More people should know the story of the psychology professor and sex researcher J. Michael Bailey. He was destroyed personally and professionally about twenty years ago by an organized trans-activist campaign because they didn't like the (scientifically sound) research he was doing. It was a seminal cancel culture/successor ideology moment, actually, and prefigured the kind of thing they would later do to people like Jesse Singal. There can be no doubt that our body of science on trans issues has been severely distorted by this intellectual terrorism.
Liberalism is dizzy, as Ms Davis says. Their cognitive dissonance is brought on by their own abandonment of reasoned debate and honest inquiry. Their beliefs are ever changing and mailable but held with a quasi religious ardour such that even scientific rigour is abandoned. They, teachers and administrators, are willing to imperil children, and not inform the parents, on shaky evidence, that is our author’s point, yes?
Ms Davis doesn’t say this, and as a self identified liberal she probably does believe what I am about to say, but I think ideological succession is primarily driven by bigotry. They revile as backwards people who hold to old fashioned concepts like biology. Biology as a concept, not a physical law, is their conceit and shibboleth as demonstrated by our new Supreme Court Justice, who adroitly stick handle that question. This is old fashioned hatred gussied up with the fancy lingo of successor newspeak. These people have been educated unto stupidity, sure, but that is not the most important driver, what we see here is bigotry, they think the parents values are effectively violence against the kids and they hate those parents, they feel duty bound to save the children from such ignorance. The world is upside down as our author tells us.
That said I thought it was a very good piece, well presented and very helpful.
Thanks for this article. Important info. Side note: do you guys proofread before publishing? This was in the article two different places, three paragraphs apart: "It’s one thing when a kid is having trouble mustering up the courage to tell his parents he’s bringing another boy to the prom. It’s another thing to perform a psychological intervention on a kid that often leads to a desire for cross-sex hormones or surgeries without involving the parents."
The idea that gender and sex are different (unrelated) things actually goes back to Dr. John Money. Money died in disgrace after one of his patients committed suicide after Money abused him. The very sad story is told well by John Colapinto in "As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl".
I find this article to be biased. The U.S. medical establishment is not advocating for gender-affirming surgery in minors. Supporting youth exploring their gender identity is not a “psychological intervention.” It is sound medical practice and I would argue good parenting. As a physician, my read of the albeit scarce evidence supports providing gender-affirming care. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (benefit). Just because Europe says it’s so doesn’t make it so. Providers also realize that GI is fluid especially in children. As for disclosure to parents, our policies are consistent with those regarding reproductive care in general. And finally, why the need for all this legislation? Legislators should not interfere with the patient-provider relationship and medical practice guidelines should be developed by medical experts not politicians.
Parents worried their girls can no longer have short hair cuts, but have no questions about teachers talking sex and gender without them even having right to know what was discussed. And then children's aid harasses parents who allow their kids to walk home from school? No wonder the West has lost so much soft power.
True authoritarians have always been suspicious of family. It should be considered a warning flag of a movement that has crossed into toxic ideology.
I keep praying for the time when we wake up and stop this madness.
More people should know the story of the psychology professor and sex researcher J. Michael Bailey. He was destroyed personally and professionally about twenty years ago by an organized trans-activist campaign because they didn't like the (scientifically sound) research he was doing. It was a seminal cancel culture/successor ideology moment, actually, and prefigured the kind of thing they would later do to people like Jesse Singal. There can be no doubt that our body of science on trans issues has been severely distorted by this intellectual terrorism.
Would be a great Year Zero topic actually.
Liberalism is dizzy, as Ms Davis says. Their cognitive dissonance is brought on by their own abandonment of reasoned debate and honest inquiry. Their beliefs are ever changing and mailable but held with a quasi religious ardour such that even scientific rigour is abandoned. They, teachers and administrators, are willing to imperil children, and not inform the parents, on shaky evidence, that is our author’s point, yes?
Ms Davis doesn’t say this, and as a self identified liberal she probably does believe what I am about to say, but I think ideological succession is primarily driven by bigotry. They revile as backwards people who hold to old fashioned concepts like biology. Biology as a concept, not a physical law, is their conceit and shibboleth as demonstrated by our new Supreme Court Justice, who adroitly stick handle that question. This is old fashioned hatred gussied up with the fancy lingo of successor newspeak. These people have been educated unto stupidity, sure, but that is not the most important driver, what we see here is bigotry, they think the parents values are effectively violence against the kids and they hate those parents, they feel duty bound to save the children from such ignorance. The world is upside down as our author tells us.
That said I thought it was a very good piece, well presented and very helpful.
Thanks for this article. Important info. Side note: do you guys proofread before publishing? This was in the article two different places, three paragraphs apart: "It’s one thing when a kid is having trouble mustering up the courage to tell his parents he’s bringing another boy to the prom. It’s another thing to perform a psychological intervention on a kid that often leads to a desire for cross-sex hormones or surgeries without involving the parents."
The idea that gender and sex are different (unrelated) things actually goes back to Dr. John Money. Money died in disgrace after one of his patients committed suicide after Money abused him. The very sad story is told well by John Colapinto in "As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl".
I find this article to be biased. The U.S. medical establishment is not advocating for gender-affirming surgery in minors. Supporting youth exploring their gender identity is not a “psychological intervention.” It is sound medical practice and I would argue good parenting. As a physician, my read of the albeit scarce evidence supports providing gender-affirming care. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (benefit). Just because Europe says it’s so doesn’t make it so. Providers also realize that GI is fluid especially in children. As for disclosure to parents, our policies are consistent with those regarding reproductive care in general. And finally, why the need for all this legislation? Legislators should not interfere with the patient-provider relationship and medical practice guidelines should be developed by medical experts not politicians.
Parents worried their girls can no longer have short hair cuts, but have no questions about teachers talking sex and gender without them even having right to know what was discussed. And then children's aid harasses parents who allow their kids to walk home from school? No wonder the West has lost so much soft power.
Wesley, Please make Ms. Davis's writing a frequent feature of your substack.