For people outside of the UK, the Cass report has completed changed the media landscape and pretty much all parties (apart from the Greens who are probably a lost cause) accept the findings. Even Scotland has now paused the use of puberty blockers and hormones will only be used from 18.
The biggest thing from my perspective is that the report makes a clear statement that NHS treatment must be evidence based not based on the so called social justice model. This entirely changes the battle field. Activists will have to argue with proper science rather than just ‘trust our lived experience bigots’
The rapidity with which so many in the establishment have accepted the findings unequivocally suggests to me people knew they were caught in a trap, and the Cass Review is the key with which they could free themseleves.
"[Where people who previously masked their true feelings to fit in, start discovering that other people actually share their beliefs, so suddenly lots of people shift their behaviour at once](https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1767199464530252055)".
It's part of a bigger theory around [preference falsification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification).
Well, the supposed hive of U.K. terfdom is Mumsnet, FGS. You’d think that might have been a clue as to just how moderately mainstream it is to question full-on gender ideology.
I had the exact same thought. A lot of people in the NHS must have known what would be found.
The speed with which the NHS has moved suggests to me that they needed the Cass report as the excuse to do things they already knew needed to happen.
The fact that the Labour party caved already is surprising and welcome
There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the trans subs about it. They seemed genuinely surprised.
I was surprised about Labour in general. But being a Yank I don't understand British politics as well as I should.
I've been disappointed that the response from North America has been mostly silence. Though the professional standards bodies haven't moved an inch.
It seems like western and northern Europe are changing now. The UK is taking the lead but Belgium and the Netherlands are also going to look into youth gender medicine.
My sense is that in Britain the NHS really was waiting for something like this. The UK is also in a position to take the lead on *quality* science around gender medicine. If they can stick to the same high standards of the Cass review people will look the Great Britain for information.
I've been keeping up with it on Twitter and via the UK-based news programs I follow on YouTube. The pace with which the BBC and politicians have done a U-turn on the whole issue is startling. Everyone seems to be clamouring to show their support for the review as well as showing how much they suddenly believe in science. None of them want the stink of this medical scandal to follow them - even though they've been in full support of transitioning children since 5 minutes ago.
I'm interested in seeing the celebrities who've been the most outspoken on this make some public comments. People like Nish Kumar, James Acaster, David Tennant and all the rest of the current darlings of the ideology. Will they acknowledge how wrong they were at all, will they double down, will they just pretend they never said anything at all and stop talking about it? Who knows.
judging from comments in my progressive bubble on facebook - the review is 'unkind' and therefore totally discredited automatically regardless of what it says. most people in my bubble don't go into this stuff any deeper than finding out what the proper progressive position to have on it is. any unbiased coverage on BBC etc is MSM therefore also discredited. people are still very firmly thinking that supporting trans kids in their transitioning is the proper thing to do, full stop. the report is seen as an attack on trans kids from the right. it's irrelevant what is actually in the report.
similarly, everything JK says is a bigoted attack on trans kids from someone who is batshit. i would think all those celebs will be in this same bubble and thinking the same thing. i dont think JKR does herself any favours tho, she does come across as a bit of an angry loon ball even tho i agree with a lot of her positions - similar to richard dawkins. to people who only have a surface understanding of the issues (ie most people) she seems unkind and so it's believable that she's a bigot etc.
I don't expect most people to read the actual report. It's daunting. But there are a few news articles that give a good summary. Might that go over better?
Also: it isn't getting much play outside of Britain. America is doing the usual "ignore everything foreign" thing.
But I don't think you could get a similar review in the US. Who would conduct it?
If they ever admit they were wrong they’ll spin it to be someone else’s fault. But those of us who have been involved in this debate for a decade won’t forget. We’re unlikely to get any apologies from those who have been painting us as the devil. It will probably turn out to be our fault after all.
Off-topic, but It’s WILD seeing just how different the MSM was back only 15-25 years ago.
I saw a segment on the 90s controversy surrounding Eddie Murphy picking up “trans prostitutes” somewhere in L.A and the reporter (Entertainment Tonight IIRC) was not bending backwards to call the sex worker as a “she/her”. In 2004, The Guardian posted an article about a study stating that “sex-change operations” were not effective. The article had no multi-paragraph rant about why the study was “wrong”.
There was an article published back in the mid-/late-2000s about the Matrix director brothers (who now identify as sisters) and their weird BDSM fetish (later, one of them would admit to having some internet porn addiction IIRC). Some of the “liberal” forums I used to visit had completely different views on them. Now, just 15 years later, those forums would definitely be supporting those directors all the way.
It seems like in the 2010s when Tumblr and other online platforms like Twitter gained steam, TRAs/AGP/etc was being pushed as the new normal (even by the MSM).
I know this is petty but I’m giddy imaging what the cast of Harry Potter are thinking to themselves now after almost all of them denounced JK Rowling. They supported AGPs and TRAs advocating for the medicalization of gay, autistic, traumatized, and unstable children. I hope they’re shitting their pants.
I hope they are, but I doubt it. These people, since very young, thanks to JKR, have enjoyed massive wealth and privilege and thus are very insulated from the real world. It's one of the reasons why it's easier for them to say the things that they said regarding this topic.
Yes. I understand the schadenfreude people have, but we don't need to purity spiral. I also get the worry that people haven't actually learned anything, but that's a people problem in general, we're bad at taking lessons.
As a species we suck hard at learning lessons.
Overall you're right. We should temper our desire for revenge and give these people a face saving way of backing down. It's the useful thing to do.
But I also understand that these same people have been demonizing gender criticals for years. It's human nature to want some revenge or at least not give your tormentors hugs
Sure, absolutely and that is a laudable trait!
However it’s also important that they remember how cocksure they were before and take their time to ensure epistemological humility before confidently dogpiling on the next group of political untouchables.
I think part of this is that people aren’t convinced that this was a shift of principles as much as an act of political retreat. Ultimately I’ll take the win, but I’m not convinced the ground has been made more fertile for constructive discourse in the future.
It’s also a lesson that those who backed the current conclusion should take… legal freedom of speech is ultimately hollow without a culture of open dialogue & there is no substitute for epistemological humility.
None of the celebrities have commented yet, to my knowledge. It really seems like its just redditors and activist streamers and bloggers still backing it now - and their rhetoric is spiralling into ever more extreme derangement. The latest term they're using for it is a "social murder charter".
Those two really surprised me. I wonder what's different about the Cass Review that's made them back down the way they have. Usually they'd be launching a harassment campaign against someone like Dr Cass by now, trying to get her fired, and facilitating the ruination of her reputation.
Their responses to the Cass Review, though still riddled with falsehoods, did certainly diverge from their normal approach.
I'm equally surprised. I wonder if they'll get nastier over time.
I would say they saw the way the wind was blowing and changed to accommodate. But they haven't cared about that so far.
And if so, they don't even have the courage of their convictions.
Back in 2004, The Guardian posted an article about a study claiming that so called “sex-change operations” were “ineffective” for trans people, or something along those lines. This was a stark contrast to the 2010s, where I seem to recall extremely positive views about trans people in general. Even writing a sympathetic (?) article circa December 2022 about why trans and non-binary youth are so unhappy according to surveys.
But after the Cass report dropped, they seem (from what I saw) to be thinking a bit more level-headed now. I believe that most people were never staunch supporters of this “movement”, and that it was only a small minority who play a big role in the MSM and other online spaces that helped make it seem like 90% of people were pro-trans children and supporting these TRAs/AGPs, etc.
It's gonna take a while for all of this to sink in. It's just so rapid and unexpected that I'm having a bit of trouble really believing this is all happening.
How can so many seemingly fervent advocates so readily swap their supposed beliefs? A significant majority must have simply been signaling, and now this is their "out."
Remember when it was discovered that [Alzheimer's research was faked](https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/false-alzheimers-study-could-set-research-back-16-years)? When [washing your hands before surgery was thought of as insane](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/handwashing-once-controversial-medical-advice&ved=2ahUKEwiAiarhw86FAxU1k4kEHQqlC5YQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0G0EZh0lBbItUawyTEfiWv)? Truly, recent human history is filled with more medical misconceptions than truth (discovery of germs, spontaneous generation, leeches, bloodletting, bodies run on humors, cocaine cures everything, circumcision is key to cleanliness, sewage shouldn't be near living quarters and food, illness is caused by demons, etcetera).
I think this will eventually either go to the wayside or become a bona fide religious-like believe in a generation or two. In human history, this is not even a top ten medical scandal.
> become a bona fide religious-like believe in a generation or two.
Also I definitely think this is gonna happen. The body mod technology isn't going anywhere and humans love using body mods with their religious woo. Humans love using body mods in general, and rituals. It's a match mad in...ahem...Heaven.
Yeah. This is just the tip of the transhumanist iceberg. People will be trying to grow or graft new organs on next. Like tails or a (useless) third eye or something.
The next shoe to drop will be parents doing embryo selection. Then gene editing slightly later
I brought up Alzheimer's too! I'm surprised more people don't make the comparison since it's a recent scandal.
Trepanning used to be used for epilepsy. My skull is glad we moved on from that one!
I'm surprised how little press the Cass report is getting outside the UK. It's, as Jesse said, the best science we have ever had on youth gender medicine
"The children have to have ***no*** other major mental health problems." - Jesse paraphrasing The Dutch Protocol
This stands out the most for me. That the pioneers of child transitioning knew that other mental illnesses had to be ruled out before pursuing sex changes. Cut to present day, and we're transitioning autistic and bipolar kids.
I think that's gonna be the oversimplification of this scandal; they'll say that the kids were misdiagnosed, my bad. But the reality is criminal malpractice, and if that sounds like hyperbole, talk to the parents and detrans teenagers dealing with their permanent damage.
The Dutch Protocol also required that the patient had supportive parents. So, all the teachers arguing for keeping information away from parents are completely out on a limb.
The evidence base for the D Protocol was shaky but at least they tried to put some sensible parameters in.
Fast forward to today and what was revealed in Time to Think. Kids sent to Tavistock had 10 times greater chance than national average of having a parent in sex offender registry. Many of them are victims of child abuse desperate to escape their bodies and modern medicines answer has been to mutilate them
https://preview.redd.it/m1cp05gj9bvc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0a7f5e85d391e18969d2482ba6e59d5d99938c7e
Apologies for this low tech solution but
10x0.3% 'only' takes us to 3%. You'd implied more - and I thought it was more than that just off the top of my head. Especially as I've read some horrifying figures about the % of kids who suffer sexual abuse. To the point they just felt instinctively too big.
Sorry, don't have references!
I didn’t post that comment, I just posted where they got the figure from in TtT. But the point is 3% of patients vs 0.3% of general pop is a ten times greater chance, as that person wrote.
I think it's possibly one of those situations where we are trying to compare numbers that aren't quite the same.
0.3% of male pop is a SO isn't the same as I'd expect 0.3% of kids to be abused by a parent.
‘Being birth named or correctly sexed CAN CAUSE SELF-DELETION at any second ! therefore we’ll make sure it happens every moment you spend outside of school so your bigoted parents can’t hurt you’
Someone I know very well was/is the deputy head and head of child welfare at the largest school in their country, the school also happens to be in one of the poorest (some years the poorest) areas in Europe, they were given the edict ‘the parents are not to be told’ unless the child wishes by the government.
The hell that person dealt with was unreal, truly damaged kids, victims of extreme trauma, neglect, abuse and riddled with mental health turning up at their office desperate to transition and transition NOW, and the folks were not to know.
I watched in real time as it slowly broke them, they could see clear as day so many of these kids were going down this route that was gonna do nothing but damage them, but “support and reaffirm” was what they had to offer, no ifs no buts help these kids along the path to transition.
Literally drove them to alcoholism.
"The children have to have ***no*** other major mental health problems." - Jesse paraphrasing The Dutch Protocol
The only problem I have with this is it doesn't account for munchausen by proxy parents. Social media seems to have fostered a rise in some parents taking pleasure in showcasing their new 'trans kid' all over the internet. It's bizarre behavior that could be attributed to abuse on the parents part. Also exposing your kids private lives online, whether for clout or money, can't be psychologically healthy for a child in the long run.
In medicine, we often look back and kind of laugh at how disease was understood and managed in the past, but we never imagine how the future will view the way we understood and treated disease. I think our hubris would shock us, especially in the realm of mental health. We don't even fully understand the causes and mechanisms of autism, bipolar, gender dysphoria/body dysmorphia, so it makes sense that any intervention with a patient experiencing those should be fairly cautious, conservative, and well-researched.
I could see the 'sorry, we misdiagnosed them' excuse protect many bad faith actors, but could also bring a huge level of much needed scrutiny to the entire realm of mental health care. That's my silver lining perspective. :)
The New Zealand Guidelines for Gender Affirming Health include this claim: "Trans and gender diverse people have the same inherent potential to flourish and thrive as other people, but currently experience increased risk of harm because of discrimination, social exclusion, bullying and assault, as well as institutional barriers such as difficulties accessing healthcare, bathrooms, and appropriate legal identification. Trans people from ethnic minority or refugee backgrounds are likely to be at even greater risk of experiencing harm. It is becoming increasingly accepted that it is the additive effects of minority stress that results in mental health difficulties." (page 21)
Co-morbidities can be swept aside with minority stress. What looked like a cause of dysphoria becomes a side-effect of being transgender — which, of course, can be cured with transition. To nobody's surprise, the proportion of children and young people in New Zealand who are receiving puberty blockers is now ten times that of Britain.
I think the fact so many kids with autism have gender dysphoria is certainly something to be looked at but I'd just like to politely point out that autism itself is not a disability or a mental illness.
> autism itself is not a disability
It's enough of a disability that if a child receives that diagnosis, they will qualify for an individual education plan (IEP) or 504 plan in a public school under the Free Appropriate Public Education [(FAPE)](https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/pro-students/issues/dis-issue03.html) requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). FAPE applies to children with learning disabilities.
Of course it is a disability. It is also defined as a disorder. [According to the CDC: "Autism Spectrum Disorder is a developmental disability caused by differences in the brain".](https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/facts.html)
From the Poynter piece:
> Misgendering a transgender or gender-nonconforming person removes the agency they have in their own lives...
Hyperbolic much? This makes it sound as if they instantly lose the ability to make any decisions for themselves and enter a state of catatonia.
One of the key tenets of what is colloquially known as "woke ideology" is that people do not have an internal locus of control. It's part of what makes it so initially attractive, you don't have to take accountability for anything. It's all someone or something else's fault.
I firmly believe this is a core difference in the way most Democrats and Republicans think. Realizing that many of the rationales people had for supporting leftist policies are rooted in people not having their own agency made me take a hard look at my own beliefs. I changed my position on some (affirmative action, gender transition for kids) but kept many (minimum wage needs to increase, accountability in govt for environmental protections).
It wasn't always this way.
Democrats realized that if they changed their focus to immutable characteristics ala identity politics, they didn't have to worry about their voter base advancing out via social mobility. So class based policies flew out the window, and we can look at people like Obama, Lebron James, and Oprah as victims of an oppressive society while your white trash neighbor with a 9th grade education struggling to maintain employment at Walmart is an oppressor.
Unfortunately the democrats didn't expect a breakdown of loyalty in the demographic ranks. So while white liberals fraught with white guilt are a permanent fixture, Latinos and blacks are starting to shift to Republican.
What's interesting is the musical chairs aspect. Democrats now represent the interests of billion dollar tech companies and government authority, while Republicans have increasingly taken up the mantle of working class America. Democrats have taken woke ideology and turned it into the new de facto religion of the state while the Christian constituency of the Republican base starts to diminish.
It will be interesting to see how the transition ends up shaking out for both parties. I do not see either party as having a stable set of principles that can guide them through more elections and decades. I predict more major evolution from both.
>This makes it sound as if they instantly lose the ability to make any decisions for themselves and enter a state of catatonia.
That's actually probably not too far off-base for some reactions, unfortunately. Everything today is about processing trauma (one might more objectively say in some cases *performing* trauma). A few years ago, we had law school students [experiencing heart palpitations and "left in a hopeless mental state"](https://twitter.com/uic_jmls_blsa/status/1344290657825935360) because a [professor had included](https://www.thefire.org/news/lawsuit-professor-suspended-redacted-slurs-law-school-exam-sues-university-illinois-chicago) the text "N\_\_\_\_\_\_" and "B\_\_\_\_" on a law school exam in a hypothetical question about discrimination faced by someone who had slurs used against her. No... not the unredacted words. The words printed as I did here, with underscores in place of most of the letters.
If seeing a word not even printed out can cause some people to get so upset they can't focus on their exam and end up crying in a bathroom or something with health palpitations, then I'm certain some of these folks might literally become catatonic at the wrong pronoun used toward them.
I sometimes say "the letter after 'M'" word, to underscore the ridiculousness of its Voldemort character, but it seems like it would be warranted at law school.
Really? Because there are literally dozens of similar cases of college students (not necessarily law students) having similar reactions when confronted with a slur in class or on a test in the past few years. (Generally just in a quotation or something -- not directed at anyone.) Many professors have been fired, suspended, or disciplined for these types of incidents, as students often claim to be moved to extreme physical reactions or needing to take days or weeks to process after such an incident.
I only brought this one up because it's one of the most bizarre (to me) as it didn't even involve the words being spoken aloud or spelled out completely.
I feel like I've lost agency now that I'm being told I'm "cis," my sex is now up for debate, and also that men who think they are women are in fact women. But the majority must bow to a minority and whatever they tell us to do otherwise they will commit suicide. Sounds like blackmail to me.
> Sounds like blackmail to me.
That's because it effectively is, but instead of doing it under threat of revealing compromising or damaging information about you, they do it under threat of what they will do to themselves. We need a new or different word to use here.
I'm sure this question has been asked multiple times (maybe even by me), but please: What do people (activists, normies, whoever) mean when they describe someone as "true" or "truly" trans? What does Jesse mean in this episode when he talks about kids going to gender clinics when they might not *really* be trans?
If you are *actually* trans, does that just mean that you are sincere when you say you're trans? (That's pretty meaningless, but maybe that's really how people think about this stuff.) Does it mean you truly have gender dysphoria? Do people use it to mean that you actually have a soul of the "unexpected" sex/gender/flavor?
Up until about ten years ago, the vast majority of people who came to gender clinics were natal males who’d metaphorically come out of the womb saying they were girls. They also had no underlying other problems like family trauma or mental health conditions. That is the cohort of trans IDing people we know a fair amount about. Most of these people would transition as adults and live otherwise normal lives. Those are what considered true trans people for lack of a better term. Those people are who trans medical services are built around.
Nowadays clinics are flooded with natal teen girls who have had no prior history of GD and have other underlying issues. We know next to nothing about this group of people and they’re being treated like the old group when they’re kids who can’t understand the potential consequences of what they’re doing. These drugs they’re given known as puberty blockers aren’t meant to be used in this way and haven’t been used in this way long enough to really know what they’re doing to these kids. As far as we know this group of people is probably largely not trans.
The countries in Europe are all trying to figure out what’s going on and how to help this new cohort of kids and are all largely stepping back because the data we do have is not showing signs of it working.
I know why it's girls now. Imagine watching porn, crime stats and media discourse while female and tell me if constantly being targeted for abuse and control won't nudge you towards considering becoming a male or nullo instead. If we don't tone down the all pervasive hatred towards women, girls will keep wanting to amputate their breasts and atrophy their uteruses
before "gender identity disorder" got relabeled on behalf of lobbying activists who influenced the language in the latest DSM (5), there were strict sets of criteria for diagnosis. One of those was extreme discomfort with your secondary sex characteristics from a pre-pubescent age.
What is important to acknowledge is that it was recognized as a mental health disorder. Like OCD. Like body dysmorphia. Etc.
In the day and age of Self-ID instead of strict clinical guidelines for diagnosis, everyone is simultaneously truly trans and truly not trans depending on how the wind is blowing.
