Transgender health care misinformation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_health_care_misinformation

False and misleading claims about gender diversity, gender dysphoria, and gender-affirming healthcare have been used to justify legislative restrictions on transgender people's right to healthcare. The claims have primarily relied on manufactured uncertainty generated by various conservative religious organizations, pseudoscientific or discredited researchers, and anti-trans activists.

Common false claims include that most people who transition regret it; that most pre-pubertal transgender children cease desiring transition after puberty; that gender dysphoria can be socially contagious, have a rapid-onset, or be caused by mental illness; that medical organizations are pushing youth to transition; and that transgender youth require conversion therapies such as gender exploratory therapy.

Misinformation has affected the decision of the United Kingdom to reduce the use of puberty blockers for transgender individuals. Elected officials in Central and South America have called for legislative bans on trans healthcare based on false claims. Misinformation has been platformed and amplified by mainstream media outlets. Medical organizations such as the Endocrine Society and American Psychological Association, among others, have released statements opposing such bans and the misinformation behind them.

Origins

Transgender healthcare misinformation primarily relies on manufactured uncertainty from a network of conservative legal and advocacy organizations. These organizations have relied on techniques similar to those used in climate change denialism, generating exaggerated uncertainty around reproductive health care, conversion therapy, and gender-affirming care.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the hub of the pseudoscience movement is the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, whose personnel have a large overlap with Genspect and the Gender Exploratory Therapy Association (GETA). GETA later changed its name to Therapy First. A report by researchers at the Yale School of Medicine described them as spreading "biased and unscientific content" and "without apparent ties to mainstream scientific or professional organizations".

Other notable producers of anti-LGBTQ misinformation and disinformation include evangelical organizations such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, the American College of Pediatricians, and the Family Research Council. These efforts have been aided by scientists who were once dominant in transgender care, but are now fringe such as Ray Blanchard, Stephen B. Levine, and Kenneth Zucker. Misinformation and disinformation about transgender health care sometimes relies on biased journalism in popular media.

Common misinformation

Detransition and transition regret

Main article: Detransition

Detransition is the process of halting or reversing social, medical, or legal aspects of a gender transition, partially or completely. It can be temporary or permanent. Detransition and regret over transition are often erroneously conflated, though there are cases of detransition without regret and regret without detransition. Detransition also does not require a reversal of transgender identity. Data suggests that regret and detransitioning—however defined—are rare, with detransition often caused by factors such as societal or familial pressure, community stigma, or financial difficulties.

In the United States and the United Kingdom, conservative media outlets and the Alliance Defending Freedom have promoted high-profile detransitioners and advocacy groups who claim that detransition and transition regret are prevalent. The global anti-gender movement has justified anti-trans rhetoric and policies by pointing to detransitioners, arguing they prove transitioning is a hoax or necessitate protecting transgender people from medical transition, distorting the findings that detransition is rare and often caused by social pressure. States in the United States have primarily relied on anecdotes to argue that detransition is cause for bans on gender-affirming care. Detransitioner Chloe Cole has supported several such state bans as a member of the advocacy group Do No Harm. Former detransitioners Ky Schevers and Elisa Rae Shupe have detailed how they were recruited by organizations and activists who used their stories to limit transgender rights before they retransitioned and started working against them.

Desistance myth

See also: Gender dysphoria in children § Persistence

The desistance myth is the theory that the majority of pre-pubertal youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria will stop desiring transition by adulthood without intervention based on biased research from the 1960s–80s and poor quality research in the 2000s. The myth relies on studies that had serious methodological flaws such as low sample sizes, usage of conversion therapy on the sample population, outdated diagnostic frameworks that conflated gender non-conformity with transgender identity, and poor definitions of desistance. Most youth sampled in these studies never identified as transgender nor desired to transition, but were counted as desisting.

The desistance myth has often been used to support the criminalization of gender-affirming care. The term desistance was first used for trans children by Kenneth Zucker in 2003, who borrowed the term from its usage in oppositional defiance disorder; there, it is regarded as a positive outcome, a history that reflects the pathologization of transgender identities. The myth was primarily popularized in a commentary by James Cantor in 2020, who argued based on outdated studies that most children diagnosed with gender dysphoria will grow up to be gay and lesbian adults if denied such care.

A 2022 systematic review found that the term was poorly defined. Some studies did not define it at all, while others conflated the desistance of transgender identity with the desistance of gender dysphoria. The review also noted that none of the definitions allowed for dynamic or nonbinary gender identities and that most of articles published were editorial pieces. It concluded that "'desistance' should be removed from clinical and research frameworks, as it does not allow for the varied and complex exploration of gender that is more reflective of reality". Recent work has found the vast majority of pre-pubertal children who express transgender identities and socially transition with parental support continue to do so in adolescence.

Transgender identity as a mental health condition

Legislative efforts to ban gender-affirming care in the United States have relied on the unfounded narrative that gender dysphoria is caused by underlying mental illness, trauma, or neurodivergence, such as autism and ADHD. Though transgender people have higher rates of mental illness, there is no evidence these cause gender dysphoria and evidence suggests this is due to minority stress and discrimination experienced by transgender people. The American Psychological Association states "misleading and unfounded narratives" such as "mischaracterizing gender dysphoria as a manifestation of traumatic stress or neurodivergence" have created a hostile environment for trans youth and led to misconceptions about the psychological and medical care they require.

