Thread by @EithanHaim

The study showing worsening mental health post-gender surgery has been a bombshell.

The most remarkable detail has been missed.

The study was published by left-wing med students who unknowingly decimated the central premise underlying every transgender intervention.

First, consider other papers published by these authors.

Every article is a plug-and-chug of woke DEI talking points, mashed together with pseudo-intellectual jargon.

This shows they follow the golden rule for publication in academic journals - never question left-wing dogma.

They abide by this rule in their mental health study.

They never question the validity of the surgeries - only that mental health support is needed AFTER surgery.

They accept the surgeries as self-evidently beneficial since they "affirm gender identity."

In another paper, the same group argue that social factors and stigma are the cause of poor mental health BEFORE surgery.

Yet another successful application of the golden rule.

Even when that means ignoring the most obvious cause of declining mental health.

It is clear the massive conservative news coverage was not their intention.

They explicitly endorse the transgender party line yet undercut its central premise that they improve mental health outcomes.

But how is it possible they didn't see this coming?

I believe it is a product of the iron-clad information bubble encasing modern medical academia.

I am familiar with this because I lived in it for years.

The paper's med student authors have likely never seriously considered the validity of an alternative viewpoint.

It's hard to believe but very real.

A large proportion of medical students are so shielded from alternative views, they become functionally blind to their own contradictions.

Most of the time they get away with it because the implications are limited.

But in the case of this article, it was a perfect storm.

The author's conclusion (supportive of transgender surgery) permitted publication because it followed the golden rule - don't question left-wing dogma.

I believe the med student authors and the journal editors saw the postop decline in mental health like so many other issues - a disparity in resource allocation.

All they need is more "gender-sensitive mental health."

Furthermore, the med student authors and journal editors are functionally blind to the contradictions in the data because they are bred from the same echo chamber.

Because of this they can't see what is self-evident to any rational person - their data demonstrates that the surgeries themselves are the most likely cause of acutely worsening mental health.

But remember, they always said mental health was supposed to improve after any gender intervention - this is how they justified all the risks. But this study shows the opposite - that it acutely declines immediately after.

We know both parties are blind to this contradiction because if they were able to identify it, the study wouldn't have been published in the first place since it would violate the golden rule of academic publication.

Because the necessary conditions were met, they unknowingly published this shocking data.

They may have not realized what they were releasing but it was picked up by a mature ecosystem of mainstream conservative and alternative media.

But the details outlined in this thread were still missed by the reporting.

This is likely because it is hard to imagine this data came from left-wing activists because the irony would be too great - the most radical activists unknowingly destroyed the entire field which they have so strongly committed to.

But now you've seen it for yourself - they are indeed more blind than you ever thought possible.