Jun 9Liked by Jenny Poyer Ackerman

The lack of imagination and curiosity is a marker of incompletely-hatched adult selves in these clinicians. They are well-meaning but (somatically, psychologically) the blind leading the blind.

Maybe they CAN'T meta cognate on the self evident logical fallacies, extreme attendant harms, & the incredible recency of this phenomenon against "support the child" in it's Hallmark form... They cling to stereotypes and rules; tessence of 'identity' is completely misunderstood... so they invert Maslow, and prize mediocre cosmetic passing & fake genitals over orgasms & physical health/ embodiment// fertility/ self acceptance/ lower costs/ no risk.

Are they all body-dissociated and fundamentally misinformed from growing up on porn? Are they narcissistically injured from revolving door carers? Are these clinicians re-enacting their own lacked parenting/wise counsel?

Expand full comment

You let the physicians off much too lightly. As a retired physician I cringe at what my profession is doing to children. The physicians involved have relied on remarkably poorly done research, they have demonstrably lacked intellectual curiosity and rigor, they have denied the breadth and depth of both short and long term complications of medical and surgical transgender affirmation . These are not hallmarks of true caring. In short, they have abdicated their oath to "do no harm" in favor of self interest.

The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have , driven by woke leadership rather than science, all jumped aboard this train. Physician members of each association are now pushing back. As much of Europe has reversed course on gender affirmation for minors, states like California in the US have doubled down on this ideologic folly. The fast moving trans train is going to run into a sea of lawsuits and there will be no shortage of medical experts from around the world to show that the "Emperor of Trans" has no clothes.

I hope the lesson to these practitioners and institutions is very expensive.

Expand full comment
Jun 10Liked by Jenny Poyer Ackerman

Hi Lisa,

Andrew Sullivan in his Friday newsletter wrote:

"Today, the UK announced that the National Health Service will bar puberty blockers for children outside of clinical trials — because there is no good evidence defending their use."

Here is the article he references and the sentence is in the "national emergency" declared part....


Expand full comment

Thank you for covering this. Check out plume health, which mails surgery support letters after one telemedicine appointment: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-do-no-harm-part-2

Expand full comment

@lisaselindavis: thank you so much for trying to bring the point about what kids are learning about gender to the fore. Like you, I grew up in the 70s when gender stereotypes were seen as limits to be defied, at least if you were a girl (TBH not sure this applied to gender nonconforming boys). Like you I have a gender nonconforming girl and alas, unlike your daughter, mine has fallen for the gender cult. Your points made me wonder: Is there anywhere in the world (perhaps somewhere outside of the Anglosphere) that teaches gender the old way and in those places do we see gender nonconforming kids being left alone? Or, given the internet and reach of social media, are we seeing increases in transIDed kids everywhere?

Relatedly, I've been thinking a lot about Rob Henderson's concept of luxury beliefs and how this might apply to gender ideology. The belief that one can change one's sex relies on the existence and accessibility of expensive medical treatments. Based on what I can recall of Helen Joyce's book Trans, the male patients who really put gender medicine on the map decades ago were themselves wealthy enough to pour resources into otherwise an struggling field as they pursued treatment and surgeries to become trans-women. Decades later the beliefs that have ensued are now widely adopted and impose costs on the rest of us. Many of the young people impacted will surely not have the means to fund "a lifetime on a medical leash" (to steal Wesley's phase). Or, if the state is willing to step in and fund these treatments, then the costs are going to be borne by all taxpayers, regardless of whether they subscribe to the beliefs or not. I 100% agree that we need to shed more light on detransitioners and am so glad that more are bravely coming forward. I also believe that someone needs to make a broader case about the cost to society at large.

Expand full comment

I truly enjoyed this podcast. I'm just now looking at Lisa Selin Davis's thumbnail Substack bio and chuckling: as I was jogging and listening to this podcast, I thought to myself, "She's got the bearing of what men used to call a broad--a tough cookie, but a reasonable one; not a girlie-girl, but all woman." Then I thought, "But you can't use that word these days, because it's the sort of word that already pegged any man who used it, back in the Sixties when I was growing up, as something of a male chauvinist pig." I guess not! Glad she's recuperated it, in any case. As for the conversation: you've created a free space, Wes, where a desperately needed and SANE conversation can actually take place, without fear. I appreciated the divergences as well as convergences between your guests. Cohn's perspective as somebody who has extended lived experience from a transwoman's perspective was especially valuable; I'm glad you included her. This episode was a win in every respect.

Expand full comment
Jun 10·edited Jun 10

Retired internist, trained at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, worked in medical policy for Blue Cross Blue Shield. I found Eliza M’s take on EPATH most compelling. As she described, “EPATH president Joz Motmans rebuffed ‘anti-gender’ ‘attacks’ as part of a ‘far-right’ political campaign. In the light of anti-woke tendencies, gender has become the new entry point for far right parties and organisations to use as a target to gain electoral votes.” bespeaks how politically motivated and anti-scientific EPATH is. If you dare to ask questions of any kind, you are by their definition an extremist on the far-right. I found most interesting how they defined their criteria for which “systematic reviews” they were willing to include in SOC 8; explains a lot. Looking forward to more thoughtful and scientific inquiry into the evidence behind SOC 8.

Expand full comment

Will your paid subscribers be able to access the transcript? Year Zero had a link to the transcript but altho that's a great substack, I am not a paying subscriber to it.

Expand full comment

'Genspect', awesome. Drop your drawers kids, and let us inspect your privates! Nothing like right-wingers getting their panties in a bunch about the moral panic du jour - and then trying to take a gander at the contents of other people's panties.

Expand full comment