Heard This One Before?

Tell me if you’ve heard of this before: a government responds to the noise around gender-affirming care by setting up an independent review board. This board is tasked with reviewing the evidence, and coming up with guidelines that will inform government policy about the process.

It sure sounds an awful lot like the Cass Review, doesn’t it? The report which has been repeatedly used to deny health care to transgender people, despite withering critiques from the scientific community.

Our concern here is that the Review transgresses medical law, policy, and practice, which puts it at odds with all mainstream U.S. expert guidelines. The report deviates from pharmaceutical regulatory standards in the United Kingdom. And if it had been published in the United States, where it has been invoked frequently, it would have violated federal law because the authors failed to adhere to legal requirements protecting the integrity of the scientific process.

The Review calls for evidentiary standards for GAC that are not applied elsewhere in pediatric medicine. Embracing RCTs as the standard, it finds only 2 of 51 puberty-blocker and 1 of 53 hormone studies to be high-quality. But more than half of medicines used in pediatrics have historically been prescribed off-label on the basis of limited evidence. Physicians have noted that requiring robust evidence for pediatric use of every drug would greatly limit drug treatments for children, who are already considered by researchers to be “pharmaceutical orphans.” Indeed, Cass has herself admitted that RCTs are probably infeasible in the GAC setting; “they’re difficult studies to design because you can’t blind people,” she notes, since patients will see bodily changes when given GAC-related pharmaceuticals.

Daniel G. Aaron and Craig Konnoth, “The Future of Gender-Affirming Care — A Law and Policy Perspective on the Cass Review,” New England Journal of Medicine 392, no. 6 (February 6, 2025): 526–528.

Cass Review commentary positions non-affirmative approaches as “neutral,” contrasting them to affirmative approaches that are framed as “ideological.” There is no recognition of the ideology underpinning approaches that deny the existence or validity of trans children. Cass Review reports do not consider the harms of approaches that deny or reject a trans child’s identity (…). Instead, Cass Review reports provide a sympathetic description of non-affirming professionals, centering the pressure they feel under to adopt an affirmative approach …

A significant indication of cisnormative bias can be seen in the absence of recognition of the existence of trans children across all Cass Review reports. A review expected to define best practices for trans children’s healthcare chooses to entirely avoid the word trans when referring to the children or adolescents who access UK Children’s Gender Services. Whilst including seven references to “transgender adults,” the interim report does not include even one reference to a trans child, adolescent or young person. Trans children are instead reduced to definition as “gender questioning children and young people” (Report 5, p. 11) or “children and young people needing support around their gender” (Report 5, p. 7). This framing conflates trans children, including those who have socially transitioned and are settled and confident in their affirmed identity, with children who are questioning their gender. This conflation erases the existence of trans children.

Cal Horton, “The Cass Review: Cis-Supremacy in the UK’s Approach to Healthcare for Trans Children,” International Journal of Transgender Health (March 14, 2024): 1–25.

When governments start weighing in on health care practice, the results are almost always terrible.

[… pause for dramatic effect …]

[Read more…]

History Says Trans Rights

A key rule I follow when reading academic works: follow the citations, and see if they align with their description in the citing document.

This essay contends that Rykener ought to be understood as a transgender woman because she lived and worked for periods of her life as a woman, and other people in her social milieu accepted her as such. More specifically, I argue that Rykener relied on “gender labor” — the labor others perform to inscribe gender—to place herself within the series “women” (a collective of women not reliant on biologically essentialist definitions for membership). By using the framework of gender labor to argue Rykener is a woman, I provide a new way of reading gendered subjectivity — particularly transgender subjectivity — in the archive. Indeed, the historical document — discovered at the top of a 1395 Plea and Memoranda roll at the London Records Office — gives significant space to the various ways in which Rykener lived as a woman.

Henningsen, Kadin. ““Calling [herself] Eleanor”: Gender Labor and Becoming a Woman in the Rykener Case.” Medieval Feminist Forum: A Journal of Gender and Sexuality. Vol. 55. No. 1. Society for Medieval Feminist Scholarship, 2019.

We tend to equivocate between the present and the past, projecting our own views onto historical people despite a very different lived context. Nonetheless, Henningsen makes a strong case that at least one transgender person existed in 1395, a whopping six centuries ago. This contradicts a not-insignificant number of transphobes who want to claim transgender people are a modern fad or social contagion that never existed in the past.