Social contagion and rapid onset gender dysphoria

Main article: Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy

Illustration by Catherine Lockmiller of the cyclical pipeline between transgender healthcare misinformation and anti-trans legislation featuring ROGD as a case study

In 2018, Lisa Littman authored a study that has since been heavily corrected, arguing modern youth are experiencing rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), a new type of gender dysphoria spread through social contagion and peer groups. The study relied on anonymous parental reports on transgender children collected from websites known for anti-trans misinformation and gender-critical politics who were informed of the study's hypothesis.

The hypothesis has been heavily referenced in discourse about transgender youth despite the absence of empirical evidence to support it. As a result, a coalition of psychological professional bodies issued a position statement calling for eliminating the use of ROGD clinically and diagnostically in 2021. It stated that "there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents" and that "the proliferation of misinformation regarding ROGD" had led to "over 100 bills under consideration in legislative bodies across the country that seek to limit the rights of transgender adolescents" predicated on ROGD's unsupported claims.

Psychotherapy and conversion therapy

Proponents of bans on gender-affirming care in the United States have argued that youth should receive psychotherapy instead of medical treatments – including gender exploratory therapy (GET), a form of conversion therapy. Practitioners of GET frame medical transition as a last resort and argue that their patient's gender dysphoria may be caused by factors such as homophobia, social contagion, sexual trauma, and autism. Some practitioners avoid using their patients' chosen names and pronouns while questioning their identification.

There are no known empirical studies examining psychosocial or medical outcomes following GET. Concerns have been raised that by not providing an estimated length of time for the therapy, the delays in medical interventions may compound mental suffering in trans youth, while the gender-affirming model of care already promotes individualized care and gender identity exploration without favoring any particular identity. Bioethicist Florence Ashley has argued that framing gender exploratory therapy as an undirected exploration of underlying psychological issues bears similarities to gay conversion practices such as reparative therapy.

Multiple groups exist worldwide to promote GET and successfully influence legal discussions and clinical guidance in some regions. Therapy First (TF), previously named the Gender Exploratory Therapy Association (GETA), asserts that "psychological approaches should be the first-line treatment for all cases of gender dysphoria", that social transition is "risky", and that medical interventions for transgender youth are "experimental and should be avoided if possible". All of TF's leaders are members of Genspect, and many are also members of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), both of which promote GET and argue that gender-affirming care should not be available to those under 25.

Blanchard's transsexualism typology

Main article: Blanchard's transsexualism typology

In the 1980s and 1990s, Ray Blanchard developed a theory and typology of transfeminine people, classifying them as either "homosexual transsexuals" – straight transgender women who are alleged to be homosexual men who transitioned to seduce straight men – or "autogynephilic transsexuals", who medically transition due to an alleged sexual fantasy or fetish of being a woman. It was popularized in 2003 by J. Michael Bailey in his book The Man Who Would Be Queen and heavily promoted by the far-right Human Biodiversity Institute of which Blanchard is a member.

There is little to no evidence for the theory and it has been criticized on numerous grounds. Blanchard did not empirically derive the subtypes; instead, he grouped trans women based on sexual orientation, disregarded their lived experiences, ignored that cisgender women also report autogynephilia, sexually objectified trans women, and assumed causality – that transgender women have gender dysphoria and desire to transition due to their fantasies – rather than their fantasies being due to their identity. Studies have criticized the conceptual flaws and empirical errors in the theory. Transfeminist Julia Serano has summarized the debate: "If proponents of autogynephilia insist that every exception to the model is due to misreporting, then autogynephilia theory must be rejected on the grounds that it is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. If, on the other hand, we accept that these exceptions are legitimate, then it is clear that autogynephilia theory's two-subtype taxonomy does not hold true."

Untrustworthiness of medical organizations

Though every major medical organization endorses gender-affirming care, proponents of gender-affirming care bans in the United States argue that the mainstream medical community is untrustworthy, that it ignores the evidence, and that doctors are pushing transgender youth into transition due to political ideology and disregard for their well-being. This extends to claims that standards of care and guidelines from reputable medical organizations do not reflect clinical consensus.

Children are transitioned too quickly

Opponents of trans rights and trans healthcare have argued that gender-nonconforming youth are being pressured into transitioning. However, such care generally requires dual parental consent, a period of social transition, psychiatric assessments, and health provider approval. There are also a limited number of medical providers who provide gender-affirming care to youth. This has included claims that the medical transition of transgender youth is decided upon their own, incapable consent, though scientific literature demonstrates that clinical decisions heavily value communications with parents. This also extends to claims that minors are being given gender-affirming genital surgeries routinely. However, records of minors with such surgeries are very rare, and most of the recorded minors have been 17 years old with full parental support. Prior to the onset of puberty, children are only eligible for social transition, and puberty blockers are not given until puberty's onset.

In June 2023, the Endocrine Society released a statement emphasizing that "pediatric gender-affirming care is designed to take a conservative approach". It explained that younger children are supported in exploring their gender identity as needed, while medical interventions are reserved for older adolescents and adults, tailored individually "to maximize the time teenagers and their families have to make decisions about their transitions". They concluded that major medical organizations agree on waiting until individuals are their country's age of majority for genital surgery. Schools are medically transitioning children

In 2024, then US presidential candidate Donald Trump attended a Moms for Liberty rally and stated children were being given gender-affirming surgery at school during his election campaign, and continued to repeat the claim. As of September 2024, there was no evidence that any school in the United States had provided gender-affirming surgery to a student.

European nations are banning gender-affirming care

Among anti-trans activists and Republican politicians in the United States, a common talking point used to justify outright bans on gender-affirming care for minors is the idea that other countries, particularly European countries, have banned the treatments outright. This misrepresents the cautionary stance adopted by a few European countries: some medical groups have taken a more cautionary stance, discouraging or limiting the use of puberty blockers without banning or criminalizing the treatments, unlike many US states.

In 2023, the Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board, an independent non-governmental organization, issued a non-binding report finding the evidence for the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone therapy in youth insufficient and recommended changing to a cautious approach. The board is not responsible for setting healthcare policy; the Directorate of Health, the governmental body responsible for healthcare policy in Norway, is considering but have not implemented the recommendations. Misinformation that Norway had banned gender-affirming care proliferated on social media.

The child and adolescent gender dysphoria KID-clinic at Sweden's Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, the second-largest hospital system in the country, announced that from May 2021 it would discontinue providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to children under 16. Additionally, Karolinska changed its policy to cease providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to teenagers 16–18, outside of approved clinical trials. On February 22, 2022, Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare stated that puberty blockers should only be used in exceptional cases and that their use is backed by uncertain science. This new guidance is a recommendation and is not comparable to a ban on the treatments.

Additionally, other providers in Sweden continue to provide puberty blockers, and a clinician's professional judgment determines what treatments are recommended or not recommended. Youth are able to access gender-affirming care when doctors deem it medically necessary. Sweden has not banned gender-affirming care for minors and it is offered as part of its national healthcare service. However, misinformation that Sweden had banned gender-affirming care for minors proliferated on social media, and some Republican politicians in the United States have used this misinformation to justify their outright bans on the treatments.

Impact

Legislative impacts

Australia

Australian legislators and media have increasingly spread misinformation and disinformation about detransition rates since 2022, relying on the efforts of apparently astroturfed organizations such as Genspect and the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine and local groups such as Binary Australia and the Australian Christian Lobby.

Europe

According to Transgender Europe, as of 2024, member states of the European Union were broadly not moving towards bans and there was "significant disinformation around the real state of affairs" of trans-specific care in Europe, though transgender people were still often pathologized and mandated to undergo psychiatric diagnosis.

Norway

In 2024, a false claim that Norway had banned gender-affirming care for minors was widely circulated on social media. An independent non-governmental Norwegian healthcare board proposed increased restrictions on such care, but not an outright ban. It did not have the power to implement these policies, and the governmental body for medicine, the Norwegian Directorate of Health, did not implement any bans and was only considering the recommendations.

United Kingdom

See also: 21st-century anti-trans movement in the United Kingdom

NHS England commissioned the Cass Review, an independent review of the trans healthcare it provided. The review's final report (published April 2024) recommended tighter restrictions on gender-affirming care, such as restricting medical interventions to clinical trials, stating the evidence in favor of them was limited. The Cass review was welcomed by part of the UK's medical establishment, though some professional organizations, transgender health providers, and LGBTQ rights groups criticized the findings internationally. Besides criticism of its process for lack of transparency and exclusion of transgender expertise, the review was also criticized for its report's allegedly pathologizing language, claims that the evidence suggests the majority of pre-pubertal children with gender incongruence desist, endorsement of gender exploratory therapy, and implying poor mental health causes children to be transgender. UK charity Mermaids said that the Cass Review had been misrepresented in the press as supporting a ban on transition. Amnesty International UK criticized "sensationalized coverage" of the review, stating it was "being weaponized by people who revel in spreading disinformation and myths about healthcare for trans young people".

In March 2024, NHS England restricted the use of puberty blockers in treating children with gender dysphoria, only allowing them in clinical trials; and in May, the UK government enacted an indefinite ban on puberty blockers based on the Cass Review.

Latin America

Mexican federal deputy Teresa Castell [es] of the conservative National Action Party had repeatedly claimed that gender dysphoria resulted from mental illness or perversion and required psychological treatment. One party deputy pushed an initiative to ban transgender healthcare for minors and criminalize pressure from "an adult for the determination of sexual identity ... contrary to their biological identity" arguing that minors are incapable of knowing their gender identity.

In late September 2024, Colombian far-right groups and organizers who successfully lobbied against a national ban on conversion therapy spread a hoax that their Superintendent of Health had promoted genital surgeries for three-year-olds. Despite fact-checking from independent reporters, the President (Gustavo Petro), and the Superintendent of Health (Luis Carlos Leal), the hoax has continued to be popular.

In November 2024, many Brazillian politicians and political candidates relied on anti-trans rhetoric and misinformation during their elections, including claims that transgender children don't exist or are being co-opted into being trans by advocacy organizations.

United States

See also: 2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States

Map of US state laws regarding trans healthcare access for youth as of March 8, 2025 based on data from Movement Advancement Project

Misinformation and disinformation have led to proposed and successful legislative restrictions on gender-affirming care across the United States. As of November 1, 2024, 26 states in the United States have passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors while 16 have passed shield laws and executive access protecting such care. In December, the Supreme Court of the United States considered United States v. Skrmetti, a case on the constitutionality of Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Multiple doctors such as Stephen B. Levine and James Cantor—who have previously been dismissed by courts for promoting misinformation about transgender healthcare—testified in support of the ban together with various SPLC-designated anti-LGBTQ groups.

Media impact

Mainstream media outlets such as The Atlantic, Washington Post, and The New York Times have platformed and amplified misinformation, with the New York Times's coverage of transgender healthcare particularly criticized. In November 2022, WPATH released a public statement criticizing misinformation in a commentary from the New York Times. In February 2023, over 1000 NYT contributors signed an open letter criticizing the paper's coverage, which was signed by an additional 30,000 supporters within a week. They argued the paper "treated gender diversity with an eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic, charged language, while publishing reporting on trans children that omits relevant information about its sources" and noted how its articles had been used to support anti-trans healthcare bans. A second letter from GLAAD signed by over 100 LGBTQ and civil rights groups including the Human Rights Campaign and PFLAG was released the same day arguing that the New York Times platformed fringe theories and "dangerous inaccuracies".

Bomb threats against Boston Children's Hospital

Boston Children's Hospital was subject to bomb threats following disinformation about the hospital's gender-affirming care.

In August 2022, Chaya Raichik, owner of the far-right social media account Libs of TikTok, claimed that Boston Children's Hospital (BCH) and Children's National Hospital (CNH) were providing gender-affirming bottom surgeries to minors. With the BCH-related content, Raichik included a BCH video that featured one of the hospital's gynecologists explaining the procedure. While USA Today, NPR, and PolitiFact concluded that the BCH claim was false, several conservative outlets—including The Daily Caller and The Post Millennial—republished the claims. After the Libs of TikTok posts, both hospitals faced harassment of employees and bomb threats, though it was unclear whether either of the threats was related to the harassment. NBC News described Libs of TikTok as "one of the primary drivers of the harassment campaign" against BCH.

Responses from medical organizations

In June 2023, The Endocrine Society released a press release stating "widespread misinformation about medical care for transgender and gender-diverse teens" had resulted in 18 US states banning such care, including for adults. They stated: "These policies do not reflect the research landscape. More than 2,000 scientific studies have examined aspects of gender-affirming care since 1975, including more than 260 studies cited in the Endocrine Society's Clinical Practice Guideline [on transgender medicine]." The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Urological Association, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the American College of Physicians, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality, the American Medical Association (AMA), and the AMA's Medical Student Section cosponsored an Endocrine Society resolution "opposing any criminal and legal penalties against patients seeking gender-affirming care, family members or guardians who support them in seeking medical care, and health care facilities and clinicians who provide gender-affirming care."

In February 2024, the American Psychological Association released a policy statement urging that the spread of disinformation be curbed via more abundant and more easily accessible scientific research, describing it as essential for protecting access to gender-affirming healthcare.^[2] It further stated:

[T]he spread of misleading and unfounded narratives that mischaracterize gender dysphoria and affirming care, likely resulting in further stigmatization, marginalization, and lack of access to psychological and medical supports for transgender, gender diverse, and nonbinary individuals [...] [T]he APA opposes state bans on gender-affirming care, which are contrary to the principles of evidence-based healthcare, human rights, and social justice, and which should be reconsidered in favor of policies that prioritize the well-being and autonomy of transgender, gender-diverse, and nonbinary individuals[.]

In December 2024, the National Advisory Commission on Biomedical Ethics in Switzerland said that public outrage over gender-affirming care, often stimulated by people without the necessary knowledge and experience, was harming young people and impeding "objective and evidence-based discussion of the social and medical framework required to ensure that they receive the best possible support and care".

Homophobic propaganda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobic_propaganda

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (January 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Homophobic propaganda (or anti-gay propaganda) is propaganda based on homonegativity and homophobia towards homosexual and sometimes other non-heterosexual people. Such propaganda supports anti-gay prejudices and stereotypes, and promotes social stigmatization or discrimination. The term homophobic propaganda was used by the historian Stefan Micheler in his work Homophobic Propaganda and the Denunciation of Same-Sex-Desiring Men under National Socialism, as well as other works treating the topic.

In some countries, some forms of homophobic propaganda are considered hate speech and are prohibited by law. Other countries are openly homophobic and treat engaging in homosexual relations as a criminal offence.

History

Nazi Germany

Further information: Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust

Political attitudes towards homosexuals in Nazi Germany were based on the assumption that homosexuals were destroying the German nation as "sexual degenerates". Historian Erwin J. Haeberle dates the first appearance of this political attitude to 14 May 1928.

Categorized as a ‘biocracy’ by Maastricht University professor Harry Oosterheis, the Nazi regime was primarily concerned with the fact that homosexual men could not bear offspring—and therefore could not ultimately contribute to the spread of the Aryan race. Though homosexuals in Nazi Germany were not persecuted systematically, researchers estimate that around 50,000 homosexual men were convicted for "unnatural vice", and between 10 and 30% of this proportion were ultimately sent to concentration camps.

Law

Russia

See also: LGBT rights in Russia

In Russia, it is illegal to commit crimes against someone based on their social group, and LGBT people are considered a separate social group by law. Responsibility for it is established item 136 and item 282 of the criminal code of the Russian Federation.

However, on 30 June 2013, President Vladimir Putin signed into law a bill banning the "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations" among minors, and prohibits the equation of same-sex and straight marital relationships. Vice News claims that many LGBT rights groups have been transformed "from being a stigmatized fringe group to full-blown enemies of the state" in Russia following the introduction of this law, and that openly homophobic and neo-Nazi groups such as Occupy Paedophilia have been described by Russian authorities as "civil movements fighting the sins of society".

Norway

In 1981, Norway became the first country to establish a criminal penalty (a fine or imprisonment for up to two years) for public threats, defamations, expressions of hate, or agitation for discrimination towards the LGBTQ community.

