• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

SGU promotes misinformation about the Cass review

Roboramma said:
Curious why the skeptics who proclaim to care a great deal about the spreading of misinformation* don't seem to care about this particular misinformation.

Also interested in why GF hasn't retracted his claim:

After it was shown to be a blatant falsehood.

*I certainly think they are right to do so, if they actually do care about what is and isn't true.
Click to expand...

Because unfortunately they define 'misinformation' as 'information that goes against the approved narrative', the same way they define research and theories as 'discredited' if they go against the approved narrative. IOW, the way a religious fundamentalist decides if something is true or not according to whether they fit with scripture. They may privately acknowledge some things are not strictly true but this is unimportant compared to controlling the narrative.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Which pretty much every expert in the field has also concluded.

Remember, the Cass team was deliberately seeded with people who had (and have) no expertise in the recognition and treatment of trans kids to "not cloud their findings". And they also deliberately avoided talking to experts, children involved or their families.
Click to expand...

I just listened to the Studies Show which goes into the Cass Report and they point out that nearly all the clinics they approached refused to share their data. It seems, if anything, that you have it the wrong way around. If the treatment is effective, why would they refuse to share data?
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Which pretty much every expert in the field has also concluded.

Remember, the Cass team was deliberately seeded with people who had (and have) no expertise in the recognition and treatment of trans kids to "not cloud their findings". And they also deliberately avoided talking to experts, children involved or their families.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this information from?

The report itself contradicts this claim...

 
angrysoba said:
Where are you getting this information from?

The report itself contradicts this claim...
Click to expand...

The misinformation comes from activists like Erin Reed and Alejandra Carabello, along with various activist organisations. It is apparently considered virtuous to accept what they say without question. Questioning the holy writ makes one impure and probably evil.
 
Roboramma said:
Curious why the skeptics who proclaim to care a great deal about the spreading of misinformation* don't seem to care about this particular misinformation.

Also interested in why GF hasn't retracted his claim:

After it was shown to be a blatant falsehood.

*I certainly think they are right to do so, if they actually do care about what is and isn't true.
Click to expand...

Becuse they have made a hero out of the guy spreading it, and don't want to admit they are wrong.
 
angrysoba said:
Far more likely, as you suggest, Elaedith, is that the influences are flesh and blood people in his life such as his own co-host at SGU, and colleagues at SBM. There may even be family members or friends who are trans and who have asked him his professional opinion on these topics. (...) Rather there are a whole range of sociological factors which reinforce views other than facts and logic. But it is probably not easy to turn up in the lunch room and be the only person who has changed his mind on something.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this. With this entire issue I feel most people who assume bad faith simply underestimate the powerful confirmation bias that you end up with from seeing extremists ◊◊◊◊ on your friends.
 
I found this posting on Jerry Coyne's blog about his experience at CSICon. His description of what Novella was peddling makes for interesting reading.

I’ve been busy at the CSICon conference, which included giving my own 30-minute presentation this morning. I had to modify it to take into account the misguided views of Steve Novella, who gave a talk yesterday about “When Skeptics Disagree.” It turned out to be largely a diatribe about how sex in humans is not binary, and in fact isn’t even to be defined by morphology or physiology. As far as I can see, Novella’s view of sex is that one is born with a “brain module” (which of course is biological) that determines which sex you are. No, not gender, but actual biological sex. You can have a “female” module or a “male module”, and regardless of gametes, hormones, genitalia, and so on, you are whatever sex your module dictates to your self-identification.
Click to expand...

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/10/26/vegas-csicon-sex-and-nooz/
 
'Lying for Jesus" and 'The Ends Justify the Means" are along way from being a monopoly of religion.
I think Biological Sex is binary....the Sex drive is baiscally to ensure survival of the species by making procreation really fun....but also think gays and transexual are entitled to the same rights as "Straights".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom