What NYT reported about Johanna Olson-Kennedy sitting on her null findings on puberty blockers is but one such story in a field in which many researchers prioritize the mission over honest science.
"[A]nother article about trans health care that quotes 0 trans people, ignores context . . ."
This is so 2020, when the "lived experience" of members of marginalized identity groups displaced expertise in decision making. How did that work out?
What's the point of quoting trans activists when they're incapable of communicating except through thought-ending rhetorical phrases such as "the current climate of anti-trans fearmongering"? One would think they receive training in Trump mentor and lowlife attorney Roy Cohn's three rules: 1) attack, attack, attack; 2) admit nothing and deny everything; and 3) claim victory and never admit defeat.
Genderists' demand for a seat at the table is rich. The capture of our institutions by gender identity ideology was profoundly undemocratic. The public were never allowed to have a say on whether the medical profession, the educational establishment, government or other powerful organizations embraced and implemented gender ideology through their policies and programs.
For that matter, the trans activists and their allies who were instrumental in seeding genderism throughout society were never required to first explain their agenda to all stakeholders, answer their questions and critiques or obtain prior approval from a numerical majority of the public before proceeding.
Moreover, the pitch that trans activists made to the bodies that ultimately authorized them to proceed came with a cast of undisputed heroes and villains. "Trans youth" are always the vulnerable targets of "transphobes" whose sole mission is to prevent them from being the person they were meant to be. One of the principal reasons sex realists find it so difficult to find platforms from which to disseminate their argument is that trans activists have prejudiced liberals and progressives against gender critical voices.
For all these reasons, trans people in general and trans activists in particular get to sit out the current conversation about Johanna Olson-Kennedy's act of strategic self-censorship. If trans operatives expect lenience from sex realists, they had better rectify the gross imbalance in their own charity toward the gender critical position first.
No-one disagrees that young people with gender incongruity deserve healthcare. The dispute is whether experimental and cosmetic treatments belong within the definition of healthcare. For example tattoos are important to some people, but we don't call them healthcare.
Today, kids are being taught the ABCs of the piece of queer fiction known as gender identity in school. It is becoming apparent that troubled youth in general and troubled adolescent girls in particular are especially susceptible to gender identity ideology. So yes, those young people do deserve not only health care but deprogramming.
Society deserves and badly needs a new generation of mental health professionals who are not captives to the affirmation model and who are willing to dig into their client/patient's family life, inner life and other areas for the roots of their fixation on gender identity. Watchful waiting must replace the headlong rush to affirm. Schools need to stop taking an adversarial role against parents who disagree with their child's transition. They also need to cease engaging youth in the age-inappropriate exploration of sex roles, something that would have been unthinkable before the advent of queer theory.
I’m 45 years old. Sex education was taught in middle school (ages 12-15 years) when I grew up. It focused on birth control and sexual transmitted diseases. It was controversial to teach kids at such a young age.
Re Ari Drennan's tweet about 'no trans people' being interviewed for this article: Johanna Olson-Kennedy is a man who identifies as a woman. In other words, the main subject is 'trans.' So there's that.
Ugh, I don’t want to be wrong about this, but it does look that way… I’d been under this impression for years and thought it was common knowledge that Olson-Kennedy was a man posing as female with a spouse who was a woman posing as male; in other words, a hetero couple posing as an inverse-hetero couple, as these types sometimes do. So she’s really a lesbian posing as a hetero wife? Sorry, my bad.
Marci Bowers and Diane Ehrensaft are two prominent physicians working in transgender medicine who are transidentifying males (that is, men who identify as a woman). Olson-Kennedy, if you look at her, she does not look like a man. Men who went through male puberty look like men even if they dress like women and have their hair done in a way typical for women.
But what's the point of institutional capture? To make people afraid they'll lose their jobs if they don't toe the line, right? Agree the ideology is insane, but it wouldn't last a minute if well placed people who KNOW it's insane would just call it out. Why don't they?
