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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appreciate the Part 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.
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.
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 independence 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.
Hear! Hear!
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—
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appreciate the Part 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.
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.
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 independence 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.