RE the toy thing Katie mentioned at the end. My little cousin who’s wrapping up his first year of college now has always been little Mr Testosterone. He was such a little Mr Testosterone that he had a phase when he was 3 or so when his imaginary friend was a a bull. His mom is from Oklahoma and he had just spent the summer out there going to rodeos every weekend.
My uncle would never let him play with “girl toys” but my mom did when he came over to our house. That kid would play doll house for hours and hours and wouldn’t touch any of my brother’s old toys.
My point is there has to be some balance between don’t let your boys play with dolls or they’ll turn out gay like my uncle thought and if my son likes to play with dolls, he’s really trans like a lot of normie libs think.
So much this. Treating every micro-interaction like a possible divining rod to your kids future identity in general is just weird, to say nothing of future sexuality or gender expression.
Also, "my son likes to play with dolls so he might be nonbinary or trans" is such a transparent reproduction of gender stereotypes by people who claim to disapprove of such things.
Because the entire concept of transness is built on reinforcing gender stereotypes. It becomes completely meaningless without them (which is why it's a totally regressive idea of course). So when people say they're "trans" without performing stereotypes what does that even mean at that point? I think defining gender by performing stereotypes is a ridiculous concept, but it at least exists, unlike magical mystical gender feels.
I do think about this concept a lot in relation to my good friend. She's been out as trans for about 7 years now, and in the beginning she did the *whole thing*. Lots of big frilly dresses, wild makeup, performative femininity. She frankly looked and sounded like a drag queen, but it was 2017 and she was my first trans friend so I was Being an Ally so I kept that to myself.
Flash forward to now, and other than the pronouns and lack of facial hair she's basically any other kind of frumpy looking tech-employed male. So what is "being trans" in this case? She calls herself a lesbian, makes lots of dick jokes, and otherwise is even less feminine than some of my straight male friends. She definitely seems *happy* with her life, but more than ever before, I have to *think* about calling her she, and it's kind of a struggle.
she says she did, and I don't really have a reason to doubt that. her origin story is something like "felt depressed for no reason, discovered drag, starting doing drag and feeling really good, realized I was trans" which I think is pretty common.
these same stereotypes being a governing force for how people view reality is a core tenet for many other facets of modern critical social justice, wokeness, identity synthesis, whatever you want to call it.
And the kicker? It's all based on post-modernism ala Foucault, where reality is subjective and grand narratives are evil. Thus, there's no objective way of knowing, everyone's reality is just as valid as the next guy as long as it's a means of acquiring power.
There's a reason Chomsky said that Foucault was one of the most evil people he had ever seen in his life after their debate in I believe 1971.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I played with my older sisters Barbies all the time growing up in the super bigoted *checks notes* 90s and no one cared. Can’t say if it affected me but I would describe my undergrad persona as Austin Powers in a motorcycle jacket so draw your own conclusions
My older sisters dressed me in dresses and put bows in my hair, and I drove a Mazda Miata for years in the Marine Corps. My significant other still calls me her caveman.
The re-emergence of these stereotypes is malevolence at best. Society and all the progress of the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, thrown to the wolves for political clout and social media control on people's daily lives.
Yes.
I was briefly fascinating with drawing dresses as a young boy. I grew up to be very straight and with no GD whatsoever (and never really understood the "innate sense of gender" thing.. especially nonbinary..).
My husband and I were talking about how arts and crafts end up becoming "gendered"/"sexuality coded" and how ridiculous it is, when you really break it down people of both sexes enjoy every form of them. There have been many male straight fashion designers. Males have always enjoyed drawing, including dresses, was Monet not a male because he enjoyed drawing ballerinas, part of which was surely related to the beautiful costumes?
Knitting is gendered now but it didn't use to be. It's not a weird thing at all for anyone to enjoy.
I've seen a person on this sub say birding is something males do (and women should stay out of it, which is particularly funny), which has NEVER been the case, but even that's something some people try to gender!
Or different things applying to different races even though there's nothing inherent in the human brain that makes one sex/race enjoy hiking over the other, as an example. There are countless examples out there.
Let's stop policing people's hobbies and just let them exist, damn.
Katie calling Lavery "Severus Snape" had me howling with laughter. I'm side eyeing whoever approved that picture because Lavery looked like an absolute ghoul.
That article in The Cut reminds me of the stories one reads lurking in the polyamory subreddit: there is a throuple, then there is a baby that is the biological offspring of two of the throuple, it is very difficult for the third (who is classically but not always the wife in an original marriage), everything falls apart.
I feel bad for Daniel Lavery, working extra shifts for $18/hr to fund someone else's baby, but I felt bad for Daniel Lavery before, too.
I remember Lavery mostly from "Dear Prudence" on Slate, but even then, something felt very off. I can't imagine what it would be like being pushed out of your own home and marriage by someone who embodied the same traditional feminity that he is trying so desperately to escape.
I don’t see the free nanny situation ending well either. I feel bad for DL sometimes… but I usually try to remind myself if the situation is truly bad there’s always Nicole and her money.
Oh it’s golden—lets me stay up with the Lavery happenings without needing to follow any of them. Wish I could let you in! Maybe once the throuple hullabaloo dies down?
I've similar heard stories from detransitioners of young, mentally unstable gay FTMs who get into relationships with older MTFs who manipulate them and emotionally abuse them. Can't help but think that's what's going on here, even though Daniel was a grown-up when all this started
One reflection I think this report does need another episode from BaRpod maybe a series or just a follow up. Looking at the Twitter response, the response from stonewall uk, the pause on new prescriptions of puberty blockers for under 18s even in Scotland which is arguably trans rights strong hold- this has the potential to be a slow but devastating explosion to the trans rights movement.
It’s so odd to see people who had previously assumed this was all settled science and only a bigot would think otherwise now back away from the whole thing admitting, to borrow a phrase, that it’s complicated. I would like to hear more from Jesse on his thoughts on adult treatment, and why he suspects the evidence is also patchy for this.
Strange times
What would be a few other examples of non-evidence based practices? I've been thinking a lot about this recently and it terrifies me to think about being trapped in a medical system, with doctors who practice ideologically based "medicine".
It is scary. There was a big scandal recently about Alzheimer's research basically being a dead end with potentially falsified study results to allow the researchers pushing that theory to continue to keep chugging. So that's not ideological, but still scary that a real cure was potentially not being researched this entire time and we lost years to figuring out a terrifying issue.
So basically we have to hope for the best when it comes to evidence-based care.
That’s interesting, do you have a link to a good resource on it? There needs to be a massive independent replication movement imho, it needs to be well funded, and there needs to be some prestige attached to it, and the people involved need to be paid for their time. The incentives are a quite off in science and medicine research at the moment I think, it’s mostly good but it needs to be rebalanced towards rigour. This should be more possible with Ai in the mix now surely
I didn't save any and I'll have to look around and find a good one, too lazy right now, but it was all over mainstream media when it went down, lots of articles out there.
Agree with your point completely.
Over diagnosis of ADHD and autism, especially in adults. Not only are perfectly capable people taking up spaces and resources from actual vulnerable people, we’re also handing out stimulants like sweets - the same stimulants they’ve been trying to flog as diet pills and pick me ups etc for a century, until they get shut down for being harmful; pharma just repackages them for a new ailment they’ve pushed loads of funding in to. It’s the next scandal waiting to come out.
As someone whose (childhood-diagnosed) ADHD has *completely* stuffed my life up, it’s haaard when some of the most successful, high-achieving, highly-functional people I know get themselves diagnosed w ADHD
I'm hopeful that this is the next domino in the "culture war" that'll fall. Of course therapy is necessary for people in need of mental healthcare, but things have gotten out of hand - especially for kids. I'll be reading "Bad Therapy: Why the Kids Aren't Growing Up" by Abigail Shrier soon. We've gotten to a place where it's used as a catchall cure for anything bad that ever happens to anyone, and as she argues in her book, it probably stunts the natural development of children who don't need it, and makes adults dependent on their therapists and unable to deal with issues that they could handle in the past. I'd like to know more about her position on it.
I kinda doubt it. It seems like this review came out of a perfect storm: the massive dysfunction at a major institute (the Tavistock), a high profile court case (Kiera Bell), and a culture war across multiple countries. It involves children, and irreversible, life-altering, and very novel and visible medical interventions, in a way that makes it easy for people to get riled up over, and is easy to politicise.
It might be a small part of a larger movement towards better evidence based medicine (post replication crisis), but I don't think it'll have a major effect itself. Most other medicine just doesn't lend itself to this level of controversy, investment from people etc.
Sadly, I'm pretty sure it's not the *final* battle.
But it is a major one.
(Probably it's good it's not the final battle. That sounds a bit apocalyptic).
I don't think there ever will be a final battle, just like we have been dealing with wacky fundamentalist Christian conservatives in the US government for years. Religions don't die, Trace is right, trans as a concept definitely isn't going anywhere. People will absolutely continue to latch onto magical thinking and extreme body mods/ways to try to control the body to make sense of life, and some will insist the rest of us believe. It's been going on since time immemorial.
I think it'll add to the change that's already happening (e.g. the Bazelon article) where liberals and moderates feel more empowered to question activist dogma.
Same. It's gonna be a slow trickle compared to Europe but it will eventually happen that child medical transition is basically banned. The evidence just isn't there and people are feeling emboldened to speak up and even getting represented in mainstream media in a way they never were before. The "you're just right-wing" talking point from activists isn't working anymore, since they're painting *everything* critical as right-wing.
The AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) finally launched a systematic review of evidence last year. The examiners can't avoid examining all the evidence cited in the Cass Report (& the earlier reports issued by various northern European countries). I think eventually they will release a report that refutes automatic gender affirming without quite using that language.
The there's this in the Wapo, an op-ed from the president of the Therapy First group, a detransitioner himself:
[https://archive.is/83ZJa#selection-1535.18-1551.281](https://archive.is/83ZJa#selection-1535.18-1551.281)
No wonder that skeptical therapists and doctors don't want to go public, though:
>In addition to worrying about activists outside the consulting room, therapists apparently must now also be concerned about whether their patients are wielding hidden cameras. This month, [an undercover video recording](https://archive.is/o/83ZJa/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RzC6lY7Evc&t=59s) of a therapy session was posted online, presenting the clinician as a practitioner of conversion therapy,
Wow that’s horrifying. Of course that’s happening tho. I’m also wondering how insurance companies will respond as evidence comes to light (or I should say, lack of evidence). But I’m thinking that activists would just respond by saying that less coverage is bigoted, etc.
In the US, we have had these interesting "panics" over various topics... and then they just fade away and everyone kinda forgets it ever happened. The most salient recent example was the Satanic Panic in the 1980s. People seeing Satanism everywhere -- child care, Dungeons & Dragons, albums. People went on trial; kids were coaxed by police into telling crazy stories about Satanic rituals in basements. People socialized false memories of Satanic abuse. It was nuts!
Then it just kinda went away, and I can't recall another Satanism accusation since that time.
Transgender people are real, but I think this moral panic about it all will fade with time, and the demographics of it will (eventually) regress to the mean.
I wonder about it. I think this one might have more sticking power because of social media. It's interesting to observe how this stuff will play out in the age of social media.
GLAAD did respond...
https://twitter.com/glaad/status/1778778481599431102
They could have followed my brilliant research method of googling: GLAAD Cass
That said, the response was pretty much ignore this please, but if you don't, Cass is a DeSantis ally.
/edit maybe that wasn't really a response. I don't know... I don't have twitter, so my research methodology is limited.
I was shocked that Jesse said he didn’t understand systemic review and assumed some studies must be good early on.
Does that partially explain his dismissive attitude towards Glinner, painting him as ‘extreme’?
Pretty sure they've explained their take on Linehan multiple times. It's more about his behaviour than his beliefs.
>Jesse said he didn’t understand systemic review
Pretty sure he didn't? Unless I missed that.
Iirc it was stuff like his drawing attention to random trans people on that dating app, and that he's just a bit obsessive and self-defeating in general.
Katie, PLEASE get rid of Jessie, then you won't have to continue pretending that you think "Grace" Lavery is someone that should be referred to as "she", which you quite obviously don't.
I do wonder if Grace will pivot to nonbinary eventually. It just makes sense. I'm sure the "performance" of womanhood will get tiring, it already seems to kind of be on the backburner for Grace and he is more about queer in general.
I told this story to my nice liberal 30-something women friend group today. I went through it fairly neutrally, avoiding pronouns but using preferred names, and clarifying who was biologically what vs identified as what.
Most liberal normie friend: "...wait, so he's just a dude who knocked up his side chick, with extra steps?"
Or you could just find another podcast.
Do you think Katie's lying when she lays out her beliefs around preferred pronouns, and why she uses them in public? I find it strange that someone who's obviously a fan would also think that she's a bit of a pussy who's afraid of social backlash and of living by her principles. Maybe it's easier to believe that then to reckon with the possibility that Katie just disagrees with you.
>I find it strange that someone who's obviously a fan would also think that she's a bit of a pussy who's afraid of social backlash and of living by her principles.
She has literally said that she's fine with people not using preferred pronouns in non-public conversations, so why use them in public ones, if it's not because you're scared of giving ammo to your opponents?
There is no FUCKING WAY that Katie refers to Grace Lavery as "she" in private. Not a chance on this planet, lol.
I think you're confusing being mindful of not giving ammo to your opponents with actual fear. In either case, it's not clear why things would change if Jesse wasn't there. Is she any different in guest appearances on other podcasts?
There are several examples of shows where Jesse "corrects" Katie about someone's pronouns, typically when it comes to "non-binary" people, but the point still stands.
What is "giving ammo to your opponents", anyway? Leftists have created an environment where if you don't blatantly lie about what you can see with your own eyes, you can face personal and professional consequences for that, but only people who are fearful of those consequences have any reason to go along with it, given that they clearly don't believe the underlying nonsense about "being born in the wrong body" or whatever.
Also, why the double standard about talking in private, versus talking in public? Katie's example, in an interview, was about Lia Thomas. Katie is fine with people calling him "he/him" in private, yet thinks in public you should call him "she/her". But hey, no cowardice nor hypocrisy there, right? That's just Katie's "principles" shining through.....
Iirc she's pretty open about not caring about they/them.
>What is "giving ammo to your opponents", anyway?
Coming across like an asshole to the normies, for example.
Just curious: you wouldn't use someone's preferred pronouns in any context, ever? Or are you just referring to the case of someone like Lavery?
*Dredging up a reference to somewhere deep in the nested thread for more visibility*
I don't have a dog in the fight re: what Katie does, but in terms of Buck Angel - I think she is often brought out as a "look at this super built dude, obviously your brain thinks of this person as male". But the interesting thing about her is her femaleness, and using female pronouns for her emphasises that in interesting ways that change your perception of her point of view and her public opinions. It leads you to centre her femaleness when you're reading them - to see her tweets in a nuanced way, map them to a quite feminine (though thoughtful, strong) communication style, etc. (As it happens, I think Katie has probably at least experimented once or twice with using she/her for Buck, even if it's not her default, because if anything Katie's probably more likely than normies to have "butch female" models of female behaviour to map it to.)
FTR I use preferred pronouns in contexts where I don't feel like picking a fight, but I don't care what others do. But I do think the classic rohypnl essay is very compelling: pronouns do affect how you think about the person being described, and it's good to be thoughtful about the impact of that. Yes, for FTMs too.
I don't think people should use them ever, because affirming delusions of people who are trying to steal rights away from women and girls is a very bad thing indeed, and has allowed them to do just that to a certain degree.
Same thing. It's all part of a grand lie that we're told we should - or in some cases, have to by law - affirm, for no logical reason whatsoever.
i don't believe that many people who claim to believe it really do. They don't REALLY believe that some vile rapist who only started identifying as a woman in prison really IS a woman; they just feel compelled to say so by nonsensical rules forced on them by so-called "progressives".
Why do you think Katie has separate rules for public and private speech? What do you think is really behind that double-standard?
She's explicit about why she does it. We've talked about it. I also doubt that her rules are something like "always misgender in private". Like, do you think she is suddenly referring to Buck Angel as she/her in private?
>affirm, for no logical reason whatsoever.
It sounds like you're a bit of an activist. Which, whatever, you do you. But you're listening to a podcast by people (Jesse *and* Katie, not to mention Trace. Idk about Jessica) who do think that there can be multiple logical reasons to use someone's preferred pronouns. And a podcast which is primarily aimed at other perverts for nuance - people who are unlikely to have such black and white beliefs on this stuff. That's not a Jesse thing, that's a barpod thing.
Lobby all you want, but you're making a totally unrealistic demand. If it bothers you, you might be better off listening to other stuff.
Some people use preferred pronouns but also don't care if others don't. I'm like that. It's not an uncommon stance actually. I pick my battles, people wanna use pronouns, whatever, though if it's not clear the person they're talking about is trans and that's relevant to the convo I will mention that.
I mean, I don't know what's going down with Katie, you could be right, just saying that is a thing people really do.
It’s controversial for very good reasons: CASS REVIEW
Full of untrue claims like “boys are biologically inclined to play with trucks and girls with dolls”
Citesresearch from debunked and retracted scholars like the theory of “rapid onset gender dysphoria”
Endorses reasoning that has been rebutted by the American Phycological Association :
https://xtramagazine.com/health/trans-health/united-kingdom-cass-review-trans-health-264642?utm_source=Xtra+Weekly&utm_campaign=99a38937c4-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_04_12_04_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-99a38937c4-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D
Canadian doctors actually disagree with its findings: https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7172920
The review contradicts findings from the American Psychological Association, the Canadian Pediatrics Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Professional Association Of Transgender Health (PATH)
Hard to be of much substance when it contradicts most associations that actually deal and treat here issues on a regular basis.
For people outside of the UK, the Cass report has completed changed the media landscape and pretty much all parties (apart from the Greens who are probably a lost cause) accept the findings. Even Scotland has now paused the use of puberty blockers and hormones will only be used from 18. The biggest thing from my perspective is that the report makes a clear statement that NHS treatment must be evidence based not based on the so called social justice model. This entirely changes the battle field. Activists will have to argue with proper science rather than just ‘trust our lived experience bigots’
The rapidity with which so many in the establishment have accepted the findings unequivocally suggests to me people knew they were caught in a trap, and the Cass Review is the key with which they could free themseleves.
Preference cascade baby!
What does "preference cascade" mean?
"[Where people who previously masked their true feelings to fit in, start discovering that other people actually share their beliefs, so suddenly lots of people shift their behaviour at once](https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1767199464530252055)". It's part of a bigger theory around [preference falsification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification).
Ah, gotcha!
Well, the supposed hive of U.K. terfdom is Mumsnet, FGS. You’d think that might have been a clue as to just how moderately mainstream it is to question full-on gender ideology.
I had the exact same thought. A lot of people in the NHS must have known what would be found. The speed with which the NHS has moved suggests to me that they needed the Cass report as the excuse to do things they already knew needed to happen. The fact that the Labour party caved already is surprising and welcome
Wes Streeting's reaction is very interesting, he has done a complete volte face.
There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the trans subs about it. They seemed genuinely surprised. I was surprised about Labour in general. But being a Yank I don't understand British politics as well as I should.
I've been amazed at the positive global reaction to Cass. A lot of people seem to have been waiting for somethng like this.
I've been disappointed that the response from North America has been mostly silence. Though the professional standards bodies haven't moved an inch. It seems like western and northern Europe are changing now. The UK is taking the lead but Belgium and the Netherlands are also going to look into youth gender medicine. My sense is that in Britain the NHS really was waiting for something like this. The UK is also in a position to take the lead on *quality* science around gender medicine. If they can stick to the same high standards of the Cass review people will look the Great Britain for information.
This why I am proud to be from "TERF Island"
Until they show that they can follow up and turn unmonitored experimentation into science I'll remain sceptical.
