I really hated reliving the majority report episode. Seder and Vigeland demonstrated such bad faith and it’s depressing that accuracy or truth don’t matter as long as you’re on “the right side” on any topic. I wish Jesse would avoid these lunatics, or at least meet them on level playing fields (not call-in shows with bad audio, being cut off etc). They didn’t even make An attempt to make contact with Jesse’s own writing.
So true. Sam just knows. Jesse is just a toxic person and extremely unhelpful because he literally supports torture. Why is he so fervently pointing out minutia per Sam? Sam will NOT discuss Jesse’s writing. He will only discuss issues that are irrelevant to Jesse’s work but are also somehow damning of Jesse’s very soul. I hate to sound inarticulate, but sam is a huge piece of shit.
Other Greg is absolutely right. That call-in was positively distressing. Not just because of how awfully Sam behaved (a bit surprising) or how Emma/Matt behaved (zero surprising), but because Jesse navigated their mine field inexpertly. He walked into the M.O. time and time again.
For all the carping done in this ep about the MANIFEST unfamiliarity TMR's personalities have with Jesse's work, Jesse likewise lacked familiarity with their tactics before he called in and it showed. And even setting that aside, Other Greg's point about the basic disadvantage of a call-in approach should have led Jesse away from this stunt.
I will personally suicide-stinky-butter-bomb the Kickstarter headquarters if Jesse goes through with this plan to Tony Soprano her into another horrible conversation (or pay a generic activist to do so as I'm a bit slow and too pretty to fare well in a paddy wagon).
TMR is fully submerged in personality politics, not issues. He should just let them slide into historical ignominy slowly and without his assistance.
I was in awe of how Jesse kept trying to bring the conversation back to relevant stuff, rather thank calling out their stupid tactics, which only would have degenerated into a slanging match. Yes, he never got them back to the relevant stuff, but he did give them enough rope to hang themselves (or at least come out looking like unhinged idiots)
I am one of the actual subscribers who unsubscribed because of this. I've been following Sam for a long time. I'm pretty sure he wasn't like this. I have never liked Matt, his haughty tone is borne a confidence in his natural superiority to others. I used to like Emma. I never thought she was particularly smart, but I also used to like Joe Rogan. She started to bother me a couple of years ago and it came to a head when she refused to defend Ana Kasparian a few months back.
As I said elsewhere, they may have a larger subscriber base but who cares. Who would rather be, PBS or FOX?
I've listened to the show sporadically over the last few months and their discussion with Jesse is indicative of the overall intellectual depth of the show.
At this point Sam can't even make a coherent point about the torture debate from the mid 2000s, which I assume he was around for (his `analogy' was about a Sam Harris piece, either later included or excerpted from his book against religion, that had close to zero impact on the very, very widespread debate on whether we should torture, what constituted torture, when we should torture, etc).
Emma seemed taken aback at a couple of points in the discussion (watched the video), which indicates to me that she's somewhat knowledgeable, believes she's being righteous, and has a modicum of intellectual honesty. She's clearly the more intelligent and interesting part of the duo; hope she finds a new gig soon.
She might be more knowledgeable on this issue, she’s certainly not more intelligent than Seder. She’s barely capable of thinking on her own, she has one mode; virtue signalling, zero intellectual honesty. Seder is much better than that in theory, though he’s lost his way, but he’s genuinely intelligent.
She said in a video at one point some time ago that her stepsister works--or worked at this point--at a youth gender clinic in Tennessee. So presumably that's where her zeal and knowledge come from.
High sub count and low views is the telltale sign of a dying channel -- many people don't bother unsubscribing on YouTube, they just stop clicking on the videos.
Oh I see what you're saying. I thought your point was just that very view people will see this part of the show. Whether they do or they don't, though, Jesse comes off poorly.
Temperamentally or strategically he decided not to descend to their level, be respectful, and they came off as unhinged, unknowledgeable, and juvenile. Worse yet, their juvenilia wasn't even funny: they talked about Jesse for 30 minutes the previous week and they still act like they don't know how to pronounce his name. Boorish.
He could have been more forceful in staking out some of his positions but he clearly stated them and now his detractors have to continue to say he's a transphobic when he believes:
1. we shouldn't ban medical care for transgender adolescents, though we need to be sure we're adhering to current guidelines that include 1--2 years of therapy, etc.
2. adults benefit from gender transition
3. the current guidelines may be overly conservative for some adolescents (i.e., making them wait one to two years could unnecessarily prolong their gender dysphoria)
4. Republicans are misrepresenting his work
Sam and Emma had the opportunity to challenge him on his positions. The worst they could say is that Jesse shouldn't report on science because it's politically inconvenient (apparently they do not believe that the science is strong enough to stand on its own) or he's garbage because he believes that transition for adolescents should be used to help alleviate gender dysphoria (a concept the hosts seemed unfamiliar with but is the justification given for trans adolescent medical care).
From my perspective (trans woman) Jesse (and Katie) are much better allies than these clowns.
Absolutely. Allies who actually represent the nuance of a complicated topic are better at informing the world than religious zealots who lie.
Also, let's not forget that Sam began the segment with "Okay, Jesse, what's on your mind?" Like, way to help set the table on your own show, dude. Totally abdicated his hosting duties and just left Jesse to try and make the segment somewhat coherent.
Agree, it was so hard to listen to. "Bad faith" was the ready descriptor to my mind as well.
Although I think I share Katie's opinion that there's an argument for Jesse trying to clarify his position if these media live on. I really think he's going to find himself on the right side of history at some point.
"Bad Faith" has become of cudgel of convenience that knows no affiliation. Everybody does it! Kinda like the rise of "problematic". Both instantly dumb-down the argument to which they are deployed, imparting the appearance of rhetorical derring-do while absolving the speaker of the burden of sufficient detail. Drives me crazy.
I don't think vindication comes for Jesse types. I think they'll take up the same clear reasoning once it's acceptable to do so and memory-hole their old opinions, and for Jesse, they'll use a broken clock analogy.
I agree on life being easier without having to be a critical thinker. I still don’t know if they’re just putting on a show or totally believe what they are saying. I lean towards putting on a show but I am also around people like this - genuinely angry, indignant people who don’t listen at all.
Tomorrow, I am going to an event where people have very different opinions than mine. I’m not gunning to fight - I am hoping to learn something new that may change my mind.
Ok honestly I’m not really hoping to change my mind - i think I’m in the right and I’m curious.
Why not just have a convo Emma (and Sammy)? You’re not fighting for your life here.
You put it perfectly. And this is exactly what I think of the current situation at my workplace - an academic institution. Don’t you want to discuss and learn and be friends with other people (even -gasp- conservatives)? It could be a nerd’s paradise! I’m not even joking!
That show was so chaotic and so belligerent, it gave me anxiety like no other fracas on the internet. Seder and Vigeland were a total mess, railroading Jesse the whole time. They clearly do not understand the science at all. Jesse does and they were not about to let him get a word in edgewise because of this vast disparity in knowledge.
Your twitter threads are fantastic. Thank you for them.....and Im sorry about the hatred, yes hatred, thrown at you.
You know that the Majority Report has about 1.4 million subs to its YOutube channel. So, my question to you is: Do you know if all their shows are at that level of quality or close to it?
Thanks. I try just to stick with the facts. I'm not here to editorialize. But I do push back against people who either say things that aren't backed by science or who try to silence science communications. People can be extraordinarily vicious and vindictive. You should see my DMs. The funny thing is, I get people from both the left and the right who each accuse me of the opposite thought crime. Sometimes people will do this in the same Twitter thread. It's amazing how much people will pretend they can read your mind when you make a neutral statement like, "Megyn Kelly will not back down; she insists that there is no such thing as being transgender." From a statement like that, I get accused of conspiring against women and being a misogynist. I'm like, where are these people getting this?
So many papers about this issue seem to have low populations, weak results, and so on....but they end up supporting almost extravagant claims. Has anyone else seen the same thing?
(Benjamin...I am a stage 4 kidney cancer...renal cell carcinoma...patient. Things are stable and there are drugs, good ones to help combat it....Keytruda and Lenvima. There are side effects, for me, not horrendous ones but can be very uncomfortable and a bit more.)
When you said something like ‘this is how Megyn Kelly talks about transpeople‘, in respect to Rachel Levine, didn’t this clearly imply she was wrong to speak like that in your opinion?
For anyone considering listening to the entire interview but dreading the experience, I would say that all the most important moments were covered in the BARpod episode. You’re welcome.
I wouldn't normally take other people's word on what is/isn't worth listening to, but I'm making an exception today; they sound that bonkers. Thanks Zach :) Appreciate your sacrifice.
As far as what teachers should be disclosing to parents, I think the outing of a gay kid to their parents is not their job because 1) that kid can come out to their parents on their terms and on their own schedule and 2) being gay isn't necessarily going to impact their school performance or interfere with anyone else's.
The trans thing feels different for a number of reasons, specifically, because you don't really have to take any action when a kid comes out to you as gay. When a kid comes out as trans, there's a torrent of changes that teachers, the administration and fellow classmates end up making: pronouns, name changes, deciding which locker room they change in for PE, etc. I don't think anyone should be doing that without getting the parents involved.
Also, homosexuality isn't a mental disorder (or heavily linked to mental disorders or behavioral problems). There seems to be a much larger correlation with mental health problems and gender identity issues.
Having fellow students, teachers, counselors call a student a different name, allowing the kid to enter opposite sex bathrooms and lockerrooms, while keeping that from family is basically requiring a whole group of people to lie to the kid's parents. It is totally insane.
The "T" are well aware that their situation is radically different from the "LGB", especially in a K-12 setting. They deliberately pretend there's no difference.
"you don't really have to take any action when a kid comes out to you as gay" - This is such a key difference. The people who equate sexual orientation with gender identity either are not thinking clearly or are deliberately ignoring this obvious distinction. Sadly I'm afraid it's more often the former.
It’s just another civil rights thing for many. I have relatives that truly cannot understand the difference. They just automatically condemn everything the Republicans want.
And if they are nice liberals they are tolerant of all “weirdos”. No I’ll feeling just put gays, trans, and NBs all in one basket of “other” they don’t judge
How sustainable is it? The change involves so many people. Unlike coming out as gay privately to a teacher, this involves pretty much all the staff and student body at a school but NOT the parents. It seems unsustainable, like someone will find out and notify the parent.
I was a HS teacher in California and I did not deal with the same number of restrictions as the NY listener who's letter Katie read. I taught in the '90s though and a whole lot has changed since then.
This comment is just looking worse and worse at this point with the number of commenters who have explicitly come out (so to speak) in favor of outing gay kids to their parents.
It’s possible there could be a variety of viewpoints here, ranging from this very centrist view towards much more conservative “gay is gross” type of views that many of us disagree with. The existence of the right wing does not make the center view “look worse and worse”. If anything the opposite is true - makes the center look more reasonable.
... the fact that conservatives are very, very obviously and publicly coming for the gays should make the gays SOMEWHAT less willing to throw the trans under the bus and devalue the concept of children's privacy for a little temporary expediency.
What does the one have to do with the other? What on earth do you mean by gays 'throwing the trans under the bus'?
I suspect most people do not consider informing parents of their child's entire *identity* to be 'throwing them under the bus.'
"Devaluing the concept of children's privacy" - just stop right there. This has to do with actions the student wants to engage in *publicly*, including public name and facility use changes, while at school. This has nothing to do with 'privacy' but rather deliberately lying to parents about the child's and the school employees' PUBLIC actions while at school. It's untenable.
If there is any suspicion whatsoever that the kid is subject to potential or actual abuse, the appropriate response is a report to state authorities.
What does policy on outing trans kids have to do with policy on outing gay kids? Hmm, let me think about that one. Some might think that being gay is a key issue of "identity," but we all know that's different, because reasons. Gee, a real poser there, innit?
What do I mean by gays throwing the trans under the bus? Well, it seems to me that quite a number of people on this thread have expressed views like "gays should support outing trans kids so as to distinguish themselves from the eeeeeeevil transes" (okay that last bit is my editorial commentary), which is very explicitly a call to abandon solidarity in the hope that appeasement of anti-LGBT forces will permit them to retain a privileged position in society. That will not work even slightly, but it will destroy the unity of the movement.
You've identified some reasons why (some) attempts to preserve (some) trans kids' privacy may not be entirely effective. That does not make this not a privacy issue. Here's a close analogy: as a supervisor at my job, I am legally forbidden to tell employees about another employee's reasonable accommodations, because that would be a violation of the accommodated employee's medical privacy. It DOES NOT MATTER if the employee's disability is visible or invisible, whether the accommodation is "public," or whether other employees will find out anyway.
As for the last sentence, somehow I do not think that the "concerned parents" here would be okay with it if state authorities were contacted based on mere suspicion of potential abuse. They would say, not without some reason, that you have no evidence-- just speculation. And even if a report was made, the authorities can't do anything until a child is actually abused, at which point it may well be too late to prevent permanent harm.
I find this gay/trans distinction to be inconsistent, as Katie is beginning to consider.
And I found Jessie's response that gay kids should, of course, not be "outed" to their parents because they shouldn't be outed to be a classic example of question begging.
If a child being gay is relevant to problems at school, then it's relevant and parents are entitled to know. Likewise if a straight child's BF, GF, BFF is contributing to problems, then the parents have a right to know.
I am also disturbed by this guiding principle that the vast majority of parents are unenlightened abusers. Not to mention the idea that teachers are all knowing saints.
Everybody who has attended school had a few great teachers, a few terrible ones and a whole lot of mediocre ones, who had no insights whatsoever into their students.
Teachers are not more qualified than parents to intervene in a child's life.
I forget that not everyone binges on the topic of gender and it still surprises me when people still genuinely believe that affirmation is the best way to go for gender dysphoric people. Does nobody pay attention to what’s going on in Scandinavia? Does everyone truly believe that all the states banning youth medical transitions are just led by crazy right wingers who hate trans people? Maybe, some are, but to not even question that there could be nothing more to see there? I’ve felt something was off about the way gender transition was discussed for years, before even reading much about it. How can these people be so ill-informed?
Yeah, I think people love to think of themselves as some revolutionary with all the odds against them. We don’t really live in societies like this anymore, but people still keep coming up with stuff to make themselves feel special.
"Does everyone truly believe that all the states banning youth medical transitions are just led by crazy right wingers who hate trans people?"
This is literally, one hundred percent true. No blue or purple state has banned youth medical transitions. I'm actually unaware of any Democratic legislator who's even voted for such a bill, though I suppose there probably are one or two. There are far more Republican legislators who've voted against them.
If your position requires you to assume the bona fides of a group of people who have repeatedly demonstrated in a million different ways over the past ten years that they have none, your position might suck.
You don't think there's any possibility at all that states are banning youth medical transition in an attempt to protect kids, rather than because they hate trans people? What about restrictions in European countries, is that due to hatred as well?
I think it’s certain that *some* R legislators (and regular people, including some GC people who lean left) feel moral disgust toward transgender people. There was the legislator (in Florida?) who called trans people imps and demons. There are still plenty of people who act as though they feel threatened by gender nonconformity. Some religious people believe that gnc is contrary to God’s will.
There are surely R politicians who see that the issues they are now highlighting (NOT the bathroom bans of a few years ago) are effective wedge issues.
And there are definitely R politicians and many voters - including lots of Dems like me - who bear no animus but have grave, principled, and compassionate reservations about youth transition, males in female sports, and the erasure of women’s distinctive needs and embodied experiences across the lifespan.
This is an effective wedge issue because of the size of the third group. Polling data very clearly shows that the majority of Americans believe the trans people deserve protections against discrimination in housing, education, and the like. A majority also opposes policies that require us to ignore everything we know about sexed bodies. The Dems see that trans women in women’s sports is a loser with voters, but they are dithering about how to respond. They count on few voters being attuned to the issues in prisons and shelters. And they have dug in so hard on the trans activist position on youth gender medicine that it’s hard to imagine how they can row back from it.
