This was a great interview. Really appreciated her insights and vulnerability especially in response to your question about this being gay rights 2.0 and unpacking her own stuff about identity. It was a respectful discussion about such a contentious topic with so many harmful ramifications and you both were firm but thread the needle with curiosity and concern. I’m sharing this episode far and wide and hoping it can move the needle with some people In my circles who aren’t as exposed to these facts and realities because they believe they are just being nice helpful compassionate liberals. So glad you had her on!
Wow. Intense. Loved it. I hope we start seeing some positive change with this stuff soon. The social justice gender angle is difficult for the average person because it's always cloaked in moral righteousness and certitude. Most people won't look under the hood.
This discussion brought great clarity without much med-specific words or jargon. I found her measured and nicely-cadenced statements to be a helpful change of pace.
I’m now even more certain that “affirmative care” for juveniles (and maybe all) is largely a destructive social contagion/fad that will continue to be opposed on social, political and evolutionary grounds. I believe it only serves a dark and looming transhumanist agenda. Thank you Meghan and Jamie for a listenable and useful discussion.
I was surprised that was no mention of the declaration “Doctors Protecting Children” signed by the American College of Pediatricians and others in June. Surely this is an indicator that things are starting to change here. As stated in the declaration “Evidence-based medical research now demonstrates there is little to no benefit from any or all suggested ‘gender affirming’ interventions for adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria”.
The ACP is an advocacy group that is also anti abortion and has a questionable stance on gay conversion therapy. They tend to be viewed as a conservative group, not a neutral science based organization.
So I don’t think this group carries all that much weight. Especially to those who are not politically aligned with their goals.
The AAP is really the group a lot of concerned health care providers are hoping to have change their stance on these medical interventions, which would impact the standards most paediatricians rely on when assessing these youth.
This is a political hazard gender critical people face these days. There is no shortage of public figures on the right - including the fringe - who oppose gender identity ideology and seek to reverse the excesses of trans activism. The problem is that they tend not embrace liberal values and they usually support individuals and causes that would alienate most liberals. For that reason, gender critical activists and organizations need to vet those with whom they seem to share a common cause carefully before endorsing or collaborating with them. Criticizing a gender critical organization for associating with genuinely unsavory figures isn't a heinous and illiberal effort to assign guilt by association. Instead, it is taking the organization to task for a lack of due diligence and for poor judgment.
Yes and if they want to align with hard right wingers that’s ok, but if you are looking to gain support then that is not the group you need to convince.
I dont like the whole guilt by association but I thought it was fair to point out that the organization referenced was a specifically politically conservative group, because if it was the AAP I would expect it to get a more traction in the media.
I don't see what you did as assigning guilt by association. It's important to let people know which side the various parties in this struggle are on.
What I object to is when an organization won't accept valid criticism for credulously associating with ideological opponents and instead makes baseless charges that the critic is engaging in guilt by association. I have witnessed this first hand.
This was a great interview. Really appreciated her insights and vulnerability especially in response to your question about this being gay rights 2.0 and unpacking her own stuff about identity. It was a respectful discussion about such a contentious topic with so many harmful ramifications and you both were firm but thread the needle with curiosity and concern. I’m sharing this episode far and wide and hoping it can move the needle with some people In my circles who aren’t as exposed to these facts and realities because they believe they are just being nice helpful compassionate liberals. So glad you had her on!
Wow. Intense. Loved it. I hope we start seeing some positive change with this stuff soon. The social justice gender angle is difficult for the average person because it's always cloaked in moral righteousness and certitude. Most people won't look under the hood.
This discussion brought great clarity without much med-specific words or jargon. I found her measured and nicely-cadenced statements to be a helpful change of pace.
I’m now even more certain that “affirmative care” for juveniles (and maybe all) is largely a destructive social contagion/fad that will continue to be opposed on social, political and evolutionary grounds. I believe it only serves a dark and looming transhumanist agenda. Thank you Meghan and Jamie for a listenable and useful discussion.
I was surprised that was no mention of the declaration “Doctors Protecting Children” signed by the American College of Pediatricians and others in June. Surely this is an indicator that things are starting to change here. As stated in the declaration “Evidence-based medical research now demonstrates there is little to no benefit from any or all suggested ‘gender affirming’ interventions for adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria”.
The ACP is an advocacy group that is also anti abortion and has a questionable stance on gay conversion therapy. They tend to be viewed as a conservative group, not a neutral science based organization.
So I don’t think this group carries all that much weight. Especially to those who are not politically aligned with their goals.
The AAP is really the group a lot of concerned health care providers are hoping to have change their stance on these medical interventions, which would impact the standards most paediatricians rely on when assessing these youth.
This is a political hazard gender critical people face these days. There is no shortage of public figures on the right - including the fringe - who oppose gender identity ideology and seek to reverse the excesses of trans activism. The problem is that they tend not embrace liberal values and they usually support individuals and causes that would alienate most liberals. For that reason, gender critical activists and organizations need to vet those with whom they seem to share a common cause carefully before endorsing or collaborating with them. Criticizing a gender critical organization for associating with genuinely unsavory figures isn't a heinous and illiberal effort to assign guilt by association. Instead, it is taking the organization to task for a lack of due diligence and for poor judgment.
Yeah. Both fringes.
Yes and if they want to align with hard right wingers that’s ok, but if you are looking to gain support then that is not the group you need to convince.
I dont like the whole guilt by association but I thought it was fair to point out that the organization referenced was a specifically politically conservative group, because if it was the AAP I would expect it to get a more traction in the media.
I don't see what you did as assigning guilt by association. It's important to let people know which side the various parties in this struggle are on.
What I object to is when an organization won't accept valid criticism for credulously associating with ideological opponents and instead makes baseless charges that the critic is engaging in guilt by association. I have witnessed this first hand.
Thanks for the context. That probably explains why I haven't seen other mentions of the declaration on other news sites.