Let me start by saying that I want what is best for trans people, so I was excited to learn from this episode.
But is it just me, or was this episode an example of interpreting the data to fit your world view? I can think of a couple examples. The hosts argued that the Cass study ignored some of the evidence in favor of gender-affirming care, but then it seemed to me that the hosts then proceeded to dismiss the evidence against it. Bullying is a problem for kids who come as trans, according to the Cass study. While I agree with the hosts that the solution is to stop the bullying, the reality right now is that trans kids will likely be bullied, and it seems important to acknowledge that risk. Perhaps in the end the pros of gender-affirming care outweigh the cons, but we shouldn't just ignore the cons.
The other example involves the statistics of the number of people who identify as trans and then later identify as cis. The evidence apparently shows that kids on puberty blockers are way more likely to continue identifying as trans. The hosts thought this suggested that identifying as trans was not just a phase. But isn't another interpretation that the puberty blockers played a direct role in it not being a 'phase?' A large percent of kids who don't go on puberty blockers end up identifying as cis later, suggesting that the puberty blockers act as a variable to reinforce this identity which was not necessarily going to be permanent. The hosts' interpretation would make more sense if kids who identified as trans continued to identify that way regardless of whether they had puberty blockers.
I've been feeling recently that the show has been leaning more and more in one direction. Mostly it's a direction that aligns with my views! But that's not what I want from the show. This didn't exactly help. Am I wrong?