"The Dems see that trans women in women’s sports is a loser with voters, but they are dithering about how to respond. They count on few voters being attuned to the issues in prisons and shelters. And they have dug in so hard on the trans activist position on youth gender medicine that it’s hard to imagine how they can row back from it."
Yep. It's going to bite them in the ass very hard.
Democratic strategy on the women's sports issue is to imply or just directly claim that the GOP wants young girls subjected to gender testing to play Middle School no-cut Basketball, repeat mantras and then change the subject as fast as they can. I've seen them deploy this tactic in interviews (most notably on Bill Maher's show) and I've seen it repeated by many Democrats in my circle. Given that most of my circle are people who either are Democrats or are too left wing to be Democrats, that's not a small number of people.
On the larger issue, they just want to deploy the tactic of calling anyone who has any questions, dissent or concerns a right wing bigot. For good measure, they then paint dissenters as white nationalists (even when the dissenters aren't white).
I am still very much on their call, email and mailing lists, both the public facing ones and locally the internal pleas for getting the party faithful to turn up (time and money and endorsements) for the primaries early. I have considered unsubscribing but I rather like to be able to peek. And it was such a commitment of mine for so long it was hard admit that I wasn't onboard with the Democratic party anymore.
I've walked a lot of precincts, knocked on a lot of doors, hosted and attended events, convened caucuses, dutifully attended conventions at the local level on up. All for Democrats and almost always for the left wing of the Democratic party. I can't convey how big of a change it is that I don't think I can vote for Biden next year. This week, I signed up to get campaign updates from the moderate GOP candidate for Governor. I won't vote for Trump but I might be able to vote for some Republicans. My mother is rolling over in her proverbial grave right now.
If the Democrats wanted to design a way to lose support from their party faithful, they really could not have done any better than cook up this nonsense.
Like you, TessK, I feel I have no political party home. And political parties have no real positional core (ie re Dems -children are not fully responsible for their actions until their brains are fully developed except for gender related issues).
I will be voting for the least crazy candidates. Fortunately, I live in a BIG BLUE state so my presidential vote does not count anyway.
It's fascinating that you are so invested in this DemExit narrative (despite, as I pointed out elsewhere on this thread, just being a straightforward conservative in most respects, i.e. someone who I would typically expect to vote Republican ex ante); I suppose you see it as an effective means of converting more people to the transphobic cause you have now espoused. Conversion narratives are always effective yarns.
That being said, there's zero evidence that transphobia is an electorally effective strategy, and lots of evidence that it is not:
The fact is that outside of a very small number of, basically, obsessive busybodies, most people vote in elections based on tribal loyalties, vibes, or, to the extent they think about policy at all, economic or mixed economic/social issues like healthcare and abortion rights, not weirdo obsessions with a tiny minority of people. Abortion, in particular, absolutely dwarfs trans policies in political importance, which I know will upset you given your anti-abortion views, but it's true.
`There are surely R politicians who see that the issues they are now highlighting (NOT the bathroom bans of a few years ago) are effective wedge issues.'
This has not stopped Republicans in Iowa and Florida from re-instituting those bans.
It's certainly true that one can be pro-trans and anti-affirmation but the people who are tend to use the same arguments as the anti-trans, anti-affirmation types, and they both want the same: an end to gender affirming medical care for adolescents. Not improved medical care but no medical care.
For example, when Megyn Kelly says, as Benjamin noted above, `there is no such thing as being transgender' her purported desire to protect children is irrelevant because she's being openly anti-trans (as she's denying the existence of a medical condition and its treatment).
It does not seem to me that partisanship/anti-trans animus was behind the halting of affirming care in the EU. Treatments are still available but must now be given under a research umbrella (at least in the UK). On the other hand, many if not most of the bans put forward by Republican legislatures, and passed by them, are based on a legal template from Women's Declaration USA, an openly anti-trans radical feminist group so out there that even Republicans had to change some of their terminology.
You've now rephrased the question to be not one about the motivations of Republican Party leadership but one of the motivation of "states," which is an unanswerable (indeed, ill-posed) question about the legislative intent of a collective of people that doesn't have a single intent. I reiterate my response to the original question.
I also reject the false dichotomy you posit between "protect kids" and "hate trans people." I think many Republican legislators are, in their own minds, attempting to "protect kids" BECAUSE they hate trans people and believe them to be "groomers" who want to sexually assault children. An attempt to "protect" children from a hated other follows naturally from that hatred; these are not somehow clashing motivations.
Could it be, there are many different nuanced perspectives on the issue of trans identifying kids and most people just want to be able to talk about them without being shut down?
There are many different nuanced perspectives about the inherent inferiority of black people. There are many different nuanced perspectives about the nature of Jewish media control. There are many different nuanced perspectives about the criminal punishment that should be handed out to Christian apostates.
Apparently you believe we should be discussing all of these. I do not.
In your world is Scandinavia full of right wingers? Are the Netherlands a place known for conservative extremists? The people who established the Dutch protocol have found issues with it. And the protocol is not being followed in the US where gender youth medicine has exploded. The US and the left in the US is very much not following the science on this issue.
Dr. Laura Edwards Leeper founded a pediatric gender clinic and she, along with transwoman Dr. Erica Anderson, have raised red flags and alarm bells. I'm linking an article for the benefit of other readers as I am confident you can't grasp it.
When it comes to this issue, you are an ignoramus with your head very far up your ass. You don't know what you don't know and you aren't capable of learning it either, which is sad for you but not my problem.
GNC kids deserve better. The politicization of this issue in the US is a grave disservice kids living with gender distress. I will say that I have significant issues with the way the right uses this issue. While I may have found some allies that are conservatives, I don't support the approach the the GOP is taking to this issue either.
Since exactly none of this is even remotely responsive to anything I've said, I decline to defend the straw man you've attributed to me. I note that you pointedly say nothing whatsoever about the motivations of your Republican allies, which was the subject of my comment (only that you nonspecifically "don't support the approach the GOP is taking to this issue," which for all I know could mean that you think that they aren't cracking down hard enough).
Also, it's kind of comical that about two paragraphs into that WaPo article, the authors make clear that they (like me, and unlike your Republican friends) reject legislation "trying to ban" the "appropriate gender-affirming medical care for trans youth." Oops.
Yeah, there’s a weird subset of medicine to interfere with things that are going correctly with your body — it’s a bit disturbing how ubiquitous it is.
This is a red herring. Trans people, especially trans women, cannot win this argument, by design, because:
1. if we don't get surgery we are told that we just want to revel in the joy of using/flaunting our `girl dick' and abusing others with it
2. if we get surgery we do so because we think that being a woman is just about having a `hole to fuck'
Several posters here hold both views.
Now, what are trans people with diagnosed gender dysphoria supposed to do after they've been to therapy for years and the dysphoria is having a measurable negative impact on their lives?
I think it's fair to bring up the double bind some trans people find themselves in (I know there are some trans people who don't want to go to the extremities of having surgery but rather, opt for just presenting as the opposite sex however else they can.) But I think the main concern I have here is how much the "affirmation" approach has taken hold of the conversation.
I think what a lot of trans-identifying kids, their parents and their schools are facing is the overwhelming pressure to socially and medically "affirm" a kid with gender dysphoria. It's particularly disconcerting when schools seem to egg it on without any reasonable contact with the parents. Someone mentioned this on another thread.
There is a transphobic sentiment that people just shouldn’t live as the gender different than their sex, period. It is an obvious continuity that in different times and places a small group of people have chosen to do so. That’s fine--who cares if it is biological disposition rooted in identity formation or socialized and sexually driven--it is a person’s right to choose their gender expression. But the transphobia especially comes out when public spaces are in question, and a person’s fixation on their disgust response to the behavior doesn’t mean there are not valid concerns about many minors experiencing something transitory that is being messaged as a permanent condition with a medical solution based on incomplete and faulty evidence, and it doesn’t mean there are not valid arguments that sex-specific spaces should be protected even while not exposing trans people to harassment and acknowledging they need to be protected too.
Anyway, I just don’t think the transphobia frequently interwoven in the critique of gender medicine for minors delegitimizes all the arguments, and Jesse also doesn’t have a problem with adults who are transgender nor does he believe in counterproductive paternalistic state bans. Some people here do, and some dislike and have disdain for trans people, but that doesn’t make all criticism invalid and many here are concerned parents who feel their child is experiencing something transitory and are afraid they will make decisions that will be harmful for them long-term because of the messages they are getting from other kids and adults. I am sympathetic to that position.
I think it is okay to call out transphobia where you see it, but not sure how much it changes a person’s perspective or how helpful it is to wield the term like a blunt instrument. What do you think? What is being accomplished with this approach?
What I think is that the observation that someone is transphobic is not dispositive that they are wrong-- a stopped clock is right twice a day-- but it is obviously severely damaging to their credibility on those issues-- you should not be using a stopped clock to tell time, because it is probably wrong. I don't rely on KKK pamphlets to get racial crime statistics or Der Sturmer editions to learn about Jewish pedophiles, either. It's obvious that the bigotry delegitimizes the arguments, and to the extent you contend otherwise, I seriously question your inductive reasoning abilities.
I'm more than willing to have reasoned discussions of particular policies around sex and gender. But having those discussions with committed bigots is a pointless waste of time (as you can see evidenced on this very thread where my careful readings of a Washington statute's actual text have been repeatedly responded to with hysterical, text-free allegations that it says something it plainly doesn't say). Better to simply note the bigotry, call it out, and move on.
And the "concerned parents" schtick is, frankly, getting pretty tiresome at this point. If you think your child is not trans and is somehow being misled, whatever, feel how you feel, but the argument that schools and society at large have some kind of duty to repress trans people's expression and discussions of trans experiences (a.k.a. the "messages" that being trans is okay and not a bad thing) in order to stop kids from "experiencing something transitory" is ridiculous (and impossible). The line between "I want the bigots to win because I hate trans people" and "I want the bigots to win because even though I personally think trans people are fine, honest, scout's honor, I just really want MY child not to transition" is... let's say, thin, bordering on invisible. For the most part I think those people are just liars.
“Concerned parents schtick”? I see. I’m guessing you are not a parent. I thought my parents were a bit ridiculous and out of touch as well, when I was a teenager and young adult. Then I grew up into a fully functioning adult, with the ability to understand a lot of different perspectives without needing to label them as bigoted. It’s a damn shame not everyone gets to experience that.
You think having discussions with bigots is a waste of time yet you seem to think many members here are bigots and spend a lot time arguing on this Substack. Why? What do you get out of it?
Whenever a TRA tries to throw "homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder too!" at you, the obvious response is that gay rights activists never fought for any medical treatment to make their homosexuality go away (quite the opposite), and have been shown to be capable of living healthy lives without any medical intervention. Trans people don't WANT to live with gender dysphoria (and according to activists, they can't). They're fighting FOR medical intervention.
The simple fact is that being trans is a mental disorder requiring medical attention and decisions.
Being gay is not.
Schools should notify parents if they become aware of medical disorders because it is the parents who must facilitate the care and make medical care decisions.
In some states, parents who are skeptical of the care or wish to take a watchful waiting approach to the situation are being relieved of their parental rights. A recently passed law in my state gives parents of trans identified children who have run away less legal recourse than those who are creditably accused of abuse or neglect. It is WA State SB 5599. California is doing similar. Oregon doesn’t require parental consent or notification for gender care for kids ages 15-17.
These laws are extreme and they put kids who do have loving and supportive parents at risk of genuine harm.
It’s like the people who wrote these bills have literally never met a child. Kids say and do stupid stuff to push back against their parents allllll the time, and a law like this could be easily abused as a loophole.
I... what? This is a bill about reporting requirements for shelters for runaway youth that requires them to engage with the state as an intermediary rather than directly with parents in situations where a runaway is accessing protected health services that may be interfered with or stopped by said parents. The law is explicit that the ultimate goal is family reunification. I cannot fathom what problem anyone would have with this legislation.
I don't even understand what you think the "abuse" here would entail. You think someone is going to run away from home and start gender transition not out of gender dysphoria, but just to spite their parents? Most people (especially teenagers, who are not known for their extreme adherence to rigorous medical-social regimens) are really not that committed to the bit.
Is this of some deep concern to you? That I might be wasting my money? How very thoughtful of you. Let me reassure you that I am more than satisfied with my various purchases. Glad we've cleared that up.
I've read the bill in question, and as I expected, I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
In fact, section 2(2)(c) appears to put children who are receiving protected health services (NOT all "trans identified children," not that I suppose you care about the details of this) on precisely the SAME playing field as children who may be subjected to abuse or neglect-- which, considering that we're talking about runaways here (most of whom rather obviously do not have "loving and supportive parents"), seems entirely fine to me.
Protected health services ARE gender affirming care and abortion services. Abusive parents are required to be given notice and a court date. It is unclear that the same provision exists for the parents of minors receiving protected health care services and you had best believe that if my son were at a shelter, it would be violation of my rights to not immediately let me know where he is. There is well defined constitutional case law on this, which is why, as I understand it, the law is being challenged in court.
Note, this would be minors receiving protected health services that you have claimed approximately 47K times are NeVeR EveR DoNe WitHOut parental consent, both on this podcast comments and many others.
I am intimately familiar with the RCWs that this bill amends, having lobbied on the issue as a student lobbyist more than 2 decades ago. Runaway notification was passed here in the 90s as the Becca Bill.
I believe that an out of state ideologically driven person such as yourself has both less skin in the game and less familiarity with the legal framework of the laws of the state I have lived in for 40 years.
You have proven yourself, time and time again, either unable or unwilling to process information that doesn’t confirm your basic beliefs.
Go get on with your masturbatory facile delusions of legal grandeur and superior intellect elsewhere, mKay?
I see we've moved on to the "outside agitators gettin' in here and messin' up our relations with our Negroes" phase of conservative argumentation. I half expect to be labeled a communist sympathizer next.
I am well aware that there is a judicial-bypass procedure for protected health services (which I presume you, as an anti-abortion conservative, oppose). It's unclear to me why you think I should be opposing it, though. As a general rule, I think children should have access to necessary healthcare that their parents want to prevent. I am, for example, vehemently opposed to coddling the insane anti-blood-transfusion views of Jehovah's Witness parents.
Some runaways have loving parents but run away because of misunderstandings, family tensions or the teens are engaged with high risk activities such as drug use or involved with dangerous people. Presuming that all runaways have abusive parents is just a false assumption on your part.
Literally this girl who ran away two doors down has amazing parents and siblings, she just liked hanging out with drug addicts at 14 and her parents didn’t approve and forbid it so she ran away (to a crack house). Hardly abusive.
Now she is 20 and is still a wild child but says running away was the dumbest thing she ever did.
My older brother ran away at 15. It was complicated but his insistence that he do lots of drugs and not actually go to school was the biggest part of it. I have a complex relationship with my brother but I love him and his kids deeply. Fortunately, he’s hit the stage where he has, like a lot of people with drug and criminal histories, mellow out and we can occasionally have breakfast or catch a baseball game together. This is a markedly different situation than the years that everything from my engagement ring to credit to my son’s piggy bank was stolen by him or his wife to feed their habits. Drugs take a big toll.
Ah. And your solution to this problem is to... deter those runaways involved with high risk activities from going to official shelters (where they will know that they will be sent home) and instead incentivize them to hit the streets.
Makes sense, assuming you view them as subhuman cockroaches whom society would be better off without.
You struggle with Theory of Mind. You don’t know what people might actually be thinking so you ascribe your own opinion of what they must think to them and then double down even when very, very wrong.
