I also highly recommend Reed for that sort of "enjoyment"
I was just reading one of her first blog posts about Cass Report and aside from the usual blatant misrepresentation, one thing leapt out to me: she's weirdly honest and explicit with respect to the wacky principles and messed conceptions of evidence that guide her evaluation. She thinks that systematic reviews should be judged by whether they conform with the statements from professional/lobbying orgs instead of the other way around. She writes:
"It is important to note that the Cass Review contains very little new data and evidence. Any statements it makes are based on the same level of evidence that every major medical organization in the United States, along with some of the largest mental health societies in the world and professional associations of transgender health, have determined to support transgender care. If its claims differ from those institutions, it’s because reviewers made choices to view the evidence around transgender care negatively."
Usually when confronted w/ systematic reviews critical of affirmative care, TRAs deflect and accuse you of transphobia. I suspect they know that deferring to orgs who haven't shown their work over SRs that do show their work isn't defensible and might be embarrassed to be caught explicitly doing that. But Reed has no shame. She's close to proposing a new evidence pyramid that puts unsubstantiated claims from lobbying groups at the top.
“In this report, we cite studies that are peer-reviewed, up to date, conducted by respected investigators, and published in high-impact journals that are widely read. This represents the highest-quality evidence available to physicians making treatment decisions in this context.”
In other words, they appear to want one to use use eminence (the bottom of the evidence pyramid)....not systematic reviews (the top). The are saying to pay attention to **who** is saying it, not what they are saying. (Hence the extreme focus on ad hominem attacks as well, in this approach.)
The latter, systematic reviews, would involve actually looking at the studies and trying to take out biases and stuff like that....can't have that! It is a particularly interesting view if it is said by someone at a high status institution....could be read as "don't look at the evidence, just listen to me"...if one were cynical...
oh this is so ironic..."the standards of care"...
the ones based upon suppressing the systematic review outcomes, those standards of care!
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/06/27/research-into-trans-medicine-has-been-manipulated
Do you know who Erin Reed is? I think you would enjoy reading the substack that Reed puts out on gender/genderism/trans.
I'm saying you will "enjoy" it because Reed is very popular with activists and is a Niagara of disinformation and distortions.....
I also highly recommend Reed for that sort of "enjoyment"
I was just reading one of her first blog posts about Cass Report and aside from the usual blatant misrepresentation, one thing leapt out to me: she's weirdly honest and explicit with respect to the wacky principles and messed conceptions of evidence that guide her evaluation. She thinks that systematic reviews should be judged by whether they conform with the statements from professional/lobbying orgs instead of the other way around. She writes:
"It is important to note that the Cass Review contains very little new data and evidence. Any statements it makes are based on the same level of evidence that every major medical organization in the United States, along with some of the largest mental health societies in the world and professional associations of transgender health, have determined to support transgender care. If its claims differ from those institutions, it’s because reviewers made choices to view the evidence around transgender care negatively."
Usually when confronted w/ systematic reviews critical of affirmative care, TRAs deflect and accuse you of transphobia. I suspect they know that deferring to orgs who haven't shown their work over SRs that do show their work isn't defensible and might be embarrassed to be caught explicitly doing that. But Reed has no shame. She's close to proposing a new evidence pyramid that puts unsubstantiated claims from lobbying groups at the top.
You are correct....I believe activists, possibly including Reed, want to invert evidence pyramids. And they have been explicit about it.
From another report by the Yale group:
“In this report, we cite studies that are peer-reviewed, up to date, conducted by respected investigators, and published in high-impact journals that are widely read. This represents the highest-quality evidence available to physicians making treatment decisions in this context.”
https://medicine.yale.edu/lgbtqi/clinicalcare/gender-affirming-care/report%20on%20the%20science%20of%20gender-affirming%20care%20final%20april%2028%202022_442952_55174_v1.pdf
In other words, they appear to want one to use use eminence (the bottom of the evidence pyramid)....not systematic reviews (the top). The are saying to pay attention to **who** is saying it, not what they are saying. (Hence the extreme focus on ad hominem attacks as well, in this approach.)
The latter, systematic reviews, would involve actually looking at the studies and trying to take out biases and stuff like that....can't have that! It is a particularly interesting view if it is said by someone at a high status institution....could be read as "don't look at the evidence, just listen to me"...if one were cynical...
So I wonder if they'll agree that we should not defer to people who falsely present themselves as gender clinicians until they're under oath.
I prefer Ben Ryan's critique of Reed.... :)
Those future exhibits in civil litigation against the liars, charlatans and extremists who foisted gender ideology on the world, right?