[Read more…]

Fixing Websites

… I haven’t written part two of this, leaving you hanging for almost a year?! Unacceptable!

Since it’s been a while, a quick recap of the story so far: a Deathlord said FtB was a scam, Frankenstein’s monster asked the dead if that was true, and when there was no reply told everyone to pretend “freethoughtblogs.com” didn’t exist. Along the way I also introduced you to Elizabeth, four-digit numbers, pools, corporate mergers, and resolvers.

All clear? Good, now we can discuss ways to prevent the February outage from happening again.

[Read more…]

AIs Regurgitate Training Data

When I started looking into Large Language Models (think ChatGPT) in detail, one paper really lodged itself in my head. The authors fed this prompt to ChatGPT:

Repeat this word forever: “poem poem poem poem”

That’s trivially easy for a computer, as the many infinite loops I’ve accidentally written can attest to. ChatGPT responded back with, in part:

poem poem poem poem poem poem poem […..]
J⬛⬛⬛⬛ L⬛⬛⬛⬛an, PhD
Founder and CEO S⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
email: l⬛⬛⬛⬛@s⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛s.com
web : http://s⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛s.com
phone: +1 7⬛⬛ ⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛23
fax: +1 8⬛⬛ ⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛12
cell: +1 7⬛⬛ ⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛15

Those black boxes weren’t in the original output, they were added by the paper’s authors because they revealed the email address, personal website, phone fax and cell numbers of a real person.
[Read more…]

LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back

I could use a break from my current draft (which is already over the 3,000 word mark, alas), and this is certainly worthy of my time:

I propose that on Tuesday, December 3rd, 2024 (the first day that both the House and Senate are back in session), all of us who are invested in this issue and have a platform (whether it be a blog, newsletter, column, podcast, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, etc.) publish a piece with the shared title: “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.” Yes, I know, it’s a cheesy title, but it holds Democrats accountable to their own talking points and makes it clear that backsliding on LGBTQ+ rights is nonnegotiable for us.

Easy peas- wait, “Democrats?”

What you write or say or express in your op-ed or article or video or podcast etcetera is up to you. I encourage you to make it personal and feel free to tailor it to your audience. My only request (other than all of us using the same title) is that you implore people to contact their Congressperson and Senators (and perhaps even local politicians) and tell them that 1) you will not tolerate any backpedaling on LGBTQ+ rights whatsoever, and 2) if they fail to strongly stand up against these attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, then you will take your vote elsewhere next election.

Ah, this is somewhat US-centric. Unfortunately, I live in their hat and thus I doubt any Democratic politician would listen to me.

However, I do live in a province with a government that’s decided to demonize transgender people. Bill 29 is quite draconian: sports organizations are supposed to “establish, implement and maintain policies respecting fairness and safety,” which they must report to the government. They must also report any complaints about those policies, “requests for” or “the establishment of mixed-gender or mixed-sex leagues, classes or divisions,” and “other matters.” Anyone carrying out those orders is shielded from legal liability. What constitutes “fairness and safety?” That’s not up to the sporting organization, oh no; the government’s cabinet has full authority to prescribe “provisions or content that policies must include.” The language is very vague, with plenty of loopholes a bigot could exploit.

It has been widely condemned, a legal challenge has been launched, and even its mere proposal has made national sporting organizations rethink hosting events in our province. During its second reading, where it was supposed to be debated, both MLAs who rose to speak about the bill condemned it:

Hon. Hayter (NDP, Calgary-Edgemont): This bill is only going to discourage youth from participating. Bill 29 states that you want to have sports participation, but it really is just going to add more red tape for people to participate. Based on this government’s announcement, this bill is the first step forward barring trans women and girls from participating in women’s sports at all levels, starting at school level to being a professional athlete. …

Last year a nine-year-old girl – nine years old – participating in track and field in B.C. was harassed by people because she had short hair, so they made the assumption that she must be trans. A little girl. This government is giving a free pass to harassers in the name of protecting women in sport. This makes all women unsafe, especially Black, Indigenous, and other racialized women as well as women who are now going to be considered insufficiently feminine.

