The content of the article does not support the claim in the headline. No specific evidence is presented that any particular study was changed or suppressed at WPATH's request. The article presents evidence that WPATH requested the authority to approve publications, but also notes that the request was refused by Johns Hopkins. Everything else in the article, including the title, is speculative.
The content does support it? They show with quotes that WPATH demands pre-publication review & approval for the purposes of making sure any publication is “thoroughly scrutinised and reviewed to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense,”
that output has cratered in the way you would expect from pre-publication approval requirements intended to create publication bias:
> Now, more than six years after signing the agreement, the EPC team does not appear to have published anything else, despite having provided WPATH with the material for six systematic reviews, according to the documents.
(Where are those other 6 systematic reviews if it is purely 'speculative' that WPATH has not been approving them?)
that their guidelines are not based on systematic reviews as claimed but other motivations:
> Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a trans woman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care.
and that WPATH-approved articles have been publishing fraudulent claims about their involvement:
> Among the recently released court documents is a WPATH checklist confirming that an individual from WPATH was involved “in the design, drafting of the article and final approval of [that] article”. (The article itself explicitly claims the opposite.)
(Which at the least implies that a correction needs to be issued by the journal which published that article if the disclosures are false...)
>> but also notes that the request was refused by Johns Hopkins.
No, it didn't? The article specifically says, repeatedly, that that policy was implemented:
> In August the WPATH executive committee wrote to Ms Robinson that WPATH had “many concerns” about these papers, and that it was implementing a new policy in which WPATH would have authority to influence the EPC team’s output—including the power to nip papers in the bud on the basis of their conclusions. Ms Robinson protested that the new policy did not reflect the contract she had signed and violated basic principles of unfettered scientific inquiry she had emphasised repeatedly in her dealings with WPATH. The Hopkins team published only one paper after WPATH implemented its new policy...Now, more than six years after signing the agreement, the EPC team does not appear to have published anything else, despite having provided WPATH with the material for six systematic reviews, according to the documents.
>> Now, more than six years after signing the agreement, the EPC team does not appear to have published anything else, despite having provided WPATH with the material for six systematic reviews, according to the documents.
>(Where are those other 6 systematic reviews if it is purely 'speculative' that WPATH has not been approving them?)
Does "material for six systematic reviews" actually mean they were planning to publish six distinct reviews? The author doesn't say, leaving us to speculate.
When in the six years since was the material provided? The author doesn't say. They could've only intended to publish the single review that in fact did get published. We can only speculate.
Did WPATH provide any feedback on the material submitted? The author doesn't say, leaving us to speculate.
>> Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a trans woman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care.
This is irrelevant to the question of whether Johns Hopkins' research was manipulated, which is the contention of the article. Even then, it only makes an unsubstantiated a claim an unspecified court document supports the idea that WPATH was pressured to change their standard of care, which even if true doesn't support the claim that research anywhere has been manipulated.
>> Among the recently released court documents is a WPATH checklist confirming that an individual from WPATH was involved “in the design, drafting of the article and final approval of [that] article”. (The article itself explicitly claims the opposite.)
>(Which at the least implies that a correction needs to be issued by the journal which published that article if the disclosures are false...)
The existence of a WPATH checklist does not mean that any changes were made at their request, which is the evidence you have to have to support the claim that research was manipulated.
>>> but also notes that the request was refused by Johns Hopkins.
>No, it didn't? The article specifically says, repeatedly, that that policy was implemented...
Yes, it does, in the very section you quote:
Ms Robinson protested that the new policy did not reflect the contract she had signed and violated basic principles of unfettered scientific inquiry she had emphasised repeatedly in her dealings with WPATH.
WPATH tried to change their policy, and Johns Hopkins refused to go along with it. Which might go a long way towards explaining why they stopped publishing work sponsored by WPATH. With regard to whether the one paper they did publish was manipulated, as noted above, there is no evidence that WPATH made any changes---only that they reviewed it. Maybe they did request changes and Johns Hopkins refused and published anyway. If you want to prove manipulation of research (a very strong claim), you'd need to show that they requested changes, that those changes constituted academic fraud, and that Johns Hopkins made the changes. Handwaving about reviews doesn't cut it.
Otoh, WPATH stating "Research must be “thoroughly scrutinised and reviewed to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense,” and there only being one paper published after the checklist came into existence seems to indicate otherwise.
You're speculating here. Let me speculate as well: if I were a research institution working with an advocacy group, and the group decided it wanted review and veto authority over my research, I would go ahead and publish my research to that point and stop working with the advocacy group. Which speculation is right? There's no way to tell from the evidence in the article.
Which is my point. Research manipulation is a strong claim, and requires strong evidence. There is none in this article.
