Hacker News Reader

Comment by defrost | Hacker News Reader

The linked article itself is an opinion piece.

Reason does interesting stuff, sure, but no mistake it has a bias and that is a right centre libertarian view that loads factual content toward a predetermined conconclusion that individual free thinkers trump all.

As such they take part in a current conservative habit of demonising "Science" to undermine results that bear on, say, environmental health, climate change, on so on that might result in slowing down a libertarian vision of industry.

I still read their copy, I'm a broad ingestor of content, but no one should be blind to their lean either.

View on HN

Are you saying the linked is meant to demonize science? The impression I got was that he was doing the exact opposite: saying that SciAm's editorial direction was harming the public perception of science, which could have far-reaching effects. I don't see that as an anti-science stance.

The author's little trans tirade is a great example, and you can start with his "I'm something of a medical expert" line. Pure ideology.

I can't find where the author writes "I'm something of a medical expert". But for myself, I'm not up to date on the research. Does this article misrepresent the current state of scientific understanding?

> Most importantly, [the article] falsely claimed that there is solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates adolescent suicidality, when we absolutely do not know that to any degree of certainty.

There's solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates suicidality. Cherry picking from a single study is dishonest.

And unscientific.

To be clear - the accusation isn't SciAm was politicised, but that it was politicised in an ideologically unacceptable way.

I doubt we'd hear a squeak of complaint if a new editor started promoting crackpot opinion pieces about how all research should be funded by markets instead of governments (because governments shouldn't exist), or that libertarianism is the highest form of rationality.

I'll take its deeply-felt concern for science and reason seriously when it starts calling out RFK Jr for being unscientific. (Prediction: this will never happen.)

Did we read the same article? It literally has a section calling out RFK Jr, as follows:

> If experts aren't to be trusted, charlatans and cranks will step into the vacuum. To mangle a line from Archer, "Do you want a world where RFK Jr. is the head of HHS? That's how you get a world where RFK Jr. is appointed head of HHS."

What is this, if not an explicit call-out? I don't agree with or see a need to defend Reason very often, but what more do you want from them, here?

> I doubt we'd hear a squeak […]

Perhaps, especially in a dialogue specifically about scientific, reasoning and factual quality, we should avoid arguments based on counterfactual conjectures. A type of argument so weak it facilitates any viewpoint.

If you have even weak evidence, better to reference that.

> There's solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates suicidality.

Not at all true, there is no solid evidence of this. That's why it's so controversial, because ideologues are pushing for these pharmaceutical and surgical interventions on children despite the paucity of evidence.

> ideologues are pushing for these pharmaceutical and surgical interventions on children despite the paucity of evidence.

And you're pushing anti-trans propaganda that surgical interventions are happening on children despite paucity of evidence that it's happening. Not to mention lumping together puberty blockers with surgery, which you should not.

> And you're pushing anti-trans propaganda that surgical interventions are happening on children despite paucity of evidence that it's happening

It is well documented that it's happening.

See for example https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-tran..., specifically the section titled "U.S. patients ages 13-17 undergoing mastectomy with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis".

That's not propaganda, it's data from medical insurance claims. There is other evidence too, including peer-reviewed research published in medical journals, and recordings of clinicians discussing this.

It’s become something of a cliche to see this exchange: “it never happens”, followed by clear evidence of it happening. One wonders if it ever leads to the person questioning what other misconceptions they’ve been fed.

It's mainly the parents pushing for medical intervention. Keep in mind that the impetus is generally a suicide attempt or self-mutilation by their 10 year old.

There's nothing fun or trendy or exciting about this for child or family. Deeply embarrassing, far worse than getting your first hernia check if your memory goes back that far.

The one thing we absolutely did. not. need. through all of this were politicians and the peanut gallery weighing in on a private medical situation while ignoring the point of our effort.

Nothing in this article, and none of the comments here mention the life of the child in question. Too busy scoring points to think about reality or humanity in any way. What do you think that looks like from my perspective?

Yes, it absolutely does.

The Cass Review mentioned was composed by a group of authors who are well-known to be opposed to trans healthcare, its methodology and conclusions are heavily criticized by subject experts (basically, "there is no evidence if you ignore all the evidence"), and even Cass herself has stated after publication that it is flawed. It does not represent the current scientific understanding of trans healthcare, so criticizing SciAm and even calling it "dangerous" for pointing this out is rather dubious.

The Cass Review was written primarily for political reasons. It isn't a peer-reviewed article written by neutral subject experts, and it should not be treated as such. The fact that Reason treats it as ground truth and ignores all the subject experts opposing it should say enough about their view on science.

I don't think what you're saying is true. I'm unaware of any indication that Hilary Cass for example is opposed to trans healthcare, and indeed she's explicitly stated that she agrees some young people benefit from it.