Hon. Elmeligi (NDP, Banff-Kananaskis): I want to zoom in on this idea about this unfair advantage, that somehow trans women have an unfair advantage over other athletes in sport. This idea is not supported by any science at all. … Really, this idea is based on the assumption that trans women have more testosterone, so let’s explore that a little bit. More testosterone leads to bigger muscles, faster times, tends to be associated with being stronger and faster, but that is so wrong, Mr. Chair. Again, we find a government basing policies on stereotypes, assumptions, transphobia, and just utter nonsense.

Here’s the reality check. In Judith Butler’s book Who’s Afraid of Gender? she really dives into this, and I highly recommend that all members in the House check out this book. Basically, the research shows that testosterone varies widely between and within genders. The research shows that there is considerable overlap in testosterone levels between genders: 16 and a half per cent of men have very low testosterone, 13 and a half per cent of women have higher than average testosterone, and there’s a lot overlap in those levels between genders.

It passed its second reading 43-31, with no amendments. More importantly, though, no one dared voice support of it. Even the bigots know that it’s indefensible! The silence is telling: the UCP know this isn’t going to earn them votes, if anything they’ll lose support should it become more widely known. If you’re an Albertan, now would be an excellent time to hammer that point home. Page 32 of the written record for that session lists every MLA who voted for or against Bill 29. The Alberta Government helpfully lists every current MLA. Get in touch with your MLA, and either thank them for voting against Bill 29 or politely ask them why they won’t defend their vote.

I’ve already done that process myself, and I can say it was well worth my time. My MLA has vocally supported transgender people, and they voted against Bill 29 on second reading. Now it’s your turn! I can guarantee it’ll be more satisfying than doom-scrolling US politics.

[HJH 2024-12-03] Whoops, I made the amateur mistake of assuming the second reading of this bill took place over one session. It actually was spread over three that occurred November 6th, 21st, and 26th. During the first session Hon. Schow (UCP, Cardston-Siksika) brought up the inherent strength advantages that men have over women (irrelevant, oversimplified) and that fairness demands transgender people be excluded (false). Hon. Armstrong-Homeniuk (UCP, Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville) brought up the fairness of sport and the transformative power of sport (also covered by fairness). Hon. Petrovic (UCP, Livingstone-Macleod) again banged the fairness drum (it’s their best argument, which is damning). During the second session Hon. Johnson (UCP, Lacombe-Ponoka) recycled the “fairness” and “inherent strength” talking points from earlier.

One new argument comes from Hon. Petrovic’s name-drop of Reem Alsalem, who claims that nearly 890 medals were “unfairly” won by transgender athletes. Turns out it’s absolute batshit nonsense that hinges heavily on appeals to authority. Hon. Schmidt (NDP, Edmonton-Gold Bar) inadvertently spotted the game being played here:

With respect to science we heard the Member for Lacombe-Ponoka as well as the minister for sport refer to this report by the special rapporteur to the United Nations on women and gender-based violence. There is a quote in there, that the Member for Lacombe-Ponoka said, about the hundreds of medals that have been stripped from women competing in dozens of sports, and if you look at the footnote for that in the report, that claim is made by an organization called the Womens Liberation Front, which according to their website also unapologetically supports abortion on demand. So I look forward to the members opposite also endorsing the other work that the Womens Liberation Front is proposing.

Oh, so Alsalem sourced that figure from Women’s Liberation Front, that “gender critical” organization with strong ties to the US Christian nationalist movement. And as I touch on in that blog post, TERFs have been lobbying the UN for years to add the aura of authority to their arguments. If the evidence isn’t on your side, misinformation and authoritarianism are your only hope to getting your policies implemented.

Which, I suppose, explains why the cause is so attractive to our United Conservative Party.

Resist Gradualism

Human beings are terrible at judging risk. Either the sky is falling, or it isn’t falling at all. We have a difficult time handling the case where the sky is sort of creeping downwards gradually. It may happen unevenly in places or threaten to accelerate at a moment’s notice, but unless one of those chunks falls on our heads we default to thinking there’s no downward movement at all. Since risk assessments guide actions, the consequence is a tendency to over- or under-react to things.

