You imagine these parents are not "ideologues," but in fact, they are. Many churches train their clergy into this doctrine. Why didn't these parents help their son envision a healthy life as a same sex attracted man? While it might seem like a "humanizing portrait" but in fact the treatment path he's put on, starting right with the "checklist" they enacted as the first exploration of this, is in fact, dehumanization. These parents have not been well served by the institutional capture of liberal churches, schools and the medical malpractice these doctors adhere to.
Thank you both, as always, for a thoughtful conversation. That Daily episode would have been very different if the reporter had asked her guests your key question: "what are you treating?"
I appreciated, among many things about this particular conversation, the sensitivity—which Sarah outlined so beautifully at the outset—toward all parents confronted with this, no matter how they handle it within their families. Along with that, I appreciated Lisa’s observation that we can’t rest at getting this to stop, but we must also end it. It is an important distinction, and I hope you’ll expand on the difference between the two in future essays and discussions.
On the one hand, it is essential that we judge what is best, speak up about it, and act on it however we can. For me, that means understanding and being true to the recognition that “GAC” is not medical care, and certainly not medically necessary care. For that reason, no insurance should cover it. Self-pay will always happen—as in the case of cosmetic interventions in other realms—but we have to be firm that this is not medically necessary care. At the same time, we need to have compassion for, and give support to, families who have been beguiled into this by clinicians and others they trust—and the same goes for parents who have been consigned to watch helplessly while their children have fallen into this and want only to find whatever way is open to them not to become estranged.
I fear that the UK trial is going to be a major set-back, not because the trial will be successful from the POV of supporting “GAC,” but because it will serve for many as further reason to delay, by at least two years, any reckoning with the issue.
Meanwhile, as Lisa described so well, we have the paper of record continuing with its biased coverage, and we have highly respected opinion writers like Jamelle Bouie, just this month, offering this in his assessment of the 11/4 election results:
“The question of whether transgender people can use public restrooms that fit their gender identity or whether trans girls can play sports with their cis counterparts just isn’t very salient to the public. Even Trump’s ad played on prejudice to make a point about material concerns. Anti-trans bigotry for its own sake is not a winning issue and may work, instead, to repel voters whose concerns lie elsewhere.”
This says to me that, in terms of changing the hearts and minds of liberals on the ground, we are nowhere. I understand, as Lisa describes so well, that many who have suffered from “GAC” just want it to stop, they see the current admin as doing that, and they do not want Democrats in office so long as they continue to fail to grapple with this.
What this misses, I fear, is recognition that the Democrats will come back into power, and the way things are going, this could well be sooner than later. We simply cannot ignore the fact that the hearts and minds we most need to change, starting yesterday, are those on the Democratic side of the aisle. We can’t give up on trying to do that.
OK, you have given me so much to think about that I have once again gone on too long. Please, the both of you, have a good Thanksgiving, whatever it takes to do that!
I’m a parent who has been very, very thankful for both of you the last few years. My son has “desisted,” but I’m still so caught up in all of this. I’ve seen too much not to be. Thank you for continuing to have such compassionate and thought provoking conversations around this topic.
On the topic of insurance coverage I want to note how absurd it is that these physical interventions for a mental issue are universally covered by insurance, while it is nearly impossible to find a therapist for an adolescent that takes insurance. Upside-down world.
Happy Thanksgiving to you two, and everyone on this Substack!
Weirdly I can talk to my MAGA relatives (brother and his clan), as we share similar perspectives on the gender issue. I still don’t get invited there for holidays, though. That’s ok; spending holidays with people who “get you” as an alternative to gathering with distant family members during heavily travelled times can be the better alternative. As a mental health professional, I’m immersed every year in how humans already distressed by the cold and loss of light as well as by the loss of fellow humans through death or otherwise endure compounded distress by the societal expectation of gathering with family members. And I live a vegan lifestyle, therefore the animal-eating focus of Thanksgiving is problematic….
Regarding the UK, Helen Joyce also makes the point that the proposed puberty blocker trial sets the participating kids up - very cruelly - to go back to school, medicated to "pass", in a post-For Women Scotland world, in which they're now not legally allowed in the single-sex spaces (school bathroom, changing room, etc) they'll expect or hope to enter. A reminder that when we talk about what needs "stopped" or "ended", it's all of it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63h8VJrjx_E)
You imagine these parents are not "ideologues," but in fact, they are. Many churches train their clergy into this doctrine. Why didn't these parents help their son envision a healthy life as a same sex attracted man? While it might seem like a "humanizing portrait" but in fact the treatment path he's put on, starting right with the "checklist" they enacted as the first exploration of this, is in fact, dehumanization. These parents have not been well served by the institutional capture of liberal churches, schools and the medical malpractice these doctors adhere to.
Thank you both, as always, for a thoughtful conversation. That Daily episode would have been very different if the reporter had asked her guests your key question: "what are you treating?"
I appreciated, among many things about this particular conversation, the sensitivity—which Sarah outlined so beautifully at the outset—toward all parents confronted with this, no matter how they handle it within their families. Along with that, I appreciated Lisa’s observation that we can’t rest at getting this to stop, but we must also end it. It is an important distinction, and I hope you’ll expand on the difference between the two in future essays and discussions.
On the one hand, it is essential that we judge what is best, speak up about it, and act on it however we can. For me, that means understanding and being true to the recognition that “GAC” is not medical care, and certainly not medically necessary care. For that reason, no insurance should cover it. Self-pay will always happen—as in the case of cosmetic interventions in other realms—but we have to be firm that this is not medically necessary care. At the same time, we need to have compassion for, and give support to, families who have been beguiled into this by clinicians and others they trust—and the same goes for parents who have been consigned to watch helplessly while their children have fallen into this and want only to find whatever way is open to them not to become estranged.
I fear that the UK trial is going to be a major set-back, not because the trial will be successful from the POV of supporting “GAC,” but because it will serve for many as further reason to delay, by at least two years, any reckoning with the issue.
Meanwhile, as Lisa described so well, we have the paper of record continuing with its biased coverage, and we have highly respected opinion writers like Jamelle Bouie, just this month, offering this in his assessment of the 11/4 election results:
“The question of whether transgender people can use public restrooms that fit their gender identity or whether trans girls can play sports with their cis counterparts just isn’t very salient to the public. Even Trump’s ad played on prejudice to make a point about material concerns. Anti-trans bigotry for its own sake is not a winning issue and may work, instead, to repel voters whose concerns lie elsewhere.”
This says to me that, in terms of changing the hearts and minds of liberals on the ground, we are nowhere. I understand, as Lisa describes so well, that many who have suffered from “GAC” just want it to stop, they see the current admin as doing that, and they do not want Democrats in office so long as they continue to fail to grapple with this.
What this misses, I fear, is recognition that the Democrats will come back into power, and the way things are going, this could well be sooner than later. We simply cannot ignore the fact that the hearts and minds we most need to change, starting yesterday, are those on the Democratic side of the aisle. We can’t give up on trying to do that.
OK, you have given me so much to think about that I have once again gone on too long. Please, the both of you, have a good Thanksgiving, whatever it takes to do that!
I’m a parent who has been very, very thankful for both of you the last few years. My son has “desisted,” but I’m still so caught up in all of this. I’ve seen too much not to be. Thank you for continuing to have such compassionate and thought provoking conversations around this topic.
On the topic of insurance coverage I want to note how absurd it is that these physical interventions for a mental issue are universally covered by insurance, while it is nearly impossible to find a therapist for an adolescent that takes insurance. Upside-down world.
Happy Thanksgiving to you two, and everyone on this Substack!
Admire you both and thank you.
People let go of a belief once they find something that works better. Baxendale wrote this about medical practice at the the beginning of 2025.
Weirdly I can talk to my MAGA relatives (brother and his clan), as we share similar perspectives on the gender issue. I still don’t get invited there for holidays, though. That’s ok; spending holidays with people who “get you” as an alternative to gathering with distant family members during heavily travelled times can be the better alternative. As a mental health professional, I’m immersed every year in how humans already distressed by the cold and loss of light as well as by the loss of fellow humans through death or otherwise endure compounded distress by the societal expectation of gathering with family members. And I live a vegan lifestyle, therefore the animal-eating focus of Thanksgiving is problematic….
Update; my brother texted at 8pm the night before inviting me to Thanksgiving dinner🙂
lol “publicly skeptical since 2017”.
Grave-stone appropriate, as it leads to the death of woke tribe inclusion.
Regarding the UK, Helen Joyce also makes the point that the proposed puberty blocker trial sets the participating kids up - very cruelly - to go back to school, medicated to "pass", in a post-For Women Scotland world, in which they're now not legally allowed in the single-sex spaces (school bathroom, changing room, etc) they'll expect or hope to enter. A reminder that when we talk about what needs "stopped" or "ended", it's all of it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63h8VJrjx_E)