A truly amazing and exhaustively cited act of investigative journalism by the phenomenal @zinnia

It turns out that virtually ALL of the sham "science" behind the anti-trans movement can be traced directly back to a very small number of purely ideologically driven "doctors" citing one another over and over again to try to give the impression that standard evidence based trans healthcare is controversial.

It's basically the scientific equivalent of writing a blog with nothing more than your own opinions, your friend writes an article citing your blog, another friend writes an article citing both of you, and then showing up in front of public health boards saying "see, here's 3 articles showing how I'm right!"

In any normal and reasonable political environment, these quacks would be laughed out of the room with such flimsy "evidence". Yet because the far right has captured statehouses across the country, they're laundering this junk science into "real" science.

https://genderanalysis.net/2023/05/the-far-right-law-firm-alliance-defending-freedom-offered-a-florida-anti-trans-hate-group-15000-to-refute-the-wpath-standards-of-care-for-use-in-litigation/

The far-right law firm Alliance Defending Freedom offered a Florida anti-trans hate group $15,000 to “refute” the WPATH Standards of Care “for use in litigation”

A wider lens on the American College of Pediatricians.

Gender Analysis
@JessTheUnstill @zinnia If the Lancet won’t publish it, it’s not credible IMO. A blog post is one person’s opinion. Rigorous peer review is more likely to reflect current understandings.
@DarkMatterZine @JessTheUnstill @zinnia
Was it The Lancet or BMJ that published the Wakefield nonsense? Even good journals can make mistakes. Or people can use a toehold in a respectable journal to roll out a whole lot more than is justified by what they wrote.
@CRSG @JessTheUnstill @zinnia True. But the example I was replying to was about people blogging BS because politics.