alt Hacker NewsYour statement is missleading.
She doesn't say she is an expert on trans-issues at all! She analyzed the studies and looked at data and stated that there is no real transpendemic but highlighed an statistical increased numbers in young woman without stating a clear opinion on this finding.
The climate change videos do the same thing. She evaluates these studies discusses them to clarify that for her, certain numbers are unspecific and she also is not coming to a clear conclusion in sense of climate change yes, no, bad, good.
She is for sure not an expert in all fields, but her way of discussing these topics are based on studies, numbers and is a good viewpoint.
The funding scam you mention is a reference of "these people get billions for particle research but the outcome for us as society is way to small"
Replies
> The funding scam you mention is a reference of "these people get billions for particle research but the outcome for us as society is way to small"
More specifically, even particle physicists admit that a 2x or even a 10x bigger accelerator is not expected to find anything fundamentally new.
The core criticism is that it has become a self-licking ice cream cone that serves no real purpose other than keeping physicists employed.
> for her, certain numbers are unspecific and she also is not coming to a clear conclusion in sense of climate change yes, no, bad, good.
Climate chance is settled science. To claim that "certain numbers are unspecific, so I can't say whether climate change is real or not, or whether it's good or bad" (which, based on your paraphrasing, is what it sounds like she said) is an unacceptable position. It's muddying the waters.
I'm not going to go watch her content about trans people, but it sounds like the same thing: Muddying the waters by Just Asking Questions about anti-trans "social contagion" talking points.
---
EDIT: Okay I went back and watched some clips of her anti-trans video. She takes a pseudoscientific theory based on an opinion poll of parents active on an anti-trans web forum and suggests we take it seriously because "there is no conclusive evidence for or against it," as if the burden of proof weren't on the party making the positive claim, and as if the preponderance of evidence and academic consensus didn't overwhelmingly weigh against it. It's textbook laundering of pseudoscience. You've significantly misrepresented her position.
Having studied physics does not allow you to evaluate studies in completely unrelated field in any meaningful way.
Especially not in such politically-charged fields that require deeper knowledge about the historical context, the different interest groups and their biases and so on.
Her video on trans-issues labels people that advocate for the rights of trans-people as "extremists" and presents transphobic talking points as valid part of the scientific discussion.
Her trying to appear "neutral" and "just presenting the science" is exactly the issue. Using her authority as a scientist when talking about topics she has no expertise in.
Here is a debunking of her video on trans-issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Kau7bO3Fw
Here is a longer criticism of her video on autism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaZZiX0veFY