My Medical Association Silenced My Views on Gender Treatment ⁠95%

By Karla Solheim⁠100%

8/5/2026, 3:29:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Fundamental Attribution Error, and False Dilemma, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 71.1% saturation with 113 hits. Analysis detected 563 faulty-reasoning hits from 159 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠95% (1,748 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 94.30% of the article peer group.

I’m a board-certified obstetrician, a lesbian, a mother, a lifelong Democrat, and up until recently, someone who placed immense faith and trust in the institutions that guided my profession. 
I served as the chair of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Iowa section for a year and a half, where I dedicated my time to expanding women’s health access to rural areas in my state. 
But in March, one of ACOG’s vice presidents called me into a meeting and told me I had a choice: resign from my position as chair, or stop publicly criticizing ACOG’s endorsement of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s guidelines for transgender medical care. 
I had come to realize that our profession was not doing the right thing by encouraging medicalization and surgery for transgender patients, when robust evidence that these treatments provided long-term health benefits did not exist. 
The choice was easy. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 22.0%Karla Solheim: 22.0%The FP: 4.9%Confirmation Bias22.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Karla Solheim: 6.8%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 9.9%The FP: 8.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 23.3%Karla Solheim: 5.8%The FP: 0.4%Status Quo Bias23.3%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 22.0%Karla Solheim: 5.5%The FP: 1.5%Pessimism Bias22.0%This article: 22.0%Karla Solheim: 6.9%The FP: 9.3%Negativity Bias22.0%This article: 41.5%Karla Solheim: 11.0%The FP: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias41.5%This article: 28.3%Karla Solheim: 7.1%The FP: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error28.3%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 20.8%The FP: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 18.2%Karla Solheim: 4.6%The FP: 0.9%Primacy Effect18.2%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 17.5%The FP: 3.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 28.3%Karla Solheim: 28.3%The FP: 2.3%False Dilemma28.3%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 22.0%Karla Solheim: 11.0%The FP: 7.8%Hasty Generalization22.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 8.5%The FP: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 22.0%Karla Solheim: 11.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof22.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.5%Karla Solheim: 0.6%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal2.5%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 28.3%Karla Solheim: 7.1%The FP: 2.2%Unattributed Quote28.3%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 71.1%Karla Solheim: 31.6%The FP: 13.6%Biased Writer Voice71.1%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 2.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karla Solheim: 0.0%The FP: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

159 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker28%attributed speech114writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words100% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+40.4 ptsWriter: 59.6%American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.