Can I make a language suggestion? I’ve noticed a lack of precision with language that is unhelpful when people say things like “talking about another point of view” “expressing opinions” “debating ideas.” It makes it sound like the information being shared is just random opinions. While opinion is sometimes part of it, a lot of times activists are objecting to is just descriptive information being shared: What sequence of events occurred in Finland, what the Cass report is and says, describing peer reviewed published research papers, etc. I’ve noticed your side does this a lot and it is a mistake that plays into the TRAs hands by characterizing descriptions of facts as just “ideas, opinions, points of view”
What I've seen of the debate (in the no-debate culture of trans activism) is that those advising caution in gender medicine frequently cite scientific evidence, while those who don't want to carefully consider that evidence characterize it as opinion. I think both sides cite evidence about equally; there's just disagreement about how much the evidence cited supports their position. I think Lisa makes it clear here that it was the presentation of scientific information that caused people to criticize the panel, even though the protesters characterized it as a presentation of radical opposing views.
Brings to mind the discussion a while ago (on Informed Dissent IIRC) about the “exceptionalism” of gender beliefs and medicine. Yes, in other medical fields we can debate evidence, but not this one.
Gonna add that I have been to plenty of conferences where there are speakers that “espouse views that run counter to the bulk of the primary literature”. That’s why they are interesting. And they get to defend their views with, you know, evidence. This is how science moves along. There are ideas put forward with evidence. The community evaluates the ideas and the evidence. Consensus may form, and it may be strong or weak. And then when more evidence comes along, we re-evaluate. And every now and then someone comes along with a totally different set of conclusions and hypothesis. And they have to defend these conclusions and hypotheses with…evidence. And the community gets to evaluate the evidence. And maybe a new consensus forms.
I’ve also been to sessions where everyone just pretty much shows us stuff we already know, maybe with more detail, that affirms or more strongly supports the prevailing view. There’s a place for that too, but the community is still evaluating what the speakers are saying and showing. We want to really understand how things work, and we want to have confidence that our understanding is accurate.
I mean, sure the shitty wine and carb-heavy buffets and networking and hookups (so I am told) are part of every conference, but they are not the point. The point is to disseminate information and evidence and ideas for the community to evaluate.
I confess that I enjoy when trans activists scream, accuse others of bigotry, wear angel wings, hum, and whatever else, because it only makes them look as weird and off-putting as they are. They think they are Fighting the Good Fight, when they are really turning off average people. They think JK Rowling is their greatest enemy, but it's really Jack Turban and Erin Reed, Chase Strangio and Alejandra Carabello, and their like. Those weirdos do more damage to their movement than Leor Sapir or Emma Hilton could ever manage.
There's a saying that when your enemy is digging himself into a hole, you don't take away the shovel. So when activists pull these crazy stunts, I just smile and watch the dirt fly.
And I would add that - I don't know this for sure, but I have good reason to suspect that - those who believe in treating youth who are distressed by their sexed bodies and/or sexed place in society with unquestioned social affirmation, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and who believe this is the best and only treatment available for these vulnerable young people, would flat out refuse to be on a panel with others who present evidence that draws that treatment pathway into serious question.
Of course, the ideal situation would be to have people from all perspectives on a panel about how to help such vulnerable young people - but, if that's not going to happen, the next best thing is to have separate panels with different perspectives.
Wow! If only your revision of an association's statement became the opening statement or advertising statement for all medical conferences!! Its kind of amazing that it needs to be said. Clear, curiosity based- questioners, critics and skeptics allowed. Who can argue with that?
We are protesting the annual Endocrine Society conference in San Francisco this week. I was just asking what this earlier scuffle was about, so thank you for writing it up.
Can I make a language suggestion? I’ve noticed a lack of precision with language that is unhelpful when people say things like “talking about another point of view” “expressing opinions” “debating ideas.” It makes it sound like the information being shared is just random opinions. While opinion is sometimes part of it, a lot of times activists are objecting to is just descriptive information being shared: What sequence of events occurred in Finland, what the Cass report is and says, describing peer reviewed published research papers, etc. I’ve noticed your side does this a lot and it is a mistake that plays into the TRAs hands by characterizing descriptions of facts as just “ideas, opinions, points of view”
What I've seen of the debate (in the no-debate culture of trans activism) is that those advising caution in gender medicine frequently cite scientific evidence, while those who don't want to carefully consider that evidence characterize it as opinion. I think both sides cite evidence about equally; there's just disagreement about how much the evidence cited supports their position. I think Lisa makes it clear here that it was the presentation of scientific information that caused people to criticize the panel, even though the protesters characterized it as a presentation of radical opposing views.
Brings to mind the discussion a while ago (on Informed Dissent IIRC) about the “exceptionalism” of gender beliefs and medicine. Yes, in other medical fields we can debate evidence, but not this one.
“‘I’m biased against anyone who doesn’t share my biases” is not a good slogan for those the helping professions.’” Precisely.
Gonna add that I have been to plenty of conferences where there are speakers that “espouse views that run counter to the bulk of the primary literature”. That’s why they are interesting. And they get to defend their views with, you know, evidence. This is how science moves along. There are ideas put forward with evidence. The community evaluates the ideas and the evidence. Consensus may form, and it may be strong or weak. And then when more evidence comes along, we re-evaluate. And every now and then someone comes along with a totally different set of conclusions and hypothesis. And they have to defend these conclusions and hypotheses with…evidence. And the community gets to evaluate the evidence. And maybe a new consensus forms.
I’ve also been to sessions where everyone just pretty much shows us stuff we already know, maybe with more detail, that affirms or more strongly supports the prevailing view. There’s a place for that too, but the community is still evaluating what the speakers are saying and showing. We want to really understand how things work, and we want to have confidence that our understanding is accurate.
I mean, sure the shitty wine and carb-heavy buffets and networking and hookups (so I am told) are part of every conference, but they are not the point. The point is to disseminate information and evidence and ideas for the community to evaluate.
I confess that I enjoy when trans activists scream, accuse others of bigotry, wear angel wings, hum, and whatever else, because it only makes them look as weird and off-putting as they are. They think they are Fighting the Good Fight, when they are really turning off average people. They think JK Rowling is their greatest enemy, but it's really Jack Turban and Erin Reed, Chase Strangio and Alejandra Carabello, and their like. Those weirdos do more damage to their movement than Leor Sapir or Emma Hilton could ever manage.
There's a saying that when your enemy is digging himself into a hole, you don't take away the shovel. So when activists pull these crazy stunts, I just smile and watch the dirt fly.
So very true!
And I would add that - I don't know this for sure, but I have good reason to suspect that - those who believe in treating youth who are distressed by their sexed bodies and/or sexed place in society with unquestioned social affirmation, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and who believe this is the best and only treatment available for these vulnerable young people, would flat out refuse to be on a panel with others who present evidence that draws that treatment pathway into serious question.
Of course, the ideal situation would be to have people from all perspectives on a panel about how to help such vulnerable young people - but, if that's not going to happen, the next best thing is to have separate panels with different perspectives.
Wow! If only your revision of an association's statement became the opening statement or advertising statement for all medical conferences!! Its kind of amazing that it needs to be said. Clear, curiosity based- questioners, critics and skeptics allowed. Who can argue with that?
Thank you! This was shocking.
“Intellectual cooties” 😂
The loud protesters were bad enough. Worse was putting a hostile moderator in charge of Q&A, with his thumb on the scale.
We are protesting the annual Endocrine Society conference in San Francisco this week. I was just asking what this earlier scuffle was about, so thank you for writing it up.