the-bias-identifierrrr

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

The executive summary is in the form of bullet points, so i will also do this in bullet points. For consistency, i suppose? sorry if the quality of language is depreciating, i am tipsy

Part 1

definition of gender dysphoria

people disagree about the validity of rapid onset gender dysphoria, but things consistent with the definition of it consistently appear, the author concludes that it exists, without saying as much

describes the WPATH, and the WPATH dissaproves of psychotherapeutic approaches--does not address why in the summary, but the disapproval of gender affirming care in the foreword implies that the WPATH is falsely accepted, and that psychotherapeutic approaches could be effective

avoiding language that makes patients uncomfortable seems like a good idea, but the review claims it has led to communication "without scientific grounding" (communication is not scientific? but go off?), that "presupposesanswers to unresolves ethical controversies" (if we're talking about clinical settings, maybe thats because they already came to a consensus) and "risks misleading patients and families" note how vague this is, even as a summary of the actual content--what is the purpose of including this? to establish that the language in the review is not offensive, its just "scientifically accurate and neutral" -- a claim i WILL be looking to verify or disprove

very out of pocket claim, actually--what do you MEAN "pediatric medical transition protocol in response to disappointing psychosocial outcomes in adults" you're putting that in a summary with no further commentary??? literally on what grounds???

apparently there "was no research before policies were adopted" and "recent research with the increase of minor patients changed our minds" -- it is bold to claim a causal relationship in your summary

"no international consensus about best practices" bestie we JUST talked about the WPATH

ooh maybe i have. drunk a bit too much for rhetorical analysis. executive summary part 2 tomorrow at some point. We're only on page 13 btw

Okay I've got a bottle of margarita mix and a night to myself, lets talk about the report on Pediatric Gender Dysphoria that the US Department of Health and Human Services put out.

So, let's go through the list of things to consider when evaluating a text. It's been a minute since i've done this formally so lets just wing it

Context--this was released last month, during the second Trump administration. Governmental attitudes towards trans people are Not Great! There's been a slew of antitrans bills so far this year. Trump called for this study himself, and its been compared to the Cass Review in the UK, which is widely considered biased and unreliable.

Author--this is not directly given! There's nobody claiming this text, which could be common practice for government publications like this, but does restrict the average person's ability to decide if the author is truly knowledgeable on this subject. Attributing this only to the HHS does give a sense of authority, as governmental organizations have authority and are often by default considered reputable.

Metadata on the document itself shows that authors include Alex Byrne, a philosopher, and two political consultants. [source] No subjects matter experts, and Byrne is publically anti-trans, which introduces possible bias into the conclusions of this text

Audience--Well its a citeable source, first of all. I can't make much more of a guess at the target audience without reading it, but this likely isn't for subject experts, given no experts had a part in its writing, and is too long (409 pages) for the general public, so I would not be surprised if the purpose of this text is guidelines to cite in policy making, and the audience therefore lawmakers.

Well, one way to find out, exactly. Start reading it.

Let me add more vodka to my cup first

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

The first eight pages are a table of contents, with the foreword starting on page 9 (the bibliography starts on page 286, which means about 130 pages of this are sources. This might mean that, while the author(s) arent subject experts, they did consult sources written by subject experts, but the lack of experts consulting still does not fill me with confidence)

So the foreword

Puts gender dysphoria and gender-affirming care in quotation marks, although this could be used as quotes to introduce terms

uses language such as "self-reported identity" "spur... secondary sex characteristics" which does sound dismissive and uses somewhat aggressive language to describe hrt effects

equates gender differences to "sex-role nonconformity"

says concretely that the above is "not pathological" and "does not require treatment" and. maybe this is my statistics training kicking in but. broad generalizations are hard to prove. unless the author has reviewed every single case, they absolutely cannot say that with complete certainty

puts medically necessary and lifesaving in quotes, reads as dismissive, especially as this is not cited as a quote

uses the term "transgender-identified" instead of transgender, which discredits the label + identity of the trans kids in question

We continue with an appeal to empathy, as they mention that parents may not know how to support their trans kids, and that many of these kids have psychiatric or neurodevelopmental conditions that make them more vulnerable--which is not false, but remember that correlation does not equal causation, and that trans kids must have psychological care to receive gender affirming care

This then moves on to society's obligation to ensure the well-being of its children, and acknowledges that this is a complex, morally (hotly debated in politics) and claims it involves "bodily integrity" (i'm not familiar so I googled it and, basically, this is bodily autonomy and self-determination, and has some history in legal cases [source]) and that gender affirming care is controversial

foreword calls gender affirming care experimental--note that the first gender reassignment surgery was performed in 1930, 95 years ago [source] and that medicine is considered experimental when it is a new drug or is being used to establish proof of mechanism, a point that I would argue we are far beyond [source]

cited the UK banning puberty blockers, the first direct example so far, which, given that it goes on to discredit gender affirming care, seems like an intentional inclusion, but having only one example does not lend credibility to the claim that "a number of countries" have restrictions on gender affirming care

claims that diagnosis of gender dysphoria is based only on "subjective self-reports and behavioral observations" which. most neurological conditions are, if we're approaching this from this angle--one cannot measure emotional and mental impact in other ways, and brain scans have very limited application when it comes to diagnosis (im not sure what else you would consider using. what laboratory marker could you make?)

claims that the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors being measured fluctuate during adolescence, when gender dysphoria is diagnosed based on persisting symptoms

"existing research suggests [pediatric gender dysphoria] will remit without intervention in most cases" but fails to cite that existing research.

Entire paragraph dedicated to listing the possible side effects of gender affirming care, once again with no sources. Some are real, some exist but are negligible increases in risk, and then there are adverse cognitive impacts (incredibly vague), psychiatric disorders (absolutely not proven? also how is that different from cognitive impact?), surgical complications, and regret (I should mention that nothing has a 0% regret rate, and that the choice to follow through with something we regret or that might have side effects is dignity of risk and an extension of bodily autonomy)

"systematic reviews of the evidence have revealed deep uncertainty about the purported benefits of these interventions" without citing these reviews

acknowledges that this is also a cultural and political issue (that is, there are ramifications for acceptance and denial of gender affirming care in these regards)

states the executive order it is a result of

claims not to be a clinical practice guideline

claims not to issue legislative or policy recommendations

states the target audience to be "policymakers, clinicians, therapists, medical organizations and, importantly, patients and their families" note inclusion of policymakers and clinicians

I'm willing to excuse the lack of directly cited sources given this is the foreword, and they should be establishing their arguments in the body of work, but it still irks me. you are straight up saying things without explaining where they came from. a lot of very bold claims, too

And the executive summary is twice as long! though I would expect less claims and more conclusions? let me see if i can finish picking through it tonight

Okay I've got a bottle of margarita mix and a night to myself, lets talk about the report on Pediatric Gender Dysphoria that the US Department of Health and Human Services put out.

So, let's go through the list of things to consider when evaluating a text. It's been a minute since i've done this formally so lets just wing it

Context--this was released last month, during the second Trump administration. Governmental attitudes towards trans people are Not Great! There's been a slew of antitrans bills so far this year. Trump called for this study himself, and its been compared to the Cass Review in the UK, which is widely considered biased and unreliable.

Author--this is not directly given! There's nobody claiming this text, which could be common practice for government publications like this, but does restrict the average person's ability to decide if the author is truly knowledgeable on this subject. Attributing this only to the HHS does give a sense of authority, as governmental organizations have authority and are often by default considered reputable.

Metadata on the document itself shows that authors include Alex Byrne, a philosopher, and two political consultants. [source] No subjects matter experts, and Byrne is publically anti-trans, which introduces possible bias into the conclusions of this text

Audience--Well its a citeable source, first of all. I can't make much more of a guess at the target audience without reading it, but this likely isn't for subject experts, given no experts had a part in its writing, and is too long (409 pages) for the general public, so I would not be surprised if the purpose of this text is guidelines to cite in policy making, and the audience therefore lawmakers.

