Maybe science

Wo, this is a big step.

This at a blog called “Science-based Medicine.”

So let’s take a look.

Irreversible Damage to the Trans Community: A Critical Review of Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage (Part One)

Very science-based title.

Editor’s note: This is the second guest post discussing Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters solicited from experts in transgender medical care. In this post, Dr. A.J. Eckert describes the many errors, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings of science in Shrier’s book, doing so in more detail than was done in our recent guest post by Dr. Rose Lovell, who provided an excellent overview of the problems with the book. Dr. Eckert plans a second part to this discussion, which they are currently working on. We look forward to its completion.

Dr. Eckert is “non-binary.”

Does that make Dr. Eckert part of “the trans community”? Or no?

Clearly the mandated answer is yes, but the reality is that that’s absurd, because the very idea of being “trans” relies on the binary, so claiming to be some of each and to be “part of the trans community” is having it both ways, i.e. ignoring a contradiction.

Dr. Eckert starts with some poison.

Over the last couple of weeks, Abigail Shrier’s controversial 2020 book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters has enjoyed a renewed surge of interest and controversy on the Internet. On June 15, Dr. Harriet Hall, retired family physician and longtime contributor to the Science-Based Medicine blog, posted a favorable review of Shrier’s book on SBM.

The physicians behind SBM characterize their blog as one “dedicated to evaluating medical treatments and products of interest to the public in a scientific light and promoting the highest standards and traditions of science in health care”. SBM is widely regarded in its dedication to evidence-based medicine. Hall’s review was pulled from the SBM blog less than two days later for review, having been found not to meet the standards of SBM. Shrier sees this move as bullying.

So do I, and you know what else I see as bullying? This intro. This spiteful nasty intro.

Ms. Shrier, Lisa Littman, whose 2018 study proposed the diagnosis of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD), and now apparently Dr. Hall see themselves as victims of a “woke” activist movement trying to censor science

Gee, why would they think that.

In contrast to claims of Shrier having been “silenced,” her book has garnered praise and support, with several sites taking up her cause in the past week alone. Before Dr. Hall’s review, Shrier had previously appeared at a high-profile Senate hearing. She still has a platform as a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and has expressed her views on several podcasts, including Joe Rogan’s massively popular one. Meanwhile, in part due to Shrier’s enthusiastic promotion, Littman’s made-up diagnosis of ROGD has enjoyed a renewed interest, spread widely, and is accepted by many as a real medical diagnosis.

Bad science, however, remains bad science, and personal opinions based in confirmation bias and politicized beliefs are bad science.

Says non-binary Dr. Eckert who is clearly not at all influenced by personal opinions or politicized beliefs.

Throughout her book, Shrier refers to her subjects as “biological girls,” a term that conflates sex with gender and mischaracterizes Shrier’s subjects. The reason is that a person’s sex refers to the identity assigned by doctors, parents, and medical professionals at birth, most often based on external anatomy (genitals).

That’s not right.

More accurately, Shrier’s subjects are “AFAB”, or “assigned female at birth“, because no one gets to choose what sex they’re assigned at birth.

That’s not more accurate. At all.

It’s breathtaking that they’re doing this.

More later, maybe, or maybe I’ll just leave it to fester.

18 Responses to “Maybe science”