Thus, the Review speaks a language that may seem familiar, but its foundations are pseudoscientific and subjective. For instance, unscientific evidence quality descriptors such as “weak” and “poor” were identified 21 times and 10 times respectively.20 The Review’s reliance on such ambiguous terms leads readers to draw their own conclusions, which may not be scientifically informed. Such terms also undermine the rigor of the actual research, which presents much more nuanced findings than subjective descriptors convey.

McNamara et al. An Evidence-Based Critique of “The Cass Review” on Gender-affirming Care for Adolescent Gender Dysphoria. Yale. 2024. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files…

This one is well worth reading in its entirety. More information: https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news…

— Hrefna (DHC) (@hrefna@hachyderm.io)