I volunteer at shelters and transitional housing for adults and kids. Due to my limited time, most of this volunteer work is shopping for and cooking meals, which I can do alongside my own Costco runs and cooking. One is a shelter for teens specifically, the others are shelter and transitional housing for families with kids. These are issues I care deeply about, having grown up very poor myself. I absolutely treasure human life, which is a value I live out in my life. I don’t even think you are a subhuman cockroach. #trollsarepeopletoo
If a kid runs away, that is a strong piece of evidence suggesting that their parents aren't loving and supportive that should greatly shift your Bayesian priors in that direction. It's not dispositive.
The second paragraph is getting into "false proposition implies any proposition" territory again. SB 5599 does not authorize funding for specific medical treatments that children want, but only if they run away. (Maybe some other law does-- again, I have not canvassed the entire Washington state code-- but that one doesn't.) What it does is say that IF A CHILD IS ALREADY RECEIVING THOSE TREATMENTS, shelters have to attempt reunification through intermediaries rather than through direct contact with potentially-abusive parents. I agree with that state policy.
`The simple fact is that being trans is a mental disorder requiring medical attention and decisions.
Being gay is not.'
Being gay was a mental disorder until 1974 (DSM-II, 7th printing); it wasn't until DSM-III-R (1987) that homosexuality was completely removed from the DSM with the excising of `ego-dystonic homosexuality'. And before 1974 medical attention was certainly recommended.
Thus far medical interventions are the best way we know how to treat gender dysphoria, and its cause seems to be similar to that of homosexuality.
> and its cause seems to be similar to that of homosexuality.
I suppose this is technically correct. While there seems to be a genetic component, the genes involved, to what extent, etc. are not known or understood.
Similarly, the exact cause of homosexuality (or more generally, sexual orientation) is not known.
So they are similar in that it's not really fully understood.
However, gender dysphoria is in the DSM for completely different reasons and motivations than homosexuality. Homosexuality was deemed pathological since it deviated, but also because a whole slew of bad pathological traits were supposed to go along with it. There were also disease theories for homosexuality. There was a strong bigotry component to advocates who were quite forward in stating that homosexuals were evil or immoral.
Over time research mounted showing quite conclusively that none of these comorbidities were true. It wasn't a disease. It wasn't correlated with any social pathologies or immoral behaviors. Further, being homosexual in itself does not cause any distress. And no action or treatment is necessary to lead a happy, fulfilled, and content life.
None of this is true about gender dysphoria. The reason it's considered a mental disorder is because it is the condition itself that causes intense anxiety in the patient. If you do nothing and it persists, it doesn't get better. It can get worse. To the point where the patient cannot lead a happy, fulfilled, and content life.
So, you can remove gender dysphoria from the DSM. But unlike homosexuality, this wouldn't help anyone with gender dysphoria. . . they _require_ treatment to improve their condition. Its presence in the DSM is because of that core attribute....
That's a pretty good explanation of it (that and the fact that homosexuality doesn't appear to interfere with peoples' abilities to lead functional lives — all other things being equal), whereas people experiencing extreme gender dysphoria might have a bigger reason to consider a medical intervention.
I think it's also fair to steelman TwKaR's point — a lot of DSM definitions have had cultural components over the years that aren't entirely easy to untangle from everything else.
> have had cultural components over the years that aren't entirely easy to untangle from everything else.
For sure. Though it's not unique in this.
The DSM is a living document and constantly updated. Later iterations added criteria specifically designed to minimize these kinds of biases. For example, at some point
> mental disorders are associated with distress, disability, or a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom.
So you can have the exact same symptoms in two people and one has a disorder and the other does not. If one copes with it fine and is not distressed by the symptoms.
If you think you should have been the other sex, but then you're like "oh well, whatevs. Thems the breaks" and move on with life...then you don't have gender dysphoria.
The trans thing is totally different. We weren't asking for all the pronoun stuff nor for people to make the fundamentalist statement that we were women, even though male and vice versa and on and on.
As I've said to friends, and has not always been well received...."gender affirming care" is the gay conversion therapy from hell.
Indeed it is.....but try saying that. It's amazing the level of ignorance among the reputedly well-educated among this group. And the categorical certainty which they hang on to that ignorance!
Say it all you want, but it's a non-sequitur because, aside from the use of similar medical techniques, one is a state-driven policy meant to stop immoral behavior and the other is voluntarily sought medical care to mitigate personal pain.
Quite frankly, it also diminishes the horror and pain gay men in Iran experience to equate their suffering with a change of clothing/pronouns. Also not sure that they would appreciate their pain being used to deny relief to suffering adolescents, either.
Are you speaking about such care for adults or adolescents? If for the latter, do you believe that trans adolescents can't/aren't suffering from gender dysphoria?
What if they have one of the other problems mentioned in the episode, like they spend all their time making out in the classroom instead of focusing on their work?
I don’t think teachers should have boundaries on disclosing any truths about children. How proactive they want to be should be their discretion. If they suspect abuse, they can and should report it.
Completely agree. There are parents who would act abusively towards their child if they came home with a bad grade. Teachers shouldn't stop handing out report cards, they should use their responsibility as mandated reporters to report those instances where it does seem like a child is being abused. Most parents are not abusive, and that should be considered the default, not the exception.
Most people do not blab unnecessary details about medical records, therefore HIPAA is a bad law and medical privacy should be unregulated because people aren't proven blabbers.
Most gun owners are law abiding, therefore we should have zero gun controls of any kind.
This argument seems unimpeachable to me. Prophylaxis? Never heard of it.
That's a false equivalency. Parents are legally responsible for their children's health and wellbeing. HIPAA doesn't exist to prevent parents from finding out what's going on with little Timmy health-wise, it exists to ensure that little Timmy's intimate medical information is not publicly accessible. Total strangers don't need to know how often little Timmy is having diarrhea, but his doctor and parents should know. Similarly, it is important for parents to know if little Timmy is having trouble with reading or is acting out in school. Parents have a duty to help their children and support them in overcoming issues.
As you mentioned, prophylaxis is an important part of this. If little Timmy is having problems reading in first grade and the parents are aware, they can take interventions to remedy his reading performance and ensure that he doesn't fall behind in the future, make sure he isn't having trouble with his eyesight, or get him tested for learning disabilities. If little Timmy has an allergic reaction and his parents know about it, they can get him tested, get him an epi-pen, eliminate allergens from his environment.
The point that I am making is that parents need information about their kids in order to be there for them when it matters. Unfortunately there are some people who will not take kindly to that information, but we have mechanisms in place to identify and report situations where that is happening.
Hospitals are legally responsible for their patients' health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, we have legally instituted privacy requirements to prevent them from the uninhibited sharing of private information, because we have adjudged that privacy is more important.
If you think kids' privacy is unimportant, then own that, but don't make out like that's anything other than a policy choice to subordinate said privacy to your personal view that parents always know best.
That’s what upsets me — yes, abuse happens, but unless there is some ACTUAL evidence of abuse, they should just be treating a situation like the above like any other behavioral issue. Tell the parents the relevant information and let them know it’s affecting their behavior in school.
Yes, but the rub with that is defining what is abusive. I’ve seen schools look the other way when there was clearly abuse going on and I’ve seen schools report parents for things that aren’t abusive or use the threat of reporting abuse as retaliation for the parents complaining about issues at the school. Most of the time I think schools do try to do the right thing but unfortunately, it’s simply not the case 100% of the time.
We’re a big country and nothing with human behavior is 100%.
Ignoring obvious abuse though, is absolutely illegal. And if anyone said (like a concerned parent) “hey, I think that kid is abused” they’re legally required to forward that concern.
I’m dealing with reality here. Our child protective system has so many holes. It’s sad and it’s tragic, but it’s true. When I say it’s not 100%, it’s not 99.9%. At least 1/2 the time, I’ve observed major issues
1. Not everyone is a mandated reporter.
2. Sometimes reporting abuse can make it worse for the vulnerable people being abused, which any kid whose has been abused knows. This is why most mandated reporters I know try to have a narrow range of times they considered it required to report.
3. Defining a parent who doesn’t rush to affirm a trans identity in a kid as being abusive isn’t reasonable and it’s a waste of social work resources.
4. Social work is a system that brings a lot of classism and other biases into play. One reason I was skeptical of Defund the Police was that I know full well that social workers are not well regarded or received in poor families.
I’ve mentioned on here that I have helped to raise my nieces and nephew, which is why I have spent most of my adult life raising a gaggle of kids. There’s a reason for that.
Two of them have parents with a long history in and out of family and criminal court, the other two parents went through a nasty divorce and one tried time and time again to use CPS as a weapon, to some success. I also have other exposure to these processes via work and my community and volunteering. I’ve seen CPS do good work and be a net improvement to the family. I’ve also seen CPS so far more harm than good.
I’ve called CPS four times in my life-
Once for work when physical abuse of manifestly obvious.
Once on a neighbor who was leaving her small son locked outside while she was inside on drugs with whatever man was around at the moment.
Once on my brother and his wife (there was no other option and believe me, we weren’t the first or last call)
Once recently for a case of extreme neglect that my husband and I became aware of. Before we decided to call, we spoke with two friends who are social workers…both of them recommended taking some other steps before calling, which we did.
Secondly (I hit send too soon) I appreciate you saying what a strain and waste of resources it is to term not affirming a kid as trans as abuse. I’m not sure if it’s because parents have gotten so helicoptery as of late, but everyone seems to want to claim abuse when a child isn’t being raised they think they should be.
First off, I’m so sorry that your nieces and nephew’s life are so complicated. I’m sure it’s tough being those kids, but it’s also rough being the grown up that cares for them.
Right; isn't that what PTA meetings used to be about?
The most valuable information a parent can get is a clear feedback on how their child is behaving in half their waking hours.
Why not simply live stream classes?
Other children's privacy could be an issue, BUT 1) we did it during COVID (which is when a lot of parents learned about the reality of the school day) and 2) we do in daycare. So the sudden 180° in school doesn't entirely make sense.
Only exception I can think of is mountain biking. But seemed more pragmatic than policy….kind of inconvenient to live stream mountain biking through trails.
School is an outlier, not a norm.
I’m not advocating for cameras everywhere all the time. There’s a case to be made that students may be more open to expressing opinions and present a different self than they do under the eye of parents. That’s fine and can be positive…..but the other extreme of it being a complete black box to parents seems more aimed at protecting the educators and not the adults.
I’ve never heard my elementary kids express concern over parents being able to watch them do gymnastics. They think it’s awesome and are very excited when I can make it.
PTA meetings are mostly about what and how to provide services and opportunities to the kids/ teachers that aren’t being funded by the county or state. I suppose some get political in a sense, but it’s mostly planning book fairs, and taking cafeteria duty so the teachers can actually get a full hour to eat lunch.
Sorry, I meant parent-teacher evenings, or whatever they are called nowadays.
In my day there were regular evenings where the teachers stayed late, met all the parents, and reported on the children. Not sure if it has anything to do with the PTA, but that's what I had in mind.
Imagine the person at the PTA meeting that you find the most obnoxious. The most opposite of your views on everything related to schooling, politics, etc. Now be sure that if parents had the right to snoop all day long at school it would be THAT parent that would be the one watching. Not just the teacher and their kid, but your kid and everyone else’s too. And they’d be calling in every time precious didn’t get their way.
I Absolutely 100% do not want the nosiest and most judge mental parents in my kids classroom having the ability to watch them all day long in school. Orwellian.
Yes, that's a problem, although it is something we appear to live with for some other open classes. And during COVID of course.
This is why in an ideal world we'd be able to permit but not require teachers to give helpful feedback to parents, at their discretion.
I suspect the problem is that unions don't respond well to having vague guidelines that require using discretion. Hard rules are easier to adjudicate.
I bet this is why the TSA agent doesn't have the discretion to allow you to carry on the 102g tube of toothpaste, because it is 2g over the 100g limit. 🙂
Setting aside the moral implications of turning teachers into the children's Gestapo, this is also incredibly stupid and short-sighted because it will simply guarantee that kids never confide anything in their teachers.
Of course, I suppose you figure they'd just report that "Johnny looks a little fruity," and leave it to the parents to put two and two together.
There's a deep understanding that children do WAY better when their parents are involved in their education. That's best when it means giving the parents feedback.
The ability to report to parents that the child is underperforming because they are high is not a question of being the Gestapo, but of doing the kid a MASSIVE favor.
A hot topic in education a decade or so ago was the importance of parental involvement in schools. I think now it's referred to as engagement instead of involvement, probably due to helicoptering. But some of the benefits are about student achievement, self-esteem and behavior. This idea that deceiving parents is good, because they're not to be trusted, seems baseless.
Agreed — schools should err on the side of fostering good relationships with parents and children. And frankly, I think a little bit of conflict at home is usually a good thing for a developing teenager. It helps develop social skills and resolve interpersonal conflict as adults.
And I cannot stress enough for the one person on this thread who is not adding anything helpful or earth-shattering to this discussion — most parents are not abusive.
I think it’s possible to draw a clear and bright line between what needs to be shared with parents, and what not. For me that line would be: are there reasons to think that a child is in reasonable danger of harm due to sonething of which the teacher has become aware?
At the university where I teach, we are obligated by policy to file a report with the dean of students. If we think a student is at risk of harming themselves or others, or if we see they are in deep mental distress. This applies even though the students are virtually all over 18!
In a public school setting, there is no need to report students’ private sexual orientation, unless you take a hard line religious view that the child’s immortal soul is at risk. As a secular institution, though, the school can’t interpret this as harm that should be reportable.
Mental health issues that impact school performance, or could lead to self harm or violence absolutely are to be reported to parents under the standard. The same goes for a child who appears to be on the verge of joining a gang as described in the letter Katie read.
Reasonable people may disagree on whether a transgender identity falls into the category of “likely to lead to harm.“ Certainly, many adolescents are engaged in a process of identity exploration that may well lead them elsewhere in the long run.
However, I have yet to know a trans-identified young person who is not struggling with fairly severe mental anguish. We are told again, and again that these kids are at ultra high risk of suicide. if true, parents absolutely need to know!
Those of us who have seen these dynamics up close in young people are aware that many of them will not medicalize. But we’ve seen how peer influence has affected kids who were never gender nonconforming but then interpret their distress as related to gender. Many of these kids will desist, but the medical burden of transitioning is high, and it ought to be avoided whenever less-invasive treatment is possibly. The evidence is quite strong that social transition often leads to additional interventions even in kids whose onset of gender dysphoria was abrupt. The risk of unnecessary medicalization is one of which the parents should be aware.
Yes the “trans students are at a high risk of suicide!” campaigning line leads naturally into reporting trans students as needing a network of mental health support, for their own good. You can’t have one without the other.
honestly I think the best solution would be for school guidance councilors, at least in middle & high school, to help a kid work up to telling their parents. Like, "ok, if you're serious then our goal is to give you the confidence to be able to discuss this with your parents in a month and you guys can take it from there." Questions about kid's and teen's privacy are hard to hash out, and I don't think teachers should be turned into little guards or spies for parents but they also shouldn't be implicated in lying to parents ostensibly for the sake of the kids.
This! Unfortunately the laws are being written in both ways now to remove all nuance and discretion of professionals in these type of matters. It’s either out them immediately and refuse to use nicknames, or actively hide public knowledge from parents.
I’m glad my teachers didn’t call my parents that one time I showed up for class reeking of pot and refusing to take my sunglasses off. Of course if it had been a regular thing they probably should have...
Isn't that the sort of thing where some common sense can be used?
If kid is late once, the teacher may be annoyed.
Kid is late 5 times, it may be a behavioral issue.
Pot might be a borderline issue. For instance, not only does pot affect performance, but some *schools* might have a zero tolerance policy towards narcotics or smoking.
It could easily be the case that the parent is fine with pot but the school is not 🙂
Oh, I got caught when my kid was not even busted with pot, but was late for band practice and was then suspected of being high. Turns out the hall smelled of pot because the principal who just busted some other kids.
