The mindreading is completely unconvincing. Chait wrote 2000+ words full of argumentation on a bunch of topics merely so he could drop in a couple of lines in defense of Singal? And then you throw in Musk and Rogan because why? Pure tribalism on your part?

And then you charge him with strange sloppiness with the facts and with the science, while referring to science that isn't directly testing what is at issue?!

The Finnish study isn't that great, admittedly. The authors don't even draw the right conclusion, which is only that there is no apparent secret suicide risk from gender dysphoria: at least with the kind of attention to mental health you get in Finland, troubled kids are identified equally well in both groups. (If you read the limitations section, they admit as much in academese, but they don't alter their summary.)

But you recommended a list, and approximately none of them are even about children at all (I confess I got bored after reading the first 20+ abstracts and finding zero of them about children)! I'm not sure whether you're just unaware of the content, or whether you deny that there might be important differences between kids and adults, or whether you're being deliberately deceptive, or what, but this is just not helpful.

To say that Chait is committing journalistic malpractice and respond with evidence that isn't even as relevant to the issue as his evidence is just character assassination. Maybe inadvertent, but do your homework before condemning others for not having done theirs!

It's perfectly reasonable to call out Chait for actual flaws, whether they be moral, evidential, argumentative, whatever. It's also perfectly reasonable to echo and strengthen Chu's points, or give perspectives that aren't quite hers but make Chait's arguments less telling.

You have hardly done any of that. He might be wrong, but one would have no way to tell from what you wrote.