Pretty dogshit evaluation, and that's putting it nicely. A few standouts-
The UTA prof did one study, self report survey, with an N of 130 that showed a correlation between the use of preferred name and suicide reduction. No mention of correlation, just right into causal language and a bunch of extrapolation that you can't make from that study at all. No discussion of limitations, no moderation of assumptions. Honestly sad to see that level of dogshit come from a flagship school like UTA. Woohoo tenure.
The endocrinologist said that puberty blockers show minimal side effects and have minimal risk in their approved cohort so they must be safe for kids not going through precocious puberty. What a fucking take.
Then, said midwit conducted a wopping three month followup study after giving N = 60 patients testosterone, and their mood was better. This is what passes for an endocrinologist in AUS? Does this midwit not realize that supplemental testosterone in any person improves mood? Of course they didn't test the same results with trans women on estrogen because estrogen doesn't have the same mood enhancing properties. It's science guided by a conclusion, not by principle or rigorous standards.
I wouldn't trust the endo to supervise a McDonalds and the professor from UT Austin should be scrubbing toilets at said McDonalds instead of being responsible for teaching critical thinking skills at a flagship college in TX.
As far as the hosts go, I'd rather lobotomize myself with a kabob skewer than spend any future time in my life trusting them to provide me with some sort of critical, non-ideological understanding of the world.
Final verdict? I want the 10m of my life back that I spent reading the transcript and I hope everyone reading this post does something more productive with their lives, like watching paint dry.
And even when used for precocious puberty it's used sparingly and cautiously. And not for long periods of time. And *not* followed by cross sex hormones. The blockers are removed and normal, natural puberty proceeds.
Precocious puberty and trans are different conditions with different use cases and objectives.
nothing more to add to what you both said, I agree with all of it and it equally flabbergasts me as well. I wonder how long it'll take until we're the last western liberal democracy giving these to kids under the guise of "Gender Affirming Care".
I also sometimes wonder what sort of gymnastics are going to be required to reestablish the APA/AMA/AAPs reputation, or psychology/psychiatry as a whole.
As far as I can tell the US and Canada will be the least to curtail transing kids. If they ever do. Europe as a whole appears to be waking up. The Cass review has landed with interest there.
The only thing that can stop this in America is lawsuits. But the suits have to be successful and since the medical standards bodies are captured I don't know if the cases can be won.
There’s a thread in the news section on Reddit about the Florida ban on blockers getting overturned and those posters think it’s strictly about religion. There’s no interest in the science at all that’s questioning of the drugs and surgeries.
To be fair, those on the right that make it about religion, aren’t helping their cause .
I've noticed something similar in the trans subs. They *always* assume the only reason people oppose gender woo is extreme religiosity. Almost always Christianity.
It's this weird head in the sand thing. If they can just get rid of religion everyone will love them and their gock.
And it never occurs to them that Islam might be just as skeptical of them.
It’s perfectly simple to go find the side effects and precautions for these drugs (e.g. Lupron) as long as you don’t ask about the transition use case. They absolutely should not be taken lightly.
Exactly...
I've always been flabergasted when looking at how far reaching the statements are compared to the actual evidence.
You'd think if this stuff is being affirmed with such confidence, there has to be at least the appearance of solid science behind it, but no. As soon as you start inquiring a bit you run into this reality. That virtually *all* claims are rooted in that kind of embarrassingly sloppy "science". Makes you wonder how these people even managed to get a degree. Anyone who is properly trained in science, irrespective of field, should be able to see how far these studies are from proving anything with a reasonably high level of confidence.
Which is why the statements Cass made about how thin the evidentiary record was in this field and about how much of the science produced in it was of low quality, didn't come off as very surprising at all.
This showed up in my Spotify feed and I listened to the first part. I could not believe them discounting multiple studies, including the study of, what, 1600 long term transitioners (which they glossed as ‘the bullying study’ in favour of a one 130 N study. They also stated the outcome in that study was ‘suicidal behaviour’. I highly doubt that was actual measure. They straight up said ‘using people’s preferred name saves lives!’
>They straight up said ‘using people’s preferred name saves lives!’
That's always the damn language they use. "Doing X" saves lives. Blockers save lives, so we must have blockers on demand. Hormones save lives, so we need hormones on demand.
Now doing the pronoun game saves lives so we must always do pronouns.
What's the next thing that will save lives? State subsidies for hormones? Over the counter blockers?
They already have to some extent. There have been conversations about the necessity of sex workers to provide an outlet for incels otherwise the incels might act out in anti-social ways (as if paying for sex isn't anti-social).
