Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I find it really interesting that you say you side with the scientists and that siding with the scientists does not equal siding with trans activists when, very often, it can and does, as I think most people understand that both “scientists” and “activists” are not homogenous groups with identical findings and beliefs.
You have to consider that OptimalTates, a rando on the internet, cited a study conducted by actual scientists and has followed up by citing an overwhelming number of scientific and medical organisations and professionals which don’t suit your position. Susan Bradley, an “actual scientist” with an opinion piece in the National Post, cited a Catholic mommy blogger we zero credentials that finishes off the cited article with “young people with special needs will just be the latest victims in the left-wing cultural assault against human biology.”
It seems as though, if that’s your very of siding with the scientists, it’s very conveniently a version high on credentials, fear, and bias confirmation, and low on actual science.
Usually when people side with scientists they’re… you know, siding with actual science, not the ramblings of transphobic Catholic bloggers. But you side with Susan Bradley’s methodology in that piece, do you?
|
OptimalTates cited experts rejecting one of the concerns about gender affirmation - rapid onset gender dysphoria. So let’s give him that - strike Littman’s research from the debate.
That doesn’t negate the core concern I’m citing - that there is pressure on people doing assessments to validate gender affirmations without due diligence, and that this can cause harm. The people making that assertion seem to be credible experts in their field (and, it bears repeating, are transgendered themselves). They say many colleagues share their concerns, but are afraid to speak out due to the political climate.
Is your position that this is not happening?
And just to make sure I’m not wasting my time here, have you read the first article I linked to?