I also got called on the weekend when I was on the other side of the country when the same kid was busted for something he’d actually done: hanging up funny posters, spoofing the school’s ridiculous motivational posters.
The bar is often not very high at all for calling parents.
What are your thoughts on the disclosure of trans identity to parents if the school doesn't affirm that identity, doesn't make any accommodations for it, and isn't compelled to?
For example, a student comes out as trans (or perhaps a teacher simply notices other students referring to the first student with a new name, opposite sex pronouns etc.) but the school just carries on as if nothing has happened. Do you think in that situation the school should be required to inform the student's parents?
I feel that this scenario is closer to the one where a student comes out as gay, since the school isn't doing anything, so perhaps disclosure shouldn't be mandated. But then the argument could be made that since gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, parents should be informed because it's a health issue involving their children, so maybe it should.
That one is a bit tougher, I think. My instinct would be to just brush it off and let their parents figure it out on their own (unless they ask in a parent teacher conference or something.) It almost seems like in a situation like this, it's probably a kid trying to be interesting to their peers, and you can just roll your eyes and move on.
I think the issue would be if their insistence on being trans rises to the level of demanding the school and administration recognize it and/or it's causing serious distress to the student, then you do need to get the parents involved.
Also, I'm a curmudgeon when it comes to threats of suicide. If the kid threatens to kill themselves if the school won't let them socially transition, call an ambulance, send them to the hospital and call the parents. I keep feeling like I hear kids trying to emotionally blackmail their parents or school admin into letting them transition, and they should realize just how serious the issue is.
I'd agree that in this case, as long as it's not disrupting the student's performance in school, then there would be no reason for a teacher to disclose to parents. But if the student tells the teacher, that seems different, and more like, say, admitting to deep anxiety, or self-harm like cutting, or to having an eating disorder (i.e., all thing which are in the DSM - flawed as that is).
I don’t think the school should be required to disclose. The only thing they’re required to disclose is abuse.
And, really, kids get into all kids of shit. I don’t think they should be required to disclose if a kid is hanging out with the goths and has a new nickname either.
For reference, they are not currently legally required to disclose know.n mental health or medical issues. BUT they are legally protected to do so (minors aren’t covered by HIPPA at school) and the expectation is they should include parents if their involvement will help or is necessary (say, for permission to treat).
In this scenario, I’d say the school should keep mum. The student is exploring a subculture here, no different from a girl wearing makeup or changing clothes once they’re on school grounds. This hypothetical student isn’t necessarily showing signs of gender dysphoria, but is showing signs of exploring identity like a normal teenager. Parents don’t need to know that.
I feel like there’s a pretty big difference between not telling a parent every minutia and actively keeping secrets, and it’s pretty obvious to any reasonable person where that line is. Like I don’t need to call the kids parent that say if they cut their hair and are going by “BJ” instead of Becky Jane and I overhear a friend use a male pronoun. But obviously in conferences I might be like “hey I noticed she’s going by BJ lately”.
That’s why I’m against the laws going both directions. They are hamhanded and prevent people from acting in a reasonable manner. Telling kids you can won’t use their preferred mode of address is Nuts. So is actively hiding their shooting up with Blackmarket T in the restrooms from their parents.
Note I agree with j&k in situations of actual abuse in which case mandatory reporting status matters.
That's one of the things that has really been bugging me about these policies — you can't have one policy and expect it to adequately address everyone's situation. So many of these you would have to take on a case-by-case basis. Each of these kids' family dynamic, situation, mental health status, and reasons for transitioning are all going to be different, and, I suspect, a lot of parents are actually pretty aware of what their kid is going through.
But it was. That’s a major point here. Homosexuality absolutely was a mental disorder in the DSM for years. Relying on the DSM as the last word is one of the areas that concerns me. I don’t think it’s an issue in the same way today regarding trans care, but the DSM is not permanently the last word. It shifts and changes with time and with updated pressure and evidence.
Emma sounded like she was having a panic attack. Sam sounded like he needed to be back in his safe space where I presume no one disagrees with him or even talks until he's finished shouting. Which he does not seem to ever do.
That was horrible. Just horrible. Please never trick me into listening to anything like that ever again.
The most frustrating thing is that in 5 years when they realize they were wrong they will not reflect or apologize. They will speak loudly and sarcastically about how they can’t believe how badly they were misled by garbage humans lying to them. Denunciation of the badness of others is their only factory setting.
Social transition at school without the parent’s knowledge is not a harmless step. This is why Erica Anderson (herself trans) filed an affidavit in a recent case on this topic arguing strongly that it should not be done as a blanket policy.
People are stereotyping non-affirming parents as dangerous, hateful bigots. When in reality, many of us *just know our kids*. We know them well, we love them well, we care for them well, we take them to thoughtful non-ideologically biased therapists, we make them dinner every night and drive them to school every morning, we talk openly and honestly and lovingly with them each and everyday. And we, the parents, will be there for them, picking up the pieces long after the schools staff that chose to be ally cheerleaders are far in the rearview mirror.
I do not appreciate having to play a game of 3D chess with the school on this issue. We have a meeting on Monday. If a few school staff continue to presume that my 14 yo autistic son saying “I don’t know” means he’s trans and needs to be affirmed as such and socially transitioned at school, we will be at an impasse. We will either not be able to send our son (who has complex Special Education needs) to school at all or we will have to…time will tell. We have sued them before and won, we may have to get litigious again. I don’t like it but as the shirt says:
Here’s Erica’s affidavit for those who are interested. Long time listeners will probably remember that she was on the podcast early on. Her conclusion:
“A school policy that involves school adult personnel in socially transitioning a child or adolescent without the consent of parents or over their objection violates widely accepted mental health principles and practice.”
It's weird that social transitioning is simultaneously a very important part of affirmative care while simultaneously is also just a kid experimenting with a new look or a new name when people criticize why parents aren't in the loop. Seems to be a great way to insulate it from criticism.
My husband and I are very much in the loop because our son talks to us about everything. We have are approached parenting letting our kids talk to us about everything so that they feel they can tell us anything. Even things we don’t like.
Schools have this idea that parents are checked out or not paying attention. For some parents that is the case but it’s just very far from the truth for us and parents like us.
Over the weekend the paraeducator sent us an email where she used convoluted and tortured language to communicate information about…school supplies. She was using *plural first person pronouns* to avoid using either his name or any pronoun. So like “we noticed our backpack”. The overall effect was…very weird. We weren’t sure what to say about it but luckily, the sufficient and succinct language came to both me and my husband during the meeting.
Our son was with us for the meeting and the school staff appeared to take all of us seriously. We only talked about gender to the extent that they asked our son to clarify what he wants to be called since he’s said a few different things (mostly “I don’t know”). He did that and we moved on to the meat of the meeting which is the whole transition from middle to high school for a student with an IEP.
The pressure around gender and pronouns (some subtle, some not so subtle) is coming from the youngest and least credentialed person in the room who wasn’t there for most of the meeting. She’s a paraeducator. The VP and the SpEd case manager are older men and seemed receptive to our basic approach. The VP is familiar with us from our older son and knows that we are committed to our children.
That’s great! It sucks having to go into those meetings loaded for bear but you have to - you can’t do it unprepared. Having done the elementary to middle school transition IEP meeting, I’m hoping you have feet up drinking tea kinds of plans for the rest of your day.
Holy crap! What state is this in? I’m sorry you’re dealing with this (especially considering that they appear to be ignoring your son’s needs in lieu of being an “ally”)
Zaggy zag zag, my man, if you have nothing of any value to say, please just leave me the fuck alone.
I have done more *today* to take care of gender nonconforming and trans-identifying children than you have ever done, or will ever do, in your entire miserable existence.
There I go, feeding the troll again. If I have to talk to any police anytime soon, it will be the ones that come to arrest me for troll feeding.
I’m a mandatory reporter for troll-feeders. Into my paddy wagon you go, Tess. You’ll be housed adjacent to HIPPO prison.
Seriously, when I read this round of trolling, my thoughts turned to how much material support and care I’ve given to gnc young people, and how fond I am of them. They tend to be bright, caring, original - as well as emotionally struggling. It is possible to extend care without displaying my terfier thoughts on the one hand, or subscribing to the ontological claims and political demands of the activists on the other hand.
Tess, I hope you can get the school to see reason. Perhaps it might help to have something on paper so you can share Erica Anderson’s position on social transition - I’m thinking maybe an interview she’s given so that the school will view it beyond the partisan debates. Hugs, if you want ’em!
I’m reading the comments about teachers revealing their students’ gender identity and it seems there is a misunderstanding about what goes on in schools. In the PNW, where I teach, and I’m sure it’s the same in other blue areas, teachers are actively eliciting this information from students. We are encouraged to ask for names and pronouns at the start of the term (this is middle and high school) and then to ask if parents know. Students aren’t secretly confiding in us, we are creating a norm where they are encouraged to create a new persona at school. At my previous school, 10% of my students changed their names and pronouns. The schools are absolutely fueling this trend and then keeping it from parents.
Thank you for sharing this, as someone with direct personal experience.
In some cases, the kids are encouraged (both by peers and adults) to distrust their parents. Dividing kids from their parents can lead to a lot of high risk outcomes.
I was an early adopter of asking for pronouns at the university level circa 2015. I was also an early rejector of that ritual by roughly 2018, having seen how much harm was encompassed by Just Be Kind, It Costs You Nothing.™️ That was several years before one of my kids (who was also in college) was ensnared in gender identity ideology and then desisted (WITHOUT me coercing him in any way, for those in the back row who might shoot rubber bands at me).
I’m not surprised that PK-12 teachers are now in the thick of it. The younger ones came up through education schools where any dissent was anathema. The older ones are generally super kind and generous humans who wish to do well by all their students and therefore are easy prey. Those who are skeptical are in the same boat as I am: scared they’ll lose their job, be ostracized by their community/friends/family, and be seen by students past and present as having hated and deceived them.
Shayla, you are awesome and I empathize with every word I’ve seen or heard (on Jesse’s old Callin show) from you. Hold tight. Stay true to your principles up to the threshold of blowing up your life. Look for moments where you might plant a seed of critical thinking. Will this be enough? I don’t know. It’s just what I’m doing. It’s so impossibly hard.
I kinda felt like Jesse bringing up that Emma was going to be coming on show, in that moment where she was already back pedaling and grasping for ad hominem’s to defend herself, it was obvious that her response was going to be something like “Well actually I can’t come on your show because you suck.” And my sense is he knew when he said it that she would pull the rip cord, but he still went for the instant gratification of making her look dumb in the moment at the cost of (maybe) having that long form discussion later. I get it though, wanting to land some kind of rhetorical blow after they jerked him around for 20 minutes or whatever it was.
"“It’s our job to make sure people of all identities flourish here,” [Professor Brian Soucek] said. “It’s not our job to make sure that all viewpoints flourish.”"
I find that programs like the Majority Report are targeted at the lowest common denominator of people interested in politics. This is the worst of sports fandom for people who are too nerdy for sports but not nerdy enough to actually care about the nitty gritty of public policy, or truly invested enough in politics to care about how change occurs, why people believe what they believe (outside of "stupidity" and/or "evil"), or how to defend your beliefs to people who challenge them. It's the same modality and mentality that the worst Fox News programming employs. There is little intellectual curiosity or willingness to hear out other points of view in good faith. Little willingness to seriously or honestly engage with complexity or disagreement, little willingness to challenge their own priors or their viewers' priors. These are not serious political minds. They are emblematic of the worst tendencies of contemporary American politics: tribalism, ego, grandstanding, stubbornness, anti-intellectualism, smugness, image-obsession.
I admire Jesse's optimism in trying to seriously engage with them, but I can't say I'm especially surprised that they conducted themselves so poorly. After all, when that's the image that one has created for oneself, one which has earned one good money and an echo chamber of adoring fans, why change?
How the heck did Jesse stay so composed during that... Well done! My heart rate and blood pressure rose during those clips. Agreed on the importance of nudging people in the margins.
My only experience with Seder up to now has been from him voicing the character of Hugo the health inspector on Bob's Burgers, so I can be sure if he sounds annoying and dumb to me because that's my association with Hugo or if he was cast as Hugo because he sounds annoying and dumb.
"BOB, your email said conservatives, not attorneys general. Do you want me to READ the email to you, BOB?"
Jesse you truly win the award for having the most bizarre Hatred:Reasonableness ratio on the internet.
If I didn’t see proof of it on Twitter back when I read your article in 2018, I truly wouldn’t believe it. I’ve showed many reasonable people I know various writings of yours, sometimes people agree, sometimes disagree, then I always go “yeah this guy is bombarded with death threats” they’re just baffled.
The people who view you as a demon have truly lost the plot, but as you said, it’s important to engage with them sometimes, not to change then but to shine a light for they’re audience to see how absolutely bonkers this is.
I've thought about this a little more, now my blood pressure has returned to normal. I don't know their standard demeanour - I'm just assuming from the clips that they're self-righteous, preachy know-nothing bellends, but I'm sure there are good people on both sides - so I wonder how much of their obnoxiousness was just reactive because they were caught so unprepared. Sam clearly didn't expect Jesse to actually call in.
I said earlier that Emma sounded like she was having a mental health event, and to me that's how a revision panic might feel if I too had spent the preceding year calling the examiner an arsehole on the Internet, only to find him in my house asking me to explain the cocks I'd drawn on the exam paper.
Sam Seder sounds like a drunk uncle badgering his wife about some marital dispute, Twitter is clearly a font of discord and madness, and I question my understanding of people when I try to explain why anyone would subscribe to Majority Report
Seriously listen to it and forget the context - Sam forgot to take the trash out, Jesse scolded him for it, and he is doing everything he can to avoid admitting that he should have taken the trash out.
I really hated reliving the majority report episode. Seder and Vigeland demonstrated such bad faith and it’s depressing that accuracy or truth don’t matter as long as you’re on “the right side” on any topic. I wish Jesse would avoid these lunatics, or at least meet them on level playing fields (not call-in shows with bad audio, being cut off etc). They didn’t even make An attempt to make contact with Jesse’s own writing.
Sam doesn't need to engage with Jesse's writing because he knows he's toxic based on ~*vibes*~.
So true. Sam just knows. Jesse is just a toxic person and extremely unhelpful because he literally supports torture. Why is he so fervently pointing out minutia per Sam? Sam will NOT discuss Jesse’s writing. He will only discuss issues that are irrelevant to Jesse’s work but are also somehow damning of Jesse’s very soul. I hate to sound inarticulate, but sam is a huge piece of shit.
Sam's feelings don't care about Jesse's facts.
Hearing Sam is torture.
I had to fast forward through some of this for the first time listening to BARpod. What f*cking bad faith from sanctimonious ******.
Word.
Other Greg is absolutely right. That call-in was positively distressing. Not just because of how awfully Sam behaved (a bit surprising) or how Emma/Matt behaved (zero surprising), but because Jesse navigated their mine field inexpertly. He walked into the M.O. time and time again.
For all the carping done in this ep about the MANIFEST unfamiliarity TMR's personalities have with Jesse's work, Jesse likewise lacked familiarity with their tactics before he called in and it showed. And even setting that aside, Other Greg's point about the basic disadvantage of a call-in approach should have led Jesse away from this stunt.
I will personally suicide-stinky-butter-bomb the Kickstarter headquarters if Jesse goes through with this plan to Tony Soprano her into another horrible conversation (or pay a generic activist to do so as I'm a bit slow and too pretty to fare well in a paddy wagon).
TMR is fully submerged in personality politics, not issues. He should just let them slide into historical ignominy slowly and without his assistance.