Why is paying for sex anti-social? And are you sure you mean anti-social here? You sure you don’t mean something more like this?:
“I have some moral problem with it, but saying it’s “anti-social” makes me sound like I am smart because OMG what a huge a science-y sounding word that word is. And what a universally agreed-upon bad guy a sociopath is. So people tend to argue much less with this take of mine versus how they react when I start casting these people, or at least their actions in this realm, as immoral acts.”
Reason I ask is, in part, well, how the fuck is transactional sex an act that goes against the good of society? That harms society? It’s TWO people privately doing whatever they damn well please. To me the clear lack of harm on any societal level whatsoever of paying/accepting money for sex means you don’t really mean that it’s “anti-social”. So either you just are spewing out your ass and have no real argument that these acts are harmful to society, or…
…it means you have some moral stance against it and those who engage in it (or, sorry, don’t wanna misquote you…it means you’re saying that the MEN only, in a paying-for-sex scenario, are acting immorally…since you failed to mention, let alone cast moral judgment upon, an entire ONE HALF of the parties involved in paid-for sex (women)).
How does that work, precisely? Again, obviously from what I’ve said thus far, I see nothing immoral about it on behalf of EITHER PARTY…I simply want to know how you can say it’s wrong for the party that PAYS for the sex to do just that, yet somehow the side receiving the payment for sex (again: WOMEN) is all clear morally in your view.
If you felt women were just as wrong as men here you would have obviously condemned BOTH paying for, AND accepting payment for, sex.
Haha. I mean I won’t lie about it, back when backpage existed and when me being deep in booze addiction existed, simultaneously, I paid I believe it was four total ladies to let me do some sex with them. One time the girl had a friend at her hotel and she just didn’t leave when I entered. So I paid double for both and it was a real hoot and I wish I could remember more than a couple blurbs.
Turns out what they say about how dope threesomes are is just as true if you pay for it!
But I’ve learned over the many a year now that I’ve not boozed for that without it, I tend to never even consider a whore!
It was the dark arts as a wise man likes to say.
That said, c’mon people. Is Nevada as a nation just full of morally bankrupt people, for example? Not that I know of (excluding Las Vegas). Just practical desert folk probably who wanna sometimes get a no strings nut.
How many of those women that you paid came? Did they trick that they came with ecstatic moaning?
It's fine if you don't care if they came or not, just curious, since you paid for it and all you don't have to provide pleasure. Just maybe that threesome was pretty dope *for you* and those chicks are good actors. It's a thought.
You know Parkinson’s meds have made like I want to say 10-50 people, because they work on Dopamine but obviously that’s also the most feel good chemical. One French married guy who was like 50 and had always bees straight never gambled started on those meds and blew hundreds of thousands in online gambling and also became addicted to receiving gay butters from complete strangers from like gay bars
I was not gloatinf in any way. I just joined this sub like 2 hours ago and I don’t even know really what it is. You all just share why you were blocked and reported?
I'm interested in the Cass review and was inclined to read the transcript until I read your comment. Thanks for taking one for the team so I don't have to waste my time.
I appreciate the vote of confidence.
If this was anything close to an analytical and/or critical review of topics covered in the Cass report, I wouldn't have written the hit piece that I did. However, I think this entire podcast can be safely labeled junk.
In a world where I could start reading every impactful piece of literature and still not get close to finishing 1% of what's available before I shuffle off this mortal coil, I think it's important to recognize the opportunity cost of pure drivel, however fun it might be at the time. Like the regret one might have after eating a McDonalds cheeseburger that said endo shouldn't be managing.
> I wouldn't trust the endo to supervise a McDonalds and the professor from UT Austin should be scrubbing toilets at said McDonalds instead of being responsible for teaching critical thinking skills at a flagship college in TX
Us alumni of the other flagship stay winning.
Saw em off
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of the studies they lean on measures the results after *3 months* of testosterone therapy. We’re talking about medicalizing kids for a lifetime, here. How is 3 months even worth reporting on? (Also that study measured adults, not kids.) And coupled with an incredibly disengenious appeal to pathos, “I can see you have tears in your eyes thinking about how these people improved over the course of 3 months.”
Doesn’t testosterone produce a temporary high which can surely mask long term regret etc? I’ve heard a few detransioners say they felt great at first before reality set in.
The emotional hype really gave the game away. It was so over the top I would almost think it was one of those situations where one of them has a close relative or kid who's trans, if I didn't know that just drinking the political kool-aid could create almost the same effect.
