Thank you. It had floored me that Polgreen equated permanent medical harm to regret over dropping the swim team or hating a boob job and can only speculate that she doesn't grasp the physical pain and long-term bodily damage that so-called gender-affirming treatments may cause, with the added bonus of tremendous psychological distress for those who realize these interventions were unnecessary or who regret their loss of fertility and sexual function as adults. I understand that for people like Polgreen who have rigid beliefs about gender and who promote its medicalization, it could be highly distressing to reflect that what they've been pushing may be incorrect, may be damaging, and may mean that they are not the inherently right or good people they thought they were. What is happening is so wrong, though, that we all need to keep pulling off the covers they try to pull over their heads and tugging at the fingers they stick into their ears. I appreciate your clarity and your direct approach, Lisa.
I especially appreciate your pointing out that in attempting to justify medicalization to the public and the insurance companies, clinicians and trans activists describe it as medically necessary, life-saving care, but when the negative results come under scrutiny they switch to comparing it to elective cosmetic treatment that the patients “regret”.
They can’t have it both ways. Either they engaged in reckless misdiagnosis, which is malpractice, or they’re fraudulently representing cosmetic surgery as medically necessary.
Lisa, is Polgreen's piece supposed to be part of the NYT's series on regret where they were seeking submissions and you were offering to edit anything a detransitioner wanted to submit? God, I really hope not. If so, what s gut punch
Also, considering all the current rules on lived experience and who gets to speak on what, why does Polgreen get to speak for detransitioners and their regret and pain? Why does she, someone who isn't a detransitioner (and presumably isn't even trans?) get to take the mic and tell detransitioners how they should feel??
And if detransitioners, even those transitioned as children, should just get over their regrets and traumas and suck it up and stop talking about it, why shouldn't the grown men who think they regret not transitioning earlier or getting puberty blockers for themselves learn to deal with their regret and stop trying to live out their "what-if" lives through other people's children?
Finally, for Polgreen and all those relying on (and doing) the "research" on regret and claiming it's vanishingly rare: they should spend a few weeks reading the various ftm subreddits and see just how many posts start with assuring everyone else in the group that they don't regret their transition but then go on to describe all the things they regret, and all the comments saying they can relate. Then those researchers need to ask themselves how they think those girls would respond to their surveys and questions about regret and wonder if they are really getting the full picture.
This Polgreen piece is really just infuriating and has upset me more than almost anything I've read on this topic and probably more than it should. And now reading what she said to Lisa, how she listened to actual trans people with their conflicted feelings about their transition, and how she responded in such a callous and intellectually lazy way...ugh. This piece really just feels uniquely awful.
Yes this. It should be so obvious the bodily harm done in medical and surgical transition. Just look at the mess Jazz Jennings is. He (yes hes a man albeit one who was mutilated) has a horrible life. His mother should be charged with criminal child abuse. Instead, a book about his life and early transition is read at elementary schools.
Great and incisive piece as usual, thank you! Another one I can share with people who are just learning about this...!
" Many young journalists believe it’s their duty to protect marginalized people, rather than tell the truth."
**Some** marginalized people--I think detransitioners certainly count as marginalized...they can't even get healthcare (I know there is a claim trans people can't when they aren't given the experimental medical interventions on demand, but detransitioners don't even have billing codes, insurance coverage...or to get hormones their bodies need just to function, after surgeries which removed their ability to make them). I guess they are "other". Inclusive, not.
Lisa, even within your huge body of high caliber output, this piece is a barnstormer. I admire so much your lucid, well-informed reporting, propelled by utterly warranted righteous fury. The level of irresponsibility demonstrated in the Polgreen piece was breathtaking. I was glad to see the top readers’ comments took Polgreen to task. It was not only irresponsible of Polgreen to write such a piece, but also of the Times to publish it. (And, yes, I know it is an “opinion” piece, but that does not excuse complete misrepresentation of facts upon which the opinion is based.)
"Eventually something sticks. Gobbledygook masquerading as coherence kneecaps the vast majority of readers, because of the amount of time and patience it takes to argue back. "
I've heard it's called a Gish gallop and yes, it's ubiquitous!
One thing I've heard someone suggest is to ask: "what would it take to change your opinion on this topic?" Many of us have all the facts that convinced us, which ones do they need to hear?
I've always thought that true gender affirming care would mean HGH and Winstrol for most men and boob jobs/tummy tucks for most women - there are far more men who think they are insufficiently masculine and women who are insufficiently feminine than the reverse, and if we want to affirm gender identities then by god those 17 year old boys need to be RIPPED
I keep saying if my husband wanted C cup boobs it would be free, but if I wanted C cup boobs it would be out of pocket. Why is that? Also, why is this argument not being used 24/7 by those of us trying to point out the hypocrisy of so-called "gender-affirming care"? Maybe it's time to flood the phone lines with these requests. Where is my gender-affirming botox and Brazilian butt lift?
Yes to everything you said. Her argument is so insane, yet people who already believe what she believes would just nod along, like it all makes sense. They keep their thinking right on the surface without delving into any of the ideas for even a second. If they did, they would understand how non-sensical it all is, as you and all the commenters have pointed out.
I would like to pass on this article in Forbes Magazine that my son gave me. It's all about how the science is NOT settled and the studies being relied upon to say to say it is are all of the lowest quality and don't prove the extraordinary claims being made. I wish the NY Times would print something like this!
Certainty often leads to a tendency to be dismissive or disdainful of ideas, positions, or even questions that one doesn’t agree with—particularly when those ideas, positions, or questions touch beliefs we hold dear. The most difficult problems set in when we hold them so closely that we *cease to realize they’re personal beliefs at all*. (Emphasis mine)
I think that explains so much of what happens in MM. Journalists just don't see "gender-affirming care" as being based on a set of beliefs. Thus "no debate". Ilana's article suggests some possible ways of pushing back, but to be honest I'm not optimistic.
The most "liked" comments on this article push-back on the premise of the article. NYT readers seem to be aligned with common sense. Take a look at the comments section at the end of the piece.
"I wish I hadn’t hired sensitivity readers and compromised my own speech in my book TOMBOY." I also wish you hadn't done this. I had hoped to send your book to a tomboy I know who now thinks she's a he, but after skimming it I realized that it would not convey the right message, i.e. that "gender identity" (and in fact gender itself) is just so much bullshit (well, maybe you wouldn't put it that way!) and that being a masculine girl or feminine boy is not a pathology to be cured.
Have you considered publishing a revised edition that is unconstrained by sensitivity readers or well-meaning friends? It may need to be self-published, or you might have to go with a publisher that's more conservative than you're comfortable with. But I would be much more likely to buy that version of the book!
Thank you. It had floored me that Polgreen equated permanent medical harm to regret over dropping the swim team or hating a boob job and can only speculate that she doesn't grasp the physical pain and long-term bodily damage that so-called gender-affirming treatments may cause, with the added bonus of tremendous psychological distress for those who realize these interventions were unnecessary or who regret their loss of fertility and sexual function as adults. I understand that for people like Polgreen who have rigid beliefs about gender and who promote its medicalization, it could be highly distressing to reflect that what they've been pushing may be incorrect, may be damaging, and may mean that they are not the inherently right or good people they thought they were. What is happening is so wrong, though, that we all need to keep pulling off the covers they try to pull over their heads and tugging at the fingers they stick into their ears. I appreciate your clarity and your direct approach, Lisa.
Wow, what a piece. Thank you so much for this.
I especially appreciate your pointing out that in attempting to justify medicalization to the public and the insurance companies, clinicians and trans activists describe it as medically necessary, life-saving care, but when the negative results come under scrutiny they switch to comparing it to elective cosmetic treatment that the patients “regret”.
They can’t have it both ways. Either they engaged in reckless misdiagnosis, which is malpractice, or they’re fraudulently representing cosmetic surgery as medically necessary.
Lisa, is Polgreen's piece supposed to be part of the NYT's series on regret where they were seeking submissions and you were offering to edit anything a detransitioner wanted to submit? God, I really hope not. If so, what s gut punch
Also, considering all the current rules on lived experience and who gets to speak on what, why does Polgreen get to speak for detransitioners and their regret and pain? Why does she, someone who isn't a detransitioner (and presumably isn't even trans?) get to take the mic and tell detransitioners how they should feel??
And if detransitioners, even those transitioned as children, should just get over their regrets and traumas and suck it up and stop talking about it, why shouldn't the grown men who think they regret not transitioning earlier or getting puberty blockers for themselves learn to deal with their regret and stop trying to live out their "what-if" lives through other people's children?
Finally, for Polgreen and all those relying on (and doing) the "research" on regret and claiming it's vanishingly rare: they should spend a few weeks reading the various ftm subreddits and see just how many posts start with assuring everyone else in the group that they don't regret their transition but then go on to describe all the things they regret, and all the comments saying they can relate. Then those researchers need to ask themselves how they think those girls would respond to their surveys and questions about regret and wonder if they are really getting the full picture.
This Polgreen piece is really just infuriating and has upset me more than almost anything I've read on this topic and probably more than it should. And now reading what she said to Lisa, how she listened to actual trans people with their conflicted feelings about their transition, and how she responded in such a callous and intellectually lazy way...ugh. This piece really just feels uniquely awful.
Yes this. It should be so obvious the bodily harm done in medical and surgical transition. Just look at the mess Jazz Jennings is. He (yes hes a man albeit one who was mutilated) has a horrible life. His mother should be charged with criminal child abuse. Instead, a book about his life and early transition is read at elementary schools.
Great and incisive piece as usual, thank you! Another one I can share with people who are just learning about this...!
" Many young journalists believe it’s their duty to protect marginalized people, rather than tell the truth."
**Some** marginalized people--I think detransitioners certainly count as marginalized...they can't even get healthcare (I know there is a claim trans people can't when they aren't given the experimental medical interventions on demand, but detransitioners don't even have billing codes, insurance coverage...or to get hormones their bodies need just to function, after surgeries which removed their ability to make them). I guess they are "other". Inclusive, not.
I hope that at least some of these young journalists will realize that telling the truth IS the best way to protect marginalized people.
yes, exactly!
Lisa, even within your huge body of high caliber output, this piece is a barnstormer. I admire so much your lucid, well-informed reporting, propelled by utterly warranted righteous fury. The level of irresponsibility demonstrated in the Polgreen piece was breathtaking. I was glad to see the top readers’ comments took Polgreen to task. It was not only irresponsible of Polgreen to write such a piece, but also of the Times to publish it. (And, yes, I know it is an “opinion” piece, but that does not excuse complete misrepresentation of facts upon which the opinion is based.)
Trust The NY Times to publish utter garbage. It’s pathetic.
"Eventually something sticks. Gobbledygook masquerading as coherence kneecaps the vast majority of readers, because of the amount of time and patience it takes to argue back. "
I've heard it's called a Gish gallop and yes, it's ubiquitous!
One thing I've heard someone suggest is to ask: "what would it take to change your opinion on this topic?" Many of us have all the facts that convinced us, which ones do they need to hear?
Wow, the whole thing of those who affirm is "be kind" but the lack of empathy for detransitioners is insane.
Grace Lidinsky-Smith had an op-ed in Newsweek, if Newsweek still counts as mainstream: https://www.newsweek.com/theres-no-standard-care-when-it-comes-trans-medicine-opinion-1603450
And of course Corinna Cohn had her piece in WaPo; not a detransitioner but an adjacent regret story.
But many more are warranted.
Also the 60 Minutes piece from 2021, also featuring Grace (and others).
I've always thought that true gender affirming care would mean HGH and Winstrol for most men and boob jobs/tummy tucks for most women - there are far more men who think they are insufficiently masculine and women who are insufficiently feminine than the reverse, and if we want to affirm gender identities then by god those 17 year old boys need to be RIPPED
I keep saying if my husband wanted C cup boobs it would be free, but if I wanted C cup boobs it would be out of pocket. Why is that? Also, why is this argument not being used 24/7 by those of us trying to point out the hypocrisy of so-called "gender-affirming care"? Maybe it's time to flood the phone lines with these requests. Where is my gender-affirming botox and Brazilian butt lift?
Brilliant piece Lisa Selin Davis.
Yes to everything you said. Her argument is so insane, yet people who already believe what she believes would just nod along, like it all makes sense. They keep their thinking right on the surface without delving into any of the ideas for even a second. If they did, they would understand how non-sensical it all is, as you and all the commenters have pointed out.
I would like to pass on this article in Forbes Magazine that my son gave me. It's all about how the science is NOT settled and the studies being relied upon to say to say it is are all of the lowest quality and don't prove the extraordinary claims being made. I wish the NY Times would print something like this!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/12/02/without-rct-fda-may-consider-approval-of-a-cross-sex-hormone-for-gender-affirming-care/?sh=92c53886a690
Lisa, I’ve read this twice now and will surely read it again. 🔥🔥
Fantastic piece, Lisa! Really really fantastic!
I wanted to share a link to a brilliant article that explains very clearly why many people just can't seem to hear the other side: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-certainty-trap
Brief quote:
Certainty often leads to a tendency to be dismissive or disdainful of ideas, positions, or even questions that one doesn’t agree with—particularly when those ideas, positions, or questions touch beliefs we hold dear. The most difficult problems set in when we hold them so closely that we *cease to realize they’re personal beliefs at all*. (Emphasis mine)
I think that explains so much of what happens in MM. Journalists just don't see "gender-affirming care" as being based on a set of beliefs. Thus "no debate". Ilana's article suggests some possible ways of pushing back, but to be honest I'm not optimistic.
This is a great article. Thank you for sharing it.
Thank you for keeping up the fight.
The most "liked" comments on this article push-back on the premise of the article. NYT readers seem to be aligned with common sense. Take a look at the comments section at the end of the piece.
"I wish I hadn’t hired sensitivity readers and compromised my own speech in my book TOMBOY." I also wish you hadn't done this. I had hoped to send your book to a tomboy I know who now thinks she's a he, but after skimming it I realized that it would not convey the right message, i.e. that "gender identity" (and in fact gender itself) is just so much bullshit (well, maybe you wouldn't put it that way!) and that being a masculine girl or feminine boy is not a pathology to be cured.
Have you considered publishing a revised edition that is unconstrained by sensitivity readers or well-meaning friends? It may need to be self-published, or you might have to go with a publisher that's more conservative than you're comfortable with. But I would be much more likely to buy that version of the book!