I see doctors and scientists more afraid of damaging their careers than they are of damaging vulnerable children's bodies and minds. I see careerists who BUY INTO the institutional capture. We need mass walkouts by people who understand reality and aren't afraid to risk their jobs for people's lives. Doctors especially have sworn to "do no harm." Did they mean do no harm to their careers?
Sorry, I'm not trying to be snarky, but I just don't understand how doctors can support this AT ALL. Where are the pediatricians? Where are the endocrinologists? Where are the gynecologists and urologists? All these people MUST know the score. Institutional capture just sounds like a polite way of referring to highly educated, highly compensated people selling out.
You are not snarky. You are correct. My impressions of how this all happened are vague. It’s like we woke up after Covid and the AAP was fully captured by the trans ideology. And DEI. Kind of all mixed in.
So every researcher funded by NIH gets some salary support. A certain proportion of Dr Olson Kennedy salary is being paid for by this project. For her to sit on the results! Unethical to say the very least.
To answer your question, I suspect GLAAD has no endgame. The organization is in this mess up to its waist, and its only choices are to admit to having made a terrible mistake, or to plunge in deeper and hope that, somehow, it does not drown. I think that's a thin hope, but I guess even a thin hope is better than none at all.
They should get back to their day job of representing the interests of gay, lesbian and bisexual people, plus those genuine trans people who fit the classical model of childhood-onset gender dysphoria. The idea that they somehow need to be there for all 'queer' (which is impossible to actually define) people is something they need to just drop. The same goes for Stonewall and their ilk in the UK.
"[A]nother article about trans health care that quotes 0 trans people, ignores context . . ."
This is so 2020, when the "lived experience" of members of marginalized identity groups displaced expertise in decision making. How did that work out?
What's the point of quoting trans activists when they're incapable of communicating except through thought-ending rhetorical phrases such as "the current climate of anti-trans fearmongering"? One would think they receive training in Trump mentor and lowlife attorney Roy Cohn's three rules: 1) attack, attack, attack; 2) admit nothing and deny everything; and 3) claim victory and never admit defeat.
Genderists' demand for a seat at the table is rich. The capture of our institutions by gender identity ideology was profoundly undemocratic. The public were never allowed to have a say on whether the medical profession, the educational establishment, government or other powerful organizations embraced and implemented gender ideology through their policies and programs.
For that matter, the trans activists and their allies who were instrumental in seeding genderism throughout society were never required to first explain their agenda to all stakeholders, answer their questions and critiques or obtain prior approval from a numerical majority of the public before proceeding.
Moreover, the pitch that trans activists made to the bodies that ultimately authorized them to proceed came with a cast of undisputed heroes and villains. "Trans youth" are always the vulnerable targets of "transphobes" whose sole mission is to prevent them from being the person they were meant to be. One of the principal reasons sex realists find it so difficult to find platforms from which to disseminate their argument is that trans activists have prejudiced liberals and progressives against gender critical voices.
For all these reasons, trans people in general and trans activists in particular get to sit out the current conversation about Johanna Olson-Kennedy's act of strategic self-censorship. If trans operatives expect lenience from sex realists, they had better rectify the gross imbalance in their own charity toward the gender critical position first.
No-one disagrees that young people with gender incongruity deserve healthcare. The dispute is whether experimental and cosmetic treatments belong within the definition of healthcare. For example tattoos are important to some people, but we don't call them healthcare.
Today, kids are being taught the ABCs of the piece of queer fiction known as gender identity in school. It is becoming apparent that troubled youth in general and troubled adolescent girls in particular are especially susceptible to gender identity ideology. So yes, those young people do deserve not only health care but deprogramming.
Society deserves and badly needs a new generation of mental health professionals who are not captives to the affirmation model and who are willing to dig into their client/patient's family life, inner life and other areas for the roots of their fixation on gender identity. Watchful waiting must replace the headlong rush to affirm. Schools need to stop taking an adversarial role against parents who disagree with their child's transition. They also need to cease engaging youth in the age-inappropriate exploration of sex roles, something that would have been unthinkable before the advent of queer theory.