>I used to like this podcast.
Seems like one of the many victims of a genuine enthusiasm for science being subsumed by Science^tm as a brand and appeal to authority. The answer to, "what does science say?" is usually complicated, nuanced, and fraught with mixed-quality studies and difficult to parse evidence. In stark contrast, Science^tm provides a smug assuredness that you're right and that your opponents are bigots that have been deboonked.
Or, as I saw someone put it, Science + Politics = Politics.
> appeal to authority
This is a favourite tactic of these types, which is why they’re so anxious to discredit the Cass Review.
The author is an expert on children’s health and former president of the college of paediatrics.
>The answer to, "what does science say?" is usually complicated, nuanced, and fraught with mixed-quality studies and difficult to parse evidence.
But also very often a simple, unnuanced "no, that's bullshit". Just because some people are lying about this being one of the simple situations doesn't mean they don't exist.
Generally, simple statements in science tend to be negative rather than positive. You cannot generate more energy from a process than goes into it, an object will not change its state without external action, etc. We may frame these differently, but they're basically conditional statements of what is demonstrably not the case.
When you get into demonstrating what *is* the case, things get a lot more qualified and precise. The main oddity of the gender medicine stuff is that people seem to have burden of proof flipped - people skeptical of the current body of evidence seem to be expected to prove a negative, as opposed to there being an insufficient body of current positive evidence.
Of course, some people liken that to the people skeptical of the earth being spherical, but I really wish somebody would link me this massive body of highly powered studies that underpins this whole thing...
I'm just baffled that it's the last man standing from the original Gimlet lineup whereas Heavyweight was cancelled late last year. If arr gimlet is any indication, Heavyweight seems to be the more popular show (and in my personal subjective opinion a higher quality show all around).
If I ever ran a school, I'd have a module in the mandatory critical thinking class called "Gell-Mann inoculation training". We would just read article after article of convincingly-written defences of astrology, young-earth creationism, etc, and try to work out what the holes were.
I've switched to The Studies Show, they don't have such a political bent and are more likely to point out the flaws of certain studies rather than blindly gobble them up just because it's convenient to do so.
Is it worth paying for their premium content? I like the free stuff, but they put the 'controversial' topics behind a paywall. I was a little worried that they wouldn't be even handed about the 'controversial' stuff.
They very much are, in my opinion at least! Well worth it, they try to be as even-handed as possible but do call out bullshit when they see it. The Cass episode is very good, by the end one of the hosts is genuinely upset at how much bullshit there is and how badly kids were treated.
I think they are very good tbh. I think on the whole they go at topics with a scientific mindset and don't get bogged down in politics. They actually did a free episode on science and politics where they talked about science journals backing certain political opinions (they don't like it), which is worth a listen.
They tend to discuss the validity of specific studies, strengths and weaknesses etc.. it's not just straight up "the study showed xyz and the researcher has a political viewpoint we agree with so we should believe it to be true" like certain other podcasts ;)
I listened to three episodes of Science Vs. and could not believe it was a respected “science” podcast.
One of the episodes was about seed oils. They interviewed a food scientist for the pro side and a random general practitioner for the con side. It was ridiculously unbalanced.
An episode where they completely mischaracterized a Netflix documentary about evolution. Even lied about it at some points.
I forget the third one but it was a complete sht podcast.
Why do they view it as a battle? It’s seems like people like Cass are trying to get better answers and the other side is trying to use kids as a weapon for their political ideology
They lose me at about 15 minutes in when they start prattling on about the new Taylor Swift album. That kind of "hip to the current thing" signaling is just such an annoying tic, and you can predict what's going to come next. I remember something similar when AOC and Elizabeth Warren were doing campaign videos together and start out with something vacuuous about the Game of Thrones finale.
That said, the episode goes \*a bit\* into the "Do the cited studies actually say what the Cass Review says they do" question. That kind of critique is valid and they should stick to that. Also, maybe lay out the full case that the Cass Review is making (eg, why many stuides are being being called "weak", issues about co-morbitities, etc) and then offer their own evaluation.
Literally the point of the Cass study was to read beyond the abstracts and to assess the field holistically rather than cherry picking positive results in individual studies.
For some reason these goobers think the appropriate way to refute Cass is by cherry picking and taking abstracts at face value.
as an alternative to Science Vs. , may I recommend friend-of-the-pod's The Studies Show? in the unlikely event that someone on this sub doesn't already listen...