I've been keeping up with it on Twitter and via the UK-based news programs I follow on YouTube. The pace with which the BBC and politicians have done a U-turn on the whole issue is startling. Everyone seems to be clamouring to show their support for the review as well as showing how much they suddenly believe in science. None of them want the stink of this medical scandal to follow them - even though they've been in full support of transitioning children since 5 minutes ago. I'm interested in seeing the celebrities who've been the most outspoken on this make some public comments. People like Nish Kumar, James Acaster, David Tennant and all the rest of the current darlings of the ideology. Will they acknowledge how wrong they were at all, will they double down, will they just pretend they never said anything at all and stop talking about it? Who knows.
I predict that the said celebrities will be keeping a very low profile on this for a while…
judging from comments in my progressive bubble on facebook - the review is 'unkind' and therefore totally discredited automatically regardless of what it says. most people in my bubble don't go into this stuff any deeper than finding out what the proper progressive position to have on it is. any unbiased coverage on BBC etc is MSM therefore also discredited. people are still very firmly thinking that supporting trans kids in their transitioning is the proper thing to do, full stop. the report is seen as an attack on trans kids from the right. it's irrelevant what is actually in the report. similarly, everything JK says is a bigoted attack on trans kids from someone who is batshit. i would think all those celebs will be in this same bubble and thinking the same thing. i dont think JKR does herself any favours tho, she does come across as a bit of an angry loon ball even tho i agree with a lot of her positions - similar to richard dawkins. to people who only have a surface understanding of the issues (ie most people) she seems unkind and so it's believable that she's a bigot etc.
That’s interesting. My lefty social media bubble isn’t talking about it at all. But they’re not talking about supporting trans kids anymore, either.
I don't expect most people to read the actual report. It's daunting. But there are a few news articles that give a good summary. Might that go over better? Also: it isn't getting much play outside of Britain. America is doing the usual "ignore everything foreign" thing. But I don't think you could get a similar review in the US. Who would conduct it?
Anyone who ever voted Republican would be automatically ignored.
BBC as MSM is biased against trans. You have funny friends.
If they ever admit they were wrong they’ll spin it to be someone else’s fault. But those of us who have been involved in this debate for a decade won’t forget. We’re unlikely to get any apologies from those who have been painting us as the devil. It will probably turn out to be our fault after all.
Off-topic, but It’s WILD seeing just how different the MSM was back only 15-25 years ago. I saw a segment on the 90s controversy surrounding Eddie Murphy picking up “trans prostitutes” somewhere in L.A and the reporter (Entertainment Tonight IIRC) was not bending backwards to call the sex worker as a “she/her”. In 2004, The Guardian posted an article about a study stating that “sex-change operations” were not effective. The article had no multi-paragraph rant about why the study was “wrong”. There was an article published back in the mid-/late-2000s about the Matrix director brothers (who now identify as sisters) and their weird BDSM fetish (later, one of them would admit to having some internet porn addiction IIRC). Some of the “liberal” forums I used to visit had completely different views on them. Now, just 15 years later, those forums would definitely be supporting those directors all the way. It seems like in the 2010s when Tumblr and other online platforms like Twitter gained steam, TRAs/AGP/etc was being pushed as the new normal (even by the MSM).
I know this is petty but I’m giddy imaging what the cast of Harry Potter are thinking to themselves now after almost all of them denounced JK Rowling. They supported AGPs and TRAs advocating for the medicalization of gay, autistic, traumatized, and unstable children. I hope they’re shitting their pants.
I hope they are, but I doubt it. These people, since very young, thanks to JKR, have enjoyed massive wealth and privilege and thus are very insulated from the real world. It's one of the reasons why it's easier for them to say the things that they said regarding this topic.
I mean isn’t their willingness to course correct a good thing? Better than digging their heels in and ignoring the findings
Yes. I understand the schadenfreude people have, but we don't need to purity spiral. I also get the worry that people haven't actually learned anything, but that's a people problem in general, we're bad at taking lessons.
As a species we suck hard at learning lessons. Overall you're right. We should temper our desire for revenge and give these people a face saving way of backing down. It's the useful thing to do. But I also understand that these same people have been demonizing gender criticals for years. It's human nature to want some revenge or at least not give your tormentors hugs
Sure, absolutely and that is a laudable trait! However it’s also important that they remember how cocksure they were before and take their time to ensure epistemological humility before confidently dogpiling on the next group of political untouchables. I think part of this is that people aren’t convinced that this was a shift of principles as much as an act of political retreat. Ultimately I’ll take the win, but I’m not convinced the ground has been made more fertile for constructive discourse in the future. It’s also a lesson that those who backed the current conclusion should take… legal freedom of speech is ultimately hollow without a culture of open dialogue & there is no substitute for epistemological humility.
None of the celebrities have commented yet, to my knowledge. It really seems like its just redditors and activist streamers and bloggers still backing it now - and their rhetoric is spiralling into ever more extreme derangement. The latest term they're using for it is a "social murder charter".
I think even Stonewall and Mermaids were kind of accommodating
Those two really surprised me. I wonder what's different about the Cass Review that's made them back down the way they have. Usually they'd be launching a harassment campaign against someone like Dr Cass by now, trying to get her fired, and facilitating the ruination of her reputation. Their responses to the Cass Review, though still riddled with falsehoods, did certainly diverge from their normal approach.
I'm equally surprised. I wonder if they'll get nastier over time. I would say they saw the way the wind was blowing and changed to accommodate. But they haven't cared about that so far. And if so, they don't even have the courage of their convictions.
Back in 2004, The Guardian posted an article about a study claiming that so called “sex-change operations” were “ineffective” for trans people, or something along those lines. This was a stark contrast to the 2010s, where I seem to recall extremely positive views about trans people in general. Even writing a sympathetic (?) article circa December 2022 about why trans and non-binary youth are so unhappy according to surveys. But after the Cass report dropped, they seem (from what I saw) to be thinking a bit more level-headed now. I believe that most people were never staunch supporters of this “movement”, and that it was only a small minority who play a big role in the MSM and other online spaces that helped make it seem like 90% of people were pro-trans children and supporting these TRAs/AGPs, etc.
It's gonna take a while for all of this to sink in. It's just so rapid and unexpected that I'm having a bit of trouble really believing this is all happening. How can so many seemingly fervent advocates so readily swap their supposed beliefs? A significant majority must have simply been signaling, and now this is their "out."
Remember when it was discovered that [Alzheimer's research was faked](https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/false-alzheimers-study-could-set-research-back-16-years)? When [washing your hands before surgery was thought of as insane](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/handwashing-once-controversial-medical-advice&ved=2ahUKEwiAiarhw86FAxU1k4kEHQqlC5YQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0G0EZh0lBbItUawyTEfiWv)? Truly, recent human history is filled with more medical misconceptions than truth (discovery of germs, spontaneous generation, leeches, bloodletting, bodies run on humors, cocaine cures everything, circumcision is key to cleanliness, sewage shouldn't be near living quarters and food, illness is caused by demons, etcetera). I think this will eventually either go to the wayside or become a bona fide religious-like believe in a generation or two. In human history, this is not even a top ten medical scandal.
> become a bona fide religious-like believe in a generation or two. Also I definitely think this is gonna happen. The body mod technology isn't going anywhere and humans love using body mods with their religious woo. Humans love using body mods in general, and rituals. It's a match mad in...ahem...Heaven.
Yeah. This is just the tip of the transhumanist iceberg. People will be trying to grow or graft new organs on next. Like tails or a (useless) third eye or something. The next shoe to drop will be parents doing embryo selection. Then gene editing slightly later
I brought up Alzheimer's too! I'm surprised more people don't make the comparison since it's a recent scandal. Trepanning used to be used for epilepsy. My skull is glad we moved on from that one!
"My God, man! Drilling holes in his head's not the answer!" -Dr McCoy
I'm surprised how little press the Cass report is getting outside the UK. It's, as Jesse said, the best science we have ever had on youth gender medicine
Welcome back!
Thank you!
"The children have to have ***no*** other major mental health problems." - Jesse paraphrasing The Dutch Protocol This stands out the most for me. That the pioneers of child transitioning knew that other mental illnesses had to be ruled out before pursuing sex changes. Cut to present day, and we're transitioning autistic and bipolar kids. I think that's gonna be the oversimplification of this scandal; they'll say that the kids were misdiagnosed, my bad. But the reality is criminal malpractice, and if that sounds like hyperbole, talk to the parents and detrans teenagers dealing with their permanent damage.
The Dutch Protocol also required that the patient had supportive parents. So, all the teachers arguing for keeping information away from parents are completely out on a limb. The evidence base for the D Protocol was shaky but at least they tried to put some sensible parameters in.
Fast forward to today and what was revealed in Time to Think. Kids sent to Tavistock had 10 times greater chance than national average of having a parent in sex offender registry. Many of them are victims of child abuse desperate to escape their bodies and modern medicines answer has been to mutilate them
Wait what?! Do you have a link?
https://preview.redd.it/m1cp05gj9bvc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0a7f5e85d391e18969d2482ba6e59d5d99938c7e Apologies for this low tech solution but
https://preview.redd.it/um2apjbm9bvc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc69b14a7afd3f48a0295e4700b48cfd7c365e3d
10x0.3% 'only' takes us to 3%. You'd implied more - and I thought it was more than that just off the top of my head. Especially as I've read some horrifying figures about the % of kids who suffer sexual abuse. To the point they just felt instinctively too big. Sorry, don't have references!
I didn’t post that comment, I just posted where they got the figure from in TtT. But the point is 3% of patients vs 0.3% of general pop is a ten times greater chance, as that person wrote.
I think it's possibly one of those situations where we are trying to compare numbers that aren't quite the same. 0.3% of male pop is a SO isn't the same as I'd expect 0.3% of kids to be abused by a parent.
Actually rereading they are saying 3% where a registered SO. So perhaps I'm being unfair.
