United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
Its important to note that the evidence is there, they just applied an impossible and unethical standard to it to dismiss all but one study. Of those identified to be involved in this report, multiple conversion therapist organisations were consulted but no trans advocacy organizations.
The way in which they dismissed the evidence was notably the exclusion of double blind studies. Imagine if they said the same of cancer treatments.
I'd have to look at their exact rationale to know for sure why they excluded those studies.
Unfortunately disproportionately high standards for evidence isn't a new thing in the UK medical establishment though, NICE's recent rejection of ketamine for depression was pretty shaky IMO.
In this case, they used an adaptation of Newcastle Ottowa scale, however they didn't provide an appendix of what those adaptations actually were. The specific points were raised that the studies weren't double blind, which would obviously be a violation of basic ethics in this case. There were multiple conversion therapists involved in the report so its pretty reasonable to assume malicious intent.
Ah, okay, I misunderstood what you meant by "The way in which they dismissed the evidence was notably the exclusion of double blind studies." I thought you meant they had excluded studies for being double blind, which would obviously be quite weird.
It's frustratingly common in mental health (which gender dysphoria is still officially considered) for regulators to demand double blind studies, no matter how strong the evidence from observational studies is.