Five years later, I am heartened by so many individuals and organizations pushing back. A trickle of truth has started to drip into the NYT--mostly in the comments section.
Does my friend group in my blue zone read the Substacks that I read? No.
The parents that promote trans in their children, or even in young adult children--they are a force that won't back down, no matter the harms.
There have been many medical, or "medical" practices that were mainstream in the past and then, sooner or later (often much later than made any sense) it was realized that they caused great harms, and they were discontinued. Lobotomies, using mercury and aresenic as medicines... That continues today, if one dares to look closely, in many forms. The question with each one of these is, what does it take to let go of cherished beliefs of benefit, even when the evidence of harms, small or large, is clearly evident?
More broadly, what does it take to change one's own mind, let alone those of others? A cherished belief can be tenacious, and when the concerns of one's own ego and the pressure of one's peers are added to that, whither goeth truth? This is not a new conundrum, but those who are well-educated and generally regarded as intelligent must self-examine and lead the way, for the good of our children at least.
As a liberal who is totally against what I believe to be child abuse as well as a big money making scam and a dangerous authoritarian movement , I agree with this report. It took several years during which this so-called “gender affirming care” was quietly hidden, for people to recognize what was going on. Now , even Facebook has postings about the trans ideology. That is progress and I hope this harmful practice is on its way out .
Appreciate the Party of Science approach. Very clear appeal to rational readers of The NY Times and Boston Globe.
The people I know deep in the gender world have become more and more religious sounding. They don’t seem to care about the facts, and value faith in the gender cure. Feels very much like someone clinging to a snake oil salesman tonic that turns out to be alcohol and toxic substances. Questioning their belief in the cure is considered blasphemous.
Excellent piece! I think the party-line toeing left really needs to ask itself how it can be true that normal people asking questions that would have been mainstream ten years ago can now be easily categorized (and dismissed) as monstrous, genocidal, and hateful. If we had allowed for good-faith discussions all along, we wouldn't be in this sad situation. Appreciate all your efforts to keep the conversation sane.
Thanks for this! It's tough to see this "gender-affirming" stuff infiltrate otherwise credible sources and pull otherwise reasonable people into an untenable position. As an old liberal and a scientist -- it's worrisome the conversations with my some of peers on this topic are not easy. There is great reluctance to admit that the "other side" has reality in its corner, unusual though that may be. In this area Democrats gave away their position of following the best science -- and this on a topic that could be decided on sheer obviousness. Women's rights , gay sexual identity and child safe-guarding -- abandoned to cater to a chancy, narcissistic cabal. And if we push back, we are called right-wing and worse.
An op-ed of yours in the Globe is what "peaked" me 5 years ago, Lisa. I've been down the gender rabbit hole ever since. I know it's an uphill battle but you're doing good, important work and every time I read another one of your op-eds I think "this is going to get someone's attention like it got mine". Keep fighting the good fight. I'm with you and so are a lot of others.
No one wants to admit they were wrong about something, especially when it involves saying that the people you see as your enemies are right. And we have to admit that some of the loudest people speaking out are people who make saying "you were right" or "I agree with you" not an easy thing to do. On top of that, this issue is somewhat unique in that it has almost endless ways to pivot to a completely different argument supporting it if you are presented with evidence that is difficult to counter. I think the only way we're going to get liberals (and the independents and conservatives) who support this to reconsider is to create a path back that lets them save face and feel like they're still the good guys. I know that is an extremely bitter pill to swallow but if I look at this from a coldly logical and pragmatic perspective, I think it's the only way to get enough people to see the truth of the harm that's going on.
I worry that “little evidence” can be read by normies as “well, they just have to do more studies.”
I wish there were more emphasis on “evidence of harm” but so many of the harms take years to unfold, and many patients insist the harms are worth it. Only studies measuring actual medical impacts will show this but there seems to be no entity able to?
The HHS report, the point of her article, talks a lot about harms, in one place, one chapter. E.g., it is known that doses of these sorts of steroids outside of normal ranges are harmful to the body.
Exulansic, one of our sister substack blogger and YouTubers, has been posting information on those who got "affirmation" and had body modifications to "embody" an opposite sex persona. Then they committed suicide. Often with no warnings or known periods of intense depression, according to the family members writing the obituaries. Most of this list is comprised of women in their late teens or early 20s, who had double mastectomies, though there are some natal males, like Yarden Silviera. His "bottom surgeries" were a medical failure and he'd lived through bouts of sepsis. Exulansic now posits that the females who continued to have deep depression once the euphoria evaporated, have been affected by the loss of the breast tissue, which produces prolactin. Prolactin has a role in the dopamine cycle, dopamine being a "feel good" hormone. The scars from these mastectomies add to the physical discomfort in these female patients. While this is a theory and no studies currently examine the loss of prolactin through breast tissue removal, I find it a logical theory--this list of post-medicalized suicides is now approaching 80. Trans ideologues immediately blame the gender critical flank, claiming "minority stress" is the cause of the suicides. This is typical gaslighting, as trans ideologues are the first to defame and excommunicate detransitioners.
Fear is, no doubt, part of it. I would add an all to ready acceptance of what is taught in graduate schools on the topic. If your professor seems certain that GAC is the solution to gender dysphoria, students assume it must be true. But where is the curiosity, the pushback, the critical thinking, the "show me the evidence" attitude that should be foundational to graduate education in the professions.
Thanbks for the effort in diving into the lengthly report!
We need to understand better the psychology of the affirmers as a way of immunizing society for a repeat. Its not enought to just say the trans issues is conflated with gay acceptance. Why are reasonably thoughtful and compassionate providers so content with a facile surface equivalence?
I can suggest a few reasons why from the perspective of a clinical psychologist. Working with these young people and their families is difficult and often thankless within a toxic culture of cancellation and doxing. And since the current “wisdom” is to provide “gender affirming care” lest a clinician be accused of practicing conversion therapy, very few who possess the required professional experience and skill will open themselves up for the kind of risk that doing this work comes with.
I should also add that the field was therefore left wide open to less experienced clinicians who were trained in institutions where models that prioritize social justice became elevated over rigorous standards of professional practice and ethics. To complicate matters more, the requirement for ongoing formal supervision has atrophied in the past quarter century, so newer clinicians don’t have access to the kind of support that these difficult cases necessitate.
Children (most of whom would grow up to be gay) can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can "consent" to have sex with an adult. Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve their participation in pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not. It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions.
An excellent post. I only wish if you are going to make disparaging remarks about RFK Jr.'s "science" credentials - that you point to the specific evidence for such remarks. It is disheartening to see such casual character assassination carried out by people whose work I otherwise deeply respect.
It's certainly not "character assassination" so much as general public knowledge for those who have cared to follow his activities in the past two decades. The "specific evidence" would be so overwhelming as to hijack the essay. He has been prolific and not necessarily consistent in his nonsense. One might start with his HIV denialism, denialism of germ theory of infectious disease in general, and consider misguided comments and actions regarding vaccines and infectious disease, including the conspicuous inaction on the USA measles outbreaks. His autism stuff -- useless -- there are actually people who have been thinking and working on autism types, sources/causes, remedies -- in careful, enormous detail -- for decades. He seems to be willfully ignorant of that.
All you've "proved" Tom is that you're a faithful MSM consumer. The Hudson River today is no longer an open waste deposit and sewer because RFK Jr. spent years - using "science" - in lodging and winning court cases to stop the pollution and to counter the bought and paid for "corporate science" denying such pollution was problematic. You double down on character assassination with words like "denialism" and "nonsense" and of course can't/don't provide a single example of - for example - how RFK Jr. wanting placebo controlled trials of childhood vaccines is somehow "misguided" in some way. You're simply parroting the same evidence-free attacks that big pharma peddles daily in all the MSM outlets whose reporting they compromise with their massive advertisement spending. Before you accuse others of being "willfully ignorant" I'd suggest you look more closely into the psychological defense mechanism of - "projection."
I'm deeply trained in the relevant science, with a Ph.D. in a medically adjacent field at a major cancer research center in a leading university medical school. I've been following these issues for decades. So...whatever.
And still you fail to provide a single example of why you disparage RFK Jr. because his "science" is somehow flawed. Have you read his book on Fauci and the state of the American regulatory agencies? Were Kennedy's endless examples of Fauci's and agency corruption and criminality off base or inaccurate he would have surely been sued to hell and back again - but instead not a peep out of the MSM in response to the material on Fauci's role in the complete corruption of our medical regulatory agencies.
You clearly must understand that the same MSM that daily openly lies about gender-ideology while minimizing the damage being done because of it can't be trusted - but when those VERY SAME pharma bought and paid for MSM lie about and misquote and smear Kennedy for daring to question the impacts of their regulatory capture - you just assume the media must be telling the truth? Really? How exactly does that work? No cognitive dissonance? No questions about what conflicts of interest might be at play? Just complete credulity when faced with whatever propaganda the MSM pumps out to thwart any examination of why our nation and our children might have such abysmal health and health outcomes?