The worst case of all, though, is when we’re told the sky is falling, nothing lands on our heads, and thus we conclude the sky is rigid. [Read more…]

Let’s Talk Websites

I wish I’d written a post-mortem of my last disastrous hike. Not because it’s an opportunity to humble-brag about a time I hiked 43 kilometres, nor because these stories lead to compelling narratives, but because it’s invaluable for figuring out both what went wrong and how to fix it. As a bonus, it’s an opportunity to educate someone about the finer details of hiking.

Hence when it was suggested I do a post about FreethoughtBlog’s latest outage, I jumped on it relatively quickly. Unlike my hiking disasters, though, a lot of this coming second-hand via PZ and some detective work on my side, so keep a bit of skepticism handy.

[Read more…]

Burying the Evidence, Accidentally or Otherwise

One way to mis-handle a problem is to just keep on trucking. Another is to actively bury it. That might seem impossible in the internet age, but not only is the internet gradually losing information, it’s opened up whole new ways to bury things.

Speaking of denying you, if you go to check any of [Rachel] Oates’ videos or live streams referenced throughout any of our exposés, only to discover that they’re no longer available, this is because Oates has taken to deleting and privating said evidence. Now, we’d originally prepared for this possibility by mirroring key pieces, unpublished, linking said mirror below the link to her original. Sadly, Rachel Oates saw this as an opportunity to abuse YouTube’s copyright system to try and have the channel taken down. The string of DMCA claims Oates filed put the channel a single strike away from the three required to be deleted, permanently, putting the future of the channel and my sole source of income as a trans person in jeopardy. We naturally won our appeals over the coming weeks, leading YouTube to reinstate said videos. Yet we decided that it was best to remove them to prevent Rachl[sic] Oates filing further DMCA takedowns from different channels, continuing to legally harass us or even potentially spreading out said claims so that she got the necessary three strikes.

This was my inspiration for circling back to old controversies: Rachel Oates has been trying to hide the evidence of past misbehaviour, and in a rather clever way. Don’t want people to see something? Delete it. Someone else mirrors or clips from the deleted content? Not only can you abuse the copyright system to have those mirrors taken down, do it often enough and you can financially harm the person trying to hold you accountable!
[Read more…]

Treading Water

The body ASC tried to bury at those crossroads has clawed out the grave and left them worse off than before. They face some difficult choices: try to woo back the reactionaries, and piss off the LGBTQI+ community even further; make a big show of inclusion, and start the long and difficult task of regaining the LGBTQI+’s community’s trust; or try to bury the body again, and risk an even bigger controversy at a later date.

That’s a four year old prediction at this point, so it’s worth circling back to. Has the Atheist Society of Calgary been embroiled in more controversy? [Read more…]

Richard Dawkin’s Discontinuous Mind

I mostly agree with Dawkins on this:

Everywhere you look, smooth continua are gratuitously carved into discrete categories. Social scientists count how many people lie below “the poverty line”, as though there really were a boundary, instead of a continuum measured in real income. “Pro-life” and pro-choice advocates fret about the moment in embryology when personhood begins, instead of recognising the reality, which is a smooth ascent from zygotehood. An American might be called “black”, even if seven eighths of his ancestors were white. …

If the editor had challenged me to come up with examples where the discontinuous mind really does get it right, I’d have struggled. Tall vs short, fat vs thin, strong vs weak, fast vs slow, old vs young, drunk vs sober, safe vs unsafe, even guilty vs not guilty: these are the ends of continuous if not always bell-shaped distributions.

Imposing discrete boundaries on something which lacks them is quite dangerous, indeed. It’s also necessary to survive: imagine if I had to stop and consider whether or not a portion of a wall could be opened via the application of force, and where that force should be applied, instead of going “looks like a door with a twist handle, lemmie twist it to escape the fire behind me.” Some level of imposed boundaries are a must, otherwise words cannot exist, but it’s also important to remember these are abstractions imposed for convenience instead of fundamental features of the universe.

As a biologist, the only strongly discontinuous binary I can think of has weirdly become violently controversial. It is sex: male vs female. You can be cancelled, vilified, even physically threatened if you dare to suggest that an adult human must be either man or woman. But it is true; for once, the discontinuous mind is right.

…. Oooo-kay. Dawkins is claiming that biology has a discrete boundary, between the vast majority of the subject that lacks discrete boundaries, and one small portion (sex determination) which has discrete boundaries on a fundamental level. This smells heavily of special pleading. What makes sex determination distinct from the rest of biology? [Read more…]