Two dissidents opposed to Britain's designs for reforming its care of gender-distressed kids claimed this week that Dr. Hilary Cass once "recommended strongly" Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier.
Dr Davie's recollection of his conversation with Dr Cass reads like a hallucination. Why would a research oriented physician recommend to another physician a journalistic style book for the masses, and especially on the topic of desistance rates on puberty blockers?
I believe Cass when she states she has never read Irreversible Damage, and I also now believe neither has Dr. Davie.
I hope she sues them for defamation. I am quite sure it is not a defense to say “ well I recall my colleague saying he killed his grandma with an axe but I concede he may recall the conversation differently 🤷♀️”
Spend any amount of time with humanities professors and this kind of behavior shows up everywhere. Increasingly I have come to view medicine as an extended member of the Grievance Studies world. It is bad enough how drug dealing has been made above board along with pornography, but so many silly claims are made and claimed to be "medical science" that I simply lost any faith in medical professionals.
I am really curious what has changed in medicine in the English-speaking world to make it so emotionally unhinged and distraught. Even if many of the speakers in the field are correct, unbalanced displays just destroy any belief or confidence in what the doctor is saying. I see this all over the place. It makes me wonder what changed in medical schools over the last twenty years. The increasing lack or maturity is disturbing. I do not see this in other cultures. Perhaps this is how a field dies. Science gets replaced by activism. Why bother innovating when one can simply "feel" that a practice or substance "is true." It makes me wonder if "medicine" will someday be considered like astrology, with factual sub-fields rising up independently to replace it while physicians gaze into the stars for ever more erratic views (or "wholistic" as the creeps like to say). The religious-like quality that so many people take on when discussing this issue creeps me out. It would be wonderful if actual MD-PhD research professionals could come in and play the role of an adult.
I have no answers, but it sure would be nice if adults showed up and attempted to offer scientific views in the most basic definition of science (refuting disprovable claims with a null hypothesis). My new test is to search the person's name and the word "critical." If that person(s) enjoys using the word "critical," then I discount their opinion.
Kudos for the very thorough work in keeping the records and documenting the changes in the article, Ben. Many journalists don’t think to do this, or know how to retrieve them. But as shown here they’re important for telling the story of how people try to edge away from their previous positions.
For those imagining libel cases: won’t happen. Too expensive, and a massive distraction.
This may seem a bit cynical, but given the vast amount of money to be gained from the gender “ affirming care” system, including puberty blockers, hormone treatment for life and hugely profitable surgeries, it seems that some doctors choose to believe that reading Abigail Shrier’s book can lead to false conclusions on this “care”! So the fact or the lie that Dr. Cass read or did not read “ Irreverible Damage “, is just a diversion from the findings in the report! And , moreover, insulting to Dr. Cass’s intelligence!
The Cass Report, which has had some positive outcomes regarding the damage caused by gender “ affirming care” , must be rather scary to those who have profited by it and are afraid of losing those profits. So they’re using some rather dubious claims about the secret objectives of Dr. Cass. Always smear your enemies!
No, don’t think I’m being cynical… just realistic.
Gender “affirmation” is hugely profitable and there are plenty of people getting rich by destroying young lives and bodies. Unsurprising that they wouldn’t want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs.
I always love reading Chinese criticisms of American human rights abuses. Usually the first one is a polemical scream that the US does not ban "dangerous" books. They got us on that one. I fear book burning parties are coming, and the jackbooted thugs will call themselves "anti-fascists."
I guess the positive outcomes are "known"...to sometimes occur, with an unknown likelihood and unknown relationship to anything about the person considering medical intervention?
I knew that Abigail Shier was trouble when she made the decision to go on Tucker Carlson's show to promote her book "Irreversible Damage." While I strongly disagree with her critics' characterization of the book, which is excellent, I am and have always been concerned about the damage to the sex realist cause when right-wingers take up the issue.