I was in awe of how Jesse kept trying to bring the conversation back to relevant stuff, rather thank calling out their stupid tactics, which only would have degenerated into a slanging match. Yes, he never got them back to the relevant stuff, but he did give them enough rope to hang themselves (or at least come out looking like unhinged idiots)
I think that's valid, but it ceases to comfort me as soon as this question occurs to me: to whom did they look like unhinged idiots?
Does anyone know whether this is pretty much the usual quality of their programming?
They have 1.35 million subscribers to their Youtube channel.
I am one of the actual subscribers who unsubscribed because of this. I've been following Sam for a long time. I'm pretty sure he wasn't like this. I have never liked Matt, his haughty tone is borne a confidence in his natural superiority to others. I used to like Emma. I never thought she was particularly smart, but I also used to like Joe Rogan. She started to bother me a couple of years ago and it came to a head when she refused to defend Ana Kasparian a few months back.
As I said elsewhere, they may have a larger subscriber base but who cares. Who would rather be, PBS or FOX?
We followed the exact same path lol. I enjoyed the Dave Rubin and Jimmy Dore dunking but I can't listen to them now, this was too pathetic.
I've listened to the show sporadically over the last few months and their discussion with Jesse is indicative of the overall intellectual depth of the show.
At this point Sam can't even make a coherent point about the torture debate from the mid 2000s, which I assume he was around for (his `analogy' was about a Sam Harris piece, either later included or excerpted from his book against religion, that had close to zero impact on the very, very widespread debate on whether we should torture, what constituted torture, when we should torture, etc).
Emma seemed taken aback at a couple of points in the discussion (watched the video), which indicates to me that she's somewhat knowledgeable, believes she's being righteous, and has a modicum of intellectual honesty. She's clearly the more intelligent and interesting part of the duo; hope she finds a new gig soon.
She might be more knowledgeable on this issue, she’s certainly not more intelligent than Seder. She’s barely capable of thinking on her own, she has one mode; virtue signalling, zero intellectual honesty. Seder is much better than that in theory, though he’s lost his way, but he’s genuinely intelligent.
She said in a video at one point some time ago that her stepsister works--or worked at this point--at a youth gender clinic in Tennessee. So presumably that's where her zeal and knowledge come from.
thank you....
Eh. But what if they did?
High sub count and low views is the telltale sign of a dying channel -- many people don't bother unsubscribing on YouTube, they just stop clicking on the videos.
So, I just went back about a year looking at a few to see views.....And generally, they get 25K-32K views or so.
Including this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KnQF0k_0nw
There are guys who review 1980s tape decks they buy off ebay that get significantly more views than that.
Oh I see what you're saying. I thought your point was just that very view people will see this part of the show. Whether they do or they don't, though, Jesse comes off poorly.
This was so hard to listen to.
Jesse did just fine.
Temperamentally or strategically he decided not to descend to their level, be respectful, and they came off as unhinged, unknowledgeable, and juvenile. Worse yet, their juvenilia wasn't even funny: they talked about Jesse for 30 minutes the previous week and they still act like they don't know how to pronounce his name. Boorish.
He could have been more forceful in staking out some of his positions but he clearly stated them and now his detractors have to continue to say he's a transphobic when he believes:
1. we shouldn't ban medical care for transgender adolescents, though we need to be sure we're adhering to current guidelines that include 1--2 years of therapy, etc.
2. adults benefit from gender transition
3. the current guidelines may be overly conservative for some adolescents (i.e., making them wait one to two years could unnecessarily prolong their gender dysphoria)
4. Republicans are misrepresenting his work
Sam and Emma had the opportunity to challenge him on his positions. The worst they could say is that Jesse shouldn't report on science because it's politically inconvenient (apparently they do not believe that the science is strong enough to stand on its own) or he's garbage because he believes that transition for adolescents should be used to help alleviate gender dysphoria (a concept the hosts seemed unfamiliar with but is the justification given for trans adolescent medical care).
From my perspective (trans woman) Jesse (and Katie) are much better allies than these clowns.
Absolutely. Allies who actually represent the nuance of a complicated topic are better at informing the world than religious zealots who lie.
Also, let's not forget that Sam began the segment with "Okay, Jesse, what's on your mind?" Like, way to help set the table on your own show, dude. Totally abdicated his hosting duties and just left Jesse to try and make the segment somewhat coherent.
Clowntown: population Sam and Emma.
Agree, it was so hard to listen to. "Bad faith" was the ready descriptor to my mind as well.
Although I think I share Katie's opinion that there's an argument for Jesse trying to clarify his position if these media live on. I really think he's going to find himself on the right side of history at some point.
"Bad Faith" has become of cudgel of convenience that knows no affiliation. Everybody does it! Kinda like the rise of "problematic". Both instantly dumb-down the argument to which they are deployed, imparting the appearance of rhetorical derring-do while absolving the speaker of the burden of sufficient detail. Drives me crazy.
I don't think vindication comes for Jesse types. I think they'll take up the same clear reasoning once it's acceptable to do so and memory-hole their old opinions, and for Jesse, they'll use a broken clock analogy.
I support the clockwork orange style forced watch party.
I agree on life being easier without having to be a critical thinker. I still don’t know if they’re just putting on a show or totally believe what they are saying. I lean towards putting on a show but I am also around people like this - genuinely angry, indignant people who don’t listen at all.
Tomorrow, I am going to an event where people have very different opinions than mine. I’m not gunning to fight - I am hoping to learn something new that may change my mind.
Ok honestly I’m not really hoping to change my mind - i think I’m in the right and I’m curious.
Why not just have a convo Emma (and Sammy)? You’re not fighting for your life here.
Sam is lost to us. It's pointless now.
At least you acknowledge your bigotry! DO! THE! WORK!
Also, that part of NC looks lovely. I spend a lot of time down in South Carolina and my bro in law’s sister lives up in Asheville.
Nobody joins a cult because things are going too Well in their life.
You put it perfectly. And this is exactly what I think of the current situation at my workplace - an academic institution. Don’t you want to discuss and learn and be friends with other people (even -gasp- conservatives)? It could be a nerd’s paradise! I’m not even joking!
I suspect there is also a financial motive - "richness" of the more banal sort.
That show was so chaotic and so belligerent, it gave me anxiety like no other fracas on the internet. Seder and Vigeland were a total mess, railroading Jesse the whole time. They clearly do not understand the science at all. Jesse does and they were not about to let him get a word in edgewise because of this vast disparity in knowledge.
And they end up sounding really dumb too.
I might be a shape rotator, but you're a good writer and I'm glad we still have reporters like you who focus on the facts.
Hi Ben,
Your twitter threads are fantastic. Thank you for them.....and Im sorry about the hatred, yes hatred, thrown at you.
You know that the Majority Report has about 1.4 million subs to its YOutube channel. So, my question to you is: Do you know if all their shows are at that level of quality or close to it?
Fortunately for my sanity that was the only time I’d ever listened to more than 20 seconds of their show! And thanks very much for your kind words.
You consistently commit journalism, including on Twitter, which is saying rather a lot. I follow you there and it’s lovely to see you here!
Thanks. I try just to stick with the facts. I'm not here to editorialize. But I do push back against people who either say things that aren't backed by science or who try to silence science communications. People can be extraordinarily vicious and vindictive. You should see my DMs. The funny thing is, I get people from both the left and the right who each accuse me of the opposite thought crime. Sometimes people will do this in the same Twitter thread. It's amazing how much people will pretend they can read your mind when you make a neutral statement like, "Megyn Kelly will not back down; she insists that there is no such thing as being transgender." From a statement like that, I get accused of conspiring against women and being a misogynist. I'm like, where are these people getting this?
Leor Sapir is writing a thread...and will later write a full critique...on recent JAMA paper..
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2809058
So many papers about this issue seem to have low populations, weak results, and so on....but they end up supporting almost extravagant claims. Has anyone else seen the same thing?
(Benjamin...I am a stage 4 kidney cancer...renal cell carcinoma...patient. Things are stable and there are drugs, good ones to help combat it....Keytruda and Lenvima. There are side effects, for me, not horrendous ones but can be very uncomfortable and a bit more.)
Gosh, I hope things go well for you. Even Keytruda can have off-target effects, so I hope you're feeling okay.
Your monkeypox coverage was so good!
Thanks!
When you said something like ‘this is how Megyn Kelly talks about transpeople‘, in respect to Rachel Levine, didn’t this clearly imply she was wrong to speak like that in your opinion?
For anyone considering listening to the entire interview but dreading the experience, I would say that all the most important moments were covered in the BARpod episode. You’re welcome.
I have to agree. I decided to listen to the whole thing and boy, nothing important was left out of the podcast.
I wouldn't normally take other people's word on what is/isn't worth listening to, but I'm making an exception today; they sound that bonkers. Thanks Zach :) Appreciate your sacrifice.
As far as what teachers should be disclosing to parents, I think the outing of a gay kid to their parents is not their job because 1) that kid can come out to their parents on their terms and on their own schedule and 2) being gay isn't necessarily going to impact their school performance or interfere with anyone else's.
The trans thing feels different for a number of reasons, specifically, because you don't really have to take any action when a kid comes out to you as gay. When a kid comes out as trans, there's a torrent of changes that teachers, the administration and fellow classmates end up making: pronouns, name changes, deciding which locker room they change in for PE, etc. I don't think anyone should be doing that without getting the parents involved.
Also, homosexuality isn't a mental disorder (or heavily linked to mental disorders or behavioral problems). There seems to be a much larger correlation with mental health problems and gender identity issues.
Having fellow students, teachers, counselors call a student a different name, allowing the kid to enter opposite sex bathrooms and lockerrooms, while keeping that from family is basically requiring a whole group of people to lie to the kid's parents. It is totally insane.
Yeah, at that point it is active lying to the parents.
The "T" are well aware that their situation is radically different from the "LGB", especially in a K-12 setting. They deliberately pretend there's no difference.
And they’re lying to the kid.
"you don't really have to take any action when a kid comes out to you as gay" - This is such a key difference. The people who equate sexual orientation with gender identity either are not thinking clearly or are deliberately ignoring this obvious distinction. Sadly I'm afraid it's more often the former.
It’s just another civil rights thing for many. I have relatives that truly cannot understand the difference. They just automatically condemn everything the Republicans want.
And if they are nice liberals they are tolerant of all “weirdos”. No I’ll feeling just put gays, trans, and NBs all in one basket of “other” they don’t judge
How sustainable is it? The change involves so many people. Unlike coming out as gay privately to a teacher, this involves pretty much all the staff and student body at a school but NOT the parents. It seems unsustainable, like someone will find out and notify the parent.
I was a HS teacher in California and I did not deal with the same number of restrictions as the NY listener who's letter Katie read. I taught in the '90s though and a whole lot has changed since then.
This comment is just looking worse and worse at this point with the number of commenters who have explicitly come out (so to speak) in favor of outing gay kids to their parents.
It’s possible there could be a variety of viewpoints here, ranging from this very centrist view towards much more conservative “gay is gross” type of views that many of us disagree with. The existence of the right wing does not make the center view “look worse and worse”. If anything the opposite is true - makes the center look more reasonable.
... the fact that conservatives are very, very obviously and publicly coming for the gays should make the gays SOMEWHAT less willing to throw the trans under the bus and devalue the concept of children's privacy for a little temporary expediency.
Somewhat.
What does the one have to do with the other? What on earth do you mean by gays 'throwing the trans under the bus'?
I suspect most people do not consider informing parents of their child's entire *identity* to be 'throwing them under the bus.'
"Devaluing the concept of children's privacy" - just stop right there. This has to do with actions the student wants to engage in *publicly*, including public name and facility use changes, while at school. This has nothing to do with 'privacy' but rather deliberately lying to parents about the child's and the school employees' PUBLIC actions while at school. It's untenable.
If there is any suspicion whatsoever that the kid is subject to potential or actual abuse, the appropriate response is a report to state authorities.
What does policy on outing trans kids have to do with policy on outing gay kids? Hmm, let me think about that one. Some might think that being gay is a key issue of "identity," but we all know that's different, because reasons. Gee, a real poser there, innit?
What do I mean by gays throwing the trans under the bus? Well, it seems to me that quite a number of people on this thread have expressed views like "gays should support outing trans kids so as to distinguish themselves from the eeeeeeevil transes" (okay that last bit is my editorial commentary), which is very explicitly a call to abandon solidarity in the hope that appeasement of anti-LGBT forces will permit them to retain a privileged position in society. That will not work even slightly, but it will destroy the unity of the movement.
You've identified some reasons why (some) attempts to preserve (some) trans kids' privacy may not be entirely effective. That does not make this not a privacy issue. Here's a close analogy: as a supervisor at my job, I am legally forbidden to tell employees about another employee's reasonable accommodations, because that would be a violation of the accommodated employee's medical privacy. It DOES NOT MATTER if the employee's disability is visible or invisible, whether the accommodation is "public," or whether other employees will find out anyway.
As for the last sentence, somehow I do not think that the "concerned parents" here would be okay with it if state authorities were contacted based on mere suspicion of potential abuse. They would say, not without some reason, that you have no evidence-- just speculation. And even if a report was made, the authorities can't do anything until a child is actually abused, at which point it may well be too late to prevent permanent harm.
I find this gay/trans distinction to be inconsistent, as Katie is beginning to consider.
And I found Jessie's response that gay kids should, of course, not be "outed" to their parents because they shouldn't be outed to be a classic example of question begging.
If a child being gay is relevant to problems at school, then it's relevant and parents are entitled to know. Likewise if a straight child's BF, GF, BFF is contributing to problems, then the parents have a right to know.
I am also disturbed by this guiding principle that the vast majority of parents are unenlightened abusers. Not to mention the idea that teachers are all knowing saints.
Everybody who has attended school had a few great teachers, a few terrible ones and a whole lot of mediocre ones, who had no insights whatsoever into their students.
Teachers are not more qualified than parents to intervene in a child's life.
“Teachers are not more qualified than parents to intervene in a child's life.”
Not only are they not more qualified, they are significantly less qualified.
Yes there are some shitty parents. But most parents aren’t shitty.
Parents know and love their kids in a way a teacher, no matter how good and how nice and how well intentioned, could.
Agreed — even mediocre parents love their kids and are trying to do right by them. Teachers should be a support, not a hinderance in family life.
I forget that not everyone binges on the topic of gender and it still surprises me when people still genuinely believe that affirmation is the best way to go for gender dysphoric people. Does nobody pay attention to what’s going on in Scandinavia? Does everyone truly believe that all the states banning youth medical transitions are just led by crazy right wingers who hate trans people? Maybe, some are, but to not even question that there could be nothing more to see there? I’ve felt something was off about the way gender transition was discussed for years, before even reading much about it. How can these people be so ill-informed?
Yeah, I think people love to think of themselves as some revolutionary with all the odds against them. We don’t really live in societies like this anymore, but people still keep coming up with stuff to make themselves feel special.
"Does everyone truly believe that all the states banning youth medical transitions are just led by crazy right wingers who hate trans people?"
This is literally, one hundred percent true. No blue or purple state has banned youth medical transitions. I'm actually unaware of any Democratic legislator who's even voted for such a bill, though I suppose there probably are one or two. There are far more Republican legislators who've voted against them.
If your position requires you to assume the bona fides of a group of people who have repeatedly demonstrated in a million different ways over the past ten years that they have none, your position might suck.
You don't think there's any possibility at all that states are banning youth medical transition in an attempt to protect kids, rather than because they hate trans people? What about restrictions in European countries, is that due to hatred as well?
I think it’s certain that *some* R legislators (and regular people, including some GC people who lean left) feel moral disgust toward transgender people. There was the legislator (in Florida?) who called trans people imps and demons. There are still plenty of people who act as though they feel threatened by gender nonconformity. Some religious people believe that gnc is contrary to God’s will.
