Tweet

J. Reads and Writes

4 Sep, 8 tweets, 2 min read

https://twitter.com/ZaneEmma/status/1433981100292931584

The part that bothers me the most about the study itself is actually that they use the terms "transgender women" and "transgender men" - this is the same population (plus three years) as the 2018 paper, which means they include people who explicitly denounce the label.

https://twitter.com/ZaneEmma/status/1433981100292931584

How does one measure it? It's a religious term, and it's explicitly incorrect for the population being described. They are going out of their way to choose vague and misleading language in a scientific paper, and the statistical comparisons with the opposite sex are just silly.

Overall it's just really quite annoying to have to read an article in the Lancet in such detail, going over it line by line to find which closets they hid the skeletons in. Why did you exclude this, why did you exclude that, why is there only data on parts of the sample...

...why do you report the SMR's in this way, what are the implications of the growth of the sample, why did you exclude people who started <17y or following GnRHa, and why do you not comment further on any of these?

And why would you write something as stupid as "Notably, most of the deaths from HIV-related disease in this study occurred in the first decades studied, indicating an effect of improved HIV treatment over recent years" - without considering infection rates?

You've moved from transitioning almost exclusively older males to kids and young adults who have no history of drug abuse or much sexual contact - regardless of "increased awareness" and "improved HIV treatment" your population has shifted under you.

The most frustrating part was the conclusions. What are you trying to sneak in under the word "most"? Your own previous study ties it pretty closely to some forms of cancer, cardiovascular disease definitely seems associated in this paper, and suicide is certainly relevant.

Again, the Dutch are simply going "when we ignore our own findings, things look good". And the Lancet nods along and publishes a misleading study. When will this turn around and the activists be forced to write real papers?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @JLCederblom

J. Reads and Writes

@JLCederblom

6 Sep

I've not followed the employment tribunal case between Appleby and the Tavistock in great detail, but since they've concluded the process, it's time to have a read and see what they found.

This is a case about whistleblowing from within GIDS, specifically by one of the members on the Tavistock and Portman trust's Safeguarding team. About a dozen current and former staff were heard. Several thousand pages of relevant documents were gathered.

The "Findincs of Fact" are fairly straight forward, but also offer some insight into how these things can be handled. For example, the description of gender dysphoria does not fall for the usual sex/gender conflation trick, instead stating...

Read 94 tweets

J. Reads and Writes

@JLCederblom

11 Jul

When people suggest that medical transition would be fine if only people followed the WPATH Standards of Care (which are not actually standards of care) they usually neglect to mention that no one actually follows them, not even WPATH members.

The author of the usual example to show how young they're pushing surgical transition is a WPATH member, in fact on its board of directors. Even as vague as the "standards" are, it's clear to see she does not follow them.

Sometimes I bring up this study when the "1 year of hormones" nonsense is brougt up, since it has minors going from first visit to surgery in a few months - and both authors are WPATH members. They don't care about the so called standards.

Read 8 tweets

J. Reads and Writes

@JLCederblom

27 Jun

AusPATH likes to put out statements that look good on the surface but quickly deflate when you dig into them. Recently they put out this: auspath.org/gender-affirmi…. Let's take a look at a specific part of it which I am very familiar with.

The authors make two claims: that adhering to carefully developed guidelines is associated with little regret and "de-transition", for which they offer three references; and that "de-transition" is often a consequence of external pressures, for which they offer one reference.

I will leave aside the fact that they use loaded language and try to sneak in "carefully developed" when that isn't the case, and just consider the extent to which their references support the claims they make.

Read 27 tweets

J. Reads and Writes

@JLCederblom

29 May

If you've read one of these, you've read them all, but I'll do some quick thoughts on it regardless.

nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NE…

"Gender identity - the deeply felt internal sense of oneself as male, female, or somewhere else on the gender spectrum - may or may not align with the sex one was assigned at birth."

Male and female is not a spectrum. Stop conflating sex and gender.

"When it does not align, the umbrella term “transgender” is often used to denote this incongruence."

The article will include a citation that uses an incompatible definition. The authors will not acknowledge or explain why they use this shell game trick.

Read 26 tweets

J. Reads and Writes

@JLCederblom

24 May

This will be a thread thinking out loud about the 60 minutes segment. It was all over the place, and I need to go over it bit by bit to figure out what just happened.

The opening sentence actually contains an error. The Arkansas law does not prohibit the facilitation of medical transition of youth for "transgender youth", but any youth. It will later cover a number of cases where people who considered themselves "transgender youth" weren't so.

The second sentence opens "as part of a new culture war", an extremely simplistic view which fails to take into account not only international developments and the incredibly short history of this field. This is not serious reporting.

Read 28 tweets

J. Reads and Writes

@JLCederblom

13 May

https://twitter.com/elizamondegreen/status/1392584947240669186

GnRHas does not operate on your paperwork, your registered sex is not relevant in the slightest. By using the term "assigned sex at birth", the author manages to introduce a falsehood in their text which did not need to be there at all.

https://twitter.com/elizamondegreen/status/1392584947240669186

Maybe I should do a write-up of this whole article. Okay, so "stop transgender kids from experiencing the effects of puberty that may not align with their gender identities" is an odd choice of words, they stop any kid from experiencing the effects of puberty, full stop.

"and implants can run up to approximately $45,000 per implant out of pocket, while shots cost can cost thousands of dollars per dose"

It's rare for these articles to bring up the incredible amounts of money involved, I think that is something the author should be commended for.

Read 30 tweets

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Share this page!

J. Reads and Writes

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @JLCederblom

J. Reads and Writes

J. Reads and Writes

J. Reads and Writes

J. Reads and Writes

J. Reads and Writes

J. Reads and Writes

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?