Its not, wanting to review before publication is done to manipulate the research, that is strong evidence of manipulation so you don't have to speculate any longer.
The speculation is whether that manipulation was good or bad or even what kind of manipulation they are doing, but we don't have to speculate whether it happens or not.
> Its not, wanting to review before publication is done to manipulate the research,
This is not fact. There are multiple possibilities that do not include manipulation. If there was manipulation, there would be a recourse to pursue for fraud.
> If there was manipulation, there would be a recourse to pursue for fraud.
Its legal to manipulate research except some extreme levels of manipulation. Legal manipulation is still manipulation, there is a reason companies pays so much to publish their own science, its so they can manipulate it. This is just the same as that.
Example of legal way to manipulate research: Stop anything you don't like from getting published. There is nothing illegal about that but that can massively hurt science.
> Example of legal way to manipulate research: Stop anything you don't like from getting published.
What I think you are implying, is that it won't be popularized enough, soon enough, to serve some interest. I only think this because, well...how would you stop someone from posting the original on torrent?
Your concern has nothing to do with the science, per se, but how it's perceived. What if it passed through with 0 manipulation? The inverse thinking is being casually dismissed, which is bad faith.
Not surprised to see The Economist join the list of major publications cave to conservative concern trolling around gender-affirming care. These have done far more damage to the trans community and trans youth than any of these purported risks combined.
Case in point, plucking out this single instance of weird behavior and slapping on this clickbait title that implies a much more widespread problem. Journalism has completely given over to feeding “well-actually” transphobia for clicks.
I'm glad to see something that doesn't read like it was written by someone afraid of being punished as an apostate. Not everyone believes in this stuff.
I think a self diagnosed mental disorder that is treated as anything but private, which every impressionable child is made aware of during their developing years in public education, using insidious language and cultish tactics, providing gendered (ie social) care in the form of real sexual surgical solutions that are permanently damaging, concerns me greatly not only as a parent but as a human being.
That's before we even get into my own history of gender dysphoria which would have been wildly different had I been born 10 years later.
I would've hoped that most people oppose the idea of preventing children from properly developing into adults solely on the basis of them expressing a desire to be the opposite sex. It's medical child abuse.
You caught me, I’m more emotionally invested in the actual human beings in my life than either the outlets throwing them under the bus for clicks or devil’s advocates engaging in some abstract debate that doesn’t impact them.
Why is it always the relatively new accounts saying this stuff? And zero instances of productive discussion, just "shit in the comments and make a new account in 6 months".
Your account has already posted quite a few flamewar comments. We have to ban accounts that break HN's rules like this*, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended from now on, we'd appreciate it.
* (regardless of $topic or your or anyone else's views on $topic)
There is a lot of insinuation here without a lot of facts. But I can tell you this: If the world treated transgender people with kindness and acceptance and without constant and oppressive threats and hate, barely veiled insinuations about pedophilia, etcetera,then you would not have a reflexive, advocate-first mindset being so dominate.
Like begets like, but in opposition. Radicals beget radicals, the right and the left.
Male chauvinism ruled the world, but a feminist movement arises, among some, overshoots into female chauvinism, begetting renewed male chauvinistic radicalism.
Radicalism is often necessary to effect change, because radicals don't see nuance, and when you don't see nuance, taking action...even risky action, is easier to justify.
The story has been told millions of times.
If you want better science in gender affirming care: 1) fund it, 2) don't make it scary for the scientists who do study it, as death threats are the norm, 3) dont interpret studies with preexisting agendas.
Identifying who will and who will not benefit from gender affirming care is important, but investigating one or the other can't be seen as claiming allegiance to one camp or another.
A nuanced view, the ability to tease differences apart, is disruptive to the status quo. Radicalism is often the embrace of nuance that other people deny exists.
There is something to what you say, but perhaps you should have responded, "Nuanced Disagree".
But in seriousness, I mean nuance as the ablity to see and acknowledge the complexities, and consider fairly evidence that does not support your position...this is an effortful task, and you cannot build a movement for change by telling people to consider all facets, in fact the opposite, you provide frameworks that discourage or shortcut those introspective processes. AKA indoctrination is not nuance.
I also think it's pretty common for radicals to become nuanced between shades of their own radicalism, but be completely blind elsewhere.
I'll end by saying this, "No biologist was ever an essentialist"
> Radicalism is often the embrace of nuance that other people deny exists.
That's a nice ideological soundbite that is wishful thinking. When observed in practice, both opposite ends of radicalism are most prone to discussing none of the nuance. Just think of the radical ends of this issue...