There are surely R politicians who see that the issues they are now highlighting (NOT the bathroom bans of a few years ago) are effective wedge issues.
And there are definitely R politicians and many voters - including lots of Dems like me - who bear no animus but have grave, principled, and compassionate reservations about youth transition, males in female sports, and the erasure of women’s distinctive needs and embodied experiences across the lifespan.
This is an effective wedge issue because of the size of the third group. Polling data very clearly shows that the majority of Americans believe the trans people deserve protections against discrimination in housing, education, and the like. A majority also opposes policies that require us to ignore everything we know about sexed bodies. The Dems see that trans women in women’s sports is a loser with voters, but they are dithering about how to respond. They count on few voters being attuned to the issues in prisons and shelters. And they have dug in so hard on the trans activist position on youth gender medicine that it’s hard to imagine how they can row back from it.
"The Dems see that trans women in women’s sports is a loser with voters, but they are dithering about how to respond. They count on few voters being attuned to the issues in prisons and shelters. And they have dug in so hard on the trans activist position on youth gender medicine that it’s hard to imagine how they can row back from it."
Yep. It's going to bite them in the ass very hard.
Democratic strategy on the women's sports issue is to imply or just directly claim that the GOP wants young girls subjected to gender testing to play Middle School no-cut Basketball, repeat mantras and then change the subject as fast as they can. I've seen them deploy this tactic in interviews (most notably on Bill Maher's show) and I've seen it repeated by many Democrats in my circle. Given that most of my circle are people who either are Democrats or are too left wing to be Democrats, that's not a small number of people.
On the larger issue, they just want to deploy the tactic of calling anyone who has any questions, dissent or concerns a right wing bigot. For good measure, they then paint dissenters as white nationalists (even when the dissenters aren't white).
I am still very much on their call, email and mailing lists, both the public facing ones and locally the internal pleas for getting the party faithful to turn up (time and money and endorsements) for the primaries early. I have considered unsubscribing but I rather like to be able to peek. And it was such a commitment of mine for so long it was hard admit that I wasn't onboard with the Democratic party anymore.
I've walked a lot of precincts, knocked on a lot of doors, hosted and attended events, convened caucuses, dutifully attended conventions at the local level on up. All for Democrats and almost always for the left wing of the Democratic party. I can't convey how big of a change it is that I don't think I can vote for Biden next year. This week, I signed up to get campaign updates from the moderate GOP candidate for Governor. I won't vote for Trump but I might be able to vote for some Republicans. My mother is rolling over in her proverbial grave right now.
If the Democrats wanted to design a way to lose support from their party faithful, they really could not have done any better than cook up this nonsense.
Like you, TessK, I feel I have no political party home. And political parties have no real positional core (ie re Dems -children are not fully responsible for their actions until their brains are fully developed except for gender related issues).
I will be voting for the least crazy candidates. Fortunately, I live in a BIG BLUE state so my presidential vote does not count anyway.
It's fascinating that you are so invested in this DemExit narrative (despite, as I pointed out elsewhere on this thread, just being a straightforward conservative in most respects, i.e. someone who I would typically expect to vote Republican ex ante); I suppose you see it as an effective means of converting more people to the transphobic cause you have now espoused. Conversion narratives are always effective yarns.
That being said, there's zero evidence that transphobia is an electorally effective strategy, and lots of evidence that it is not:
https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-continuing-electoral-history
The fact is that outside of a very small number of, basically, obsessive busybodies, most people vote in elections based on tribal loyalties, vibes, or, to the extent they think about policy at all, economic or mixed economic/social issues like healthcare and abortion rights, not weirdo obsessions with a tiny minority of people. Abortion, in particular, absolutely dwarfs trans policies in political importance, which I know will upset you given your anti-abortion views, but it's true.
`There are surely R politicians who see that the issues they are now highlighting (NOT the bathroom bans of a few years ago) are effective wedge issues.'
This has not stopped Republicans in Iowa and Florida from re-instituting those bans.
It's certainly true that one can be pro-trans and anti-affirmation but the people who are tend to use the same arguments as the anti-trans, anti-affirmation types, and they both want the same: an end to gender affirming medical care for adolescents. Not improved medical care but no medical care.
For example, when Megyn Kelly says, as Benjamin noted above, `there is no such thing as being transgender' her purported desire to protect children is irrelevant because she's being openly anti-trans (as she's denying the existence of a medical condition and its treatment).
It does not seem to me that partisanship/anti-trans animus was behind the halting of affirming care in the EU. Treatments are still available but must now be given under a research umbrella (at least in the UK). On the other hand, many if not most of the bans put forward by Republican legislatures, and passed by them, are based on a legal template from Women's Declaration USA, an openly anti-trans radical feminist group so out there that even Republicans had to change some of their terminology.
https://womensdeclarationusa.com/wdi-usa-introduces-safe-act-model-bill/
https://womensdeclarationusa.com/wdi-usa-credited-for-state-bills-banning-child-medicalization-to-disguise-sex/
You've now rephrased the question to be not one about the motivations of Republican Party leadership but one of the motivation of "states," which is an unanswerable (indeed, ill-posed) question about the legislative intent of a collective of people that doesn't have a single intent. I reiterate my response to the original question.
I also reject the false dichotomy you posit between "protect kids" and "hate trans people." I think many Republican legislators are, in their own minds, attempting to "protect kids" BECAUSE they hate trans people and believe them to be "groomers" who want to sexually assault children. An attempt to "protect" children from a hated other follows naturally from that hatred; these are not somehow clashing motivations.
Could it be, there are many different nuanced perspectives on the issue of trans identifying kids and most people just want to be able to talk about them without being shut down?
There are many different nuanced perspectives about the inherent inferiority of black people. There are many different nuanced perspectives about the nature of Jewish media control. There are many different nuanced perspectives about the criminal punishment that should be handed out to Christian apostates.
Apparently you believe we should be discussing all of these. I do not.
In your world is Scandinavia full of right wingers? Are the Netherlands a place known for conservative extremists? The people who established the Dutch protocol have found issues with it. And the protocol is not being followed in the US where gender youth medicine has exploded. The US and the left in the US is very much not following the science on this issue.
Dr. Laura Edwards Leeper founded a pediatric gender clinic and she, along with transwoman Dr. Erica Anderson, have raised red flags and alarm bells. I'm linking an article for the benefit of other readers as I am confident you can't grasp it.
When it comes to this issue, you are an ignoramus with your head very far up your ass. You don't know what you don't know and you aren't capable of learning it either, which is sad for you but not my problem.
GNC kids deserve better. The politicization of this issue in the US is a grave disservice kids living with gender distress. I will say that I have significant issues with the way the right uses this issue. While I may have found some allies that are conservatives, I don't support the approach the the GOP is taking to this issue either.
As mentioned, the article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/11/24/trans-kids-therapy-psychologist/
Since exactly none of this is even remotely responsive to anything I've said, I decline to defend the straw man you've attributed to me. I note that you pointedly say nothing whatsoever about the motivations of your Republican allies, which was the subject of my comment (only that you nonspecifically "don't support the approach the GOP is taking to this issue," which for all I know could mean that you think that they aren't cracking down hard enough).
Also, it's kind of comical that about two paragraphs into that WaPo article, the authors make clear that they (like me, and unlike your Republican friends) reject legislation "trying to ban" the "appropriate gender-affirming medical care for trans youth." Oops.
+1
Jesse does a good job of mentioning that true transition involves gender dysphoria, which is technically a mental disorder according to the DSM.
And last I checked, being gay did not require surgery. 🤷🏻♀️
Or puberty blocking. Quite the opposite in fact - sexual awareness and orientation come out of puberty, so blocking puberty is an interference.
Yeah, there’s a weird subset of medicine to interfere with things that are going correctly with your body — it’s a bit disturbing how ubiquitous it is.
Haven't studies shown that many people know they're homosexual well before puberty?
Cf. Greg the Flamboyant Kid again. Like so many Curb episodes, that one is just a gift that keeps on giving.
This is a red herring. Trans people, especially trans women, cannot win this argument, by design, because:
1. if we don't get surgery we are told that we just want to revel in the joy of using/flaunting our `girl dick' and abusing others with it
2. if we get surgery we do so because we think that being a woman is just about having a `hole to fuck'
Several posters here hold both views.
Now, what are trans people with diagnosed gender dysphoria supposed to do after they've been to therapy for years and the dysphoria is having a measurable negative impact on their lives?
I think it's fair to bring up the double bind some trans people find themselves in (I know there are some trans people who don't want to go to the extremities of having surgery but rather, opt for just presenting as the opposite sex however else they can.) But I think the main concern I have here is how much the "affirmation" approach has taken hold of the conversation.
I think what a lot of trans-identifying kids, their parents and their schools are facing is the overwhelming pressure to socially and medically "affirm" a kid with gender dysphoria. It's particularly disconcerting when schools seem to egg it on without any reasonable contact with the parents. Someone mentioned this on another thread.
Neither does being trans!
Hello Zagarna, have a wonderful day!
There is a transphobic sentiment that people just shouldn’t live as the gender different than their sex, period. It is an obvious continuity that in different times and places a small group of people have chosen to do so. That’s fine--who cares if it is biological disposition rooted in identity formation or socialized and sexually driven--it is a person’s right to choose their gender expression. But the transphobia especially comes out when public spaces are in question, and a person’s fixation on their disgust response to the behavior doesn’t mean there are not valid concerns about many minors experiencing something transitory that is being messaged as a permanent condition with a medical solution based on incomplete and faulty evidence, and it doesn’t mean there are not valid arguments that sex-specific spaces should be protected even while not exposing trans people to harassment and acknowledging they need to be protected too.
Anyway, I just don’t think the transphobia frequently interwoven in the critique of gender medicine for minors delegitimizes all the arguments, and Jesse also doesn’t have a problem with adults who are transgender nor does he believe in counterproductive paternalistic state bans. Some people here do, and some dislike and have disdain for trans people, but that doesn’t make all criticism invalid and many here are concerned parents who feel their child is experiencing something transitory and are afraid they will make decisions that will be harmful for them long-term because of the messages they are getting from other kids and adults. I am sympathetic to that position.
I think it is okay to call out transphobia where you see it, but not sure how much it changes a person’s perspective or how helpful it is to wield the term like a blunt instrument. What do you think? What is being accomplished with this approach?
What I think is that the observation that someone is transphobic is not dispositive that they are wrong-- a stopped clock is right twice a day-- but it is obviously severely damaging to their credibility on those issues-- you should not be using a stopped clock to tell time, because it is probably wrong. I don't rely on KKK pamphlets to get racial crime statistics or Der Sturmer editions to learn about Jewish pedophiles, either. It's obvious that the bigotry delegitimizes the arguments, and to the extent you contend otherwise, I seriously question your inductive reasoning abilities.
I'm more than willing to have reasoned discussions of particular policies around sex and gender. But having those discussions with committed bigots is a pointless waste of time (as you can see evidenced on this very thread where my careful readings of a Washington statute's actual text have been repeatedly responded to with hysterical, text-free allegations that it says something it plainly doesn't say). Better to simply note the bigotry, call it out, and move on.
And the "concerned parents" schtick is, frankly, getting pretty tiresome at this point. If you think your child is not trans and is somehow being misled, whatever, feel how you feel, but the argument that schools and society at large have some kind of duty to repress trans people's expression and discussions of trans experiences (a.k.a. the "messages" that being trans is okay and not a bad thing) in order to stop kids from "experiencing something transitory" is ridiculous (and impossible). The line between "I want the bigots to win because I hate trans people" and "I want the bigots to win because even though I personally think trans people are fine, honest, scout's honor, I just really want MY child not to transition" is... let's say, thin, bordering on invisible. For the most part I think those people are just liars.
“Concerned parents schtick”? I see. I’m guessing you are not a parent. I thought my parents were a bit ridiculous and out of touch as well, when I was a teenager and young adult. Then I grew up into a fully functioning adult, with the ability to understand a lot of different perspectives without needing to label them as bigoted. It’s a damn shame not everyone gets to experience that.
You think having discussions with bigots is a waste of time yet you seem to think many members here are bigots and spend a lot time arguing on this Substack. Why? What do you get out of it?
Interesting points about KKK pamphlets and statistics. I have more to think about on this issue.
Whenever a TRA tries to throw "homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder too!" at you, the obvious response is that gay rights activists never fought for any medical treatment to make their homosexuality go away (quite the opposite), and have been shown to be capable of living healthy lives without any medical intervention. Trans people don't WANT to live with gender dysphoria (and according to activists, they can't). They're fighting FOR medical intervention.
The simple fact is that being trans is a mental disorder requiring medical attention and decisions.
Being gay is not.
Schools should notify parents if they become aware of medical disorders because it is the parents who must facilitate the care and make medical care decisions.
That’s it. Full stop.
In some states, parents who are skeptical of the care or wish to take a watchful waiting approach to the situation are being relieved of their parental rights. A recently passed law in my state gives parents of trans identified children who have run away less legal recourse than those who are creditably accused of abuse or neglect. It is WA State SB 5599. California is doing similar. Oregon doesn’t require parental consent or notification for gender care for kids ages 15-17.
These laws are extreme and they put kids who do have loving and supportive parents at risk of genuine harm.
It’s like the people who wrote these bills have literally never met a child. Kids say and do stupid stuff to push back against their parents allllll the time, and a law like this could be easily abused as a loophole.
I... what? This is a bill about reporting requirements for shelters for runaway youth that requires them to engage with the state as an intermediary rather than directly with parents in situations where a runaway is accessing protected health services that may be interfered with or stopped by said parents. The law is explicit that the ultimate goal is family reunification. I cannot fathom what problem anyone would have with this legislation.
I don't even understand what you think the "abuse" here would entail. You think someone is going to run away from home and start gender transition not out of gender dysphoria, but just to spite their parents? Most people (especially teenagers, who are not known for their extreme adherence to rigorous medical-social regimens) are really not that committed to the bit.
Did you pay for a membership just to comment on all of this?
Is this of some deep concern to you? That I might be wasting my money? How very thoughtful of you. Let me reassure you that I am more than satisfied with my various purchases. Glad we've cleared that up.
I've read the bill in question, and as I expected, I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
In fact, section 2(2)(c) appears to put children who are receiving protected health services (NOT all "trans identified children," not that I suppose you care about the details of this) on precisely the SAME playing field as children who may be subjected to abuse or neglect-- which, considering that we're talking about runaways here (most of whom rather obviously do not have "loving and supportive parents"), seems entirely fine to me.
Protected health services ARE gender affirming care and abortion services. Abusive parents are required to be given notice and a court date. It is unclear that the same provision exists for the parents of minors receiving protected health care services and you had best believe that if my son were at a shelter, it would be violation of my rights to not immediately let me know where he is. There is well defined constitutional case law on this, which is why, as I understand it, the law is being challenged in court.
Note, this would be minors receiving protected health services that you have claimed approximately 47K times are NeVeR EveR DoNe WitHOut parental consent, both on this podcast comments and many others.
I am intimately familiar with the RCWs that this bill amends, having lobbied on the issue as a student lobbyist more than 2 decades ago. Runaway notification was passed here in the 90s as the Becca Bill.
I believe that an out of state ideologically driven person such as yourself has both less skin in the game and less familiarity with the legal framework of the laws of the state I have lived in for 40 years.
You have proven yourself, time and time again, either unable or unwilling to process information that doesn’t confirm your basic beliefs.
Go get on with your masturbatory facile delusions of legal grandeur and superior intellect elsewhere, mKay?
I see we've moved on to the "outside agitators gettin' in here and messin' up our relations with our Negroes" phase of conservative argumentation. I half expect to be labeled a communist sympathizer next.
