gresl

5 ms·

1.
by gresl 2y ago
> It seems like a decent amount of the evidence regarding puberty blockers was excluded for dubious reasons. The systematic review commissioned by Cass on the outcomes of puberty blocking interventions is here: https://doi.or
2.
by gresl 2y ago
> To be precise, the report excluded studies of blockers for not being blinded, in a recreation of the 2003 review of parachute efficiacy No, studies were excluded for being of poor quality per their rating on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale,
3.
by gresl 2y ago
A good recommendation, thank you.
4.
The sadness of Sceptical Man(thecritic.co.uk)
2 points by gresl 2y ago|1 comments
5.
Women in prisons deserve better(thecritic.co.uk)
3 points by gresl 2y ago|1 comments
6.
by gresl 3y ago
The small number of individual cases that highlight the flaws in the system are actually very useful. In the case of the fraudulent doctor, this caused the GMC to check all the other thousands of medical practitioners who registered under t
7.
by gresl 3y ago
No because we know that they aren't actually doctors, and it's just a nom de plume for their artistic output. Just like Dame Edna Everage, who you mentioned, that everyone knows wasn't actually a woman but a character played
8.
by gresl 3y ago
What about cases like this: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/10/fraudster-po... Should we refer to this woman as "Doctor", out of politeness?
9.
The hidden cost of pronoun politeness(thecritic.co.uk)
3 points by gresl 3y ago|6 comments
10.
by gresl 3y ago
The term "TERF" isn't really accurate though, it should really be "MERF", if such a term is needed. Point is, these radical feminists are excluding males from their feminism. I really don't see how that makes