The Netherlands

On 1 July 1987, in the Netherlands joined the Dutch Penal code, which established punishment for public defamations on the basis of sexual orientation as fees or imprisonment for up to two years.

Ireland

In 1989 in Ireland a resolution against anti-gay hate speech came into effect. It establishes penalty in the form of fees or imprisonment for up to two years for publication or distribution of materials which contain defamations, threats, hate speech or offenses for LGBT people. The law is occasionally taken into effect.

Australia

On 2 March 1993, in New South Wales, Australia, an amendment to the antidiscrimination law came into effect which prohibits public hate speech, despisement or ridiculing of homosexuals. A legal exclusion is any information which is distributed for educational, religious, scientific or social purposes.

On 10 December 1999, an analogous amendment was accepted by Tasmanian parliament, which permits no exclusion.

South Africa

In February 2000 the South African Parliament enacted the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, which prohibits hate speech based on any of the constitutionally prohibited grounds, including sexual orientation. The definition of hate speech includes speech which is intended to "promote or propagate hatred".

United Kingdom

See also: Section 28 and LGBT rights in the United Kingdom

Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 added section 2A to the Local Government Act 1986, which forbade local authorities from being allowed to "promote homosexuality", or "promote the teaching in any maintained school the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".

It was repealed on 21 June 2000, in Scotland as one of the first pieces of legislation enacted by the new Scottish Parliament, and on 18 November 2003, in the rest of the United Kingdom by section 122 of the Local Government Act 2003.

Spain

Spain's antidiscrimination laws have banned hate speech in regards to sexual orientation and gender identity since 1995. Discrimination, hate, or violence on the premise of either of the aforementioned factors is punishable by up to three years in prison.

Poland

Poland's ruling party since 2015, Law and Justice, has been using anti-LGBT rhetoric increasingly through the national media, comparing liberalization of LGBT rights to the ideology of the communist regime. Stigmatizing the acronym "LGBT" as "the Western ideology" has led to demonizing politically active LGBT people, in contrast to socially conforming, "normal" LGBT people. Subsequently, "LGBT-free zones" have been introduced in some regions, with the plea of securing the idea of a traditional or Christian family model.

Other countries

Other countries which ban anti-LGBT discrimination include Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Kosovo, Malta, Northern Cyprus, Portugal, Serbia, Belgium, France, Guernsey, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Luxembourg, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Norfolk Island, New Zealand, Fiji, New Caledonia, Micronesia, Easter Island, French Polynesia, Pitcairn Islands, and Wallis and Futuna.

Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

These contrails at an airshow provide evidence regarding the aircraft's flight path.

Evidence for a proposition is what supports the proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the proposition is true. The exact definition and role of evidence vary across different fields. In epistemology, evidence is what justifies beliefs or what makes it rational to hold a certain doxastic attitude. For example, a perceptual experience of a tree may serve as evidence to justify the belief that there is a tree. In this role, evidence is usually understood as a private mental state. In phenomenology, evidence is limited to intuitive knowledge, often associated with the controversial assumption that it provides indubitable access to truth.

In the science, scientific evidence is information gained through the scientific method that confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses, acting as a neutral arbiter between competing theories. Measurements of Mercury's "anomalous" orbit, for example, are seen as evidence that confirms Einstein's theory of general relativity. The problems of underdetermination and theory-ladenness are two obstacles that threaten to undermine the role of scientific evidence. Philosophers of science tend to understand evidence not as mental states but as verifiable information, observable physical objects or events, secured by following the scientific method.

In law, evidence is information to establish or refute claims relevant to a case, such as testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.

The relation between evidence and a supported statement can vary in strength, ranging from weak correlation to indisputable proof. Theories of the evidential relation examine the nature of this connection. Probabilistic approaches hold that something counts as evidence if it increases the probability of the supported statement. According to hypothetico-deductivism, evidence consists in observational consequences of a hypothesis. The positive-instance approach states that an observation sentence is evidence for a universal statement if the sentence describes a positive instance of this statement.

Nature of evidence

Notion

Understood in its broadest sense, evidence for a proposition is what supports this proposition. Traditionally, the term is sometimes understood in a narrower sense: as the intuitive knowledge of facts that are considered indubitable. In this sense, only the singular form is used. This meaning is found especially in phenomenology, in which evidence is elevated to one of the basic principles of philosophy, giving philosophy the ultimate justifications that are supposed to turn it into a rigorous science. In a more modern usage, the plural form is also used. In academic discourse, evidence plays a central role in epistemology and in the philosophy of science. Reference to evidence is made in many different fields, like in science, in the legal system, in history, in journalism and in everyday discourse. A variety of different attempts have been made to conceptualize the nature of evidence. These attempts often proceed by starting with intuitions from one field or in relation to one theoretical role played by evidence and go on to generalize these intuitions, leading to a universal definition of evidence.

One important intuition is that evidence is what justifies beliefs. This line of thought is usually followed in epistemology and tends to explain evidence in terms of private mental states, for example, as experiences, other beliefs or knowledge. This is closely related to the idea that how rational someone is, is determined by how they respond to evidence. Another intuition, which is more dominant in the philosophy of science, focuses on evidence as that which confirms scientific hypotheses and arbitrates between competing theories. On this view, it is essential that evidence is public so that different scientists can share the same evidence. This leaves publicly observable phenomena like physical objects and events as the best candidates for evidence, unlike private mental states. One problem with these approaches is that the resulting definitions of evidence, both within a field and between fields, vary a lot and are incompatible with each other. For example, it is not clear what a bloody knife and a perceptual experience have in common when both are treated as evidence in different disciplines. This suggests that there is no unitary concept corresponding to the different theoretical roles ascribed to evidence, i.e. that we do not always mean the same thing when we talk of evidence.

Characteristics

On the other hand, Aristotle, phenomenologists, and numerous scholars accept that there could be several degrees of evidence. For instance, while the outcome of a complex equation may become more or less evident to a mathematician after hours of deduction, yet with little doubts about it, a simpler formula would appear more evident to them.

Riofrio has detected some characteristics that are present in evident arguments and proofs. The more they are evident, the more these characteristics will be present. There are six intrinsic characteristics of evidence:

• The truth lies in what is evident, while falsehood or irrationality, although it may appear evident at times, lacks true evidence.
• What is evident aligns coherently with other truths acquired through knowledge. Any insurmountable incoherence would indicate the presence of error or falsehood.
• Evident truths are based on necessary reasoning.
• The simplest truths are the most evident. They are self-explanatory and do not require argumentation to be understood by the intellect. However, for those lacking education, certain complex truths require rational discourse to become evident.
• Evident truths do not need justification; they are indubitable. They are intuitively grasped by the intellect, without the need for further discourse, arguments, or proof.
• Evident truths are clear, translucent, and filled with light.

In addition, four subjective or external characteristics can be detected over those things that are more or less evident:

• The evident instills certainty and grants the knower a subjective sense of security, as they believe to have aligned with the truth
• Initially, evident truths are perceived as natural and effortless, as Aristotle highlighted. They are innately present within the intellect, fostering a peaceful and harmonious understanding.
• Consequently, evident truths appear to be widely shared, strongly connected to common sense, which comprises generally accepted beliefs.
• Evident truths are fertile ground: they provide a solid foundation for other branches of scientific knowledge to flourish.

These ten characteristics of what is evident allowed Riofrio to formulate a test of evidence to detect the level of certainty or evidence that one argument or proof could have.

Different approaches to evidence

Important theorists of evidence include Bertrand Russell, Willard Van Orman Quine, the logical positivists, Timothy Williamson, Earl Conee and Richard Feldman. Russell, Quine and the logical positivists belong to the empiricist tradition and hold that evidence consists in sense data, stimulation of one's sensory receptors and observation statements, respectively. According to Williamson, all and only knowledge constitute evidence. Conee and Feldman hold that only one's current mental states should be considered evidence.

In epistemology

The guiding intuition within epistemology concerning the role of evidence is that it is what justifies beliefs. For example, Phoebe's auditory experience of the music justifies her belief that the speakers are on. Evidence has to be possessed by the believer in order to play this role. So Phoebe's own experiences can justify her own beliefs but not someone else's beliefs. Some philosophers hold that evidence possession is restricted to conscious mental states, for example, to sense data. This view has the implausible consequence that many of simple everyday-beliefs would be unjustified. The more common view is that all kinds of mental states, including stored beliefs that are currently unconscious, can act as evidence. It is sometimes argued that the possession of a mental state capable of justifying another is not sufficient for the justification to happen. The idea behind this line of thought is that justified belief has to be connected to or grounded in the mental state acting as its evidence. So Phoebe's belief that the speakers are on is not justified by her auditory experience if the belief is not based in this experience. This would be the case, for example, if Phoebe has both the experience and the belief but is unaware of the fact that the music is produced by the speakers.

It is sometimes held that only propositional mental states can play this role, a position known as "propositionalism". A mental state is propositional if it is an attitude directed at a propositional content. Such attitudes are usually expressed by verbs like "believe" together with a that-clause, as in "Robert believes that the corner shop sells milk". Such a view denies that sensory impressions can act as evidence. This is often held as an argument against this view since sensory impressions are commonly treated as evidence. Propositionalism is sometimes combined with the view that only attitudes to true propositions can count as evidence. On this view, the belief that the corner shop sells milk only constitutes evidence for the belief that the corner shop sells dairy products if the corner shop actually sells milk. Against this position, it has been argued that evidence can be misleading but still count as evidence.

This line of thought is often combined with the idea that evidence, propositional or otherwise, determines what it is rational for us to believe. But it can be rational to have a false belief. This is the case when we possess misleading evidence. For example, it was rational for Neo in the Matrix movie to believe that he was living in the 20th century because of all the evidence supporting his belief despite the fact that this evidence was misleading since it was part of a simulated reality. This account of evidence and rationality can also be extended to other doxastic attitudes, like disbelief and suspension of belief. So rationality does not just demand that we believe something if we have decisive evidence for it, it also demands that we disbelieve something if we have decisive evidence against it and that we suspend belief if we lack decisive evidence either way.

In phenomenology

The meaning of the term "evidence" in phenomenology shows many parallels to its epistemological usage, but it is understood in a narrower sense. Thus, evidence here specifically refers to intuitive knowledge, which is described as "self-given" (selbst-gegeben). This contrasts with empty intentions, in which one refers to states of affairs through a certain opinion, but without an intuitive presentation. This is why evidence is often associated with the controversial thesis that it constitutes an immediate access to truth. In this sense, the evidently given phenomenon guarantees its own truth and is therefore considered indubitable. Due to this special epistemological status of evidence, it is regarded in phenomenology as the basic principle of all philosophy. In this form, it represents the lowest foundation of knowledge, which consists of indubitable insights upon which all subsequent knowledge is built. This evidence-based method is meant to make it possible for philosophy to overcome many of the traditionally unresolved disagreements and thus become a rigorous science. This far-reaching claim of phenomenology, based on absolute certainty, is one of the focal points of criticism by its opponents. Thus, it has been argued that even knowledge based on self-evident intuition is fallible. This can be seen, for example, in the fact that even among phenomenologists, there is much disagreement about the basic structures of experience.