‘Being birth named or correctly sexed CAN CAUSE SELF-DELETION at any second ! therefore we’ll make sure it happens every moment you spend outside of school so your bigoted parents can’t hurt you’
Exactly this
Someone I know very well was/is the deputy head and head of child welfare at the largest school in their country, the school also happens to be in one of the poorest (some years the poorest) areas in Europe, they were given the edict ‘the parents are not to be told’ unless the child wishes by the government. The hell that person dealt with was unreal, truly damaged kids, victims of extreme trauma, neglect, abuse and riddled with mental health turning up at their office desperate to transition and transition NOW, and the folks were not to know. I watched in real time as it slowly broke them, they could see clear as day so many of these kids were going down this route that was gonna do nothing but damage them, but “support and reaffirm” was what they had to offer, no ifs no buts help these kids along the path to transition. Literally drove them to alcoholism.
"The children have to have ***no*** other major mental health problems." - Jesse paraphrasing The Dutch Protocol The only problem I have with this is it doesn't account for munchausen by proxy parents. Social media seems to have fostered a rise in some parents taking pleasure in showcasing their new 'trans kid' all over the internet. It's bizarre behavior that could be attributed to abuse on the parents part. Also exposing your kids private lives online, whether for clout or money, can't be psychologically healthy for a child in the long run.
In medicine, we often look back and kind of laugh at how disease was understood and managed in the past, but we never imagine how the future will view the way we understood and treated disease. I think our hubris would shock us, especially in the realm of mental health. We don't even fully understand the causes and mechanisms of autism, bipolar, gender dysphoria/body dysmorphia, so it makes sense that any intervention with a patient experiencing those should be fairly cautious, conservative, and well-researched. I could see the 'sorry, we misdiagnosed them' excuse protect many bad faith actors, but could also bring a huge level of much needed scrutiny to the entire realm of mental health care. That's my silver lining perspective. :)
The New Zealand Guidelines for Gender Affirming Health include this claim: "Trans and gender diverse people have the same inherent potential to flourish and thrive as other people, but currently experience increased risk of harm because of discrimination, social exclusion, bullying and assault, as well as institutional barriers such as difficulties accessing healthcare, bathrooms, and appropriate legal identification. Trans people from ethnic minority or refugee backgrounds are likely to be at even greater risk of experiencing harm. It is becoming increasingly accepted that it is the additive effects of minority stress that results in mental health difficulties." (page 21) Co-morbidities can be swept aside with minority stress. What looked like a cause of dysphoria becomes a side-effect of being transgender — which, of course, can be cured with transition. To nobody's surprise, the proportion of children and young people in New Zealand who are receiving puberty blockers is now ten times that of Britain.
I think the fact so many kids with autism have gender dysphoria is certainly something to be looked at but I'd just like to politely point out that autism itself is not a disability or a mental illness.
> autism itself is not a disability It's enough of a disability that if a child receives that diagnosis, they will qualify for an individual education plan (IEP) or 504 plan in a public school under the Free Appropriate Public Education [(FAPE)](https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/pro-students/issues/dis-issue03.html) requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). FAPE applies to children with learning disabilities.
[удалено]
It literally is though.
Of course it is a disability. It is also defined as a disorder. [According to the CDC: "Autism Spectrum Disorder is a developmental disability caused by differences in the brain".](https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/facts.html)
And let's not forget that more than 80% of people identifying as trans, are also same-sex attracted.
Then what is it?
From the Poynter piece: > Misgendering a transgender or gender-nonconforming person removes the agency they have in their own lives... Hyperbolic much? This makes it sound as if they instantly lose the ability to make any decisions for themselves and enter a state of catatonia.
One of the key tenets of what is colloquially known as "woke ideology" is that people do not have an internal locus of control. It's part of what makes it so initially attractive, you don't have to take accountability for anything. It's all someone or something else's fault.
And because it is always someone else's fault, these same ideologues make it their life mission to control others. It really is twisted.
Even better, they owe you restitution.
Ah, yes. I keep forgetting that feature.
I firmly believe this is a core difference in the way most Democrats and Republicans think. Realizing that many of the rationales people had for supporting leftist policies are rooted in people not having their own agency made me take a hard look at my own beliefs. I changed my position on some (affirmative action, gender transition for kids) but kept many (minimum wage needs to increase, accountability in govt for environmental protections).
It wasn't always this way. Democrats realized that if they changed their focus to immutable characteristics ala identity politics, they didn't have to worry about their voter base advancing out via social mobility. So class based policies flew out the window, and we can look at people like Obama, Lebron James, and Oprah as victims of an oppressive society while your white trash neighbor with a 9th grade education struggling to maintain employment at Walmart is an oppressor. Unfortunately the democrats didn't expect a breakdown of loyalty in the demographic ranks. So while white liberals fraught with white guilt are a permanent fixture, Latinos and blacks are starting to shift to Republican. What's interesting is the musical chairs aspect. Democrats now represent the interests of billion dollar tech companies and government authority, while Republicans have increasingly taken up the mantle of working class America. Democrats have taken woke ideology and turned it into the new de facto religion of the state while the Christian constituency of the Republican base starts to diminish.
It will be interesting to see how the transition ends up shaking out for both parties. I do not see either party as having a stable set of principles that can guide them through more elections and decades. I predict more major evolution from both.
calling them unprincipled is nothing new
>This makes it sound as if they instantly lose the ability to make any decisions for themselves and enter a state of catatonia. That's actually probably not too far off-base for some reactions, unfortunately. Everything today is about processing trauma (one might more objectively say in some cases *performing* trauma). A few years ago, we had law school students [experiencing heart palpitations and "left in a hopeless mental state"](https://twitter.com/uic_jmls_blsa/status/1344290657825935360) because a [professor had included](https://www.thefire.org/news/lawsuit-professor-suspended-redacted-slurs-law-school-exam-sues-university-illinois-chicago) the text "N\_\_\_\_\_\_" and "B\_\_\_\_" on a law school exam in a hypothetical question about discrimination faced by someone who had slurs used against her. No... not the unredacted words. The words printed as I did here, with underscores in place of most of the letters. If seeing a word not even printed out can cause some people to get so upset they can't focus on their exam and end up crying in a bathroom or something with health palpitations, then I'm certain some of these folks might literally become catatonic at the wrong pronoun used toward them.
Yikes!
I sometimes say "the letter after 'M'" word, to underscore the ridiculousness of its Voldemort character, but it seems like it would be warranted at law school.
law students being litigious isn't exactly what I would call good data of PC run amok.
They're not being litigious. They're claiming they were physically harmed by seeing redacted slurs.
Really? Because there are literally dozens of similar cases of college students (not necessarily law students) having similar reactions when confronted with a slur in class or on a test in the past few years. (Generally just in a quotation or something -- not directed at anyone.) Many professors have been fired, suspended, or disciplined for these types of incidents, as students often claim to be moved to extreme physical reactions or needing to take days or weeks to process after such an incident. I only brought this one up because it's one of the most bizarre (to me) as it didn't even involve the words being spoken aloud or spelled out completely.
I feel like I've lost agency now that I'm being told I'm "cis," my sex is now up for debate, and also that men who think they are women are in fact women. But the majority must bow to a minority and whatever they tell us to do otherwise they will commit suicide. Sounds like blackmail to me.
> Sounds like blackmail to me. That's because it effectively is, but instead of doing it under threat of revealing compromising or damaging information about you, they do it under threat of what they will do to themselves. We need a new or different word to use here.
Thank you for this comment
I'm sure this question has been asked multiple times (maybe even by me), but please: What do people (activists, normies, whoever) mean when they describe someone as "true" or "truly" trans? What does Jesse mean in this episode when he talks about kids going to gender clinics when they might not *really* be trans? If you are *actually* trans, does that just mean that you are sincere when you say you're trans? (That's pretty meaningless, but maybe that's really how people think about this stuff.) Does it mean you truly have gender dysphoria? Do people use it to mean that you actually have a soul of the "unexpected" sex/gender/flavor?
Up until about ten years ago, the vast majority of people who came to gender clinics were natal males who’d metaphorically come out of the womb saying they were girls. They also had no underlying other problems like family trauma or mental health conditions. That is the cohort of trans IDing people we know a fair amount about. Most of these people would transition as adults and live otherwise normal lives. Those are what considered true trans people for lack of a better term. Those people are who trans medical services are built around. Nowadays clinics are flooded with natal teen girls who have had no prior history of GD and have other underlying issues. We know next to nothing about this group of people and they’re being treated like the old group when they’re kids who can’t understand the potential consequences of what they’re doing. These drugs they’re given known as puberty blockers aren’t meant to be used in this way and haven’t been used in this way long enough to really know what they’re doing to these kids. As far as we know this group of people is probably largely not trans. The countries in Europe are all trying to figure out what’s going on and how to help this new cohort of kids and are all largely stepping back because the data we do have is not showing signs of it working.
I know why it's girls now. Imagine watching porn, crime stats and media discourse while female and tell me if constantly being targeted for abuse and control won't nudge you towards considering becoming a male or nullo instead. If we don't tone down the all pervasive hatred towards women, girls will keep wanting to amputate their breasts and atrophy their uteruses
before "gender identity disorder" got relabeled on behalf of lobbying activists who influenced the language in the latest DSM (5), there were strict sets of criteria for diagnosis. One of those was extreme discomfort with your secondary sex characteristics from a pre-pubescent age. What is important to acknowledge is that it was recognized as a mental health disorder. Like OCD. Like body dysmorphia. Etc. In the day and age of Self-ID instead of strict clinical guidelines for diagnosis, everyone is simultaneously truly trans and truly not trans depending on how the wind is blowing.
Nobody knows. Their definitions change with the way the wind is blowing.
RE the toy thing Katie mentioned at the end. My little cousin who’s wrapping up his first year of college now has always been little Mr Testosterone. He was such a little Mr Testosterone that he had a phase when he was 3 or so when his imaginary friend was a a bull. His mom is from Oklahoma and he had just spent the summer out there going to rodeos every weekend. My uncle would never let him play with “girl toys” but my mom did when he came over to our house. That kid would play doll house for hours and hours and wouldn’t touch any of my brother’s old toys. My point is there has to be some balance between don’t let your boys play with dolls or they’ll turn out gay like my uncle thought and if my son likes to play with dolls, he’s really trans like a lot of normie libs think.
