Jesse Signal:

The same thing applies to publications, from the lowliest tabloids to the most celebrated medical journals. And I think The New England Journal of Medicine is about to put itself into that camp.

I am going to slice off only one very tiny, very wrong piece of Aaron and Konnoth’s article, but there are so many galling problems with the whole thing that it’s taking every ounce of my self-control not to turn this into an extended diatribe. Luckily, the excellent writer Void if Removed published a thorough takedown on his Substack, and I highly recommend that you read it (and follow his work in general).

For now, let’s focus on this and only this:

The [Cass] Review calls for evidentiary standards for GAC [gender-affirming care] that are not applied elsewhere in pediatric medicine. Embracing RCTs [randomized-controlled trials] as the standard, it finds only 2 of 51 puberty-blocker and 1 of 53 hormone studies to be high-quality.

Just about everything in these two sentences is wrong.