PS - why should I or anyone trust your claim of "credentials" - and yet not trust the many doctors, endocrinologists, surgeons, and psychiatrists who claim their "credentials" somehow make them "trusted experts" on the need the mutilate young people in service to the gender-gods? : /
a bit of logic here: just because Fauci had weaknesses and errors does not mean the RFK is correct to jettison serious autism research.
The environmental work RFK did is very important. He established the River Keepers network, for example. And yet he works within the Trump admin, which is jettisoning all sorts of environmental laws & policies.
Sedentary lifestyle, diet, environmental toxins: sure all of this is horrible for the general health of Americans. Too bad RFK can't actually promote health-- and can't because the administration he works with does not believe in the benefits of a healthy environment-- without also endangering people.
"logic" suggests that rather than jettisoning "serious autism research" RFK is interested in conducting autism research that doesn't come gift wrapped by pharma corporations and those "scientists" it has bought and paid for. And to refer to Fauci's lies, corruption and actual criminal behavior as "weaknesses and errors" suggest you actually know very little about the man's history. You have to be careful with bringing "logic" into play - as it doesn't really care about your "opinions" - but rather the "facts" of the matter. But perhaps you can explain just how RFK is "endangering people?" Inquiring minds would love to know. : /
My advice to men who think they are women. If you think that, there are a few things that you need to understand. First of all is that you are still a man because you can't change your biological sex. It's okay to dress any way you wish and to adopt any superficial, stereotypical attributes of women that you desire. Live your life. No one should care, I certainly don't.
However, because women are entitled to be treated fairly and to enjoy privacy from men there are certain things that are prohibited to you and me because we are men. You can't compete against women in most sports because it would be unfair. You can't go into women's private places like restrooms and locker rooms because that would make them feel unsafe. Finally, if you are a criminal you certainly can't be imprisoned with women.
That's it, just like me.
BTW, being men we are considered by many to be among the most privileged individuals in the world. Enjoy your status.
Five years later, I am heartened by so many individuals and organizations pushing back. A trickle of truth has started to drip into the NYT--mostly in the comments section.
Does my friend group in my blue zone read the Substacks that I read? No.
The parents that promote trans in their children, or even in young adult children--they are a force that won't back down, no matter the harms.
True Believers don't care about facts.
There have been many medical, or "medical" practices that were mainstream in the past and then, sooner or later (often much later than made any sense) it was realized that they caused great harms, and they were discontinued. Lobotomies, using mercury and aresenic as medicines... That continues today, if one dares to look closely, in many forms. The question with each one of these is, what does it take to let go of cherished beliefs of benefit, even when the evidence of harms, small or large, is clearly evident?
More broadly, what does it take to change one's own mind, let alone those of others? A cherished belief can be tenacious, and when the concerns of one's own ego and the pressure of one's peers are added to that, whither goeth truth? This is not a new conundrum, but those who are well-educated and generally regarded as intelligent must self-examine and lead the way, for the good of our children at least.
Hear! Hear!
As a liberal who is totally against what I believe to be child abuse as well as a big money making scam and a dangerous authoritarian movement , I agree with this report. It took several years during which this so-called “gender affirming care” was quietly hidden, for people to recognize what was going on. Now , even Facebook has postings about the trans ideology. That is progress and I hope this harmful practice is on its way out .
Appreciate the Party of Science approach. Very clear appeal to rational readers of The NY Times and Boston Globe.
The people I know deep in the gender world have become more and more religious sounding. They don’t seem to care about the facts, and value faith in the gender cure. Feels very much like someone clinging to a snake oil salesman tonic that turns out to be alcohol and toxic substances. Questioning their belief in the cure is considered blasphemous.
It's worse among the kids caught up in this: https://genspect.substack.com/p/gender-as-a-body-modification-youth
Excellent piece! I think the party-line toeing left really needs to ask itself how it can be true that normal people asking questions that would have been mainstream ten years ago can now be easily categorized (and dismissed) as monstrous, genocidal, and hateful. If we had allowed for good-faith discussions all along, we wouldn't be in this sad situation. Appreciate all your efforts to keep the conversation sane.
Thanks for this! It's tough to see this "gender-affirming" stuff infiltrate otherwise credible sources and pull otherwise reasonable people into an untenable position. As an old liberal and a scientist -- it's worrisome the conversations with my some of peers on this topic are not easy. There is great reluctance to admit that the "other side" has reality in its corner, unusual though that may be. In this area Democrats gave away their position of following the best science -- and this on a topic that could be decided on sheer obviousness. Women's rights , gay sexual identity and child safe-guarding -- abandoned to cater to a chancy, narcissistic cabal. And if we push back, we are called right-wing and worse.
