This was posted and the poster obviously found this to be highly compelling and absolutely convincing. I think it is worth evaluating for any reader who also finds it thus.
This author is a male who describes themselves as an Activist, content creator, legislative research, as well as a 'mom' and a Dungeon Master in Dungeons and Dragons.
They have a pinned tweet that says:
Erin inthemorning Aug 7, 2021
"Hey y’all. Are you looking for HRT but don’t know where to start? Worried about therapist letters and gatekeepers? I made this two years ago and have maintained it since. EVERY informed consent HRT spot in the country. No therapist required."
So, let us be clear. This person is a male calling themselves 'mom' and is publicly promoting hormones without any diagnosis. And this person feels that they have enough expertise to call out the experience of Jamie Reed. And does this with supposedly a straight face when they wrote:
"She is not a doctor, a psychologist, a psychiatrist, and does not have direct medical diagnostic experience with patients. She is a case worker, someone who navigates insurance claims and takes intake calls. Throughout her story, she places her own interpretations of events above those of medically educated providers, therapists, and the families and patients that work with them."
OK. So a 'case worker' who saw some horrendous issues and has finally reached the point she wishes to write about them is to be dismissed because Erin Reed who doesn't seem to be "a doctor, a psychologist, a psychiatrist, and does not have direct medical diagnostic experience with patients" doesn't like what Jamie Reed wrote.
And Erin Reed goes on to ignore the interpretations of events above those of medically educated providers, therapists, and the families and patients that work with them. that don't seem to support most of what Erin Reed says. Yet, Keely wants readers to believe Erin Reed over Jamie Reed. (And that is really confusing having the same last name)
In fact, Keely, this person you have posted about seems to have completely ignored the fact that Jamie Reed is married to a female transitioner! Erin Reed conveniently ignores that, Jamie mentioned it in paragraph 2, to attempt to portray Jamie as
"Her statements and omissions reveal a clear ideological bias, and the organizations and representation she has chosen to work with contradict her claim that she “supports transgender people.”"
Do you find that credible?
By the way, I don't care about 'the timing' of Jamie Reed's article. Because at the moment there is so much happening that I suspect that according to Erin Reed there would always be something happening that they felt would call Jamie Reed's article into suspicious.
Plus, the logic doesn't stack up. What the fuck does it matter when it came out? Is it true? Did Jamie make it up? That is the ONLY things relevant here.
Erin Reed also tries to position Jamie Reed as 'right wing' because Erin wishes people to believe that only 'right wing' people could possibly have this view. Jamie also states she is even more to the 'left' than Bernie Sanders who is a Democrat. ie. she is a left wing lesbian. Another convenient thing Erin has forgotten.
Social contagion and ROGD
Erin Reed questions the % of trans people that Jamie saw compared to the expected St Louis population of trans people to attempt to discount Jamie's anecdotes. Why is this relevant? It is not.
Jamie's article is about the clinic she worked in and what she saw happening there.
This is another squirrel moment and a ridiculous one.
Erin attempts to say that there is solid evidence that 'social contagion' and "ROGD" is not happening. There are HUGE glaring faults here.
"As for sex differences of coming out, this too has been disputed by research. Trans masculine individuals (who this writer references as “girls” and often misgenders throughout her document) are not “more likely” to identify as trans"
And yet, this very thing has been documented and published in the clinic figures for numerous countries around the world.
segm.org has a chart on their home page from the UK GIDS reports that shows this very clearly.
There IS one thing that works in Erin's favour here, there is currently NO peer reviewed paper that names the phenomenon of what is happening.
Dr Cass is very aware of the phenomenon. I have been through this on this very thread.
cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Cass-Review_Letter-to-NHSE_Jan23.pdf
P.32 of the interim report states:
"In the last few years, there has been a significant change in the numbers and case-mix of children and young people being referred to GIDS. From a baseline of approximately 50 referrals per annum in 2009, there was a steep increase from 2014-15, and at the time of the CQC inspection of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in October 2020 there were 2,500 children and young people being referred per annum, 4,600 children and young people on the waiting list, and a waiting time of over two years to first appointment. This has severely impacted on the capacity of the existing service to manage referrals in the safe and responsive way that they aspire to and has led to considerable distress for those on the waiting list. "
"This increase in referrals has been accompanied by a change in the case-mix from predominantly birth-registered males presenting with gender incongruence from an early age, to predominantly birth-registered females presenting with later onset of reported gender incongruence in early teen years. In addition, approximately one third of children and young people referred to GIDS have autism or other types of neurodiversity. There is also an over-representation percentage wise (compared to the national percentage) of looked after children."
P. 33 has the same chart that SEGM has on their home page and these are the stats from that table and chart.
These statistics are from the Cass Report but they are findable elsewhere and they follow the trend in other countries as well.
In 2009, 15 Adolescent female patients were referred to GIDS and 2 Children. That is 17.
In 2016, 1071 Adolescent female patients and 138 Children. That is 1209.
This represents a 7012% increase.
In 2009, 24 Adolescent male patients were referred to GIDS and 10 Children.
That is 34.
In 2016, 426 Adolescent male patients and 131 Children. That is 557.
This represents a 1538% increase.
I posted this on page 10 of this thread. If anyone wishes to support Erin Reed's view on how Jamie was wrong, I am happy to hear it with some supporting evidence.
I will crack on with a few more points that Erin Reed brings up. But frankly, there seems to be ever so much misinformation here.
In fact, my post at Today 12:47 seems even more relevant for @Keeley1472 to read I think.