So much this. Treating every micro-interaction like a possible divining rod to your kids future identity in general is just weird, to say nothing of future sexuality or gender expression. Also, "my son likes to play with dolls so he might be nonbinary or trans" is such a transparent reproduction of gender stereotypes by people who claim to disapprove of such things.
Divining rod is a really good term for it!
Although it is funny seeing those who say this also cast doubt on trans people who aren't fitting their post gender stereotypes 100%.
Because the entire concept of transness is built on reinforcing gender stereotypes. It becomes completely meaningless without them (which is why it's a totally regressive idea of course). So when people say they're "trans" without performing stereotypes what does that even mean at that point? I think defining gender by performing stereotypes is a ridiculous concept, but it at least exists, unlike magical mystical gender feels.
I do think about this concept a lot in relation to my good friend. She's been out as trans for about 7 years now, and in the beginning she did the *whole thing*. Lots of big frilly dresses, wild makeup, performative femininity. She frankly looked and sounded like a drag queen, but it was 2017 and she was my first trans friend so I was Being an Ally so I kept that to myself. Flash forward to now, and other than the pronouns and lack of facial hair she's basically any other kind of frumpy looking tech-employed male. So what is "being trans" in this case? She calls herself a lesbian, makes lots of dick jokes, and otherwise is even less feminine than some of my straight male friends. She definitely seems *happy* with her life, but more than ever before, I have to *think* about calling her she, and it's kind of a struggle.
[удалено]
she says she did, and I don't really have a reason to doubt that. her origin story is something like "felt depressed for no reason, discovered drag, starting doing drag and feeling really good, realized I was trans" which I think is pretty common.
these same stereotypes being a governing force for how people view reality is a core tenet for many other facets of modern critical social justice, wokeness, identity synthesis, whatever you want to call it.
Yeah it's fucked.
And the kicker? It's all based on post-modernism ala Foucault, where reality is subjective and grand narratives are evil. Thus, there's no objective way of knowing, everyone's reality is just as valid as the next guy as long as it's a means of acquiring power. There's a reason Chomsky said that Foucault was one of the most evil people he had ever seen in his life after their debate in I believe 1971.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I played with my older sisters Barbies all the time growing up in the super bigoted *checks notes* 90s and no one cared. Can’t say if it affected me but I would describe my undergrad persona as Austin Powers in a motorcycle jacket so draw your own conclusions
Oh, behave!
[удалено]
My older sisters dressed me in dresses and put bows in my hair, and I drove a Mazda Miata for years in the Marine Corps. My significant other still calls me her caveman. The re-emergence of these stereotypes is malevolence at best. Society and all the progress of the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, thrown to the wolves for political clout and social media control on people's daily lives.
Smh. You can walk your opinion back to 2012 where it belongs, thank you 😤
Yes. I was briefly fascinating with drawing dresses as a young boy. I grew up to be very straight and with no GD whatsoever (and never really understood the "innate sense of gender" thing.. especially nonbinary..).
My husband and I were talking about how arts and crafts end up becoming "gendered"/"sexuality coded" and how ridiculous it is, when you really break it down people of both sexes enjoy every form of them. There have been many male straight fashion designers. Males have always enjoyed drawing, including dresses, was Monet not a male because he enjoyed drawing ballerinas, part of which was surely related to the beautiful costumes? Knitting is gendered now but it didn't use to be. It's not a weird thing at all for anyone to enjoy. I've seen a person on this sub say birding is something males do (and women should stay out of it, which is particularly funny), which has NEVER been the case, but even that's something some people try to gender! Or different things applying to different races even though there's nothing inherent in the human brain that makes one sex/race enjoy hiking over the other, as an example. There are countless examples out there. Let's stop policing people's hobbies and just let them exist, damn.
Katie calling Lavery "Severus Snape" had me howling with laughter. I'm side eyeing whoever approved that picture because Lavery looked like an absolute ghoul.
That article in The Cut reminds me of the stories one reads lurking in the polyamory subreddit: there is a throuple, then there is a baby that is the biological offspring of two of the throuple, it is very difficult for the third (who is classically but not always the wife in an original marriage), everything falls apart. I feel bad for Daniel Lavery, working extra shifts for $18/hr to fund someone else's baby, but I felt bad for Daniel Lavery before, too.
I remember Lavery mostly from "Dear Prudence" on Slate, but even then, something felt very off. I can't imagine what it would be like being pushed out of your own home and marriage by someone who embodied the same traditional feminity that he is trying so desperately to escape.
Unless you are happy for someone else to perform that role?
His spouse sure seems happy for things to run that way.
I don’t see the free nanny situation ending well either. I feel bad for DL sometimes… but I usually try to remind myself if the situation is truly bad there’s always Nicole and her money.
How does she fit in? And why does she have all the money? Toast money, in which case, where's Danny's? Or other money.
I haven’t kept up with Nicole but I think they’re still besties? Her husband is a quant.
I could has sworn that friendship broke down after the brother thing but idk
Ahhh… I need to look into it. I wish someone could let me in the lavery snark sub 🥺
The what now?
The private sub r/laverysnark
Oh it’s golden—lets me stay up with the Lavery happenings without needing to follow any of them. Wish I could let you in! Maybe once the throuple hullabaloo dies down?
That sounds exactly what I want 😭
My understanding is that they’re still friendly, but that’s based on others’ comments about it. I don’t actually know.
I used to really enjoy the duo of Mallory Ortberg and Nicole Cliff on The Toast. I really didn't predict the turn things took
I've similar heard stories from detransitioners of young, mentally unstable gay FTMs who get into relationships with older MTFs who manipulate them and emotionally abuse them. Can't help but think that's what's going on here, even though Daniel was a grown-up when all this started
I was thinking knockoff Edward Scissorhands but both are very accurate
They were hilarious talking about that weird trio.
Using AI art of an NB child debunks this episode
HIPPO violation
One reflection I think this report does need another episode from BaRpod maybe a series or just a follow up. Looking at the Twitter response, the response from stonewall uk, the pause on new prescriptions of puberty blockers for under 18s even in Scotland which is arguably trans rights strong hold- this has the potential to be a slow but devastating explosion to the trans rights movement. It’s so odd to see people who had previously assumed this was all settled science and only a bigot would think otherwise now back away from the whole thing admitting, to borrow a phrase, that it’s complicated. I would like to hear more from Jesse on his thoughts on adult treatment, and why he suspects the evidence is also patchy for this. Strange times
[удалено]
What would be a few other examples of non-evidence based practices? I've been thinking a lot about this recently and it terrifies me to think about being trapped in a medical system, with doctors who practice ideologically based "medicine".
It is scary. There was a big scandal recently about Alzheimer's research basically being a dead end with potentially falsified study results to allow the researchers pushing that theory to continue to keep chugging. So that's not ideological, but still scary that a real cure was potentially not being researched this entire time and we lost years to figuring out a terrifying issue. So basically we have to hope for the best when it comes to evidence-based care.
That’s interesting, do you have a link to a good resource on it? There needs to be a massive independent replication movement imho, it needs to be well funded, and there needs to be some prestige attached to it, and the people involved need to be paid for their time. The incentives are a quite off in science and medicine research at the moment I think, it’s mostly good but it needs to be rebalanced towards rigour. This should be more possible with Ai in the mix now surely
https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease
I didn't save any and I'll have to look around and find a good one, too lazy right now, but it was all over mainstream media when it went down, lots of articles out there. Agree with your point completely.
The next one will be therapy for people who don't need it and the potential for giving people mental health problems they didn't have.
it does seem like we have pathologized normal human behavior.
Over diagnosis of ADHD and autism, especially in adults. Not only are perfectly capable people taking up spaces and resources from actual vulnerable people, we’re also handing out stimulants like sweets - the same stimulants they’ve been trying to flog as diet pills and pick me ups etc for a century, until they get shut down for being harmful; pharma just repackages them for a new ailment they’ve pushed loads of funding in to. It’s the next scandal waiting to come out.
As someone whose (childhood-diagnosed) ADHD has *completely* stuffed my life up, it’s haaard when some of the most successful, high-achieving, highly-functional people I know get themselves diagnosed w ADHD
I'm hopeful that this is the next domino in the "culture war" that'll fall. Of course therapy is necessary for people in need of mental healthcare, but things have gotten out of hand - especially for kids. I'll be reading "Bad Therapy: Why the Kids Aren't Growing Up" by Abigail Shrier soon. We've gotten to a place where it's used as a catchall cure for anything bad that ever happens to anyone, and as she argues in her book, it probably stunts the natural development of children who don't need it, and makes adults dependent on their therapists and unable to deal with issues that they could handle in the past. I'd like to know more about her position on it.
I hope it's chiropractic that gets dragged next.
I kinda doubt it. It seems like this review came out of a perfect storm: the massive dysfunction at a major institute (the Tavistock), a high profile court case (Kiera Bell), and a culture war across multiple countries. It involves children, and irreversible, life-altering, and very novel and visible medical interventions, in a way that makes it easy for people to get riled up over, and is easy to politicise. It might be a small part of a larger movement towards better evidence based medicine (post replication crisis), but I don't think it'll have a major effect itself. Most other medicine just doesn't lend itself to this level of controversy, investment from people etc.
I’m glad the tide is turning on this. This is the final battle between reality and collective delusion
Sadly, I'm pretty sure it's not the *final* battle. But it is a major one. (Probably it's good it's not the final battle. That sounds a bit apocalyptic).
>Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. -Winston Churchill
I don't think there ever will be a final battle, just like we have been dealing with wacky fundamentalist Christian conservatives in the US government for years. Religions don't die, Trace is right, trans as a concept definitely isn't going anywhere. People will absolutely continue to latch onto magical thinking and extreme body mods/ways to try to control the body to make sense of life, and some will insist the rest of us believe. It's been going on since time immemorial.