In science

In the sciences, evidence is understood as what confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses. The term "confirmation" is sometimes used synonymously with that of "evidential support". Measurements of Mercury's "anomalous" orbit, for example, are seen as evidence that confirms Einstein's theory of general relativity. This is especially relevant for choosing between competing theories. So in the case above, evidence plays the role of neutral arbiter between Newton's and Einstein's theory of gravitation. This is only possible if scientific evidence is public and uncontroversial so that proponents of competing scientific theories agree on what evidence is available. These requirements suggest scientific evidence consists not of private mental states but of public physical objects or events.

It is often held that evidence is in some sense prior to the hypotheses it confirms. This was sometimes understood as temporal priority, i.e. that we come first to possess the evidence and later form the hypothesis through induction. But this temporal order is not always reflected in scientific practice, where experimental researchers may look for a specific piece of evidence in order to confirm or disconfirm a pre-existing hypothesis. Logical positivists, on the other hand, held that this priority is semantic in nature, i.e. that the meanings of the theoretical terms used in the hypothesis are determined by what would count as evidence for them. Counterexamples for this view come from the fact that our idea of what counts as evidence may change while the meanings of the corresponding theoretical terms remain constant. The most plausible view is that this priority is epistemic in nature, i.e. that our belief in a hypothesis is justified based on the evidence while the justification for the belief in the evidence does not depend on the hypothesis.

A central issue for the scientific conception of evidence is the problem of underdetermination, i.e. that the evidence available supports competing theories equally well. So, for example, evidence from our everyday life about how gravity works confirms Newton's and Einstein's theory of gravitation equally well and is therefore unable to establish consensus among scientists. But in such cases, it is often the gradual accumulation of evidence that eventually leads to an emerging consensus. This evidence-driven process towards consensus seems to be one hallmark of the sciences not shared by other fields.

Another problem for the conception of evidence in terms of confirmation of hypotheses is that what some scientists consider the evidence to be may already involve various theoretical assumptions not shared by other scientists. This phenomenon is known as theory-ladenness. Some cases of theory-ladenness are relatively uncontroversial, for example, that the numbers output by a measurement device need additional assumptions about how this device works and what was measured in order to count as meaningful evidence. Other putative cases are more controversial, for example, the idea that different people or cultures perceive the world through different, incommensurable conceptual schemes, leading them to very different impressions about what is the case and what evidence is available. Theory-ladenness threatens to impede the role of evidence as neutral arbiter since these additional assumptions may favor some theories over others. It could thereby also undermine a consensus to emerge since the different parties may be unable to agree even on what the evidence is. When understood in the widest sense, it is not controversial that some form of theory-ladenness exists. But it is questionable whether it constitutes a serious threat to scientific evidence when understood in this sense.

Nature of the evidential relation

Philosophers in the 20th century started to investigate the "evidential relation", the relation between evidence and the proposition supported by it. The issue of the nature of the evidential relation concerns the question of what this relation has to be like in order for one thing to justify a belief or to confirm a hypothesis. Important theories in this field include the probabilistic approach, hypothetico-deductivism and the positive-instance approach.

Probabilistic approaches, also referred to as Bayesian confirmation theory, explain the evidential relation in terms of probabilities. They hold that all that is necessary is that the existence of the evidence increases the likelihood that the hypothesis is true. This can be expressed mathematically as ${\displaystyle P(H\mid E)>P(H)}$. In words: a piece of evidence (E) confirms a hypothesis (H) if the conditional probability of this hypothesis relative to the evidence is higher than the unconditional probability of the hypothesis by itself. Smoke (E), for example, is evidence that there is a fire (H), because the two usually occur together, which is why the likelihood of fire given that there is smoke is higher than the likelihood of fire by itself. On this view, evidence is akin to an indicator or a symptom of the truth of the hypothesis. Against this approach, it has been argued that it is too liberal because it allows accidental generalizations as evidence. Finding a nickel in one's pocket, for example, raises the probability of the hypothesis that "All the coins in my pockets are nickels". But, according to Alvin Goldman, it should not be considered evidence for this hypothesis since there is no lawful connection between this one nickel and the other coins in the pocket.

Hypothetico-deductivism is a non-probabilistic approach that characterizes the evidential relations in terms of deductive consequences of the hypothesis. According to this view, "evidence for a hypothesis is a true observational consequence of that hypothesis". One problem with the characterization so far is that hypotheses usually contain relatively little information and therefore have few if any deductive observational consequences. So the hypothesis by itself that there is a fire does not entail that smoke is observed. Instead, various auxiliary assumptions have to be included about the location of the smoke, the fire, the observer, the lighting conditions, the laws of chemistry, etc. In this way, the evidential relation becomes a three-place relation between evidence, hypothesis and auxiliary assumptions. This means that whether a thing is evidence for a hypothesis depends on the auxiliary assumptions one holds. This approach fits well with various scientific practices. For example, it is often the case that experimental scientists try to find evidence that would confirm or disconfirm a proposed theory. The hypothetico-deductive approach can be used to predict what should be observed in an experiment if the theory was true. It thereby explains the evidential relation between the experiment and the theory. One problem with this approach is that it cannot distinguish between relevant and certain irrelevant cases. So if smoke is evidence for the hypothesis "there is fire", then it is also evidence for conjunctions including this hypothesis, for example, "there is fire and Socrates was wise", despite the fact that Socrates's wisdom is irrelevant here.

