Crenshaw's wrong on this. This lady should have been able to easily correct his error(s).
-
The highest standard of evidence is not a literature review. A literature review is just that, a review of what's been published. When we talk about standards of evidence, we want a randomized clinical trial (RCT) to prove causality. It should be large, well-designed, and sufficiently powered to show statistically what is under investigation. If we have several RCTs which address a similar issue and are similar in design, then the highest standard of evidence is a meta-analysis of those RCTs. Again, a literature review is nothing more than a glorified book report. It's very helpful, but it's not "evidence."
-
He asked her to cite a study. She cited the "Standards of Care." He said these are just words, that they're not a study or a journal. That's false. I went down the rabbit hole on this topic not long ago and took extensive notes. This is the document she's referring to. It's an actual article 260 pages long, published in a peer-reviewed journal, and extensively cited. It's biased AF which is clear the second you read it, but it's a real thing.
2022 World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s (WPATH) Guideline (SOC8)
Coleman E, Radix AE, Bouman WP, et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. Int J Transgend Health. 2022; 23(supp. 1):S1-S259. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644
and, it's not the only guideline either. It's the main one. The Endocrine Society has a guideline as well. For context, this is a very well respected organization and their diabetes guidelines (among others) are very much well-respected standard practice documents. Of course there are European guidelines also if you really want to get into the crazy stuff coming out of the Netherlands which seems to be a nexus for a lot of this stuff.
"Gender-affirming" care is an twisting of medical ethics to support a political goal. What they're talking about doing is child abuse. But if we're going to have that discussion, it shouldn't be based on incorrect talking points from Eyepatch McCain. This just makes us look stupid.
Crenshaw's wrong on this. This lady should have been able to easily correct his error(s).
-
The highest standard of evidence is not a literature review. A literature review is just that, a review of what's been published. When we talk about standards of evidence, we want a randomized clinical trial (RCT) to prove causality. It should be large, well-designed, and sufficiently powered to show statistically what is under investigation. If we have several RCTs which address a similar issue and are similar in design, then the highest standard of evidence is a meta-analysis of those RCTs. Again, a literature review is nothing more than a glorified book report. It's very helpful, but it's not "evidence."
-
He asked her to cite a study. She cited the "Standards of Care." He said these are just words, that they're not a study or a journal. That's false. I went down the rabbit hole on this topic not long ago and took extensive notes. This is the document she's referring to. It's an actual article 260 pages long, published in a peer-reviewed journal, and extensively cited. It's biased AF which is clear the second you read it, but it's a real thing.
2022 World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s (WPATH) Guideline (SOC8)
Coleman E, Radix AE, Bouman WP, et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. Int J Transgend Health. 2022; 23(supp. 1):S1-S259. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644
"Gender-affirming" care is an twisting of medical ethics to support a political goal. What they're talking about doing is child abuse. But if we're going to have that discussion, it shouldn't be based on incorrect talking points from Eyepatch McCain. This just makes us look stupid.