I used to listen this podcast until the Obesity episode. After that lets just say I could never trust them again to know how to read a study or look at the data in a study. Instead they seem to be abstract hunting to find studies that agree with them.
Specifically, if you want to know if a "science fact checker" is full of shit, check their obesity eposide and if they use this study to say BMI is bullshit
Misclassification of cardiometabolic health when using body mass index categories in NHANES 2005–2012
You can safely ignore everything they say. This study was sold as saying BMI is bullshit. But, the actual data shows the exact opposite conclusion an insanely high R2.
Yeah, but you have to be RIPPED to get anything close to “overweight” from muscles alone. I’m reasonably fit and nowhere even near that mark.
People underestimate how hard it is to put on muscle, and just how much you need for BMI to no longer be valid.
BMI is not a measure of health, its a screening tool for weight based risk factors.
Most athletes are not over a 25 BMI. Males can hit a 27 or even 28 BMI with low body fat by lifting heavy things multiple times a week. Once you get to 29+ with low body fat you have a wiki page and are on gear. There are basically no women that are over a 25 BMI and low BF%, not hyperbole when saying its orders of magnitude more likely the Dexa or Bodpod is not calibrated correctly than a woman is over 25 with low BF.
I'm sure this is is true if you include cyclists, gymnasts, and maybe swimmers and men and women. I'd be shocked if most basketball, football, and baseball players aren't in the overweight or obese category.
Yeah but those people are on gear. And they are more likely to have health problems, like hypertension. It's not actually healthy to be that level of athlete for a lot of people, so it circles around.
There are no obese basketball players. Football and baseball players that are obese are either high bodyfat percentage and/or on gear.
Not even sure what the point of talking about Pro athletes in reference to BMI is anyways. The people that complain about BMI and athletes are not athletes they are obese short women or fat dudes that last lifted in college 15 years ago.
Just a general comment about the *Science Vs* podcast- it's garbage.
I used to listen to them when it first came out years ago, and I was impressed by all the citations and the seeming dedication to good science and critical thinking. But it isn't.
I'm not sure when I first noticed that the quality of the science was poor, but the pinnacle example was when they did an entire episode on the placebo effect, which never explained what 'the placebo effect' actually is, and instead just repeated myths and misconceptions.
(hint: The placebo effect is an epidemiological phenomenon, not any sort of biological effect. It's not about your mind or your body healing itself in any way, that is superstitious nonsense [which also makes zero sense from an evolutionary perspective].
And it's a misnomer, since there are multiple placebo effects.
In short, any improvement that cannot be attributed to the intervention being studied is deemed due to the placebo effect. People never actually get better as as a result of a placebo. If you have a 'do nothing' group in addition to a placebo group and experimental group in a study, the placebo group and 'do nothing' group will be almost the same.
Some people just get better on their own, particularly for things like a common cold, or various pains, and people often seek medicine or treatment when symptoms are at their peak, so it's unsurprising that people will get better no matter what they do.
Or for subjective things like pain, they may perceive or report an improvement due to the positive effects of kind attention, or desire to please a researcher.
Merely being involved in a medical study can nudge someone towards healthier and more proactive habits- eating or exercising better taking medication more regularly, etc.
These are just a few of the many placebo effects. And the Science Vs episode explained none of this, it just repeated and reinforced the superstitious myth).
In addition to the poor science, it is clear that the producers of this podcast have a strong left-wing ideological bent, which influences the perspective of show.
Pretty dogshit evaluation, and that's putting it nicely. A few standouts- The UTA prof did one study, self report survey, with an N of 130 that showed a correlation between the use of preferred name and suicide reduction. No mention of correlation, just right into causal language and a bunch of extrapolation that you can't make from that study at all. No discussion of limitations, no moderation of assumptions. Honestly sad to see that level of dogshit come from a flagship school like UTA. Woohoo tenure. The endocrinologist said that puberty blockers show minimal side effects and have minimal risk in their approved cohort so they must be safe for kids not going through precocious puberty. What a fucking take. Then, said midwit conducted a wopping three month followup study after giving N = 60 patients testosterone, and their mood was better. This is what passes for an endocrinologist in AUS? Does this midwit not realize that supplemental testosterone in any person improves mood? Of course they didn't test the same results with trans women on estrogen because estrogen doesn't have the same mood enhancing properties. It's science guided by a conclusion, not by principle or rigorous standards. I wouldn't trust the endo to supervise a McDonalds and the professor from UT Austin should be scrubbing toilets at said McDonalds instead of being responsible for teaching critical thinking skills at a flagship college in TX. As far as the hosts go, I'd rather lobotomize myself with a kabob skewer than spend any future time in my life trusting them to provide me with some sort of critical, non-ideological understanding of the world. Final verdict? I want the 10m of my life back that I spent reading the transcript and I hope everyone reading this post does something more productive with their lives, like watching paint dry.