Now Shrier has emerged as an enthusiastic Trump partisan in her August 5 Substack piece "The Democrats' Avoid-a-Primary Gambit." Shrier subtitled it: "The GOP can complain about a ‘coup’ and call Harris a ‘DEI hire.’ But it won’t win them votes. Here's what will." This is how she closes her piece:
"If Republicans want to win, they must put Harris through the 2024 primary she never had. Inform voters of the record Harris is now scrambling to disavow, and the media is working desperately to erase. And most trying of all for Trump-Vance, they must hold two ideas in their heads: Yes, you got played. And also, bitterness will sink you. "
The message here is for sex realists who are not right of center to be extremely cautious about platforming other gender critical figures. While they may share your goals when it comes to rolling back the excesses of trans activism, you may discover too late that their world view and politics are repugnant. At best you will be tagged with guilt by association. At worst, sex realists who are not budding authoritarians or right-wing cranks will know that you're incompetent when it comes to vetting possible allies. The risk is especially high when people from the UK venture into American sex realist politics without knowing the lay of the land (over here, nobody credible considers James Lindsay an authority on gender identity ideology) and vice-versa.
I am most uncomfortable finding myself inadvertently allied with a right wing position. I am not a Republican, I am gay and in a same-sex marriage and I feel no allegiance to the gender identity cause. Positioning “trans” as the successor to gay equality is false.
Can you fix the links? You mention that you had "glaring errors" but the link is broken. Also, citing the Guardian might not help your argument. Some of the worst dog whistle journalism I have ever seen comes out of that insidious rag. It makes the Wall Street Journal editorial page look fair and balanced.
I hate to beat on you here, but this is an important issue. Take your time and get it right. There are far too many emotional voices on this issue. We desperately need informed, dispassionate analysis.
Really. I have tried to click through with a Windows 10 machine, a linux box and my IOS phone. I get the same X page dead end. Would you mind sharing the date? I can search for it perhaps.
Dr Davie's recollection of his conversation with Dr Cass reads like a hallucination. Why would a research oriented physician recommend to another physician a journalistic style book for the masses, and especially on the topic of desistance rates on puberty blockers?
I believe Cass when she states she has never read Irreversible Damage, and I also now believe neither has Dr. Davie.
This is a losing tactic in a debate. Shows you can’t argue the facts so you resort to insulting your opponent’s character.
It's also unprofessional, and may constitute harassment. Any professional who engages in such public behavior should be held accountable.
She should sue him.
Nothing screams "nut case" like lawsuits. She most certainly should NOT.
You’re probably right.
I hope she sues them for defamation. I am quite sure it is not a defense to say “ well I recall my colleague saying he killed his grandma with an axe but I concede he may recall the conversation differently 🤷♀️”
Spend any amount of time with humanities professors and this kind of behavior shows up everywhere. Increasingly I have come to view medicine as an extended member of the Grievance Studies world. It is bad enough how drug dealing has been made above board along with pornography, but so many silly claims are made and claimed to be "medical science" that I simply lost any faith in medical professionals.
I am really curious what has changed in medicine in the English-speaking world to make it so emotionally unhinged and distraught. Even if many of the speakers in the field are correct, unbalanced displays just destroy any belief or confidence in what the doctor is saying. I see this all over the place. It makes me wonder what changed in medical schools over the last twenty years. The increasing lack or maturity is disturbing. I do not see this in other cultures. Perhaps this is how a field dies. Science gets replaced by activism. Why bother innovating when one can simply "feel" that a practice or substance "is true." It makes me wonder if "medicine" will someday be considered like astrology, with factual sub-fields rising up independently to replace it while physicians gaze into the stars for ever more erratic views (or "wholistic" as the creeps like to say). The religious-like quality that so many people take on when discussing this issue creeps me out. It would be wonderful if actual MD-PhD research professionals could come in and play the role of an adult.
I have no answers, but it sure would be nice if adults showed up and attempted to offer scientific views in the most basic definition of science (refuting disprovable claims with a null hypothesis). My new test is to search the person's name and the word "critical." If that person(s) enjoys using the word "critical," then I discount their opinion.
