I took a look at Tony's "debunking", here's how he did it in his Substack:
"could not legally or medically transition ... likely all ... I myself"
So he debunks the published research by inventing reasons he thinks it doesn't count. (I challenge Tony to explain anything about this supposed law that outlawed child transition, something Tony implies did not yet exist, when it was enacted and when it was repealed... edit: if Tony simply means that parents could not "correct" children's records then he should probably attempt to explain cases like David Reimer)
Then Tony goes on to attack Kenneth Zucker with a report that CAMH apologized for and gave Zucker over half a million dollars in damages for publishing (troons never mention this part, but Jesse Singal does which is stochastic terrorism):
Tony also doesn't tell his readers that Zucker was on the DSMV panel that made the changes he says invalidate the research and that the APA issued a statement saying that despite Tony's belief that "his practices and history paint a difference picture" Zucker has never supported conversion therapy:
Tony goes on to make the claim that Zucker's "clear ideological motivations" and the "impossibility of youth transition" (which seems to indicate Tony thinks Zucker fabricated the existence of the patients at his clinic which makes you wonder why Tony says Canada had to shut it down) make his peer-reviewed research "false and useless in current research" whatever that means:
Tony then returns to his "impossibility" argument to argue that nothing in the past counts because children could not "meaningfully" transition back then like they can now (at no point does Tony ever outline what this means) as I assume a way to handwave that these were actual patients that existed:
Tony points to the larger sample size of a recent study as a whopping 317:
They were an average age of eight years old and had to have already "made a 'complete' binary social transition" to even be included in the survey:
Even better? Tony rejects Zucker and prior studies for using the DSMIV criteria because DSMV didn't yet exist and suggests that new studies are better because they use DSMV, his "prestigious" study did not use DSMV criteria because the parents reject it out of "clear ideological motivations":
The study uses the very criteria Tony rejected in his debunking:
The commenters are big fans of Tony being either completely stupid or actively malicious:
I find it funny that Tony did not like this completely wrong comment that suggested he knew what he was talking about:
Congrats to Elizabeth Broekemeier's daughter and her skeleton!