An op-ed of yours in the Globe is what "peaked" me 5 years ago, Lisa. I've been down the gender rabbit hole ever since. I know it's an uphill battle but you're doing good, important work and every time I read another one of your op-eds I think "this is going to get someone's attention like it got mine". Keep fighting the good fight. I'm with you and so are a lot of others.
No one wants to admit they were wrong about something, especially when it involves saying that the people you see as your enemies are right. And we have to admit that some of the loudest people speaking out are people who make saying "you were right" or "I agree with you" not an easy thing to do. On top of that, this issue is somewhat unique in that it has almost endless ways to pivot to a completely different argument supporting it if you are presented with evidence that is difficult to counter. I think the only way we're going to get liberals (and the independents and conservatives) who support this to reconsider is to create a path back that lets them save face and feel like they're still the good guys. I know that is an extremely bitter pill to swallow but if I look at this from a coldly logical and pragmatic perspective, I think it's the only way to get enough people to see the truth of the harm that's going on.
The path is, now I've been shown the harm, now I know more, let's stop it.
It's been there dozens of times. But they actually have to look.
I worry that “little evidence” can be read by normies as “well, they just have to do more studies.”
I wish there were more emphasis on “evidence of harm” but so many of the harms take years to unfold, and many patients insist the harms are worth it. Only studies measuring actual medical impacts will show this but there seems to be no entity able to?
The HHS report, the point of her article, talks a lot about harms, in one place, one chapter. E.g., it is known that doses of these sorts of steroids outside of normal ranges are harmful to the body.
Also see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12162459/ about estrogen for males.
I wish there was less emphasis on benefits and more on harms—
Exulansic, one of our sister substack blogger and YouTubers, has been posting information on those who got "affirmation" and had body modifications to "embody" an opposite sex persona. Then they committed suicide. Often with no warnings or known periods of intense depression, according to the family members writing the obituaries. Most of this list is comprised of women in their late teens or early 20s, who had double mastectomies, though there are some natal males, like Yarden Silviera. His "bottom surgeries" were a medical failure and he'd lived through bouts of sepsis. Exulansic now posits that the females who continued to have deep depression once the euphoria evaporated, have been affected by the loss of the breast tissue, which produces prolactin. Prolactin has a role in the dopamine cycle, dopamine being a "feel good" hormone. The scars from these mastectomies add to the physical discomfort in these female patients. While this is a theory and no studies currently examine the loss of prolactin through breast tissue removal, I find it a logical theory--this list of post-medicalized suicides is now approaching 80. Trans ideologues immediately blame the gender critical flank, claiming "minority stress" is the cause of the suicides. This is typical gaslighting, as trans ideologues are the first to defame and excommunicate detransitioners.
Fear is, no doubt, part of it. I would add an all to ready acceptance of what is taught in graduate schools on the topic. If your professor seems certain that GAC is the solution to gender dysphoria, students assume it must be true. But where is the curiosity, the pushback, the critical thinking, the "show me the evidence" attitude that should be foundational to graduate education in the professions.
Thanbks for the effort in diving into the lengthly report!
We need to understand better the psychology of the affirmers as a way of immunizing society for a repeat. Its not enought to just say the trans issues is conflated with gay acceptance. Why are reasonably thoughtful and compassionate providers so content with a facile surface equivalence?
I can suggest a few reasons why from the perspective of a clinical psychologist. Working with these young people and their families is difficult and often thankless within a toxic culture of cancellation and doxing. And since the current “wisdom” is to provide “gender affirming care” lest a clinician be accused of practicing conversion therapy, very few who possess the required professional experience and skill will open themselves up for the kind of risk that doing this work comes with.
I should also add that the field was therefore left wide open to less experienced clinicians who were trained in institutions where models that prioritize social justice became elevated over rigorous standards of professional practice and ethics. To complicate matters more, the requirement for ongoing formal supervision has atrophied in the past quarter century, so newer clinicians don’t have access to the kind of support that these difficult cases necessitate.
Brilliant. Thank-you.
Children (most of whom would grow up to be gay) can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can "consent" to have sex with an adult. Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve their participation in pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not. It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions.
I wish that the points you make here could be shouted from the roof tops. Say it again & say it louder! thank-you!
