“Opinions based in politicized beliefs are bad science”

Ok back to that polemic at Science-Based Medicine.

Early on there is a one-sentence paragraph that is arresting under the circumstances:

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

Dr. Eckert “their”self isn’t being parsimonious with the personal opinions based in politicized beliefs in this review.

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. When discussing transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, this terminology is generally preferred over “biological male/female”, “male/female bodied”, “natal male/female”, and “born male/female”, which are considered defamatory and inaccurate.

Oh look, another agentless passive again. Generally preferred by whom, pal? Sure as hell not everyone. Not by most people. It’s preferred by gender idenniny zealots and their “allies” and no one else. Most people are unaware of the term “assigned at birth,” and a hefty percentage of people who are aware of it think it’s idiotic or insulting or both.

Moreover, disturbingly, most of the individuals covered in Shrier’s book were not personally interviewed. Their stories are told exclusively by their parents, all of whom use she/her pronouns for their trans children.

That’s just childish. Why did SBM publish this piece? If Shrier’s book is about the parents and gender ideology then Shrier needs to talk to them. It’s one aspect of the subject; there’s no requirement to talk only to “trans children” when writing about trans ideology.

Shrier’s use of she/her pronouns for her subjects, “for the sake of clarity and honesty”, is also problematic. She defends her referring to these subjects using pronouns that do not correctly reflect the gender with which they identify, commonly referred to as “misgendering,” by appealing to the First Amendment, a common strategy employed to attack the rights of LGBTQ people.

Again, childish. It’s not a “right” to be referred to by a reality-contradicting pronoun. The idea that it is is a silly innovation based on a grotesque ideology, and nobody is required to obey its mandates.

Throughout her book, Shrier characterizes those who ask that their accurate names and pronouns are respected as demanding, volatile teenagers who “fly into rage” when their request is denied. She scoffs at pronouns in email signatures, referring to them as “gender Ideology”.

omigod does she really?! That’s awwwful. What did she say next? Let’s not sit at her table tomorrow. Let’s put salt in her Coke.

I think that’s all I can stand to read. This person isn’t even bright. Why would Novella and Gorski post such an amateurish embarrassing exercise?

10 Responses to ““Opinions based in politicized beliefs are bad science””