The Bethesda Declaration
science.org
science.org
Trans healthcare is far from a settled science, and there is a lot we don't know yet. Part of the reason for this is how new this is as an area of active research, a history of science on this topic being intentionally quashed[1], and frankly the relative low numbers of trans people in general. This is all despite trans people, like all queer people, exiting in some form or another since the beginning of recorded history[2].
I assume from what you said that you're referencing the Cass Review[3], a review of current literature in the area of trans healthcare, specifically where it pertains to minors. Further review of this publication[4] has shown it to have thrown away a much data, applied inconsistent logical standards to different arguments, and based a number of conclusions on disproven fallacies such as the concept of "social contagion". Yet even then it doesn't actually make the conclusions which you've implied.
To show my biases, I myself am trans and really don't like the Cass Review. It's based on bad science and relies on many misunderstandings, but even then it is *much* more even-handed than those who use it as justification for limiting gender-affirming healthcare like to claim.
Science is awesome, it's how we understand the world around us. Frankly I'd love to understand more about the origins of what makes someone trans, how to achieve better results when medically transitioning, ect. However it's important to recognize that not all published science is of the same quality, and that study replication as well as others reviewing published work is a crucial part of what makes science trustworthy in the long run. After all, that's what the Cass Review was trying to do in the first place.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissen...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Review
[4] https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/yale-researchers-internat...
What in the world makes you think that suppressing science is a “both sides” issue?
Can't speak for you but in my country the right is trying to kick poor people off of welfare.
It's under the guise of "balancing the budget" but it's done with fast cuts, no rolloff, no phase-out period. If they cared about the budget it would be done gradually. In my country the right wing is cruel. Bullies elected by a coalition of bullies and gullible folks and people who want revenge for imagined slights.
> It’s a circus watching this as a centrist.
If you think the left and the right are the same you need to watch closer bud
I mean, this stuff isn’t generally known, so at least link to something convincing if you want people to believe it.
That'll be RFK Jr., as HHS Secretary.
Good luck!
As if there wasn't politicization of science and science funding during the entire last administration. There was just more of an alignment of worldview between scientists and that administration. Scientists who didn't share the worldview or walk in lockstep still got oppressed and silenced.
Science should ALWAYS be free to ask questions and explore them no matter how uncomfortable they sound. And this is a huge overreaction to how the left politicized science their way and continued to say that’s it not political. And now they complain about it… can’t have it both ways.
Like when a google employee was free to ask questions as to whether it was that women don't like programming as much as men, and got immediately fired? Because of course the cause is sexism.
Like when James Watson had suggested intelligence was genetic, and if races differ genetically, so too may their intelligence... also fired from Stony Brook leadership. Because of course alleles that confer intelligence genetically are magically perfectly balanced in frequency across all races.
Not to pick on leftists for ruining careers, the right has done this to leftists as well - see David Bohm, a Pennsylvania native and at the time brilliant contemporary of Richard Feynman, who lived out his life in Brazil because McCarthyism got him.
Thing is, the left did politicize science, just read Nature: https://www.nature.com/collections/daficfhiff
Or you can read what you need to get a professorship: https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/eecs/commkit/faculty-application-...
DEI is essentially a commissar type system where one must pledge to the political officer allegiance to the cause, one where proletariat origins are favored over bourgeois. Trump's response is heavy handed but what is happening here is poisonous and insidious, insofar as outright hiring one demographic group over another is universally seen as evil, but hiding it behind a process of bureaucracy and good intentions somehow transforms it into virtuosity. DEI is basically a parasite that has infected many systems and hurt many people, it would be more elegant to simply remove the parasite, but Trump's tactic of taking a metaphorical flamethrower to the parasite and its host both will garner popular support given a lot of people have a bad taste from DEI.
But, scientists should not have access taxpayer funding to conduct whatever little experiments they want. There's not an infinite pot of money, and it is elected officials who decide how the pot gets spent. And in turn, the people decide who the elected officials are through the ballot.
The administration was elected. These entitled signatories were not. It is not for them to decide how taxpayer money is spent.
If you want to conduct science without politics, don't depend on taxpayer money to do your research. Find a private source of funding.