◴[12 Jul 25 23:09 UTC] No.44545993[source]▶
Given how many trans kids commit suicide when prevented from transitioning, i’d say both save lives. And that’s why i’m ok with it. Because going on puberty blockers until you’re 18 seems like a very non-invasive way to thread the needle of patient care for minors
replies(1): >>44546032 #
beejiu ◴[12 Jul 25 23:15 UTC] No.44546032[source]▶
The recent UK Cass Review concluded "It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion."

Do you have any counter-evidence?

replies(2): >>44546044 #>>44546854 #
1. uv-depression ◴[13 Jul 25 01:56 UTC] No.44546854[source]▶
Not the person you were replying to, but the Cass review was quite clearly bunk. Its main thrust is essentially: "there are no double blind studies on the effects of affirming care for minors, so we should stop prescribing it immediately". Aside from the fact that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, how exactly could one do a double blind study on puberty blockers? So the report throws out essentially the entire body of research for failing to meet an impossible to meet standard.

Here's more information: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7

replies(1): >>44552079 #
2. bobalob ◴[13 Jul 25 17:44 UTC] No.44552079[source]▶
> So the report throws out essentially the entire body of research for failing to meet an impossible to meet standard.

This is disinformation that is easily shown to be false if you read the final report.

In fact this lie was so widely disseminated that the authors felt they had to address it in the FAQs on the Review website: https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-r...

> Did the Review reject studies that were not double blind randomised control trials in its systematic review of evidence for puberty blockers and masculinising / feminising hormones?

> No. There were no randomised control studies identified in the systematic reviews, but other types of studies were included if they were well designed and conducted.

replies(1): >>44557215 #
3. kennywinker ◴[14 Jul 25 07:05 UTC] No.44557215[source]▶
https://osf.io/preprints/osf/uhndk_v1

CRITICALLY APPRAISING THE CASS REPORT: METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS AND UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS