Stonewall admit they didn't understand.

[WarriorN]

x.com/stonewalluk/status/1782463071866286105?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

And they're still reading it

www.stonewall.org.uk/cass-review

Yes, that's my point.

"Cannot conclude they are proven safe" does not equal "Not unsafe".

It's a stretch for TRAs to claim this is what the review states.

Ingenieur · Today 06:32

It's wild that Joss can spin Cass's conclusion that there is no evidence for the efficacy of PBs into "Cass concludes they are not unsafe".

Well yes, "does not conclude that they are unsafe," isn't the same as what Joss is saying. They have a locked account, they evidently don't want to be confronted with facts.

a Minor point, but this is completely not the case - sex-specific medicine is a HUGE area for research at the moment. There are conferences, loads of papers etc. now, if you apply to the UKRI (the government’s research funding) on ANY medical topic you have to explain whether you will do your research in males and females (humans, mice, fruit flies) - and if not why not. If you don’t, it’s a huge problem for you

This particular person would appear to be somewhat a stranger to the truth

“Trans teens have been viciously attacked and murdered in the UK and Hilary Cass wants to make herself the victim here after taking away their healthcare.”*

"Cannot conclude they are proven safe" does not equal "Not unsafe".

(I think you meant to say "unsafe" there)

I was just trying to emphasise that nobody was expecting a "safe" or "unsafe" judgment about specific drugs from the review anyway.

So saying it didn't conclude they were "unsafe" is as unsurprising as them not concluding they were expensive or that they smelt bad. That wasn't what they were investigating. They were trying to find out whether they helped.

"Cannot conclude they are proven safe" does not equal "Not unsafe".

’safety’ is a relative term. But until they are proved ‘relatively safe for a specific situation’ drugs are unsafe. That is why they have to be approved/licensed. Puberty blockers are clearly unsafe drugs, the only question is do the benefits outweigh harms for a particular intervention.

Excellent summary.

Yes, perhaps more coffee needed!

I suppose the substance of my second comment is about the burden of proof when making positive claims.

And I agree a specific review of the efficacy of PBs wasn't the point of the review.

😅

Trans teens have been viciously attacked and murdered in the UK and Hilary Cass wants to make herself the victim here after taking away their healthcare.

I admire the rhetoric, but I can't help thinking that logically it's probably a bit late for "healthcare" in that scenario... (Sorry 🤐)

Indeed.

They are probably sitting there around the table thinking "They chopped our bollox off, and took out Pixie and Lola's wombs, but they still never get our sex wrong when they're telling us "Who's a Good Boy/Girl? do they? They can tell what we are. But they put on a frock and think they've changed sex. Stupid humans. Thick as shit."

Thank you for the link ☺️

I'm not often wrong and I'm glad to be on this.

Given the vast effort from certain quarters to push "describe your gender identity" onto forms, how do these researchers ask for sex without being pilloried? Or has there been an outbreak of logic amongst medical researchers?

Medical researchers have hardly bothered with gender (Twitter is not representative of the people who actually do the science and sit on funding panels). They / we are only just catching up with the idea that women have been fundamentally ignored in medical trials etc (I know).

Also, sex has huge impacts on medicine and this is INTERESTING and that trumps everything else for actual scientists imo

Oh I read your message properly. Re forms - no idea re data collected by others. For mice and rats it’s very easy 😁

Gender identity/identities, like other parts of your personality, are only interesting medically, if they affect your treatment.

Mole has been busy:

https://twitter.com/moleatthedoor/status/1781332987650494684

https://twitter.com/moleatthedoor/status/1782032624451465249/photo/1

I think this is why there was such disappointment with Prof Alice Roberts - who is out there in media land as an archaeological scientist - over the daft clown fish tweet. She's a trained and qualified medical doctor, an expert in bi-polar disorders; and she then completed PhD research in paleopathology, anthropology and osteology.

She knows clown fish aren't human but was, effectively, duped into being a bit silly that day. I get the impression she regrets it. Such an illustrious career potentially marred by a risible tweet, all because of the gender woo. It suggested she wasn't a serious scientist, when she actually is very accomplished.

@AutumnCrow you got me interested with that 'accomplished scientist' comment so thought I'd check it out!

Her whole career H-index is 13 on Google scholar (usually the most generous index compared to Scopus, Web of Science etc) which means 13 publications cited 13 or more times and a total of 670 citations. Five of those 13 are popular books rather than scientific journal articles. So only eight original research articles and none since 2015.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=wF-BIFIAAAAJ

For context, mine will soon be 50 with nearly 9000 citations and isn't particularly remarkable in STEM or archaeological science specifically. But she is a professor of public engagement and not actively doing academic research going by her publication record.

And yes, she is very happy to accept and agree with sex identifications of skeletons made by the bioarchaeologists she is talking to on TV programmes - one popped up on my SM feed the other day and I could but laugh hollowly.

😮

She may be very accomplished but she’s still a coward whose prepared to lie for the cause.