I am well aware that there is a judicial-bypass procedure for protected health services (which I presume you, as an anti-abortion conservative, oppose). It's unclear to me why you think I should be opposing it, though. As a general rule, I think children should have access to necessary healthcare that their parents want to prevent. I am, for example, vehemently opposed to coddling the insane anti-blood-transfusion views of Jehovah's Witness parents.
Some runaways have loving parents but run away because of misunderstandings, family tensions or the teens are engaged with high risk activities such as drug use or involved with dangerous people. Presuming that all runaways have abusive parents is just a false assumption on your part.
Literally this girl who ran away two doors down has amazing parents and siblings, she just liked hanging out with drug addicts at 14 and her parents didn’t approve and forbid it so she ran away (to a crack house). Hardly abusive.
Now she is 20 and is still a wild child but says running away was the dumbest thing she ever did.
My older brother ran away at 15. It was complicated but his insistence that he do lots of drugs and not actually go to school was the biggest part of it. I have a complex relationship with my brother but I love him and his kids deeply. Fortunately, he’s hit the stage where he has, like a lot of people with drug and criminal histories, mellow out and we can occasionally have breakfast or catch a baseball game together. This is a markedly different situation than the years that everything from my engagement ring to credit to my son’s piggy bank was stolen by him or his wife to feed their habits. Drugs take a big toll.
Ah. And your solution to this problem is to... deter those runaways involved with high risk activities from going to official shelters (where they will know that they will be sent home) and instead incentivize them to hit the streets.
Makes sense, assuming you view them as subhuman cockroaches whom society would be better off without.
You struggle with Theory of Mind. You don’t know what people might actually be thinking so you ascribe your own opinion of what they must think to them and then double down even when very, very wrong.
I volunteer at shelters and transitional housing for adults and kids. Due to my limited time, most of this volunteer work is shopping for and cooking meals, which I can do alongside my own Costco runs and cooking. One is a shelter for teens specifically, the others are shelter and transitional housing for families with kids. These are issues I care deeply about, having grown up very poor myself. I absolutely treasure human life, which is a value I live out in my life. I don’t even think you are a subhuman cockroach. #trollsarepeopletoo
Are you saying if a kid runs away that means their parents aren’t loving and supportive? That seems a reach.
Especially in a state where the kid knows they can get specific medical treatments that they want but only if they run away.
If a kid runs away, that is a strong piece of evidence suggesting that their parents aren't loving and supportive that should greatly shift your Bayesian priors in that direction. It's not dispositive.
The second paragraph is getting into "false proposition implies any proposition" territory again. SB 5599 does not authorize funding for specific medical treatments that children want, but only if they run away. (Maybe some other law does-- again, I have not canvassed the entire Washington state code-- but that one doesn't.) What it does is say that IF A CHILD IS ALREADY RECEIVING THOSE TREATMENTS, shelters have to attempt reunification through intermediaries rather than through direct contact with potentially-abusive parents. I agree with that state policy.
I believe the CA law does just that but not 100% sure. OR appears to require no parental consent at all for hormones after age 15.
`The simple fact is that being trans is a mental disorder requiring medical attention and decisions.
Being gay is not.'
Being gay was a mental disorder until 1974 (DSM-II, 7th printing); it wasn't until DSM-III-R (1987) that homosexuality was completely removed from the DSM with the excising of `ego-dystonic homosexuality'. And before 1974 medical attention was certainly recommended.
Thus far medical interventions are the best way we know how to treat gender dysphoria, and its cause seems to be similar to that of homosexuality.
> and its cause seems to be similar to that of homosexuality.
I suppose this is technically correct. While there seems to be a genetic component, the genes involved, to what extent, etc. are not known or understood.
Similarly, the exact cause of homosexuality (or more generally, sexual orientation) is not known.
So they are similar in that it's not really fully understood.
However, gender dysphoria is in the DSM for completely different reasons and motivations than homosexuality. Homosexuality was deemed pathological since it deviated, but also because a whole slew of bad pathological traits were supposed to go along with it. There were also disease theories for homosexuality. There was a strong bigotry component to advocates who were quite forward in stating that homosexuals were evil or immoral.
Over time research mounted showing quite conclusively that none of these comorbidities were true. It wasn't a disease. It wasn't correlated with any social pathologies or immoral behaviors. Further, being homosexual in itself does not cause any distress. And no action or treatment is necessary to lead a happy, fulfilled, and content life.
None of this is true about gender dysphoria. The reason it's considered a mental disorder is because it is the condition itself that causes intense anxiety in the patient. If you do nothing and it persists, it doesn't get better. It can get worse. To the point where the patient cannot lead a happy, fulfilled, and content life.
So, you can remove gender dysphoria from the DSM. But unlike homosexuality, this wouldn't help anyone with gender dysphoria. . . they _require_ treatment to improve their condition. Its presence in the DSM is because of that core attribute....
That's a pretty good explanation of it (that and the fact that homosexuality doesn't appear to interfere with peoples' abilities to lead functional lives — all other things being equal), whereas people experiencing extreme gender dysphoria might have a bigger reason to consider a medical intervention.
I think it's also fair to steelman TwKaR's point — a lot of DSM definitions have had cultural components over the years that aren't entirely easy to untangle from everything else.
> have had cultural components over the years that aren't entirely easy to untangle from everything else.
For sure. Though it's not unique in this.
The DSM is a living document and constantly updated. Later iterations added criteria specifically designed to minimize these kinds of biases. For example, at some point
> mental disorders are associated with distress, disability, or a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom.
So you can have the exact same symptoms in two people and one has a disorder and the other does not. If one copes with it fine and is not distressed by the symptoms.
If you think you should have been the other sex, but then you're like "oh well, whatevs. Thems the breaks" and move on with life...then you don't have gender dysphoria.
The trans thing is totally different. We weren't asking for all the pronoun stuff nor for people to make the fundamentalist statement that we were women, even though male and vice versa and on and on.
As I've said to friends, and has not always been well received...."gender affirming care" is the gay conversion therapy from hell.
It’s what they do in Iran.
Indeed it is.....but try saying that. It's amazing the level of ignorance among the reputedly well-educated among this group. And the categorical certainty which they hang on to that ignorance!
This is what partisanship produces.
Don't try, just say it.
You’ll be torn limb from limb. 🤦🏻♀️
Say it all you want, but it's a non-sequitur because, aside from the use of similar medical techniques, one is a state-driven policy meant to stop immoral behavior and the other is voluntarily sought medical care to mitigate personal pain.
Quite frankly, it also diminishes the horror and pain gay men in Iran experience to equate their suffering with a change of clothing/pronouns. Also not sure that they would appreciate their pain being used to deny relief to suffering adolescents, either.
"being used to deny relief to suffering adolescents, either."
This is question begging.
How is that situation remotely comparable to affirming care? No one is forcing adolescents to transition by threat of execution.
`gender affirming care...'
Are you speaking about such care for adults or adolescents? If for the latter, do you believe that trans adolescents can't/aren't suffering from gender dysphoria?
What if they have one of the other problems mentioned in the episode, like they spend all their time making out in the classroom instead of focusing on their work?
I don’t think teachers should have boundaries on disclosing any truths about children. How proactive they want to be should be their discretion. If they suspect abuse, they can and should report it.
Yeah, the assumption that all parents should be treated as suspected abusers as a matter of policy is very troubling.
Completely agree. There are parents who would act abusively towards their child if they came home with a bad grade. Teachers shouldn't stop handing out report cards, they should use their responsibility as mandated reporters to report those instances where it does seem like a child is being abused. Most parents are not abusive, and that should be considered the default, not the exception.
Most people do not blab unnecessary details about medical records, therefore HIPAA is a bad law and medical privacy should be unregulated because people aren't proven blabbers.
Most gun owners are law abiding, therefore we should have zero gun controls of any kind.
This argument seems unimpeachable to me. Prophylaxis? Never heard of it.
That's a false equivalency. Parents are legally responsible for their children's health and wellbeing. HIPAA doesn't exist to prevent parents from finding out what's going on with little Timmy health-wise, it exists to ensure that little Timmy's intimate medical information is not publicly accessible. Total strangers don't need to know how often little Timmy is having diarrhea, but his doctor and parents should know. Similarly, it is important for parents to know if little Timmy is having trouble with reading or is acting out in school. Parents have a duty to help their children and support them in overcoming issues.
As you mentioned, prophylaxis is an important part of this. If little Timmy is having problems reading in first grade and the parents are aware, they can take interventions to remedy his reading performance and ensure that he doesn't fall behind in the future, make sure he isn't having trouble with his eyesight, or get him tested for learning disabilities. If little Timmy has an allergic reaction and his parents know about it, they can get him tested, get him an epi-pen, eliminate allergens from his environment.
The point that I am making is that parents need information about their kids in order to be there for them when it matters. Unfortunately there are some people who will not take kindly to that information, but we have mechanisms in place to identify and report situations where that is happening.
Hospitals are legally responsible for their patients' health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, we have legally instituted privacy requirements to prevent them from the uninhibited sharing of private information, because we have adjudged that privacy is more important.
If you think kids' privacy is unimportant, then own that, but don't make out like that's anything other than a policy choice to subordinate said privacy to your personal view that parents always know best.
That’s what upsets me — yes, abuse happens, but unless there is some ACTUAL evidence of abuse, they should just be treating a situation like the above like any other behavioral issue. Tell the parents the relevant information and let them know it’s affecting their behavior in school.
It works well for Kim Jong Un!
They are legally required to report abuse. Personal discretion doesn’t have anything to do with it.
Yes, but the rub with that is defining what is abusive. I’ve seen schools look the other way when there was clearly abuse going on and I’ve seen schools report parents for things that aren’t abusive or use the threat of reporting abuse as retaliation for the parents complaining about issues at the school. Most of the time I think schools do try to do the right thing but unfortunately, it’s simply not the case 100% of the time.
We’re a big country and nothing with human behavior is 100%.
Ignoring obvious abuse though, is absolutely illegal. And if anyone said (like a concerned parent) “hey, I think that kid is abused” they’re legally required to forward that concern.
I’m dealing with reality here. Our child protective system has so many holes. It’s sad and it’s tragic, but it’s true. When I say it’s not 100%, it’s not 99.9%. At least 1/2 the time, I’ve observed major issues
1. Not everyone is a mandated reporter.
2. Sometimes reporting abuse can make it worse for the vulnerable people being abused, which any kid whose has been abused knows. This is why most mandated reporters I know try to have a narrow range of times they considered it required to report.
3. Defining a parent who doesn’t rush to affirm a trans identity in a kid as being abusive isn’t reasonable and it’s a waste of social work resources.
4. Social work is a system that brings a lot of classism and other biases into play. One reason I was skeptical of Defund the Police was that I know full well that social workers are not well regarded or received in poor families.
I’ve mentioned on here that I have helped to raise my nieces and nephew, which is why I have spent most of my adult life raising a gaggle of kids. There’s a reason for that.
Two of them have parents with a long history in and out of family and criminal court, the other two parents went through a nasty divorce and one tried time and time again to use CPS as a weapon, to some success. I also have other exposure to these processes via work and my community and volunteering. I’ve seen CPS do good work and be a net improvement to the family. I’ve also seen CPS so far more harm than good.
I’ve called CPS four times in my life-
Once for work when physical abuse of manifestly obvious.
Once on a neighbor who was leaving her small son locked outside while she was inside on drugs with whatever man was around at the moment.
Once on my brother and his wife (there was no other option and believe me, we weren’t the first or last call)
Once recently for a case of extreme neglect that my husband and I became aware of. Before we decided to call, we spoke with two friends who are social workers…both of them recommended taking some other steps before calling, which we did.
The pod phrase “it’s complicated” comes to mind.
Secondly (I hit send too soon) I appreciate you saying what a strain and waste of resources it is to term not affirming a kid as trans as abuse. I’m not sure if it’s because parents have gotten so helicoptery as of late, but everyone seems to want to claim abuse when a child isn’t being raised they think they should be.
First off, I’m so sorry that your nieces and nephew’s life are so complicated. I’m sure it’s tough being those kids, but it’s also rough being the grown up that cares for them.
In reality there is always personal discretion because there is rarely some super cut and dried distinction.
Kid shows up with weird bruise on his neck, says he fell doing a trick on monkey bars. Is that true or did his parent choke him?
Right; isn't that what PTA meetings used to be about?
The most valuable information a parent can get is a clear feedback on how their child is behaving in half their waking hours.
Why not simply live stream classes?
Other children's privacy could be an issue, BUT 1) we did it during COVID (which is when a lot of parents learned about the reality of the school day) and 2) we do in daycare. So the sudden 180° in school doesn't entirely make sense.
I’m n every other child care setting I’ve been in open observation is standard.
Ballet, gymnastics, kick boxing, skateboard classes….everything
Only exception I can think of is mountain biking. But seemed more pragmatic than policy….kind of inconvenient to live stream mountain biking through trails.
School is an outlier, not a norm.
I’m not advocating for cameras everywhere all the time. There’s a case to be made that students may be more open to expressing opinions and present a different self than they do under the eye of parents. That’s fine and can be positive…..but the other extreme of it being a complete black box to parents seems more aimed at protecting the educators and not the adults.
I’ve never heard my elementary kids express concern over parents being able to watch them do gymnastics. They think it’s awesome and are very excited when I can make it.
PTA meetings are mostly about what and how to provide services and opportunities to the kids/ teachers that aren’t being funded by the county or state. I suppose some get political in a sense, but it’s mostly planning book fairs, and taking cafeteria duty so the teachers can actually get a full hour to eat lunch.
Sorry, I meant parent-teacher evenings, or whatever they are called nowadays.
In my day there were regular evenings where the teachers stayed late, met all the parents, and reported on the children. Not sure if it has anything to do with the PTA, but that's what I had in mind.
"Parent-teacher conferences" is how those were described in my youth.
Imagine the person at the PTA meeting that you find the most obnoxious. The most opposite of your views on everything related to schooling, politics, etc. Now be sure that if parents had the right to snoop all day long at school it would be THAT parent that would be the one watching. Not just the teacher and their kid, but your kid and everyone else’s too. And they’d be calling in every time precious didn’t get their way.
I Absolutely 100% do not want the nosiest and most judge mental parents in my kids classroom having the ability to watch them all day long in school. Orwellian.
Yes, that's a problem, although it is something we appear to live with for some other open classes. And during COVID of course.
This is why in an ideal world we'd be able to permit but not require teachers to give helpful feedback to parents, at their discretion.
I suspect the problem is that unions don't respond well to having vague guidelines that require using discretion. Hard rules are easier to adjudicate.
I bet this is why the TSA agent doesn't have the discretion to allow you to carry on the 102g tube of toothpaste, because it is 2g over the 100g limit. 🙂
Setting aside the moral implications of turning teachers into the children's Gestapo, this is also incredibly stupid and short-sighted because it will simply guarantee that kids never confide anything in their teachers.
Of course, I suppose you figure they'd just report that "Johnny looks a little fruity," and leave it to the parents to put two and two together.
Gestapo?
There's a deep understanding that children do WAY better when their parents are involved in their education. That's best when it means giving the parents feedback.
The ability to report to parents that the child is underperforming because they are high is not a question of being the Gestapo, but of doing the kid a MASSIVE favor.
When someone starts comparing parental responsibility to the Nazis, you know they’re maybe just a teensy bit off-kilter.
JUST A BIT
A hot topic in education a decade or so ago was the importance of parental involvement in schools. I think now it's referred to as engagement instead of involvement, probably due to helicoptering. But some of the benefits are about student achievement, self-esteem and behavior. This idea that deceiving parents is good, because they're not to be trusted, seems baseless.
Agreed — schools should err on the side of fostering good relationships with parents and children. And frankly, I think a little bit of conflict at home is usually a good thing for a developing teenager. It helps develop social skills and resolve interpersonal conflict as adults.
And I cannot stress enough for the one person on this thread who is not adding anything helpful or earth-shattering to this discussion — most parents are not abusive.
