Junk science of "gender affirming care" revealed. As usual, junk psychology goes to extremes and then it is exposed.
This report in "The Economist" is the next stage is exposing the junk science involved in this fad. Your can download the article as a pdf in the new report.
Subscriptions are free.
Introduction
The field of psychology has a very long history of having fads or ideologically driven claims that are revealed to be completely bogus.
I give a lengthy history of these fads, follies and crazes in this earlier post on the Cass Report. I am not going to repeat them here, they are detailed in this post. Besides being a retired Principal Engineer in Semiconductor manufacturing who still reads science periodicals, I am also a published historian with two university press book related to American history and cultural geography. I still get published.
As a consequence, I am aware of the history of the sciences and since it is a human activity all its foibles and follies.
This next report pubished in The Economist is the next step in the breakdown of trans ideology.
This always happens with these crazes in psychology. The new thing is put out with supposed scientific research, then it becomes a fad, usually pulled along by some ideology or panic, then when it becomes too much, it is opposed and shown to be a folly, then the next phase is that the bogus nature of the research that was supposed to justify it is exposed.
We are at that phase. It is published in The Economist just a few days ago.
“Research into trans medicine has been manipulated.”
That is the title given to the report in The Economist at this post.There is NO paywall.
https://segm.org/The-Economist-WPATH-Research-Trans-Medicine-Manipulated
This link should be spread all over the Internet.
It is online at the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine.
The title in The Economist was, “Marking their own homework.” That is they self-judged the validity of their own research and manipulated things to make it seem valid.
You can download a PDF of The Economist article at the link given above.
I saved the SEBGM article into the Internet Archive. Even if it is pulled offline, it will be at this link including the pdf you can download.
This is the same article at The Economist Website with a paywall.
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/06/27/research-into-trans-medicine-has-been-manipulated
Extremely anti-scientific and unethical behavior in scientific research is revealed in the article.
Some quotes:
Court documents recently released as part of the discovery process in a case involving youth gender medicine in Alabama reveal that WPATH’s claim was built on shaky foundations. The documents show that the organisation’s leaders interfered with the production of systematic reviews that it had commissioned from the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-Based Practice Centre (EPC) in 2018.
From early on in the contract negotiations, WPATH expressed a desire to control the results of the Hopkins team’s work. In December 2017, for example, Donna Kelly, an executive director at WPATH, told Karen Robinson, the EPC’s director, that the WPATH board felt the EPC researchers “cannot publish their findings independently”. A couple of weeks later, Ms Kelly emphasised that, “the [WPATH] board wants it to be clear that the data cannot be used without WPATH approval”. [Boldface added.]
WPATH wanted it to look like an independent review validated their work, but only if the independent review validated their work and wanted to be able to suppress a review if it didn’t.
The SEGM has a page where they critically review the gender ideologues research.
Court Case in Alabama
I am not sure which court case it refers to. It might be a court case where an Alabama law prohibited blockers and surgeries on minors. I am going to try to find out.
The documents came to light in a court case in Alabama which a law banning gender surgeries on minors was challenged. This link has the details.
https://segm.org/wpath-evidence-manipulation-risks-discrediting-WHO-transgender-guidelines
What next?
I am noticing that there isn’t a lot of commentary by the LGBTQXYZ media on The Economist. Maybe it is because it is a British publication or perhaps they don’t want to draw attention to its well written critical articles. I am just guessing.
I notice online the trans extremists are screaming as if the future belongs to them and in defiance that their ideology is being discredited. I also notice that the LGBTQXYZ establishment is rejecting the Cass Report and the increasing number of reports bringing into question WPATH research. The whole transgender ideology is going down, and the LGBTQXYZ leadership seems to have attached themselves to it and likely will go down with it.
No one in the field of “queer” studies has spoken up against it, and they supported it.
Homophobes are using so-called “gender affirming care” to club the LGBT in general. The Democrats are trying to detach themselves from it, but since the LGBTQXYZ establishment is all in on this gender ideology they are finding it difficult.
Finally, there are Gay and Lesbian youth who have been seriously damaged. These are atrocities. These are crimes against the Gay and Lesbian communities.
There is going to be a wave of detransitioning people who extremely regret what happened. Their anguished cries, their tears, their mutilated bodies will be all over the Internet.
More importantly, court cases for malpractice will reveal the horrors and totally trash ideological decisions made by doctors.
As the house of gender ideology comes tumbling down, as the wave of anguished detransitioners fill the media, as the court cases start producing documents, we will start seeing those who were complicit, deny they were complicit. Keep records, save webpages in the Internet Archive.
Going forward we need to make sure those who committed atrocities against the Gay and Lesbian community have no position in politics, academics or with any Gay or Lesbian organization.
We need to make sure that the complicity of the “queer” studies academics is known and they are held accountable.
We also need to develop a Gay politics and movement, and I think that Lesbians should develop a Lesbian politics and movement, centered on their communities, and not be appendages of some general movement.
We need to understand what are the underlying social forces resulting in Gays losing control of their own movement and events, I think this likely is a good recommendation for Lesbians and feminists.
There is an intellectual history behind this. It isn’t just an unexplained outbreak of wrong headedness or some error in academics that no one caught. There were driving forces that took this nonsense and made it the dominating ideology.
Things are getting heated up 😁