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.
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.
I mean, this stuff isn’t generally known, so at least link to something convincing if you want people to believe it.
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?
freen•4h ago
No way anything even remotely critical of the current administration remains on HN.
eej71•4h ago
I ask these questions because in my experience here in HN and in most other related tech forums, the participants and those with the unlucky job of being a mod are usually not in tune with Team Trump.
esseph•2h ago
"We can't talk about that"
ameliaquining•1h ago
esseph•49m ago
It's fucking annoying, and arguably unethical and dishonest.
jonathanlydall•4h ago
djoldman•3h ago
In short: the internet certainly does not lack for politics-centered content. HN isn't it.
ameliaquining•1h ago
djoldman•27m ago
> What to Submit
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
So "Most stories about politics..." The guidelines are carefully written. If a story is political but has important tech ramifications, then it's likely on-topic.
Some posts are flagged that shouldn't be and vice versa. It's not a perfect system.
Is there a systemic bias one way or another? I'm not sure. I think people are just sometimes fed up with seeing stuff on HN that they're explicitly trying to avoid when they come here.
esseph•2h ago