| Please try harder not to succumb to the strawman fallacy, you're arguing a point I didn't make. The base truth is that the Cass review excluded a large portion of the research based on evidenciary standards which are higher than we'd apply otherwise. Citing her Q&A with the Kite Trust is great but that doesn't undo the fact that she designed her review to exclude trans people as much as possible. There were zero trans clinicians, trans academics or even trans users of healthcare services included in any part of the study. Within her purview for study quality she decided to include the work of a known transphobe who was caught out in 2018 posting essentially hate screeds on an anonymous twitter account[1] -- why was his work included but not a >> SINGLE << trans person could sit in on the review? 1: https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2018/10/26/transphobic-tweets-... > You can of course confirm this yourself by reading the report and the systematic reviews commissioned to inform it, rather than listening to social media bullshitters. And now I see why you decided to spin up a fresh account for this. I'm done, I don't believe in debate with people who mistake debate for online shitfling. Have a good one. |
You said:
> Because they set an unrealistic bar by excluding all research which wasn't double blind,
To which I replied with a BBC News article quoting Cass, which refutes this falsehood. While noting that you could also confirm this yourself by actually reading the publications you're so misinformed about.
The problem is that you'd rather listen to liars like Erin Reed and Alejandra Caraballo, who have apparently made it their mission to sow as much disinformation about the Review as they possibly can, and those who amplify their mendacious nonsense.
I mean, all you've been doing in this thread is further spreading their lies, and then doubling down when proven wrong. Are you really so in the thrall of these prevaricators?