An excellent post. I only wish if you are going to make disparaging remarks about RFK Jr.'s "science" credentials - that you point to the specific evidence for such remarks. It is disheartening to see such casual character assassination carried out by people whose work I otherwise deeply respect.
It's certainly not "character assassination" so much as general public knowledge for those who have cared to follow his activities in the past two decades. The "specific evidence" would be so overwhelming as to hijack the essay. He has been prolific and not necessarily consistent in his nonsense. One might start with his HIV denialism, denialism of germ theory of infectious disease in general, and consider misguided comments and actions regarding vaccines and infectious disease, including the conspicuous inaction on the USA measles outbreaks. His autism stuff -- useless -- there are actually people who have been thinking and working on autism types, sources/causes, remedies -- in careful, enormous detail -- for decades. He seems to be willfully ignorant of that.
All you've "proved" Tom is that you're a faithful MSM consumer. The Hudson River today is no longer an open waste deposit and sewer because RFK Jr. spent years - using "science" - in lodging and winning court cases to stop the pollution and to counter the bought and paid for "corporate science" denying such pollution was problematic. You double down on character assassination with words like "denialism" and "nonsense" and of course can't/don't provide a single example of - for example - how RFK Jr. wanting placebo controlled trials of childhood vaccines is somehow "misguided" in some way. You're simply parroting the same evidence-free attacks that big pharma peddles daily in all the MSM outlets whose reporting they compromise with their massive advertisement spending. Before you accuse others of being "willfully ignorant" I'd suggest you look more closely into the psychological defense mechanism of - "projection."
I'm deeply trained in the relevant science, with a Ph.D. in a medically adjacent field at a major cancer research center in a leading university medical school. I've been following these issues for decades. So...whatever.
And still you fail to provide a single example of why you disparage RFK Jr. because his "science" is somehow flawed. Have you read his book on Fauci and the state of the American regulatory agencies? Were Kennedy's endless examples of Fauci's and agency corruption and criminality off base or inaccurate he would have surely been sued to hell and back again - but instead not a peep out of the MSM in response to the material on Fauci's role in the complete corruption of our medical regulatory agencies.
You clearly must understand that the same MSM that daily openly lies about gender-ideology while minimizing the damage being done because of it can't be trusted - but when those VERY SAME pharma bought and paid for MSM lie about and misquote and smear Kennedy for daring to question the impacts of their regulatory capture - you just assume the media must be telling the truth? Really? How exactly does that work? No cognitive dissonance? No questions about what conflicts of interest might be at play? Just complete credulity when faced with whatever propaganda the MSM pumps out to thwart any examination of why our nation and our children might have such abysmal health and health outcomes?
PS - why should I or anyone trust your claim of "credentials" - and yet not trust the many doctors, endocrinologists, surgeons, and psychiatrists who claim their "credentials" somehow make them "trusted experts" on the need the mutilate young people in service to the gender-gods? : /
a bit of logic here: just because Fauci had weaknesses and errors does not mean the RFK is correct to jettison serious autism research.
The environmental work RFK did is very important. He established the River Keepers network, for example. And yet he works within the Trump admin, which is jettisoning all sorts of environmental laws & policies.
Sedentary lifestyle, diet, environmental toxins: sure all of this is horrible for the general health of Americans. Too bad RFK can't actually promote health-- and can't because the administration he works with does not believe in the benefits of a healthy environment-- without also endangering people.
"logic" suggests that rather than jettisoning "serious autism research" RFK is interested in conducting autism research that doesn't come gift wrapped by pharma corporations and those "scientists" it has bought and paid for. And to refer to Fauci's lies, corruption and actual criminal behavior as "weaknesses and errors" suggest you actually know very little about the man's history. You have to be careful with bringing "logic" into play - as it doesn't really care about your "opinions" - but rather the "facts" of the matter. But perhaps you can explain just how RFK is "endangering people?" Inquiring minds would love to know. : /
Edit! "...certainly not character assassination...
My advice to men who think they are women. If you think that, there are a few things that you need to understand. First of all is that you are still a man because you can't change your biological sex. It's okay to dress any way you wish and to adopt any superficial, stereotypical attributes of women that you desire. Live your life. No one should care, I certainly don't.
However, because women are entitled to be treated fairly and to enjoy privacy from men there are certain things that are prohibited to you and me because we are men. You can't compete against women in most sports because it would be unfair. You can't go into women's private places like restrooms and locker rooms because that would make them feel unsafe. Finally, if you are a criminal you certainly can't be imprisoned with women.
That's it, just like me.
BTW, being men we are considered by many to be among the most privileged individuals in the world. Enjoy your status.