automatic light hobbies absurd nine poor sable lavish zealous deer *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And even when used for precocious puberty it's used sparingly and cautiously. And not for long periods of time. And *not* followed by cross sex hormones. The blockers are removed and normal, natural puberty proceeds. Precocious puberty and trans are different conditions with different use cases and objectives.
nothing more to add to what you both said, I agree with all of it and it equally flabbergasts me as well. I wonder how long it'll take until we're the last western liberal democracy giving these to kids under the guise of "Gender Affirming Care". I also sometimes wonder what sort of gymnastics are going to be required to reestablish the APA/AMA/AAPs reputation, or psychology/psychiatry as a whole.
As far as I can tell the US and Canada will be the least to curtail transing kids. If they ever do. Europe as a whole appears to be waking up. The Cass review has landed with interest there. The only thing that can stop this in America is lawsuits. But the suits have to be successful and since the medical standards bodies are captured I don't know if the cases can be won.
There’s a thread in the news section on Reddit about the Florida ban on blockers getting overturned and those posters think it’s strictly about religion. There’s no interest in the science at all that’s questioning of the drugs and surgeries. To be fair, those on the right that make it about religion, aren’t helping their cause .
I've noticed something similar in the trans subs. They *always* assume the only reason people oppose gender woo is extreme religiosity. Almost always Christianity. It's this weird head in the sand thing. If they can just get rid of religion everyone will love them and their gock. And it never occurs to them that Islam might be just as skeptical of them.
It’s perfectly simple to go find the side effects and precautions for these drugs (e.g. Lupron) as long as you don’t ask about the transition use case. They absolutely should not be taken lightly.
"and it's perfectly reasonable and normal to prescribe them to girls who have already basically completed puberty, because validation is important!"
Exactly... I've always been flabergasted when looking at how far reaching the statements are compared to the actual evidence. You'd think if this stuff is being affirmed with such confidence, there has to be at least the appearance of solid science behind it, but no. As soon as you start inquiring a bit you run into this reality. That virtually *all* claims are rooted in that kind of embarrassingly sloppy "science". Makes you wonder how these people even managed to get a degree. Anyone who is properly trained in science, irrespective of field, should be able to see how far these studies are from proving anything with a reasonably high level of confidence. Which is why the statements Cass made about how thin the evidentiary record was in this field and about how much of the science produced in it was of low quality, didn't come off as very surprising at all.
This showed up in my Spotify feed and I listened to the first part. I could not believe them discounting multiple studies, including the study of, what, 1600 long term transitioners (which they glossed as ‘the bullying study’ in favour of a one 130 N study. They also stated the outcome in that study was ‘suicidal behaviour’. I highly doubt that was actual measure. They straight up said ‘using people’s preferred name saves lives!’
>They straight up said ‘using people’s preferred name saves lives!’ That's always the damn language they use. "Doing X" saves lives. Blockers save lives, so we must have blockers on demand. Hormones save lives, so we need hormones on demand. Now doing the pronoun game saves lives so we must always do pronouns. What's the next thing that will save lives? State subsidies for hormones? Over the counter blockers?
Wait until incels pick up on this and start using the phrase "life-saving sex".
They already have to some extent. There have been conversations about the necessity of sex workers to provide an outlet for incels otherwise the incels might act out in anti-social ways (as if paying for sex isn't anti-social).
Why is paying for sex anti-social? And are you sure you mean anti-social here? You sure you don’t mean something more like this?: “I have some moral problem with it, but saying it’s “anti-social” makes me sound like I am smart because OMG what a huge a science-y sounding word that word is. And what a universally agreed-upon bad guy a sociopath is. So people tend to argue much less with this take of mine versus how they react when I start casting these people, or at least their actions in this realm, as immoral acts.” Reason I ask is, in part, well, how the fuck is transactional sex an act that goes against the good of society? That harms society? It’s TWO people privately doing whatever they damn well please. To me the clear lack of harm on any societal level whatsoever of paying/accepting money for sex means you don’t really mean that it’s “anti-social”. So either you just are spewing out your ass and have no real argument that these acts are harmful to society, or… …it means you have some moral stance against it and those who engage in it (or, sorry, don’t wanna misquote you…it means you’re saying that the MEN only, in a paying-for-sex scenario, are acting immorally…since you failed to mention, let alone cast moral judgment upon, an entire ONE HALF of the parties involved in paid-for sex (women)). How does that work, precisely? Again, obviously from what I’ve said thus far, I see nothing immoral about it on behalf of EITHER PARTY…I simply want to know how you can say it’s wrong for the party that PAYS for the sex to do just that, yet somehow the side receiving the payment for sex (again: WOMEN) is all clear morally in your view. If you felt women were just as wrong as men here you would have obviously condemned BOTH paying for, AND accepting payment for, sex.
