A couple of weeks ago, NY Times Pamela Paul wrote a 4,500 word anti-trans screed with the hook of teens and people who regret transitioning. Erin Reed has the definitive takedown, but the thing that struck me is that, if Paul’s op-ed had undergone anything like peer review, it would have been rejected (except perhaps at those eugenicist pseudojournals).

It wouldn’t have been rejected on ‘political’ or ‘ideological’ grounds, but because the quality of evidence provided is non-existent. For example, Paul cited two articles as evidence, both of which were retracted (and not after the NY Times published the article)–one by the journal after editorial review.

Like I said, peer review is not always a great system (e.g., the retracted articles), but it’s better than the NY Times op-ed review process.