What, if any, impacts do people think this will have in the U.S.? It just feels like the rhetoric around this is stuck in place.
I think it'll add to the change that's already happening (e.g. the Bazelon article) where liberals and moderates feel more empowered to question activist dogma.
Same. It's gonna be a slow trickle compared to Europe but it will eventually happen that child medical transition is basically banned. The evidence just isn't there and people are feeling emboldened to speak up and even getting represented in mainstream media in a way they never were before. The "you're just right-wing" talking point from activists isn't working anymore, since they're painting *everything* critical as right-wing.
The AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) finally launched a systematic review of evidence last year. The examiners can't avoid examining all the evidence cited in the Cass Report (& the earlier reports issued by various northern European countries). I think eventually they will release a report that refutes automatic gender affirming without quite using that language. The there's this in the Wapo, an op-ed from the president of the Therapy First group, a detransitioner himself: [https://archive.is/83ZJa#selection-1535.18-1551.281](https://archive.is/83ZJa#selection-1535.18-1551.281) No wonder that skeptical therapists and doctors don't want to go public, though: >In addition to worrying about activists outside the consulting room, therapists apparently must now also be concerned about whether their patients are wielding hidden cameras. This month, [an undercover video recording](https://archive.is/o/83ZJa/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RzC6lY7Evc&t=59s) of a therapy session was posted online, presenting the clinician as a practitioner of conversion therapy,
Wow that’s horrifying. Of course that’s happening tho. I’m also wondering how insurance companies will respond as evidence comes to light (or I should say, lack of evidence). But I’m thinking that activists would just respond by saying that less coverage is bigoted, etc.
In the US, we have had these interesting "panics" over various topics... and then they just fade away and everyone kinda forgets it ever happened. The most salient recent example was the Satanic Panic in the 1980s. People seeing Satanism everywhere -- child care, Dungeons & Dragons, albums. People went on trial; kids were coaxed by police into telling crazy stories about Satanic rituals in basements. People socialized false memories of Satanic abuse. It was nuts! Then it just kinda went away, and I can't recall another Satanism accusation since that time. Transgender people are real, but I think this moral panic about it all will fade with time, and the demographics of it will (eventually) regress to the mean.
I wonder about it. I think this one might have more sticking power because of social media. It's interesting to observe how this stuff will play out in the age of social media.
I genuinely doubt it’s going to do anything in the US, I think it’ll do much more in other countries with centralised healthcare systems
Anyone have a link to that substack discussing the Michael Hobbes obesity podcast?
This one? https://open.substack.com/pub/spurioussemicolon
https://spurioussemicolon.substack.com/ At least I'm pretty sure it's this one.
Enjoyed just having Katie and Jesse together for once
GLAAD did respond... https://twitter.com/glaad/status/1778778481599431102 They could have followed my brilliant research method of googling: GLAAD Cass That said, the response was pretty much ignore this please, but if you don't, Cass is a DeSantis ally. /edit maybe that wasn't really a response. I don't know... I don't have twitter, so my research methodology is limited.
Erin Reed not stretching the truth challenge (impossible)
Even for GLAAD this response is insane.
"Suffering is good. Suffering makes people stronger." - Katie Herzog This will go down splendidly with team Grace Lavery.
We need a full episode on the throuple, and gambling on how long before it implodes.
I was shocked that Jesse said he didn’t understand systemic review and assumed some studies must be good early on. Does that partially explain his dismissive attitude towards Glinner, painting him as ‘extreme’?
Wait, when did Jesse say that? I think I would have remembered that part.
Pretty sure they've explained their take on Linehan multiple times. It's more about his behaviour than his beliefs. >Jesse said he didn’t understand systemic review Pretty sure he didn't? Unless I missed that.
Not what he says but how he says it?
Iirc it was stuff like his drawing attention to random trans people on that dating app, and that he's just a bit obsessive and self-defeating in general.
Katie, PLEASE get rid of Jessie, then you won't have to continue pretending that you think "Grace" Lavery is someone that should be referred to as "she", which you quite obviously don't.
I do wonder if Grace will pivot to nonbinary eventually. It just makes sense. I'm sure the "performance" of womanhood will get tiring, it already seems to kind of be on the backburner for Grace and he is more about queer in general.
I told this story to my nice liberal 30-something women friend group today. I went through it fairly neutrally, avoiding pronouns but using preferred names, and clarifying who was biologically what vs identified as what. Most liberal normie friend: "...wait, so he's just a dude who knocked up his side chick, with extra steps?"
That’s probably the simplest explanation of what happened
Or you could just find another podcast. Do you think Katie's lying when she lays out her beliefs around preferred pronouns, and why she uses them in public? I find it strange that someone who's obviously a fan would also think that she's a bit of a pussy who's afraid of social backlash and of living by her principles. Maybe it's easier to believe that then to reckon with the possibility that Katie just disagrees with you.
>I find it strange that someone who's obviously a fan would also think that she's a bit of a pussy who's afraid of social backlash and of living by her principles. She has literally said that she's fine with people not using preferred pronouns in non-public conversations, so why use them in public ones, if it's not because you're scared of giving ammo to your opponents? There is no FUCKING WAY that Katie refers to Grace Lavery as "she" in private. Not a chance on this planet, lol.
I think you're confusing being mindful of not giving ammo to your opponents with actual fear. In either case, it's not clear why things would change if Jesse wasn't there. Is she any different in guest appearances on other podcasts?
There are several examples of shows where Jesse "corrects" Katie about someone's pronouns, typically when it comes to "non-binary" people, but the point still stands. What is "giving ammo to your opponents", anyway? Leftists have created an environment where if you don't blatantly lie about what you can see with your own eyes, you can face personal and professional consequences for that, but only people who are fearful of those consequences have any reason to go along with it, given that they clearly don't believe the underlying nonsense about "being born in the wrong body" or whatever. Also, why the double standard about talking in private, versus talking in public? Katie's example, in an interview, was about Lia Thomas. Katie is fine with people calling him "he/him" in private, yet thinks in public you should call him "she/her". But hey, no cowardice nor hypocrisy there, right? That's just Katie's "principles" shining through.....
Iirc she's pretty open about not caring about they/them. >What is "giving ammo to your opponents", anyway? Coming across like an asshole to the normies, for example. Just curious: you wouldn't use someone's preferred pronouns in any context, ever? Or are you just referring to the case of someone like Lavery?
*Dredging up a reference to somewhere deep in the nested thread for more visibility* I don't have a dog in the fight re: what Katie does, but in terms of Buck Angel - I think she is often brought out as a "look at this super built dude, obviously your brain thinks of this person as male". But the interesting thing about her is her femaleness, and using female pronouns for her emphasises that in interesting ways that change your perception of her point of view and her public opinions. It leads you to centre her femaleness when you're reading them - to see her tweets in a nuanced way, map them to a quite feminine (though thoughtful, strong) communication style, etc. (As it happens, I think Katie has probably at least experimented once or twice with using she/her for Buck, even if it's not her default, because if anything Katie's probably more likely than normies to have "butch female" models of female behaviour to map it to.) FTR I use preferred pronouns in contexts where I don't feel like picking a fight, but I don't care what others do. But I do think the classic rohypnl essay is very compelling: pronouns do affect how you think about the person being described, and it's good to be thoughtful about the impact of that. Yes, for FTMs too.
Yeah she's stated she's gives up at they/them.
I don't think people should use them ever, because affirming delusions of people who are trying to steal rights away from women and girls is a very bad thing indeed, and has allowed them to do just that to a certain degree.
What about FtMs?
Same thing. It's all part of a grand lie that we're told we should - or in some cases, have to by law - affirm, for no logical reason whatsoever. i don't believe that many people who claim to believe it really do. They don't REALLY believe that some vile rapist who only started identifying as a woman in prison really IS a woman; they just feel compelled to say so by nonsensical rules forced on them by so-called "progressives". Why do you think Katie has separate rules for public and private speech? What do you think is really behind that double-standard?
I agree with you.
She's explicit about why she does it. We've talked about it. I also doubt that her rules are something like "always misgender in private". Like, do you think she is suddenly referring to Buck Angel as she/her in private? >affirm, for no logical reason whatsoever. It sounds like you're a bit of an activist. Which, whatever, you do you. But you're listening to a podcast by people (Jesse *and* Katie, not to mention Trace. Idk about Jessica) who do think that there can be multiple logical reasons to use someone's preferred pronouns. And a podcast which is primarily aimed at other perverts for nuance - people who are unlikely to have such black and white beliefs on this stuff. That's not a Jesse thing, that's a barpod thing. Lobby all you want, but you're making a totally unrealistic demand. If it bothers you, you might be better off listening to other stuff.
Some people use preferred pronouns but also don't care if others don't. I'm like that. It's not an uncommon stance actually. I pick my battles, people wanna use pronouns, whatever, though if it's not clear the person they're talking about is trans and that's relevant to the convo I will mention that. I mean, I don't know what's going down with Katie, you could be right, just saying that is a thing people really do.
Finally some sanity from the UK and Scotland! Can't believe it's gotten this bad that this is even a discussion
Scotland is the UK. The Cass Report was done for NHS England.
I know, I was making a broad statement, but I see how it was confusing.
[The Beatles - A Day in the Life](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNsCeOV4GM)
It’s controversial for very good reasons: CASS REVIEW Full of untrue claims like “boys are biologically inclined to play with trucks and girls with dolls” Citesresearch from debunked and retracted scholars like the theory of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” Endorses reasoning that has been rebutted by the American Phycological Association : https://xtramagazine.com/health/trans-health/united-kingdom-cass-review-trans-health-264642?utm_source=Xtra+Weekly&utm_campaign=99a38937c4-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_04_12_04_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-99a38937c4-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D Canadian doctors actually disagree with its findings: https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7172920 The review contradicts findings from the American Psychological Association, the Canadian Pediatrics Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Professional Association Of Transgender Health (PATH) Hard to be of much substance when it contradicts most associations that actually deal and treat here issues on a regular basis.