According to the positive-instance approach, an observation sentence is evidence for a universal hypothesis if the sentence describes a positive instance of this hypothesis. For example, the observation that "this swan is white" is an instance of the universal hypothesis that "all swans are white". This approach can be given a precise formulation in first-order logic: a proposition is evidence for a hypothesis if it entails the "development of the hypothesis". Intuitively, the development of the hypothesis is what the hypothesis states if it was restricted to only the individuals mentioned in the evidence. In the case above, we have the hypothesis "${\displaystyle \mathrm{\forall }x(swan(x)\to white(x))}$" (all swans are white) which, when restricted to the domain "{a}", containing only the one individual mentioned in the evidence, entails the evidence, i.e. "${\displaystyle swan(a)\wedge white(a)}$" (this swan is white). One important shortcoming of this approach is that it requires that the hypothesis and the evidence are formulated in the same vocabulary, i.e. use the same predicates, like "${\displaystyle swan}$" or "${\displaystyle white}$" above. But many scientific theories posit theoretical objects, like electrons or strings in physics, that are not directly observable and therefore cannot show up in the evidence as conceived here.

Empirical evidence (in science)

Main article: Scientific evidence

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientists tend to focus on how the data used during statistical inference are generated. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.

The burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim. Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings. This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter must defend the thesis against all challenges.

When evidence is contradictory to predicted expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized (see experimenter's regress) and only at the end of this process is the hypothesis rejected: this can be referred to as 'refutation of the hypothesis'. The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal evidence.

Law

The balance scales seen in depictions of Lady Justice can be seen as representing the weighing of evidence in a legal proceeding.

Main article: Evidence (law)

In law, the production and presentation of evidence depend first on establishing on whom the burden of proof lies. Admissible evidence is that which a court receives and considers for the purposes of deciding a particular case. Two primary burden-of-proof considerations exist in law. The first is on whom the burden rests. In many, especially Western, courts, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution in criminal cases and the plaintiff in civil cases. The second consideration is the degree of certitude proof must reach, depending on both the quantity and quality of evidence. These degrees are different for criminal and civil cases, the former requiring evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the latter considering only which side has the preponderance of evidence, or whether the proposition is more likely true or false.

The parts of a legal case that are not in controversy are known, in general, as the "facts of the case." Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case. The decision-maker, often a jury, but sometimes a judge decides whether the burden of proof has been fulfilled. After deciding who will carry the burden of proof, the evidence is first gathered and then presented before the court:

Collection

An FBI Evidence Response Team gathering evidence by dusting an area for fingerprints

In a criminal investigation, rather than attempting to prove an abstract or hypothetical point, the evidence gatherers attempt to determine who is responsible for a criminal act. The focus of criminal evidence is to connect physical evidence and reports of witnesses to a specific person.

Presentation

The path that physical evidence takes from the scene of a crime or the arrest of a suspect to the courtroom is called the chain of custody. In a criminal case, this path must be clearly documented or attested to by those who handled the evidence. If the chain of evidence is broken, a defendant may be able to persuade the judge to declare the evidence inadmissible.

Presenting evidence before the court differs from the gathering of evidence in important ways. Gathering evidence may take many forms; presenting evidence that tends to prove or disprove the point at issue is strictly governed by rules. Failure to follow these rules leads to any number of consequences. In law, certain policies allow (or require) evidence to be excluded from consideration based either on indicia relating to reliability, or broader social concerns. Testimony (which tells) and exhibits (which show) are the two main categories of evidence presented at a trial or hearing. In the United States, evidence in federal court is admitted or excluded under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Burden of proof

Main articles: Legal burden of proof and Philosophic burden of proof

The burden of proof is the obligation of a party in an argument or dispute to provide sufficient evidence to shift the other party's or a third party's belief from their initial position. The burden of proof must be fulfilled by both establishing confirming evidence and negating oppositional evidence. Conclusions drawn from evidence may be subject to criticism based on a perceived failure to fulfill the burden of proof.

Two principal considerations are:

1. On whom does the burden of proof rest?
2. To what degree of certitude must the assertion be supported?

The latter question depends on the nature of the point under contention and determines the quantity and quality of evidence required to meet the burden of proof.

In a criminal trial in the United States, for example, the prosecution carries the burden of proof since the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Similarly, in most civil procedures, the plaintiff carries the burden of proof and must convince a judge or jury that the preponderance of the evidence is on their side. Other legal standards of proof include "reasonable suspicion", "probable cause" (as for arrest), "prima facie evidence", "credible evidence", "substantial evidence", and "clear and convincing evidence".

In a philosophical debate, there is an implicit burden of proof on the party asserting a claim, since the default position is generally one of neutrality or unbelief. Each party in a debate will therefore carry the burden of proof for any assertion they make in the argument, although some assertions may be granted by the other party without further evidence. If the debate is set up as a resolution to be supported by one side and refuted by another, the overall burden of proof is on the side supporting the resolution.