Here we see Jesse Singal take the side of Zucker, pretending that Zucker's claim that he didn't take naked photographs of children and disseminate them didn't happen. Again, he knows this is false due to the Tannehill article outlying the report on CAMH's practices.
1 / 2
Comments
Jesus fucking Christ, what the fuck?!
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kenneth-Zucker/publication/14488780_Physical_attractiveness_of_girls_with_gender_identity_disorder/links/56cbea3e08aee3cee54196d7/Physical-attractiveness-of-girls-with-gender-identity-disorder.pdf
"Square slides," "from the chest up," lots of supporting citations of facial attractiveness literature - if I were reviewing a paper like this, I would assume they were working with headshots based on what they said.
Also, this somehow isn't considered distribution of child pornography. What's going on, Ontario?
...
jesusfuckingchrist
Had a read; there were 4 groups.
One group of transgender people with gender affirming care.
3 groups of cis people.
The trans group had higher suicide rates.
This was not testing what they thought it was.
Basically they had no non-gender affirming care trans group to compare. Therefore that claim couldn’t be made
Why did he have photos of his patients?
And why didn't he have his license taken away for photographing his patients then showing them to students to ask if how hot they are??
And a flip through the citations only makes it worse.
I almost hope it's because they didn't bother to read it, or Zucker lied about it. We can't even assume it was purely transphobia blinding them, because the control is cis kids.
Because at best he used stock models, which would invalidate the study even if it weren't already abhorrent.
The trauma all this caused still hangs heavy over so many trans people in Ontario.
As “wtf” as this is, this isn’t surprising to see. At all.
(It did allege that Zucker asked intrusive sexual questions; and pressured a trans boy to remove his shirt in front of clinicians.)