Kudos for the very thorough work in keeping the records and documenting the changes in the article, Ben. Many journalists don’t think to do this, or know how to retrieve them. But as shown here they’re important for telling the story of how people try to edge away from their previous positions.
For those imagining libel cases: won’t happen. Too expensive, and a massive distraction.
This may seem a bit cynical, but given the vast amount of money to be gained from the gender “ affirming care” system, including puberty blockers, hormone treatment for life and hugely profitable surgeries, it seems that some doctors choose to believe that reading Abigail Shrier’s book can lead to false conclusions on this “care”! So the fact or the lie that Dr. Cass read or did not read “ Irreverible Damage “, is just a diversion from the findings in the report! And , moreover, insulting to Dr. Cass’s intelligence!
The Cass Report, which has had some positive outcomes regarding the damage caused by gender “ affirming care” , must be rather scary to those who have profited by it and are afraid of losing those profits. So they’re using some rather dubious claims about the secret objectives of Dr. Cass. Always smear your enemies!
No, don’t think I’m being cynical… just realistic.
I think this is the essential point.
Gender “affirmation” is hugely profitable and there are plenty of people getting rich by destroying young lives and bodies. Unsurprising that they wouldn’t want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs.
What if she did read irreversible damage? This kind of thinking on the left is anti-science.
I always love reading Chinese criticisms of American human rights abuses. Usually the first one is a polemical scream that the US does not ban "dangerous" books. They got us on that one. I fear book burning parties are coming, and the jackbooted thugs will call themselves "anti-fascists."
I guess the positive outcomes are "known"...to sometimes occur, with an unknown likelihood and unknown relationship to anything about the person considering medical intervention?
I knew that Abigail Shier was trouble when she made the decision to go on Tucker Carlson's show to promote her book "Irreversible Damage." While I strongly disagree with her critics' characterization of the book, which is excellent, I am and have always been concerned about the damage to the sex realist cause when right-wingers take up the issue.
Now Shrier has emerged as an enthusiastic Trump partisan in her August 5 Substack piece "The Democrats' Avoid-a-Primary Gambit." Shrier subtitled it: "The GOP can complain about a ‘coup’ and call Harris a ‘DEI hire.’ But it won’t win them votes. Here's what will." This is how she closes her piece:
"If Republicans want to win, they must put Harris through the 2024 primary she never had. Inform voters of the record Harris is now scrambling to disavow, and the media is working desperately to erase. And most trying of all for Trump-Vance, they must hold two ideas in their heads: Yes, you got played. And also, bitterness will sink you. "
https://www.thetruthfairy.info/p/the-democrats-avoid-a-primary-gambit
The message here is for sex realists who are not right of center to be extremely cautious about platforming other gender critical figures. While they may share your goals when it comes to rolling back the excesses of trans activism, you may discover too late that their world view and politics are repugnant. At best you will be tagged with guilt by association. At worst, sex realists who are not budding authoritarians or right-wing cranks will know that you're incompetent when it comes to vetting possible allies. The risk is especially high when people from the UK venture into American sex realist politics without knowing the lay of the land (over here, nobody credible considers James Lindsay an authority on gender identity ideology) and vice-versa.
I am most uncomfortable finding myself inadvertently allied with a right wing position. I am not a Republican, I am gay and in a same-sex marriage and I feel no allegiance to the gender identity cause. Positioning “trans” as the successor to gay equality is false.
Can you fix the links? You mention that you had "glaring errors" but the link is broken. Also, citing the Guardian might not help your argument. Some of the worst dog whistle journalism I have ever seen comes out of that insidious rag. It makes the Wall Street Journal editorial page look fair and balanced.
I hate to beat on you here, but this is an important issue. Take your time and get it right. There are far too many emotional voices on this issue. We desperately need informed, dispassionate analysis.
The glaring errors link isn't broken.
Really. I have tried to click through with a Windows 10 machine, a linux box and my IOS phone. I get the same X page dead end. Would you mind sharing the date? I can search for it perhaps.