Well, one way to find out, exactly. Start reading it.

Let me add more vodka to my cup first

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

Okay I've got a bottle of margarita mix and a night to myself, lets talk about the report on Pediatric Gender Dysphoria that the US Department of Health and Human Services put out.

So, let's go through the list of things to consider when evaluating a text. It's been a minute since i've done this formally so lets just wing it

Context--this was released last month, during the second Trump administration. Governmental attitudes towards trans people are Not Great! There's been a slew of antitrans bills so far this year. Trump called for this study himself, and its been compared to the Cass Review in the UK, which is widely considered biased and unreliable.

Author--this is not directly given! There's nobody claiming this text, which could be common practice for government publications like this, but does restrict the average person's ability to decide if the author is truly knowledgeable on this subject. Attributing this only to the HHS does give a sense of authority, as governmental organizations have authority and are often by default considered reputable.

Metadata on the document itself shows that authors include Alex Byrne, a philosopher, and two political consultants. [source] No subjects matter experts, and Byrne is publically anti-trans, which introduces possible bias into the conclusions of this text

Audience--Well its a citeable source, first of all. I can't make much more of a guess at the target audience without reading it, but this likely isn't for subject experts, given no experts had a part in its writing, and is too long (409 pages) for the general public, so I would not be surprised if the purpose of this text is guidelines to cite in policy making, and the audience therefore lawmakers.

Well, one way to find out, exactly. Start reading it.

Let me add more vodka to my cup first

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

Real men are easily be distinguished from imaginary men because imaginary men are negative when squared.

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

against my better judgment I'm becoming entranced by video essays that claim to be talking about really pervasive pressing issues that are everywhere 😱 that turn out to be about some shit you've never heard of in your life if you're not on tiktok or insta

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

Im finally free and my dad just gifted me some free liquor and so i WILL be liveblogging reading through this later this week!

Big news on the trans rights in the US front—if you haven’t heard, the report on gender affirming care that Trump got written was released today. Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices. 409 fucking pages long

I’m so tempted to read through it and just. Liveblog it? If it wasnt for it being Just Before Finals i would get something alcoholic and start trying to take this apart. Make no mistake, im a trans american, i will be reading this, it will just. Probably be next week after i finish all my classes

It does look like almost 150 pages of it are appendices, but like hell im not scrounging through their reference material

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

Big news on the trans rights in the US front—if you haven’t heard, the report on gender affirming care that Trump got written was released today. Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices. 409 fucking pages long

I’m so tempted to read through it and just. Liveblog it? If it wasnt for it being Just Before Finals i would get something alcoholic and start trying to take this apart. Make no mistake, im a trans american, i will be reading this, it will just. Probably be next week after i finish all my classes

It does look like almost 150 pages of it are appendices, but like hell im not scrounging through their reference material

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

do you think that angels and demons and saints and all that could get their horns and halos tangled together and rip each other's heads off like deer do while fighting sometimes

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

a new study shows that increasing your salmon consumption now may lead to a positive impact on the total amount of salmon you will have eaten in the past, in the future

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

Is that a valid argument in your pants or is it just a phallacy?

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

"don't perform self-surgery! only medical professionals should do that!" appeal to authority. "no one does that!" bandwagon fallacy. "you're crazy!" ad hominem

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

she mutate() on my df until i FatalError

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

"Blorbo from my shows" no. Blorbo from my BA. Blorbo from my major. Blorbo from my primary source document.

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

Making barplots and histograms in R but colouring them hotpink because it’s all I have left.

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

you know what. r studio might not be the easiest or most straightforward or least stressful way to process data. but at least it gives you the opportunity to create some of the worst graphs you have ever seen in your life

[the-bias-identifierrrr]

in RStudio. straight up “instolling it”. and by “it”, haha, well. let’s justr say. My pakage