This is extremely thought-provoking. The points you make in this newsletter really resonate w me today, after finishing reading How Madness Shaped History, by Chris Ferguson, last night. In the last chapter, he gets into ideological divides and virtue signaling and how none of it is really helpful. From the book: "Whenever a pressing social issue develops, one side seems to rush to one conclusion with the other then taking the opposing conclusion with irrational glee, each side proclaiming that working toward middle ground would amount to treason."
New Subscriber here. Your perspective and the links - especially the matter of medical intervention safety touched on in this and your more recent "Nothing is Clear" piece - are invaluable to me as a parent whose late-teenage, extremely-high-functioning-autistic son has, in the last several years, experienced a type of gender dysphoria.
I do have one criticism that you are likely aware of, but that I hope you will consider.
You title your piece, "What the Left Media Won't Report" and "None of this should be politicized." That's a politicized headline/subhead. Conservative news more often refers to major news outlets like the NYT as "left media" (or left wing, or left wing-infiltrated, or socialist, etc.); whereas actually left wing (or 'progressive' or 'left of liberal') news typically refers to big news outlets like the NYT as "corporate media."
I'll assert the NYT - despite its two conservative op ed columnists - is predominantly liberal and reliably Democratic (within which there is, of course, a spectrum of political positions, with the right well-represented). Therefore, when you call major news like the NYT "Left Media," you represent yourself - misrepresent yourself, I believe, since I believe you are politically liberal - as a right wing critic of supposedly 'left' media. To put it another way, the right wing calls outlets like the NYT (for example) "left wing" to 'red tag' and thereby debunk them - i.e., it's a legacy of McCarthyism, when the right could more easily attack liberal views by calling them communistic.
IMO, this article title makes it easier for right wing outlets to identify you as one of their own ("Davis Takes Down 'Left Media' Denial of Transgender Medicalization Risks!"); and easier for those particular trans advocacy positions you fairly criticize to dismiss you as right wing. ("Like Climate Denial Science, 'Left Media' Basher Davis Peddles Myth of Unclear Evidence!") This is, of course, the very opposite of the 'concerned/upset-but-as-regards-evidence-impartial-and-seeking-fair-free-discussion' pov I believe you (and even some left writers - Glenn Greenwald, e.g.) exemplify - one who seeks to rise above the polarization.
Yes, I know any discerning reader who gets beyond the headline may infer you're not right wing - but I'm concerned with readers who will take that headline out of context to either weaponize your writing on behalf of their attack on trans 'equality' rights (discussed in your recent CNN piece); or who will use a few out of context words to discredit you - in order to steer readers away from you. Sure the latter camp may do that anyway - but why make their work easier for them?
Therefore, may I suggest that -to avoid politicization, and because imo it's more accurate - you replace "Left Media" with the more neutral "Mainstream Media"? (And yes, I know you could say, 'But in our country, Democrats are the 'left' party and Republicans are the 'right' party - that's as far as the spectrum goes.' I reject that view because in 2016 43% of the Democratic electorate voted for Sanders in primaries - pointing to a near-half number of Democratic voters whose views stand well to the left of what you - in passing, at one point - also refer to as the "centrist" slant of mainstream media.) Civilly yours...
Hi again, Lisa, thanks for that note - as said, it's the optics of that term, and how imo it opens up your message to politicization by different camps that concerns me.
Now, one more topic, really my main one: Can you point me to 'gender critical' medicalization resources? Your embedded links and syntheses have already helped me re dangers and unknowns of medicalization. But do you know, is there one major organization with a comprehensive database of transgender medicalization (etc.) research and journalistic interpretations of that literature? (You and Singal are the best I've found so far.) I am familiar w/what Genspect and SEGM have to offer, and the big PDF from England you linked. And on the other side, do you know of a single halfway reputable author or website that organizes specific, research-based arguments that medicalization is safe, so I can know exactly what I'm arguing against?
Hm. I don't identify as gender critical and I worry that, just as you noted about my headline, that's easily translated into "I reject everything associated with this no matter the evidence." What we want are dispassionate, scientific reviews, absent of any ideology. I understand that's what happened in Finland, Sweden and the UK. https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/document?id=2334888&returnUrl=search%3fq%3dtransgender%26s%3dDate
It seems that in places where there were scientific evidence reviews they found that it was all very unclear, outcomes are mixed, it's all very murky—which is what anyone reporting on this issue should say.
Hi a last time this p.m. Responding to your two notes in this post.
Didn't mean to implicitly label you as belonging in the 'gender critical' camp...and perhaps I don't myself understand well just what it signifies - not just for those who do identify as belonging to it, but for its critics.
Low quality studies/evidence, mixed outcomes: yes, that is my take so far, vs the certainty - and frankly, imo, unfair attacks on those who question certainty - of some groups. For the personal reasons mentioned above, I and my wife do hope the 'uncertainty' message may lead our child - regardless of identity - to not act precipitously on hormones.
Best, looking forward to reading more of your work.
This is extremely thought-provoking. The points you make in this newsletter really resonate w me today, after finishing reading How Madness Shaped History, by Chris Ferguson, last night. In the last chapter, he gets into ideological divides and virtue signaling and how none of it is really helpful. From the book: "Whenever a pressing social issue develops, one side seems to rush to one conclusion with the other then taking the opposing conclusion with irrational glee, each side proclaiming that working toward middle ground would amount to treason."
That's a great quote. Amazing that middle ground is enemy territory for everyone.
Dear Lisa,
New Subscriber here. Your perspective and the links - especially the matter of medical intervention safety touched on in this and your more recent "Nothing is Clear" piece - are invaluable to me as a parent whose late-teenage, extremely-high-functioning-autistic son has, in the last several years, experienced a type of gender dysphoria.
I do have one criticism that you are likely aware of, but that I hope you will consider.
You title your piece, "What the Left Media Won't Report" and "None of this should be politicized." That's a politicized headline/subhead. Conservative news more often refers to major news outlets like the NYT as "left media" (or left wing, or left wing-infiltrated, or socialist, etc.); whereas actually left wing (or 'progressive' or 'left of liberal') news typically refers to big news outlets like the NYT as "corporate media."
I'll assert the NYT - despite its two conservative op ed columnists - is predominantly liberal and reliably Democratic (within which there is, of course, a spectrum of political positions, with the right well-represented). Therefore, when you call major news like the NYT "Left Media," you represent yourself - misrepresent yourself, I believe, since I believe you are politically liberal - as a right wing critic of supposedly 'left' media. To put it another way, the right wing calls outlets like the NYT (for example) "left wing" to 'red tag' and thereby debunk them - i.e., it's a legacy of McCarthyism, when the right could more easily attack liberal views by calling them communistic.
IMO, this article title makes it easier for right wing outlets to identify you as one of their own ("Davis Takes Down 'Left Media' Denial of Transgender Medicalization Risks!"); and easier for those particular trans advocacy positions you fairly criticize to dismiss you as right wing. ("Like Climate Denial Science, 'Left Media' Basher Davis Peddles Myth of Unclear Evidence!") This is, of course, the very opposite of the 'concerned/upset-but-as-regards-evidence-impartial-and-seeking-fair-free-discussion' pov I believe you (and even some left writers - Glenn Greenwald, e.g.) exemplify - one who seeks to rise above the polarization.
Yes, I know any discerning reader who gets beyond the headline may infer you're not right wing - but I'm concerned with readers who will take that headline out of context to either weaponize your writing on behalf of their attack on trans 'equality' rights (discussed in your recent CNN piece); or who will use a few out of context words to discredit you - in order to steer readers away from you. Sure the latter camp may do that anyway - but why make their work easier for them?
Therefore, may I suggest that -to avoid politicization, and because imo it's more accurate - you replace "Left Media" with the more neutral "Mainstream Media"? (And yes, I know you could say, 'But in our country, Democrats are the 'left' party and Republicans are the 'right' party - that's as far as the spectrum goes.' I reject that view because in 2016 43% of the Democratic electorate voted for Sanders in primaries - pointing to a near-half number of Democratic voters whose views stand well to the left of what you - in passing, at one point - also refer to as the "centrist" slant of mainstream media.) Civilly yours...
Very good point! I am zero percent right wing, and I do mean the left AND center/mainstream media.
Hi again, Lisa, thanks for that note - as said, it's the optics of that term, and how imo it opens up your message to politicization by different camps that concerns me.
Now, one more topic, really my main one: Can you point me to 'gender critical' medicalization resources? Your embedded links and syntheses have already helped me re dangers and unknowns of medicalization. But do you know, is there one major organization with a comprehensive database of transgender medicalization (etc.) research and journalistic interpretations of that literature? (You and Singal are the best I've found so far.) I am familiar w/what Genspect and SEGM have to offer, and the big PDF from England you linked. And on the other side, do you know of a single halfway reputable author or website that organizes specific, research-based arguments that medicalization is safe, so I can know exactly what I'm arguing against?
Thanks once more!
Hm. I don't identify as gender critical and I worry that, just as you noted about my headline, that's easily translated into "I reject everything associated with this no matter the evidence." What we want are dispassionate, scientific reviews, absent of any ideology. I understand that's what happened in Finland, Sweden and the UK. https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/document?id=2334888&returnUrl=search%3fq%3dtransgender%26s%3dDate
It seems that in places where there were scientific evidence reviews they found that it was all very unclear, outcomes are mixed, it's all very murky—which is what anyone reporting on this issue should say.
Hi a last time this p.m. Responding to your two notes in this post.
Didn't mean to implicitly label you as belonging in the 'gender critical' camp...and perhaps I don't myself understand well just what it signifies - not just for those who do identify as belonging to it, but for its critics.
Low quality studies/evidence, mixed outcomes: yes, that is my take so far, vs the certainty - and frankly, imo, unfair attacks on those who question certainty - of some groups. For the personal reasons mentioned above, I and my wife do hope the 'uncertainty' message may lead our child - regardless of identity - to not act precipitously on hormones.
Best, looking forward to reading more of your work.
THANK YOU!