Video with references talking about Cass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI57lFn_vWk

This video correctly states that the Cass Review explicitly supported trans healthcare in general. It does not seem to describe any particular author of the review who is opposed to trans healthcare. The host notes that Cass met with people who do oppose trans healthcare - but wouldn't it be problematic for a review of a new field of medical science to categorically exclude people who think it's bunk?

Not quite "medical expert" but the author does establish (or attempt to) as a leading figure on this topic in paragraph 11:

"This is one of the few scientific subjects on which I've established a modicum of expertise"

Long way from medical expert but it does imply a higher-level understanding of the science here. Whether writing a few articles makes someone an expert is up to the individual to decide.

"This is one of the few scientific subjects on which I've established a modicum of expertise"

It doesn't make it clear that the author's issue appears to be solely with the editorial opinion pieces and thus feeds into trending mythology that "(modern) science is bad", has replication, DEI, woke, etc. crisis.

This is the "old science" good, "new science" bad leaning that lends itself to ignoring climate costs and anything else that libertarians of various shades might object to.

What does diversity and trans and such have to do with climate science? They seem to be entirely separate topics.

You have to understand the current US culture context to understand the answer to that question.

Right wing propaganda outlets will often link topic like these with farcical statements similar to “from the people that brought you men in women’s’ bathrooms (trans) comes a demand that you get rid of your gas stove (climate change, indoor air health).”

You'd honestly have to ask the people that dislike modern science for it's acceptance of diversity, discussion of intersex genetics, publishing of climate science papers, and so forth.

They're vocal enough in forums about the place, near as I can tell these things are all harbingers of the decline and death of science as they know it.

I agree people should be aware of the bias of their sources (all of them), but there's no reason for anyone to be mistaken about Reason. (Please forgive the wording, I couldn't think of better.)

Unlike many other sources, Reason doesn't pretend to be neutral. They admit:

"Reason is the nation's leading libertarian magazine."

https://reason.com/about/

Does libertarianism take a position on transgender issues? (This seems to be one focus area of the article.) I can see the author has a strong view but I don't know how libertarianism informs it.

Libertarianism theoretically could go either way. Theoretically, do what you want with your bodies.

However, libertarianias as they exist tend to be socially conservative - somehow they end up agreeing with GOP position on social issues. In this case, convervatives hate trans people, so libertarians too.

Libertarians, at least the ones that subscribe to Reason, are not socially conservative. Just read a few articles and this is very apparent.

The 2024 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate was a pro-trans gay man.

> The 2024 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate was a pro-trans gay man.

And is pro-choice (but anti-government funding for abortion). And Reason seems positive about him: https://reason.com/2024/11/06/chase-oliver-calls-libertarian...

> exist tend to be socially conservative - somehow they end up agreeing with GOP position on social issues. In this case, convervatives hate trans people, so libertarians too

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think you're conflating a few groups that I see as distinct:

Republicans vs. conservatives, and

(Holding various views about the best public policies regarding transgender issues) vs. (hating transgender persons)

The anti-trans outrage was rather major aspect of public life in last two years or so. Manufactured from the conservative groups that set politicizes for GOP, the ones that set the agenda. As far as public political life goes, these things are quite related and quite large source of votes for republican party. And it is very consistent - range goes somewhere between "not talking about it at all" to "being vocal in the outrage". However, I have yet to see politicians or public intellectuals on that side of spectrum to defend trans people or defend policies that makes life easier for trans people.

And just about last thing that is productive is to play again the euphemism game where we pretend that side of political spectrum does not mean what they say when it sounds ugly. We played it with abortions and it turned out, yep, they wanted to make them illegal and actually succeeded.

I hope this view is "people are free to do whatever they want", because if libertarianism is only about ownership freedom, it would be the less consistent ideology ever.

Any serious libertarian would say it (like most things) is absolutely none of the government's concern, at least with regards to consenting adults. There's probably a range of views when it comes to kids, though. Conversely, they wouldn't be interested in having the government policing the treatment of trans people between private parties, so they'd oppose things like legislation that protects them (or anyone) from discrimination in hiring, as an example.

FWIW, the author - Jesse Singal - is a writer I've followed for a while. I like him a lot - I find him level-headed and intellectually honest. I don't think he'd characterize himself as a libertarian rather than a liberal, despite being published by Reason here. He's just a science writer who ended up on the "trans kids healthcare" beat and has written about it extensively. I think he'd characterize his position as just "a lot of medical treatments for kids are being pushed on [in his opinion] flimsy science for [in his opinion] ideological reasons"; and he'd say that this is a scientific position rather than a political one. Of course he takes a lot of crap for this, and of course he's also attracted a fanbase of bozos for this. But his writing, generally, deserves better than either.

Libertarians have a "my body my choice" position for things like raw milk and vaccines, and a "no you shouldn't be allowed that" position for abortion and hormones, because they've ended up on the rightwing side of the culture war.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com