I’m 45 years old. Sex education was taught in middle school (ages 12-15 years) when I grew up. It focused on birth control and sexual transmitted diseases. It was controversial to teach kids at such a young age.
"the adult NHS gender patients refused to share their data" - rather, gender clinics?
Timely reporting and analysis, as always. Thanks for staying on it!
Thanks for catching that. I wrote this in just a flash. I wanted to get it out before bed.
We don't know if the adult patients objected to the publication of the data. Could be either or both.
Re Ari Drennan's tweet about 'no trans people' being interviewed for this article: Johanna Olson-Kennedy is a man who identifies as a woman. In other words, the main subject is 'trans.' So there's that.
I don’t think so. But she’s married to a trans man.
Olson-Kennedy is a snake oil saleswoman who identifies as a doctor. (But I never heard of her being a man)
Ugh, I don’t want to be wrong about this, but it does look that way… I’d been under this impression for years and thought it was common knowledge that Olson-Kennedy was a man posing as female with a spouse who was a woman posing as male; in other words, a hetero couple posing as an inverse-hetero couple, as these types sometimes do. So she’s really a lesbian posing as a hetero wife? Sorry, my bad.
Marci Bowers and Diane Ehrensaft are two prominent physicians working in transgender medicine who are transidentifying males (that is, men who identify as a woman). Olson-Kennedy, if you look at her, she does not look like a man. Men who went through male puberty look like men even if they dress like women and have their hair done in a way typical for women.
actually, I thought she looked a bit manly.
If you have evidence for her being a he, please share!
Obviously the entire field is built on nothing.
Except money, of course.
Money is part of it. But as a retired pediatrician who has seen institutional capture first hand I’d say insane ideology is most of the problem.
But what's the point of institutional capture? To make people afraid they'll lose their jobs if they don't toe the line, right? Agree the ideology is insane, but it wouldn't last a minute if well placed people who KNOW it's insane would just call it out. Why don't they?
I see doctors and scientists more afraid of damaging their careers than they are of damaging vulnerable children's bodies and minds. I see careerists who BUY INTO the institutional capture. We need mass walkouts by people who understand reality and aren't afraid to risk their jobs for people's lives. Doctors especially have sworn to "do no harm." Did they mean do no harm to their careers?
Sorry, I'm not trying to be snarky, but I just don't understand how doctors can support this AT ALL. Where are the pediatricians? Where are the endocrinologists? Where are the gynecologists and urologists? All these people MUST know the score. Institutional capture just sounds like a polite way of referring to highly educated, highly compensated people selling out.
You are not snarky. You are correct. My impressions of how this all happened are vague. It’s like we woke up after Covid and the AAP was fully captured by the trans ideology. And DEI. Kind of all mixed in.
I appreciate your viewpoint. Please continue to speak out. I think you're on to something important.
So every researcher funded by NIH gets some salary support. A certain proportion of Dr Olson Kennedy salary is being paid for by this project. For her to sit on the results! Unethical to say the very least.
Can’t wait to see the process of $$$cience finally expose all of these monsters..
and medical professionals wonder why parents no longer trust doctors?! Thnx for this information 🙏😊
We were overdue for a massive medical scandal.
"All the science that's fit to print".
Affirm away!
To answer your question, I suspect GLAAD has no endgame. The organization is in this mess up to its waist, and its only choices are to admit to having made a terrible mistake, or to plunge in deeper and hope that, somehow, it does not drown. I think that's a thin hope, but I guess even a thin hope is better than none at all.
They should get back to their day job of representing the interests of gay, lesbian and bisexual people, plus those genuine trans people who fit the classical model of childhood-onset gender dysphoria. The idea that they somehow need to be there for all 'queer' (which is impossible to actually define) people is something they need to just drop. The same goes for Stonewall and their ilk in the UK.