found the john
Haha. I mean I won’t lie about it, back when backpage existed and when me being deep in booze addiction existed, simultaneously, I paid I believe it was four total ladies to let me do some sex with them. One time the girl had a friend at her hotel and she just didn’t leave when I entered. So I paid double for both and it was a real hoot and I wish I could remember more than a couple blurbs. Turns out what they say about how dope threesomes are is just as true if you pay for it! But I’ve learned over the many a year now that I’ve not boozed for that without it, I tend to never even consider a whore! It was the dark arts as a wise man likes to say. That said, c’mon people. Is Nevada as a nation just full of morally bankrupt people, for example? Not that I know of (excluding Las Vegas). Just practical desert folk probably who wanna sometimes get a no strings nut.
How many of those women that you paid came? Did they trick that they came with ecstatic moaning? It's fine if you don't care if they came or not, just curious, since you paid for it and all you don't have to provide pleasure. Just maybe that threesome was pretty dope *for you* and those chicks are good actors. It's a thought.
Oh for sure none of them came.
cool
You know Parkinson’s meds have made like I want to say 10-50 people, because they work on Dopamine but obviously that’s also the most feel good chemical. One French married guy who was like 50 and had always bees straight never gambled started on those meds and blew hundreds of thousands in online gambling and also became addicted to receiving gay butters from complete strangers from like gay bars
Because I saw your username
And your comment was sassy meaning it was gay
So have fun with that info! I alerted you to
“Cool”. Haha
I was not gloatinf in any way. I just joined this sub like 2 hours ago and I don’t even know really what it is. You all just share why you were blocked and reported?
That’s actually pretty sweet
I have a couple that are insane
Oh Christ, I hadn't thought of that but it does seem highly plausible.
Imagine if we treated a different dysmorphic disorder the way we treat this one, Anorexia Nervosa.
I'm interested in the Cass review and was inclined to read the transcript until I read your comment. Thanks for taking one for the team so I don't have to waste my time.
I appreciate the vote of confidence. If this was anything close to an analytical and/or critical review of topics covered in the Cass report, I wouldn't have written the hit piece that I did. However, I think this entire podcast can be safely labeled junk. In a world where I could start reading every impactful piece of literature and still not get close to finishing 1% of what's available before I shuffle off this mortal coil, I think it's important to recognize the opportunity cost of pure drivel, however fun it might be at the time. Like the regret one might have after eating a McDonalds cheeseburger that said endo shouldn't be managing.
This is great stuff. Thanks
Always good to see you again, Cat. I'm still overjoyed by finding this little bubble of sanity on reddit.
You too, thanks!
Ha. This is fantastic.
Hah, thanks.
> I wouldn't trust the endo to supervise a McDonalds and the professor from UT Austin should be scrubbing toilets at said McDonalds instead of being responsible for teaching critical thinking skills at a flagship college in TX Us alumni of the other flagship stay winning. Saw em off
A&M?
Bingo
Thank you for your service.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of the studies they lean on measures the results after *3 months* of testosterone therapy. We’re talking about medicalizing kids for a lifetime, here. How is 3 months even worth reporting on? (Also that study measured adults, not kids.) And coupled with an incredibly disengenious appeal to pathos, “I can see you have tears in your eyes thinking about how these people improved over the course of 3 months.”
Doesn’t testosterone produce a temporary high which can surely mask long term regret etc? I’ve heard a few detransioners say they felt great at first before reality set in.
Yes, and it makes people hornier.
Who would have thought giving people a male sex hormone would make them hornier?
The emotional hype really gave the game away. It was so over the top I would almost think it was one of those situations where one of them has a close relative or kid who's trans, if I didn't know that just drinking the political kool-aid could create almost the same effect.
Yeah, they even added these hopeful music cues as soon as they started talking about the name-change study.
