Cass review: how has report affected care for transgender young people? - The Guardian 2/7/25

Quite keen to know wtf 'musical masculinism' is all about.

To be fair that's actually two separate papers. Sorry for not formatting more clearly.😀

That's all it is in a scientific term. You either were peer reviewed and published, or it's something you did at home and did not follow the scientific process.

Ironically the issue of the public giving "institutional reviews" same credence as actually peer reviewed science is a long going issue, because those reviews tend to be nothing more than hit jobs, and people confuse them with actual progress of scientific work.

There is a reason why people rely and trust the key phrase: peer reviewed (as long as done in a reputable journal that follows open standards or comparable protocol).

The appeal of musical masculinism within contemporary online far-right spaces
Bifurcated experiences of single people in urban China

I make that 44 syllables in 19 words. Judith Butler would be proud

🤦‍♀️

I have never heard anyone describe the the Cass Review as self-published?! It was commissioned by a government minister and carried out with a team of researchers from a university. I mean….self-published????? 🙄

🤦‍♀️

I have never heard anyone describe the the Cass Review as self-published?! It was commissioned by a government minister and carried out with a team of researchers from a university. I mean….self-published????? 🙄

See, that's the beauty of papers, anyone can write them, and all that matters is selecting the right journal that will published it. The Journal of Gender Studies might be an academic journal but it's not a scientific journal. It's full of the musings of sociologists not anybody reared on the scientific method & critical thinking.

The titles of some of the articles in the current issue are beyond parody e.g.
The appeal of musical masculinism within contemporary online far-right spaces
Bifurcated experiences of single people in urban China: A gendered compressed modernity perspective
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showAxaArticles?journalCode=cjgs20

See, that's the beauty of papers, anyone can write them, and all that matters for the peer review is the content, as it's done double blind. It matters not what clout you have online, or titles, or if you are just no one writing it at home, you will get review based on what you wrote. And it was positively peer reviewed, and consequently published in one of the more respectable journals for the field.

And cass report is self-published non-reviewed opinion piece which is now being dragged through judaica review because it cannot provide copy of most of the papers it's citing and which cannot otherwise be found online.

I love the scientific process on how it does extremely good job of removing authorship bias. And that's precisely why cass self published, as this would not pass any peer review.

See, that's the beauty of papers, anyone can write them, and all that matters for the peer review is the content, as it's done double blind. It matters not what clout you have online, or titles, or if you are just no one writing it at home, you will get review based on what you wrote. And it was positively peer reviewed, and consequently published in one of the more respectable journals for the field.

And cass report is self-published non-reviewed opinion piece which is now being dragged through judaica review because it cannot provide copy of most of the papers it's citing and which cannot otherwise be found online.

I love the scientific process on how it does extremely good job of removing authorship bias. And that's precisely why cass self published, as this would not pass any peer review.

See, that's the beauty of papers, anyone can write them, and all that matters for the peer review is the content, as it's done double blind. It matters not what clout you have online, or titles, or if you are just no one writing it at home, you will get review based on what you wrote. And it was positively peer reviewed, and consequently published in one of the more respectable journals for the field.

And cass report is self-published non-reviewed opinion piece which is now being dragged through judaica review because it cannot provide copy of most of the papers it's citing and which cannot otherwise be found online.

I love the scientific process on how it does extremely good job of removing authorship bias. And that's precisely why cass self published, as this would not pass any peer review.

See, that's the beauty of papers, anyone can write them, and all that matters for the peer review is the content, as it's done double blind. It matters not what clout you have online, or titles, or if you are just no one writing it at home, you will get review based on what you wrote. And it was positively peer reviewed, and consequently published in one of the more respectable journals for the field.

And cass report is self-published non-reviewed opinion piece which is now being dragged through judaica review because it cannot provide copy of most of the papers it's citing and which cannot otherwise be found online.

I love the scientific process on how it does extremely good job of removing authorship bias. And that's precisely why cass self published, as this would not pass any peer review.

Did you mean a single author paper paper by Natacha Kennedy? Who is not a former President of the Royal College of Paediatricians. Not even a paediatrician. Not an eminent doctor in fact not even a doctor at all but a lecturer in Educational Studies. If you Google the author's name it's obvious why he might be the biased in his conclusions.

If you want an actually peer reviewed, and published in a accredited and respected journal study on results of the ban, have a read: of: Harming children: the effects of the UK puberty blocker ban
doi: 10.1080/09589236.2025.2521699 (google that for direct result)

Mind that peer review and published in a journal is not some "high bar", it's the 101 of research that Cass was unable to meet.

Of course no one here will read it, as it does not agree with your conclusions, which is opposite of how science works too, fitting of loving unscientific cass review.

How do you know what's in an unplished paper?!

Oh wait, you are just copy/pasting something long debunked: Fact Check: New York Times Publishes Misleading Story On Puberty Blocker Study