World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

Just an important correction there. Scientific American is not a "journal" as you claim. You do not submit reports and papers to it for peer review like an actual journal. It is not their place to "accept" or "reject" papers. But to interpret them - through their own opinions and biases - for a lay public.

It is in fact a "popular science" magazine that is essentially just opinion pieces and articles ABOUT science for the lay public. And since Laura Helmuth took the helm has certainly started publicising more and more progressive ideology stances such as articles not about science but about the historic racism of household names in science from EO WIlson to Charles Darwin and even comically enough Mendel!

They have had articles lamenting the "White patriarchal past" of the field of mathematics and about Health Care workers calling for a support of Palestine as well as an article promoting religious treatments for mental illness titled "Psychiatry needs to get right with God" and an article titled "Trans Girls belong on girls sports teams".

Not to mention an article claiming "The racist roots of fighting obesity".

They even took the time to write an article against expanding DEI to JEDI as an acronym because apparently the Jedi from the movies are inappropriate due to being “prone to (white) saviorism and toxically masculine approaches to conflict resolution (violent duels with phallic light sabers, gaslighting by means of ‘Jedi mind tricks,’ etc.).”

So no - this magazine is not a science journal at all. It never has been. But it seems even less so now a days.

And have you sent many of your articles to the Scientific American for consideration? 🤣

I haven't said anything of the sort though. If someone else has, ask them about it.

But why don't you answer first why you said that Scientific American would refuse it due to methodology, when that's not what the SA does in the first place? Especially now you're claiming to be a scientist: I thought you just didn't know, but now you make it seem like you were deliberately misleading posters whom you thought wouldn't know?

I've no idea what your point is here. You made a misleading claim about the Cass report based on inaccuracies about what the Scientific American does in respect of scientific publications. That doesn't disminish or dismiss the value of the SA in what it actually does. It's you, not the SA, that is at issue here.

because she's a scientist and that is an ideological position.

I hate to be ‘that guy’ Squirrels but Hillary Cass, whatever else she is, is not a scientist. I don’t need to dismiss her credentials as I have no interest in her as a person, it’s her work I’m focused on, and as part of her work, just another thing to note that’s been posted in the last few posts - it was not a government-commissioned review. The review was commissioned by the NHS, independently of whomever was in Government at the time, in order to determine policy in relation to the provision of transgender healthcare services.

The BMA btw weren’t relegated to merely being a trade union overnight as a consequence of their rejection of the findings of the Cass Review - they were always a trade union and a professional body for doctors in the UK, who have significant influence in Government policy in relation to the provision of healthcare in the UK. That’s why the one doctor who is also a member of the BMA council claimed that the medical profession is under threat as a consequence of the BMA rejecting the findings of Cass. If they were merely a trade union and not an influential authoritative body in the practice of medicine in the UK - even less people than already do would give a fig for their opinion as it would mean nothing. So elevating the opinions of one of their members because it agrees with theirs, while dismissing the BMA itself, is nothing new.

I am a scientist by training so get over yourself.

On this occasion, I have no issue with being ‘that guy’ in pointing out that being a scientist by training means nothing, literally nothing. I was willing to overlook your presentation of an article in a popular science magazine (on their own, it’s authors are transgender studies graduates - political scientists, and that’s being kind, but one is the parent of a transgender child, and I can’t remember what the other author’s credits were but I couldn’t be arsed reading the article again, it was painful enough the first time). All you’re doing, and you should be acutely aware of it (though understandably not self-aware enough to realise you’re doing it) - is making an argument from authority.

It’s precisely because the quality of evidence in transgender healthcare is so abysmal that the NHS commissioned the review, and while I do have criticisms of the review, in my view it wasn’t rigorous enough to justify its recommendations - the recommendations simply couldn’t be deduced from the evidence presented in the review, it was as though the recommendations could have been made without the review. I wasn’t surprised to see the critique hadn’t been published in Nature magazine either, it’s a British publication, but it’s a tad more interesting than the bog roll standard articles published in Scientific American:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29

Lads, the gig is up - the scales are starting to be removed from the eyes of those who previously would not see.

Be surprised what can be achieved in medicine nowadays Squirrels, should that ever be an issue for people who would not see because they can’t see… with their eyes at least 😳

Mr James has not regained sight in that eye, but researchers are hopeful he might eventually be able to see out of it again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33nx82y8rjo#