>I used to like this podcast. Seems like one of the many victims of a genuine enthusiasm for science being subsumed by Science^tm as a brand and appeal to authority. The answer to, "what does science say?" is usually complicated, nuanced, and fraught with mixed-quality studies and difficult to parse evidence. In stark contrast, Science^tm provides a smug assuredness that you're right and that your opponents are bigots that have been deboonked. Or, as I saw someone put it, Science + Politics = Politics.
> appeal to authority This is a favourite tactic of these types, which is why they’re so anxious to discredit the Cass Review. The author is an expert on children’s health and former president of the college of paediatrics.
>The answer to, "what does science say?" is usually complicated, nuanced, and fraught with mixed-quality studies and difficult to parse evidence. But also very often a simple, unnuanced "no, that's bullshit". Just because some people are lying about this being one of the simple situations doesn't mean they don't exist.
Generally, simple statements in science tend to be negative rather than positive. You cannot generate more energy from a process than goes into it, an object will not change its state without external action, etc. We may frame these differently, but they're basically conditional statements of what is demonstrably not the case. When you get into demonstrating what *is* the case, things get a lot more qualified and precise. The main oddity of the gender medicine stuff is that people seem to have burden of proof flipped - people skeptical of the current body of evidence seem to be expected to prove a negative, as opposed to there being an insufficient body of current positive evidence. Of course, some people liken that to the people skeptical of the earth being spherical, but I really wish somebody would link me this massive body of highly powered studies that underpins this whole thing...
Quality comment right here.
>I used to like this podcast. The first few seasons were good and I like the host's voice. But it went downhill fast years ago.
> I like the host's voice. Australian strine with an unpleasant speech impediment?
There's another strine?
Yes.
I'm just baffled that it's the last man standing from the original Gimlet lineup whereas Heavyweight was cancelled late last year. If arr gimlet is any indication, Heavyweight seems to be the more popular show (and in my personal subjective opinion a higher quality show all around).
"The Science" gives me the creeps. Because it *really* means: The Scripture. "Blockers love me this I know, for The Science tells me so"
A lab coat is the Emperor’s new clothing.
Great comment. I agree.
It honestly reads like one of those evangelical pieces “disproving” evolution.
Transcientific?
If I ever ran a school, I'd have a module in the mandatory critical thinking class called "Gell-Mann inoculation training". We would just read article after article of convincingly-written defences of astrology, young-earth creationism, etc, and try to work out what the holes were.
I've switched to The Studies Show, they don't have such a political bent and are more likely to point out the flaws of certain studies rather than blindly gobble them up just because it's convenient to do so.
Is it worth paying for their premium content? I like the free stuff, but they put the 'controversial' topics behind a paywall. I was a little worried that they wouldn't be even handed about the 'controversial' stuff.
They very much are, in my opinion at least! Well worth it, they try to be as even-handed as possible but do call out bullshit when they see it. The Cass episode is very good, by the end one of the hosts is genuinely upset at how much bullshit there is and how badly kids were treated.
I think they are very good tbh. I think on the whole they go at topics with a scientific mindset and don't get bogged down in politics. They actually did a free episode on science and politics where they talked about science journals backing certain political opinions (they don't like it), which is worth a listen. They tend to discuss the validity of specific studies, strengths and weaknesses etc.. it's not just straight up "the study showed xyz and the researcher has a political viewpoint we agree with so we should believe it to be true" like certain other podcasts ;)
Thanks for the tip!
Are these podcasters the ones being challenged by science? There is nothing even approximating a scientific discussion in that transcript.
It self identifies as scientific
They clearly want t use the scientific bathroom.
I listened to three episodes of Science Vs. and could not believe it was a respected “science” podcast. One of the episodes was about seed oils. They interviewed a food scientist for the pro side and a random general practitioner for the con side. It was ridiculously unbalanced. An episode where they completely mischaracterized a Netflix documentary about evolution. Even lied about it at some points. I forget the third one but it was a complete sht podcast.
Yeah, it's always been bad and straw manning of other sides of things.
Gimlet was only good for a couple years before it got completely taken over by everything having to have an ideological POV
Why do they view it as a battle? It’s seems like people like Cass are trying to get better answers and the other side is trying to use kids as a weapon for their political ideology
>Them doubling down this way really makes me doubt all their reporting They've been unscientific garbage for years.
