Strange evening. The ACLU of Missouri subpoenaed Jamie Reed, demanding (among other stuff) all her communications w/me. I emailed them saying (politely) wtf, you're the ACLU. Got a call from a lawyer there saying it was a mistake -- "It's a big team." Okay.
2/ Here's the supoena, not current since they're removing the "Jessie Singal" bit. Also in on the effort was Lambda Legal. Weird this was a mistake given that it's the second thing listed and tons of eyes must have been on this before it was filed. 🤷♂️
5/ Because I was running around last night and didn't even read the document in full, I failed to notice they also asked for ALL of Reed's communication with ALL journalists, though she says they withdrew that request, too, today. Exceptionally intrusive.
6/ "The ACLU of Missouri has always been and remains committed to the freedom of press. While no subpoena was issued to Mr. Singal, the subpoena that was served to a former staffer at a Missouri clinic has since been revised to exempt information from Mr. Singal and other media."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Who would have thought a program called Woke Kindergarten wouldn't have succeeded where a century's worth of other efforts to end educational inequality have failed? Truly surprising stuff. Maybe if they got more funding...?
2/ Lemme take a crack at this: "This exceptionally stupid idea that any questions about any DEI programming constitute an attack on 'anti-racism' itself has given cover to grifters and opportunists at the expense of poor kids." Not true but a familiar-sounding argument.
3/ I wonder which aspect of this program fell short given how scientific and rooted in cutting-edge pedagogy it seems. The only injustice here is that Woke Kindergarten was not allowed to take over the entire SF education system.
1/ Maybe I'll newsletter about it but maaaaan is this a frustrating article. There's nothing wrong with pointing out how crazy Kiwi Farms can get, but this is so factually challenged and tilts so heavily toward a certain whitewashed activist account...
2/No one familiar with this stuff believes Kiwi Farms went after Liz Fong-Jones because she "donated to a transgender nonprofit"!!! This is ridiculous. The conflict has to do with LFJ's perceived closeness to the scammer(s) (I forget if it was one or both) who ran Trans Lifeline
3/ at a time when it was completely dysfunctional. We now know, *because the new leadership at TLL said so explicitly in a financial document,* that Kiwi Farms was correct about said scammers -- they bilked this charity out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Furthermore, KF and
Are any health/science reporters at major outlets that cover the youth gender medicine debate going to reach out to the authors of this viral meta-analysis to ask what's going on? Anyone? Overstating sample size by thousands isn't a big enough red flag for you?
2/ When you support trans people so much you accidentally invent thousands of them to introduce into a meta-analysis, swelling your sample size by 42%.
(Original study sample size was 7,928. We now know that about 3,336 of those individuals do not exist. Very Serious Science.)
3/ I'd be curious to hear from @siminevazire and other openness/reproducibility experts if they can come up with a single other instance in which a meta-analysis was published only for it turn out that 42% of its sample didn't exist. Is this unprecedented?
1/ More fun w/Bustos et al, the endlessly flogged "meta-analysis" showing low regret rates for trans surgery: "We wish to make the following corrections, but plan on still reporting one study as n = 1,100 rather than n = 10, a mistake we super promise won't affect our results."
2/ The people callling you a bigot for distrusting this paper insist you defer to researchers who wrote: "In 1998, Kuiper et al followed 1100 transgender subjects that underwent GAS using social media and snowball sampling." SOCIAL MEDIA! IN 1998!
3/ The study in question did not examine 1,1000 transgender subjects and (obviously) did not have anything to do with social media. Other than that, great summary. This is the second instance of this team/paper misttating the sample size of a study by four figures (me in UnHerd).
1/ It's sort of crazy to have another known figure in lefty media publicly call for me to kill myself, and there's absolutely no pushback, no "This is too far," nothing from his "side." It's really bad to say stuff like this because you have no idea what someone is going through.
2/ I'm fine and (obviously) not going to kill myself because Noah Kulwin told me too, but for the love of fucking Christ, just a tiny bit of decency among the irony bros.
3/ Washington Post staffer. Normal stuff, just casually joining in on calls for other journalists to kill themselves. Really healthy industry we got.
1/ Here's the full letter from grad students that Yoel Inbar believes prevented him from getting hired as a psych prof by UCLA. On the one hand it's pretty wild, but on the other it's pretty much exactly what you'd expect, in all the worst ways.
2/ Among other things, Inbar stands accused of being mildly skeptical of diversity statements on the grounds that we don't know whether they accomplish anything, and of thinking it isn't a good idea for professional psych societies to wade into issues like abortion.
3/ As is often true in these letters, there are real leaps in -- and struggles with -- basic argument. Oftentimes one sentence does not logically flow into the next one. The authors -- dozens of grad students -- seem confused about basic aspects of how language and science work: