Off-ramps? Yes, people are great at self-justification. There are true believers and liberal-bubble-whatever believers. It will be interesting to see if true believers pedal backwards.
The oft-quoted Upton Sinclair:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it."
Perhaps it is unfortunate that it took legislation to prevent gender procedures on minors (in some states). Whatever it takes, I am fine with it. How can we expect the gender industry to police itself?
No to gender procedures on minors.
As for adults, it should not be covered by insurance--public or private.
Identity medicine is extreme cosmetic body modification.
I've long been an admirer of Carol Tarvis. Thank you for having her on. I think heard her on "On the Media" many years ago with Brook Gladstone. Now unfortunately, Gladstone has become a sellout - completely subservient to the larping trans males. Seemingly shameless. I wonder what will happen if/when this scam is brought down. Will she be recalcitrant, remorseful, dismissive, slippery? So many people damaged irreparable by the toxic trans lies. Will it be on their conscience or have they no conscience?
I love Carol Tavris. I have had the pleasure to meet her a few times, and listened in person to some wonderful talks she has given. Thanks for this. (And just in case Carol reads this - happy birthday! I just looked up how old she is, and she is 80 today.)
Damn AI!! You just can't trust it without verification but how do you blow a birthday?? By the way - we met at a skeptic's conference years ago in Boulder where Elizabeth Loftus, Debbie Nathan and you were all talking, and I interrupted you all to fan girl over all three of you. And then we met at the Skeptics conference in Las Vegas where you gave the "Who's Lying..etc talk" in 2014 - the high point of the conference for sure.
Robin, I thought I recognized your name. Thanks for the reminder of that fabulous Skeptics conference. I'm thrilled you enjoyed "who's lying , who's self-justifying"--a touchy topic for sure.
This was such a fascinating conversation. I've long admired Carol Tavris, and Lisa brought out what is so special about her -- the steel-trap mind and the huge erudition, but also the compassion and practical wisdom.
Believe it or not, there are still Stalinists who think Uncle Joe was a heroic figure who maybe went a little too far, so I'm sure many will go to their graves believing in the gendered soul. As we see with RFK Jr and his many followers, people can persuade themselves of anything. Germ theory? nonsense! Look at religion -- there's no evidence for any of it, yet people still believe it.
I do have one question. Many/most people who have gender-affirming treatments say they are happy with their new bodies and lives. I know several. Even the man Lisa mentions who wanted gender nullification so he could look like a Ken doll was happy with the results. So if dysphoria is cured by hormones and surgery, aren't hormones and surgery a valid treatment?
Are you calling patients to be more carefully vetted, or are you making a broader critique of the whole trans phenomenon?
Katha, hello! and thank you so much. Reciprocal admiration here. To answer your question, as Elliot Aronson showed so many years ago, replicated many times, the more time, effort, money, pain a person puts into anything (joining a group, having a facelift, taking a Brain Improvement Program, .... changing their bodies in painful procedures) the more they will justify the wisdom of doing so ("it's the BEST group": "I am so HAPPY with my new nose/bodypenis";"I have an entirely new brain now!"). It's called "the justification of effort" effect and it is powerful, because the alternative is to say "how could I have been so stupid/gulled/misguided?" And it also shows the courage of the desisters and detransitioners who are willing to speak out about their own ... dissonant ... experiences.
A few thoughts regarding people being happy… many patients who are unhappy with their care never follow up with their doctor/clinic for various reasons, including shame or embarrassment. Also, many people do say they’re happy, for a few years at least. From what I’ve read, regret often sets in at the 7-10 year mark. But the bigger issue, to me at least, is why are we treating dysphoria- a mental issue- with hormones and surgery?
The problem isn't JUST are THEY (trans) happy with it (their recast bodies and social roles). The real problem is a far-reaching political, social, cultural harm to over half the human race: what matter if millions of adolescent girls are too afraid, embarrassed, uncomfortable to use the bathroom at school? What matter if men are trying to breastfeed? What matter if males destroy women's sports? What matter if a man is elected head of the endometriosis society, the rape crisis center, the Battered Women’s shelter? What matter if males get women's scholarships and political set- asides? What matter if trans rapist/murderers have access to women prisoners?
If pedophiles are happy and satisfied to have access to child victims are we reluctant to stop them and deprive them of their
euphoria?? Or do we care more
for the potential victims and
call a halt to their behavior? Aren't women just as worthy of protection from the depredations of sexual impersonators?
I think more has to be pulled into the equation beyond how a single individual feels about the outcomes of his or her choices. The practical reality of human existence in this world is that limits on behavior are vital if we wish to keep our huge and complex societies made up of strangers (who must restrain their own behavior enough to cooperate with others) peaceful and prosperous. Considering that a certain level of self-delusion is necessary for each one of us to function from day to day, we cannot rely on nothing more than the feelings of the individual to regulate his own behavior. Self-delusion can bring one happiness. But we humans have limitless cravings for happiness. The more one looks into the "trans phenomenon" in terms of how it impacts all the individuals whose lives are linked in some way to a trans-identified individual (ranging from the trans-identified person's family members to the strangers who encounter him in a public space), one discovers an endless list of ways that arrangements catering to the happiness of that one trans-identified person makes happiness for everyone else impossible.
Additionally, when you consider how heavily modern democratic societies rely on the discipline of science to discover aspects of reality upon which the largest proportion of humans can agree, the degree to which its basic principles must be "fudged" in order to support the claim that gender medicine is evidence-based should be a serious concern. We must either embrace the standards of evidence necessary for a secular democratic and pluralistic society to continue, or devolve into a theocracy which relies much more heavily on applying the "might makes right" method of coercion to everyone.
Very interesting discussion, thank you. I was wondering what Carol had in mind when she spoke of "the excesses of JOK's practice". Does she believe the narrative of the NYTimes podcast that it's just a matter of having gone overboard, and there are actually some kids who should get this treatment? Rather than that the entire premise of "gender affirming care" is misguided? As Lisa said, the "true trans" kids are the proto-gay kids, and they aren't helped by this protocol either...
Similarly, what she said about McBride still seemed to miss the core of the problem. Yes, McBride comes across as eminently reasonable, but ultimately, he is still defending the concept that a man can be a woman and that their "female identity" should be respected and protected. Here again, I would say, the premise is flawed. Yes, of course "trans" people should not be discriminated against in housing or employment, or denied other civil rights, but that is not just what McBride wants. He still wants to get society to be willing to pretend that men can be women, and he is proposing that "humanizing" "trans" people by way of personal stories will get us there. While he seems reasonable and clearly understands he has to tread carefully to achieve his goals, he is still pursuing the radical project of having gender identity supersede biological sex, and he also still supports the transing of children (only the "true trans" ones, of course!). That makes him more dangerous to the goal of "ending" the current practices than someone like JOK, who says the quiet part out loud.
Perhaps it would be helpful to reflect for a bit on why it is that adults try to protect children from some of the cold hard truths about some aspects of experiences that are common to fully matured men and women. From a radically pragmatic standpoint, if you consider the experience of adult sexual intercourse, a child has neither the physical "equipment" nor the mental resilience to go through that experience without sustaining serious injury (both physical and mental). In short, the reasons for the taboo against pedophilia are practical as well as moral.
Now, think for a moment how well a population of humans consisting of individuals who require a level of "protection" necessary to remain blissfully ignorant about the realities of their own sexed bodies. I would predict that a society which spends too much of its energies on catering to those who require that level of "protection" in order to be "happy" can't last long when faced with the hard cold realities of survival in an merciless material world. Consider the realpolitik of international affairs: What's the likelihood that a country whose military devotes resources towards providing radical cosmetic surgeries and enforcing policies to accommodate "hothouse flower" temperaments, rather than towards what it takes to "to kill people and break things," can defend its interests?
Also, there is a growing body of evidence that our current state of medical "sex change" technology is STILL unable to create functional and aesthetically pleasing facsimiles of primary and secondary sex characteristics which do not SEVERELY compromise the health and lifespan of those subjecting themselves to it. A huge amount of denial is necessary for those undergoing such radical body modification to claim they've successfully made themselves into a member of the opposite sex, rather than unnecessarily disabled themselves at an early age?
There should be no easy exit ramp for clinicians who visited egregious medical and surgical harm upon children in the name of an ideology unproven by even a semblance of rational science. What lessons would be learned if clinicians entrusted with the health and wellbeing of others, especially children, were allowed to slink away unscathed. Hammer the clinicians, the
medical institutions in which they thrive and the medical societies to which they belong. There was ample evidence to end this money making charade long ago.
In the vein of wise, thoughtful, intelligent women rising above the fray, here's the link to Louise Perry's interview with filmmaker, Vaishnavi Sundar, discussing the documentary of hers, Behind the Looking Glass, published at Lime Soda Films YT channel after 3 years in the making. Perry is surprisingly well informed and asks exactly the right questions. Today, I experienced this myself, as Emma and I (both of us appeared in BTLG) had the privilege of being interviewed about our work, our appearance in the film and our analyses of how a helping profession like psychology got it all wrong. This is scheduled for release at Maiden, Mother, Matriarch podcast in about 2 months. Listen to the women, not the women who think they're men like Buck Angel, but the women who know men cannot become us. Vaishnavi and Louise navigate the fraught and circuitous travails of women who divorce suddenly 24/7 crossdressing husbands, the sexual demands, as well as the fraught and circuitous path to documenting the shocking betrayals of the psychologists who invented "transsexualism" and "gender dysphoria" as diagnoses, excusing men for deceitful, violent and abusive behaviors:
Wow-what a great discussion. So much to relate to, so much to say. I will share a brief anecdote, because of your comments on Olson-Kennedy. Years ago (and I had to google to find out how long ago it was, because if felt more recent), Olson-Kennedy was an invited seminar speaker at the academic medical center where I work. I had not heard of her, knew nothing of this field, but I went to the seminar because at that time I was intent on being very visible at high profile events for professional advancement purposes. Anyway, at that time I was both very uninformed and extremely skeptical of, even uncomfortable with, what we now call “gender affirming care” for minors. Again, at that time I had no vocabulary. My skepticism was due entirely to an n=1 case of the son of a friend, who as a child in the late 90s-early 2000s, had been very gender non-conforming, wanted to be a girl, was permitted to express himself fully at home but had observe some boundaries at school (could not wear dresses but could wear “girl” colors and styles, for example) and had subsequently grown into a well-adjusted, completely out gay man with a thriving career and social life. In the late 90s-early 2000s days, medicalization was not common, and all I could think was “thank god he never did that”, and anyway if I am completely honest I was at least a little weirded out by the whole concept of transgenderism, despite-or because of-the fact that I had several loved ones who were LGB identified and by the 2010s it was clear that their hopes and dreams and aspirations and lives were pretty much identical to mine.
So I went in to Olson-Kennedy’s talk skeptical, and I came out, well, not exactly convinced but just less skeptical. I don’t recall the details-it was a while ago. But I do remember feeling reassured by her that each case was carefully assessed through a long and critical process. I was less convinced that some kids are “actually trans”, but I was at least newly open to the idea that this was possible. Mostly I was convinced that she believed herself to be a person of good judgement, acting in the best interest of her patients. And while I was not quite convinced myself, I was at least somewhat willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
I did not register or remember her name and it was only a few months ago that I made the connection to this person in the news and the person whose seminar I had attended. I have been reluctant to share this because I honestly fear for her safety. Hearing the compassion that you both expressed for her prompted me to share.
Don’t get me wrong-we are rightfully questioning the entire premise of this field of medicine. Honestly, I am repelled by the idea that liberal society has decided that medicalization is the preferred response, and deeply bothered that I stopped listening to my own discomfort, even if only for a few years. And I also have to add that my own child, now a thriving young adult. has received excellent medical care for a very serious medical condition (unrelated to gender) from one of the hospitals that has been vilified for being on the forefront of gender affirming care, so all of this is personally resonant and deeply troubling.
Which is to say that I appreciated the nuance and willingness to wrestle with the ambiguities, the personal and political blind spots, and the human compassion.
Still need to finish watching but wanted to stop and say I’m glad that Lisa “pushed back” a bit on Carol saying that personal stories will have a big impact. Clearly that was not the effect on the “professionals” who saw and heard detransitioners.
I am going to watch again and before I do, I would like to ask a question.
I have been following Dr Andrew Wakefield’s situation for a number of years and I am VERY interested in why Carol made a rather negative reference to him. I read his original research paper, which included his recommendations, and I ‘followed the money’ of who paid Brian Deer for his ‘investigative journalism’… hmmm, very interesting!
At the moment, I am very involved in having women’s reproductive rights elevated in our legal system to, “A woman has the right to choose, when, where, and with whom, to give birth”. My friend of 45 years recently spent 6 months in jail for trying to support a pregnant woman. She was denied bail and had not been found guilty of the manslaughter charges. I encounter many folks who have not questioned the basic rights of women, especially in the area of childbirth, and your information will help me in future discussions.
"There's [sic] a lot of people who've made their living out of enforcing trans ideology in the workplace onto other people, and they're not going to just give up and go away." -- Helen Joyce https://youtu.be/mZhUo10TRpc?si=tyyiDi2lpfwiCaJR&t=4462 (1:14:22)
I am listening to an excellent interview with the great Helen Joyce on the topic of what the hell happened within HR at U.K. Companies, with regards to having gotten such poor legal advice regarding compliance with the Equality Act. For those of you with no time to watch the whole thing, skip to around the 51 minute mark of the video, where Joyce describes the phenomenon of Regulatory Capture and the difficulty in getting people in positions of power within such institutions to correct course, simply because it requires individuals to admit they were wrong. The subject might be institutions in the U.K., but the human element of that and the same old inevitable dynamics within a bureaucratic system are universal. I highly recommend it as a source of really great analysis to explain why Reform is so damn difficult.
Who's Ignoring The Supreme Court Ruling - And Why? (Ft. Helen Joyce & Inji Duducu)
Thanks for a fascinating discussion.
Off-ramps? Yes, people are great at self-justification. There are true believers and liberal-bubble-whatever believers. It will be interesting to see if true believers pedal backwards.
The oft-quoted Upton Sinclair:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it."
Perhaps it is unfortunate that it took legislation to prevent gender procedures on minors (in some states). Whatever it takes, I am fine with it. How can we expect the gender industry to police itself?
No to gender procedures on minors.
As for adults, it should not be covered by insurance--public or private.
Identity medicine is extreme cosmetic body modification.
I've long been an admirer of Carol Tarvis. Thank you for having her on. I think heard her on "On the Media" many years ago with Brook Gladstone. Now unfortunately, Gladstone has become a sellout - completely subservient to the larping trans males. Seemingly shameless. I wonder what will happen if/when this scam is brought down. Will she be recalcitrant, remorseful, dismissive, slippery? So many people damaged irreparable by the toxic trans lies. Will it be on their conscience or have they no conscience?
I love Carol Tavris. I have had the pleasure to meet her a few times, and listened in person to some wonderful talks she has given. Thanks for this. (And just in case Carol reads this - happy birthday! I just looked up how old she is, and she is 80 today.)
busted! ah well, no hiding from happy birthday wishes -- thank you for the gift of your message, Robin. (Actually, the bd is 9/17/....44)
Damn AI!! You just can't trust it without verification but how do you blow a birthday?? By the way - we met at a skeptic's conference years ago in Boulder where Elizabeth Loftus, Debbie Nathan and you were all talking, and I interrupted you all to fan girl over all three of you. And then we met at the Skeptics conference in Las Vegas where you gave the "Who's Lying..etc talk" in 2014 - the high point of the conference for sure.
Robin, I thought I recognized your name. Thanks for the reminder of that fabulous Skeptics conference. I'm thrilled you enjoyed "who's lying , who's self-justifying"--a touchy topic for sure.
This was such a fascinating conversation. I've long admired Carol Tavris, and Lisa brought out what is so special about her -- the steel-trap mind and the huge erudition, but also the compassion and practical wisdom.
Believe it or not, there are still Stalinists who think Uncle Joe was a heroic figure who maybe went a little too far, so I'm sure many will go to their graves believing in the gendered soul. As we see with RFK Jr and his many followers, people can persuade themselves of anything. Germ theory? nonsense! Look at religion -- there's no evidence for any of it, yet people still believe it.
I do have one question. Many/most people who have gender-affirming treatments say they are happy with their new bodies and lives. I know several. Even the man Lisa mentions who wanted gender nullification so he could look like a Ken doll was happy with the results. So if dysphoria is cured by hormones and surgery, aren't hormones and surgery a valid treatment?
Are you calling patients to be more carefully vetted, or are you making a broader critique of the whole trans phenomenon?
Anyway, thanks for a really stimulating podcast!
Katha, hello! and thank you so much. Reciprocal admiration here. To answer your question, as Elliot Aronson showed so many years ago, replicated many times, the more time, effort, money, pain a person puts into anything (joining a group, having a facelift, taking a Brain Improvement Program, .... changing their bodies in painful procedures) the more they will justify the wisdom of doing so ("it's the BEST group": "I am so HAPPY with my new nose/bodypenis";"I have an entirely new brain now!"). It's called "the justification of effort" effect and it is powerful, because the alternative is to say "how could I have been so stupid/gulled/misguided?" And it also shows the courage of the desisters and detransitioners who are willing to speak out about their own ... dissonant ... experiences.
A few thoughts regarding people being happy… many patients who are unhappy with their care never follow up with their doctor/clinic for various reasons, including shame or embarrassment. Also, many people do say they’re happy, for a few years at least. From what I’ve read, regret often sets in at the 7-10 year mark. But the bigger issue, to me at least, is why are we treating dysphoria- a mental issue- with hormones and surgery?
The problem isn't JUST are THEY (trans) happy with it (their recast bodies and social roles). The real problem is a far-reaching political, social, cultural harm to over half the human race: what matter if millions of adolescent girls are too afraid, embarrassed, uncomfortable to use the bathroom at school? What matter if men are trying to breastfeed? What matter if males destroy women's sports? What matter if a man is elected head of the endometriosis society, the rape crisis center, the Battered Women’s shelter? What matter if males get women's scholarships and political set- asides? What matter if trans rapist/murderers have access to women prisoners?
If pedophiles are happy and satisfied to have access to child victims are we reluctant to stop them and deprive them of their
euphoria?? Or do we care more
for the potential victims and
call a halt to their behavior? Aren't women just as worthy of protection from the depredations of sexual impersonators?
I think more has to be pulled into the equation beyond how a single individual feels about the outcomes of his or her choices. The practical reality of human existence in this world is that limits on behavior are vital if we wish to keep our huge and complex societies made up of strangers (who must restrain their own behavior enough to cooperate with others) peaceful and prosperous. Considering that a certain level of self-delusion is necessary for each one of us to function from day to day, we cannot rely on nothing more than the feelings of the individual to regulate his own behavior. Self-delusion can bring one happiness. But we humans have limitless cravings for happiness. The more one looks into the "trans phenomenon" in terms of how it impacts all the individuals whose lives are linked in some way to a trans-identified individual (ranging from the trans-identified person's family members to the strangers who encounter him in a public space), one discovers an endless list of ways that arrangements catering to the happiness of that one trans-identified person makes happiness for everyone else impossible.
Additionally, when you consider how heavily modern democratic societies rely on the discipline of science to discover aspects of reality upon which the largest proportion of humans can agree, the degree to which its basic principles must be "fudged" in order to support the claim that gender medicine is evidence-based should be a serious concern. We must either embrace the standards of evidence necessary for a secular democratic and pluralistic society to continue, or devolve into a theocracy which relies much more heavily on applying the "might makes right" method of coercion to everyone.
Very interesting discussion, thank you. I was wondering what Carol had in mind when she spoke of "the excesses of JOK's practice". Does she believe the narrative of the NYTimes podcast that it's just a matter of having gone overboard, and there are actually some kids who should get this treatment? Rather than that the entire premise of "gender affirming care" is misguided? As Lisa said, the "true trans" kids are the proto-gay kids, and they aren't helped by this protocol either...
Similarly, what she said about McBride still seemed to miss the core of the problem. Yes, McBride comes across as eminently reasonable, but ultimately, he is still defending the concept that a man can be a woman and that their "female identity" should be respected and protected. Here again, I would say, the premise is flawed. Yes, of course "trans" people should not be discriminated against in housing or employment, or denied other civil rights, but that is not just what McBride wants. He still wants to get society to be willing to pretend that men can be women, and he is proposing that "humanizing" "trans" people by way of personal stories will get us there. While he seems reasonable and clearly understands he has to tread carefully to achieve his goals, he is still pursuing the radical project of having gender identity supersede biological sex, and he also still supports the transing of children (only the "true trans" ones, of course!). That makes him more dangerous to the goal of "ending" the current practices than someone like JOK, who says the quiet part out loud.
Perhaps it would be helpful to reflect for a bit on why it is that adults try to protect children from some of the cold hard truths about some aspects of experiences that are common to fully matured men and women. From a radically pragmatic standpoint, if you consider the experience of adult sexual intercourse, a child has neither the physical "equipment" nor the mental resilience to go through that experience without sustaining serious injury (both physical and mental). In short, the reasons for the taboo against pedophilia are practical as well as moral.
Now, think for a moment how well a population of humans consisting of individuals who require a level of "protection" necessary to remain blissfully ignorant about the realities of their own sexed bodies. I would predict that a society which spends too much of its energies on catering to those who require that level of "protection" in order to be "happy" can't last long when faced with the hard cold realities of survival in an merciless material world. Consider the realpolitik of international affairs: What's the likelihood that a country whose military devotes resources towards providing radical cosmetic surgeries and enforcing policies to accommodate "hothouse flower" temperaments, rather than towards what it takes to "to kill people and break things," can defend its interests?
Also, there is a growing body of evidence that our current state of medical "sex change" technology is STILL unable to create functional and aesthetically pleasing facsimiles of primary and secondary sex characteristics which do not SEVERELY compromise the health and lifespan of those subjecting themselves to it. A huge amount of denial is necessary for those undergoing such radical body modification to claim they've successfully made themselves into a member of the opposite sex, rather than unnecessarily disabled themselves at an early age?
There should be no easy exit ramp for clinicians who visited egregious medical and surgical harm upon children in the name of an ideology unproven by even a semblance of rational science. What lessons would be learned if clinicians entrusted with the health and wellbeing of others, especially children, were allowed to slink away unscathed. Hammer the clinicians, the
medical institutions in which they thrive and the medical societies to which they belong. There was ample evidence to end this money making charade long ago.
Wells Jacobson MD
Please share this interview about the family ramifications these doctors have chosen to ignore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Nfr3tA_hM
In the vein of wise, thoughtful, intelligent women rising above the fray, here's the link to Louise Perry's interview with filmmaker, Vaishnavi Sundar, discussing the documentary of hers, Behind the Looking Glass, published at Lime Soda Films YT channel after 3 years in the making. Perry is surprisingly well informed and asks exactly the right questions. Today, I experienced this myself, as Emma and I (both of us appeared in BTLG) had the privilege of being interviewed about our work, our appearance in the film and our analyses of how a helping profession like psychology got it all wrong. This is scheduled for release at Maiden, Mother, Matriarch podcast in about 2 months. Listen to the women, not the women who think they're men like Buck Angel, but the women who know men cannot become us. Vaishnavi and Louise navigate the fraught and circuitous travails of women who divorce suddenly 24/7 crossdressing husbands, the sexual demands, as well as the fraught and circuitous path to documenting the shocking betrayals of the psychologists who invented "transsexualism" and "gender dysphoria" as diagnoses, excusing men for deceitful, violent and abusive behaviors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Nfr3tA_hM
Wow-what a great discussion. So much to relate to, so much to say. I will share a brief anecdote, because of your comments on Olson-Kennedy. Years ago (and I had to google to find out how long ago it was, because if felt more recent), Olson-Kennedy was an invited seminar speaker at the academic medical center where I work. I had not heard of her, knew nothing of this field, but I went to the seminar because at that time I was intent on being very visible at high profile events for professional advancement purposes. Anyway, at that time I was both very uninformed and extremely skeptical of, even uncomfortable with, what we now call “gender affirming care” for minors. Again, at that time I had no vocabulary. My skepticism was due entirely to an n=1 case of the son of a friend, who as a child in the late 90s-early 2000s, had been very gender non-conforming, wanted to be a girl, was permitted to express himself fully at home but had observe some boundaries at school (could not wear dresses but could wear “girl” colors and styles, for example) and had subsequently grown into a well-adjusted, completely out gay man with a thriving career and social life. In the late 90s-early 2000s days, medicalization was not common, and all I could think was “thank god he never did that”, and anyway if I am completely honest I was at least a little weirded out by the whole concept of transgenderism, despite-or because of-the fact that I had several loved ones who were LGB identified and by the 2010s it was clear that their hopes and dreams and aspirations and lives were pretty much identical to mine.
So I went in to Olson-Kennedy’s talk skeptical, and I came out, well, not exactly convinced but just less skeptical. I don’t recall the details-it was a while ago. But I do remember feeling reassured by her that each case was carefully assessed through a long and critical process. I was less convinced that some kids are “actually trans”, but I was at least newly open to the idea that this was possible. Mostly I was convinced that she believed herself to be a person of good judgement, acting in the best interest of her patients. And while I was not quite convinced myself, I was at least somewhat willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
I did not register or remember her name and it was only a few months ago that I made the connection to this person in the news and the person whose seminar I had attended. I have been reluctant to share this because I honestly fear for her safety. Hearing the compassion that you both expressed for her prompted me to share.
Don’t get me wrong-we are rightfully questioning the entire premise of this field of medicine. Honestly, I am repelled by the idea that liberal society has decided that medicalization is the preferred response, and deeply bothered that I stopped listening to my own discomfort, even if only for a few years. And I also have to add that my own child, now a thriving young adult. has received excellent medical care for a very serious medical condition (unrelated to gender) from one of the hospitals that has been vilified for being on the forefront of gender affirming care, so all of this is personally resonant and deeply troubling.
Which is to say that I appreciated the nuance and willingness to wrestle with the ambiguities, the personal and political blind spots, and the human compassion.
Still need to finish watching but wanted to stop and say I’m glad that Lisa “pushed back” a bit on Carol saying that personal stories will have a big impact. Clearly that was not the effect on the “professionals” who saw and heard detransitioners.
In a better world, the sex-change clinicians with the most to answer for would be sued into penury and stripped of their license to practice medicine.
Yes, fascinating discussion!!
I am going to watch again and before I do, I would like to ask a question.
I have been following Dr Andrew Wakefield’s situation for a number of years and I am VERY interested in why Carol made a rather negative reference to him. I read his original research paper, which included his recommendations, and I ‘followed the money’ of who paid Brian Deer for his ‘investigative journalism’… hmmm, very interesting!
At the moment, I am very involved in having women’s reproductive rights elevated in our legal system to, “A woman has the right to choose, when, where, and with whom, to give birth”. My friend of 45 years recently spent 6 months in jail for trying to support a pregnant woman. She was denied bail and had not been found guilty of the manslaughter charges. I encounter many folks who have not questioned the basic rights of women, especially in the area of childbirth, and your information will help me in future discussions.
I live in Vancouver, British Columbia, Cananda.
Invaluable discussion. Thanks so much to you both.
"There's [sic] a lot of people who've made their living out of enforcing trans ideology in the workplace onto other people, and they're not going to just give up and go away." -- Helen Joyce https://youtu.be/mZhUo10TRpc?si=tyyiDi2lpfwiCaJR&t=4462 (1:14:22)
I am listening to an excellent interview with the great Helen Joyce on the topic of what the hell happened within HR at U.K. Companies, with regards to having gotten such poor legal advice regarding compliance with the Equality Act. For those of you with no time to watch the whole thing, skip to around the 51 minute mark of the video, where Joyce describes the phenomenon of Regulatory Capture and the difficulty in getting people in positions of power within such institutions to correct course, simply because it requires individuals to admit they were wrong. The subject might be institutions in the U.K., but the human element of that and the same old inevitable dynamics within a bureaucratic system are universal. I highly recommend it as a source of really great analysis to explain why Reform is so damn difficult.
Who's Ignoring The Supreme Court Ruling - And Why? (Ft. Helen Joyce & Inji Duducu)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZhUo10TRpc
Thank you for the introduction to Carol Tavris!
Received the following in my inbox this weekend; tangentially related to this talk, equally thought provoking: https://heterodoxacademy.substack.com/p/the-well-intended-perversion-of-science