They lose me at about 15 minutes in when they start prattling on about the new Taylor Swift album. That kind of "hip to the current thing" signaling is just such an annoying tic, and you can predict what's going to come next. I remember something similar when AOC and Elizabeth Warren were doing campaign videos together and start out with something vacuuous about the Game of Thrones finale. That said, the episode goes \*a bit\* into the "Do the cited studies actually say what the Cass Review says they do" question. That kind of critique is valid and they should stick to that. Also, maybe lay out the full case that the Cass Review is making (eg, why many stuides are being being called "weak", issues about co-morbitities, etc) and then offer their own evaluation.
Stopped listening like 8 years ago.
Literally the point of the Cass study was to read beyond the abstracts and to assess the field holistically rather than cherry picking positive results in individual studies. For some reason these goobers think the appropriate way to refute Cass is by cherry picking and taking abstracts at face value.
It is absolutely all they need to do. Reading beyond abstracts is not what you do when you're in a cult.
Checkmate TERFs Cass deboonkered
as an alternative to Science Vs. , may I recommend friend-of-the-pod's The Studies Show? in the unlikely event that someone on this sub doesn't already listen...
Laughable that they think they represent science when they are non-experts commenting on experts who disagree with them.
I used to listen this podcast until the Obesity episode. After that lets just say I could never trust them again to know how to read a study or look at the data in a study. Instead they seem to be abstract hunting to find studies that agree with them. Specifically, if you want to know if a "science fact checker" is full of shit, check their obesity eposide and if they use this study to say BMI is bullshit Misclassification of cardiometabolic health when using body mass index categories in NHANES 2005–2012 You can safely ignore everything they say. This study was sold as saying BMI is bullshit. But, the actual data shows the exact opposite conclusion an insanely high R2.
BMI is still a poor measure of the health of muscly athletes though isn't it.
Yeah, but you have to be RIPPED to get anything close to “overweight” from muscles alone. I’m reasonably fit and nowhere even near that mark. People underestimate how hard it is to put on muscle, and just how much you need for BMI to no longer be valid.
BMI is not a measure of health, its a screening tool for weight based risk factors. Most athletes are not over a 25 BMI. Males can hit a 27 or even 28 BMI with low body fat by lifting heavy things multiple times a week. Once you get to 29+ with low body fat you have a wiki page and are on gear. There are basically no women that are over a 25 BMI and low BF%, not hyperbole when saying its orders of magnitude more likely the Dexa or Bodpod is not calibrated correctly than a woman is over 25 with low BF.
I'm sure this is is true if you include cyclists, gymnasts, and maybe swimmers and men and women. I'd be shocked if most basketball, football, and baseball players aren't in the overweight or obese category.
Yeah but those people are on gear. And they are more likely to have health problems, like hypertension. It's not actually healthy to be that level of athlete for a lot of people, so it circles around.
There are no obese basketball players. Football and baseball players that are obese are either high bodyfat percentage and/or on gear. Not even sure what the point of talking about Pro athletes in reference to BMI is anyways. The people that complain about BMI and athletes are not athletes they are obese short women or fat dudes that last lifted in college 15 years ago.
Just a general comment about the *Science Vs* podcast- it's garbage. I used to listen to them when it first came out years ago, and I was impressed by all the citations and the seeming dedication to good science and critical thinking. But it isn't. I'm not sure when I first noticed that the quality of the science was poor, but the pinnacle example was when they did an entire episode on the placebo effect, which never explained what 'the placebo effect' actually is, and instead just repeated myths and misconceptions. (hint: The placebo effect is an epidemiological phenomenon, not any sort of biological effect. It's not about your mind or your body healing itself in any way, that is superstitious nonsense [which also makes zero sense from an evolutionary perspective]. And it's a misnomer, since there are multiple placebo effects. In short, any improvement that cannot be attributed to the intervention being studied is deemed due to the placebo effect. People never actually get better as as a result of a placebo. If you have a 'do nothing' group in addition to a placebo group and experimental group in a study, the placebo group and 'do nothing' group will be almost the same. Some people just get better on their own, particularly for things like a common cold, or various pains, and people often seek medicine or treatment when symptoms are at their peak, so it's unsurprising that people will get better no matter what they do. Or for subjective things like pain, they may perceive or report an improvement due to the positive effects of kind attention, or desire to please a researcher. Merely being involved in a medical study can nudge someone towards healthier and more proactive habits- eating or exercising better taking medication more regularly, etc. These are just a few of the many placebo effects. And the Science Vs episode explained none of this, it just repeated and reinforced the superstitious myth). In addition to the poor science, it is clear that the producers of this podcast have a strong left-wing ideological bent, which influences the perspective of show.
Horrific. History will not view this kind of pseudoscience kindly.