

He made a video describing hrt and saying it was safer to take testosterone blockers without taking estrogen for mtf trans adults. Which is established in medical science as a sure way to get osteoporosis.
He also claimed that knitting is a female hobby of old grandmas that had no impact in technological development of civilization. Both videos caused an online uproar and have since been delisted.
My criticism is not about who he is. But the general social conditions, like race, gender and orientation privileges that allow him to speak with authority without being put into question by the vast majority since his status is socially determined to be the default. This makes him particularly dangerous when he speaks of things he knows nothing of, or was just lectured about by an LLM, as if he is the level headed rational voice. When, more often than not, he isn’t. It is when he gets burned that he starts really avoiding topics, which is commendable at least. This is why he carefully avoids touching Palestine-Israel when talking about geopolitics (while also generally supporting a pro US neoliberal stance) or avoids talking about trans people anymore. He did a video on weaving and semi tried to apologize for the knitting thing, but unsuccessfully, since he glorified weaving as a male world of tech advancement unlike knitting.

I never said so much. I said he has a problem with speaking confidently without double checking himself because of the typical attitude that is socially taught to white cishet men. Which the whole AI thing has clearly highlighted. Again, I don’t dislike him as a person, I don’t think he is bad, I don’t think anyone is purely good or bad. But I think that, though commendable to use his privilege and status to platform diversity, also requires a modicum of caution before speaking. Science communications is one of, if not the hardest, topics of communication because of the great potential for harm if misinformation is given authority. Apologizing and changing to do better is fine, but when it happens over and over, it starts to highlight a pattern of carelessness and lack of impulse control. Science communication requires due diligence and deep nuance. On the contrary, he seems to have been aiming for a neck breaking pace of content creation, accelerating more and more as of late. When you rush, you make more mistakes, you risk doing harm.
If you want to know more, here’s a video from someone from the knitting community that articulates my gripes with the Green’s brand of slop better than I can in the limited space of a Lemmy comment. Edit:i also want to add this commentary to the pile, since the original video is delisted.
Here there’s a commentary about the whole HRT misinformation problem. I had also forgotten the whole «it’s misogynistic for trans women to claim they experience mood swings», it’s so erasing of personal experiences of all trans persons in general. Anyways, my point is that the Green’s are lousy science communicators, and I do think that race, gender and sexual orientation play at least a small part in that. They’re far from the first science channel to fall for that trap.