> If you want better science in gender affirming care: 1) fund it, 2) don't make it scary for the scientists who do study it, as death threats are the norm, 3) dont interpret studies with preexisting agendas.
The entire concept of "genre" as more than a fringe mental illness and its sole treatment being "law-backed compulsion for people to go along with the delusion" is already a preexisting agenda, man. I know it sounds harsh, but truth is more important than anything else to some people.
The problem with the parent's interpretation of my original comment is the binary classification of "sides" when I was making a general observation of the rubber band like social dynamics that comes when the stakes are large and exist under threat.
I am cis in category, but my gender unicorn would provide a more nuanced story. I am an advocate and ally, but I am also a scientist who is preparing to do some research on the intersection of autism and gender diversity...a direction I never expected to take, but the data led me there. I'd love to write to you somehow and get your perspective on my project with D.Strang. If willing to write, please at: jk i le e at uc davis ignore spaces in address for spam
I was talking about the researchers. I believe both sides are slanting the results.
As for you--it's not a matter of agenda. I don't believe you (plural) have any malign agenda. For the most part, you be you. I expect it to be disclosed very early on in any romantic context but otherwise I do not care.
I believe the case of sports isn't clear. Anyone who didn't experience male puberty will clearly function as female, but I'm not convinced that those who did experience male puberty don't gain an advantage from that.
Your agenda is to not be demonized or terrorized for the choices you made about your body, and your support for others in a similar situation.
Is that close?
I see the anti-trans movement as both horrifying and in a weird way encouraging. To address the latter, I find it encouraging in that it reflects that the previous anti movement (homophobia) has effectively failed and that ship has failed. Likewise, it's shown trans folk are everywhere and ultimately cannot be wished away.
This subject disgusts me (I'm cis) -- people's gender/identity/sexuality/etc are literally their own business and the weaponizing of fear/ignorance/distaste about the subject is the height of cruelty and the lowest of political trickery to manipulate the population to vote solely based on hate.
There's not really a unified "anti-trans movement", as different people have different reasons for opposing this.
Like for instance you mention homophobia:
> that the previous anti movement (homophobia) has effectively failed
But one of these reasons for rejecting the ideology of "trans" is because it's homophobic.
Consider the conventional understanding of homosexuality: a sexual orientation directed exclusively towards others of the same sex. The "trans" belief system overwrites this definition to instead be those who are attracted only to others with the same "gender identity".
This means that a "trans woman" (male sex) who is only interested in "cis women" (female sex) would be a lesbian by this new definition - which effectively erases homosexuality in its original understanding, by including heterosexuals. In this case straight males.
In the past few years, LGB organizations have been springing up to counter this new type of homophobia. Often driven by or allying with feminists, who have their own set of reasons to be critical of "trans".
> There's not really a unified "anti-trans movement", as different people have different reasons for opposing this.
Sure, lots of factions there but the GOP makes trans fear-mongering a cornerstone of their platform: over 600 anti-trans laws in the past 10 years (https://translegislation.com/learn). I haven't bothered to check but, I wager that virtually all of them were put forth by politicians with an R by their name.
> But one of these reasons for rejecting the ideology of "trans" is because it's homophobic.
Ideology of trans? Is it like a mutation of the communist virus?
And speaking of mutations, bravo on twisting my statement on homophobia into some squirrelly critique that justifies your fears.
Regardless, my statement stands that this fear of yours (and others) has been weaponized and politicized very effectively but is ultimately on the wrong side of history.
Again, I have no literal or figurative skin in this game, other than living in a world where ignorance and hate have been weaponized.
The Republican aversion to "trans" is the type that's built around promoting conservative gender roles, and is only a small part of the bigger picture of opposition.
It's different in other countries. In the UK, for instance, most of the pushback has been from grassroots feminist organizations who point to the misogyny and sexism that's been enabled and promoted by "gender identity" beliefs being woven into policy and law.
We do see it being challenged in this way the US too, from the left, e.g.
The article title does not end in a question mark. The guidelines say not to editorialize titles - and adding a question mark surely counts as editorializing?
What it contains is a lot of evidence that they had every intention of suppressing medical evidence, and they repeatedly insisted on having that ability. It's hardly a stretch to say that they've likely made good on those threats when work is submitted to them which never gets published.
It’s objecting to the Cass report, which doesn’t include any new original data or experimental results.
It’s fine to object to bad faith medical publications about an extreme minority, which is being granted authority by the NHS while more benevolent (and rigorous) researchers are being swept under the rug.
It is incredible that people with zero medical expertise continue to attack a 4-year, expert, impartial review - based on 7 peer-reviewed systematic reviews - of the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors. Because they want distressed teens to be given drugs instead of therapy.