I think it’s possible to draw a clear and bright line between what needs to be shared with parents, and what not. For me that line would be: are there reasons to think that a child is in reasonable danger of harm due to sonething of which the teacher has become aware?
At the university where I teach, we are obligated by policy to file a report with the dean of students. If we think a student is at risk of harming themselves or others, or if we see they are in deep mental distress. This applies even though the students are virtually all over 18!
In a public school setting, there is no need to report students’ private sexual orientation, unless you take a hard line religious view that the child’s immortal soul is at risk. As a secular institution, though, the school can’t interpret this as harm that should be reportable.
Mental health issues that impact school performance, or could lead to self harm or violence absolutely are to be reported to parents under the standard. The same goes for a child who appears to be on the verge of joining a gang as described in the letter Katie read.
Reasonable people may disagree on whether a transgender identity falls into the category of “likely to lead to harm.“ Certainly, many adolescents are engaged in a process of identity exploration that may well lead them elsewhere in the long run.
However, I have yet to know a trans-identified young person who is not struggling with fairly severe mental anguish. We are told again, and again that these kids are at ultra high risk of suicide. if true, parents absolutely need to know!
Those of us who have seen these dynamics up close in young people are aware that many of them will not medicalize. But we’ve seen how peer influence has affected kids who were never gender nonconforming but then interpret their distress as related to gender. Many of these kids will desist, but the medical burden of transitioning is high, and it ought to be avoided whenever less-invasive treatment is possibly. The evidence is quite strong that social transition often leads to additional interventions even in kids whose onset of gender dysphoria was abrupt. The risk of unnecessary medicalization is one of which the parents should be aware.
Yes the “trans students are at a high risk of suicide!” campaigning line leads naturally into reporting trans students as needing a network of mental health support, for their own good. You can’t have one without the other.
honestly I think the best solution would be for school guidance councilors, at least in middle & high school, to help a kid work up to telling their parents. Like, "ok, if you're serious then our goal is to give you the confidence to be able to discuss this with your parents in a month and you guys can take it from there." Questions about kid's and teen's privacy are hard to hash out, and I don't think teachers should be turned into little guards or spies for parents but they also shouldn't be implicated in lying to parents ostensibly for the sake of the kids.
This! Unfortunately the laws are being written in both ways now to remove all nuance and discretion of professionals in these type of matters. It’s either out them immediately and refuse to use nicknames, or actively hide public knowledge from parents.
I’m glad my teachers didn’t call my parents that one time I showed up for class reeking of pot and refusing to take my sunglasses off. Of course if it had been a regular thing they probably should have...
Isn't that the sort of thing where some common sense can be used?
If kid is late once, the teacher may be annoyed.
Kid is late 5 times, it may be a behavioral issue.
Pot might be a borderline issue. For instance, not only does pot affect performance, but some *schools* might have a zero tolerance policy towards narcotics or smoking.
It could easily be the case that the parent is fine with pot but the school is not 🙂
Oh, I got caught when my kid was not even busted with pot, but was late for band practice and was then suspected of being high. Turns out the hall smelled of pot because the principal who just busted some other kids.
I also got called on the weekend when I was on the other side of the country when the same kid was busted for something he’d actually done: hanging up funny posters, spoofing the school’s ridiculous motivational posters.
The bar is often not very high at all for calling parents.
What are your thoughts on the disclosure of trans identity to parents if the school doesn't affirm that identity, doesn't make any accommodations for it, and isn't compelled to?
For example, a student comes out as trans (or perhaps a teacher simply notices other students referring to the first student with a new name, opposite sex pronouns etc.) but the school just carries on as if nothing has happened. Do you think in that situation the school should be required to inform the student's parents?
I feel that this scenario is closer to the one where a student comes out as gay, since the school isn't doing anything, so perhaps disclosure shouldn't be mandated. But then the argument could be made that since gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, parents should be informed because it's a health issue involving their children, so maybe it should.
That one is a bit tougher, I think. My instinct would be to just brush it off and let their parents figure it out on their own (unless they ask in a parent teacher conference or something.) It almost seems like in a situation like this, it's probably a kid trying to be interesting to their peers, and you can just roll your eyes and move on.
I think the issue would be if their insistence on being trans rises to the level of demanding the school and administration recognize it and/or it's causing serious distress to the student, then you do need to get the parents involved.
Also, I'm a curmudgeon when it comes to threats of suicide. If the kid threatens to kill themselves if the school won't let them socially transition, call an ambulance, send them to the hospital and call the parents. I keep feeling like I hear kids trying to emotionally blackmail their parents or school admin into letting them transition, and they should realize just how serious the issue is.
Agreed. If you don’t immediately call health professionals on threat of suicide you’re not taking it seriously.
I'd agree that in this case, as long as it's not disrupting the student's performance in school, then there would be no reason for a teacher to disclose to parents. But if the student tells the teacher, that seems different, and more like, say, admitting to deep anxiety, or self-harm like cutting, or to having an eating disorder (i.e., all thing which are in the DSM - flawed as that is).
Agreed. I mean, kids try on new nicknames and identities all the time. If it’s not crossing any lines of safety or security, just leave it be.
I don’t think the school should be required to disclose. The only thing they’re required to disclose is abuse.
And, really, kids get into all kids of shit. I don’t think they should be required to disclose if a kid is hanging out with the goths and has a new nickname either.
For reference, they are not currently legally required to disclose know.n mental health or medical issues. BUT they are legally protected to do so (minors aren’t covered by HIPPA at school) and the expectation is they should include parents if their involvement will help or is necessary (say, for permission to treat).
I mean the simplest answer is the schools should do what the parents want because the parents are their customers.
It gets more complicated than that, but at a base level parents are entrusting their kids to someone else and deserve to make a deal they approve of.
Should the babysitter call me about every little thing? Well it’s something we discuss.
In this scenario, I’d say the school should keep mum. The student is exploring a subculture here, no different from a girl wearing makeup or changing clothes once they’re on school grounds. This hypothetical student isn’t necessarily showing signs of gender dysphoria, but is showing signs of exploring identity like a normal teenager. Parents don’t need to know that.
I feel like there’s a pretty big difference between not telling a parent every minutia and actively keeping secrets, and it’s pretty obvious to any reasonable person where that line is. Like I don’t need to call the kids parent that say if they cut their hair and are going by “BJ” instead of Becky Jane and I overhear a friend use a male pronoun. But obviously in conferences I might be like “hey I noticed she’s going by BJ lately”.
That’s why I’m against the laws going both directions. They are hamhanded and prevent people from acting in a reasonable manner. Telling kids you can won’t use their preferred mode of address is Nuts. So is actively hiding their shooting up with Blackmarket T in the restrooms from their parents.
Note I agree with j&k in situations of actual abuse in which case mandatory reporting status matters.
That's one of the things that has really been bugging me about these policies — you can't have one policy and expect it to adequately address everyone's situation. So many of these you would have to take on a case-by-case basis. Each of these kids' family dynamic, situation, mental health status, and reasons for transitioning are all going to be different, and, I suspect, a lot of parents are actually pretty aware of what their kid is going through.
Yes exactly. Thank you.
“Homosexuality isn’t a mental disorder.”
But it was. That’s a major point here. Homosexuality absolutely was a mental disorder in the DSM for years. Relying on the DSM as the last word is one of the areas that concerns me. I don’t think it’s an issue in the same way today regarding trans care, but the DSM is not permanently the last word. It shifts and changes with time and with updated pressure and evidence.
Emma sounded like she was having a panic attack. Sam sounded like he needed to be back in his safe space where I presume no one disagrees with him or even talks until he's finished shouting. Which he does not seem to ever do.
That was horrible. Just horrible. Please never trick me into listening to anything like that ever again.
You could hear Sam and Emma’s discomfort over their cognitive dissonance triggering their amygdalas. Just shrieking.
The most frustrating thing is that in 5 years when they realize they were wrong they will not reflect or apologize. They will speak loudly and sarcastically about how they can’t believe how badly they were misled by garbage humans lying to them. Denunciation of the badness of others is their only factory setting.
I honestly had to pause the podcast a few times because something about those clips was so frustrating to sit through wow
Totally triggered by her triggering
They need to be mocked endlessly and never ever allowed to forget their cowardice.
Social transition at school without the parent’s knowledge is not a harmless step. This is why Erica Anderson (herself trans) filed an affidavit in a recent case on this topic arguing strongly that it should not be done as a blanket policy.
People are stereotyping non-affirming parents as dangerous, hateful bigots. When in reality, many of us *just know our kids*. We know them well, we love them well, we care for them well, we take them to thoughtful non-ideologically biased therapists, we make them dinner every night and drive them to school every morning, we talk openly and honestly and lovingly with them each and everyday. And we, the parents, will be there for them, picking up the pieces long after the schools staff that chose to be ally cheerleaders are far in the rearview mirror.
I do not appreciate having to play a game of 3D chess with the school on this issue. We have a meeting on Monday. If a few school staff continue to presume that my 14 yo autistic son saying “I don’t know” means he’s trans and needs to be affirmed as such and socially transitioned at school, we will be at an impasse. We will either not be able to send our son (who has complex Special Education needs) to school at all or we will have to…time will tell. We have sued them before and won, we may have to get litigious again. I don’t like it but as the shirt says:
I identify as: a threat
my pronouns are: fuck around and find out.
Here’s Erica’s affidavit for those who are interested. Long time listeners will probably remember that she was on the podcast early on. Her conclusion:
“A school policy that involves school adult personnel in socially transitioning a child or adolescent without the consent of parents or over their objection violates widely accepted mental health principles and practice.”
https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Expert-Affidavit-Erica-Anderson-2023.02.0336.pdf
It's weird that social transitioning is simultaneously a very important part of affirmative care while simultaneously is also just a kid experimenting with a new look or a new name when people criticize why parents aren't in the loop. Seems to be a great way to insulate it from criticism.
That’s a good observation.
My husband and I are very much in the loop because our son talks to us about everything. We have are approached parenting letting our kids talk to us about everything so that they feel they can tell us anything. Even things we don’t like.
Schools have this idea that parents are checked out or not paying attention. For some parents that is the case but it’s just very far from the truth for us and parents like us.
So the school meeting this morning went well.
Over the weekend the paraeducator sent us an email where she used convoluted and tortured language to communicate information about…school supplies. She was using *plural first person pronouns* to avoid using either his name or any pronoun. So like “we noticed our backpack”. The overall effect was…very weird. We weren’t sure what to say about it but luckily, the sufficient and succinct language came to both me and my husband during the meeting.
Our son was with us for the meeting and the school staff appeared to take all of us seriously. We only talked about gender to the extent that they asked our son to clarify what he wants to be called since he’s said a few different things (mostly “I don’t know”). He did that and we moved on to the meat of the meeting which is the whole transition from middle to high school for a student with an IEP.
The pressure around gender and pronouns (some subtle, some not so subtle) is coming from the youngest and least credentialed person in the room who wasn’t there for most of the meeting. She’s a paraeducator. The VP and the SpEd case manager are older men and seemed receptive to our basic approach. The VP is familiar with us from our older son and knows that we are committed to our children.
That’s great! It sucks having to go into those meetings loaded for bear but you have to - you can’t do it unprepared. Having done the elementary to middle school transition IEP meeting, I’m hoping you have feet up drinking tea kinds of plans for the rest of your day.
I want that shirt.
https://etsytees.com/product/skull-i-identify-as-a-threat-my-pronouns-are-fuck-around-find-out-shirt/
My FTM sibling got it for me for my birthday. He knows (and loves) me.
Holy crap! What state is this in? I’m sorry you’re dealing with this (especially considering that they appear to be ignoring your son’s needs in lieu of being an “ally”)
Washington. We are in the thick of it. Seattle area public school but not Seattle Public Schools.
I strongly encourage you to wear that shirt to your Monday meeting. It should spark some fascinating conversations at the police station.
Zaggy zag zag, my man, if you have nothing of any value to say, please just leave me the fuck alone.
I have done more *today* to take care of gender nonconforming and trans-identifying children than you have ever done, or will ever do, in your entire miserable existence.
There I go, feeding the troll again. If I have to talk to any police anytime soon, it will be the ones that come to arrest me for troll feeding.
I’m a mandatory reporter for troll-feeders. Into my paddy wagon you go, Tess. You’ll be housed adjacent to HIPPO prison.
Seriously, when I read this round of trolling, my thoughts turned to how much material support and care I’ve given to gnc young people, and how fond I am of them. They tend to be bright, caring, original - as well as emotionally struggling. It is possible to extend care without displaying my terfier thoughts on the one hand, or subscribing to the ontological claims and political demands of the activists on the other hand.
Tess, I hope you can get the school to see reason. Perhaps it might help to have something on paper so you can share Erica Anderson’s position on social transition - I’m thinking maybe an interview she’s given so that the school will view it beyond the partisan debates. Hugs, if you want ’em!
Thank you for hugs, humor and ideas.
I’m reading the comments about teachers revealing their students’ gender identity and it seems there is a misunderstanding about what goes on in schools. In the PNW, where I teach, and I’m sure it’s the same in other blue areas, teachers are actively eliciting this information from students. We are encouraged to ask for names and pronouns at the start of the term (this is middle and high school) and then to ask if parents know. Students aren’t secretly confiding in us, we are creating a norm where they are encouraged to create a new persona at school. At my previous school, 10% of my students changed their names and pronouns. The schools are absolutely fueling this trend and then keeping it from parents.
Thank you for sharing this, as someone with direct personal experience.
In some cases, the kids are encouraged (both by peers and adults) to distrust their parents. Dividing kids from their parents can lead to a lot of high risk outcomes.
I was an early adopter of asking for pronouns at the university level circa 2015. I was also an early rejector of that ritual by roughly 2018, having seen how much harm was encompassed by Just Be Kind, It Costs You Nothing.™️ That was several years before one of my kids (who was also in college) was ensnared in gender identity ideology and then desisted (WITHOUT me coercing him in any way, for those in the back row who might shoot rubber bands at me).
I’m not surprised that PK-12 teachers are now in the thick of it. The younger ones came up through education schools where any dissent was anathema. The older ones are generally super kind and generous humans who wish to do well by all their students and therefore are easy prey. Those who are skeptical are in the same boat as I am: scared they’ll lose their job, be ostracized by their community/friends/family, and be seen by students past and present as having hated and deceived them.
Shayla, you are awesome and I empathize with every word I’ve seen or heard (on Jesse’s old Callin show) from you. Hold tight. Stay true to your principles up to the threshold of blowing up your life. Look for moments where you might plant a seed of critical thinking. Will this be enough? I don’t know. It’s just what I’m doing. It’s so impossibly hard.
Props to Jesse for going on the show - even though you can tell in his voice he has major regrets, he did what he said he would do.
Anti-props to Emma for bailing on live air and having her cronies back her up - that was a serious maskoff moment and was truly pathetic.
Props to Moose for being the goodest boy.
Can I go back to pretending the Majority Report doesn't exist?
I kinda felt like Jesse bringing up that Emma was going to be coming on show, in that moment where she was already back pedaling and grasping for ad hominem’s to defend herself, it was obvious that her response was going to be something like “Well actually I can’t come on your show because you suck.” And my sense is he knew when he said it that she would pull the rip cord, but he still went for the instant gratification of making her look dumb in the moment at the cost of (maybe) having that long form discussion later. I get it though, wanting to land some kind of rhetorical blow after they jerked him around for 20 minutes or whatever it was.
Ehh, odds are she would have backed out or ghosted by email, anyway. Better to have her back out in front of her whole audience.
Jesse and Katie,
I just saw this reader comment in NYTimes:
"Rachel
New JerseySept. 8
Shout out to the Blocked and Reported podcast, which broke this story back in June.
Journalists Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal (who has written for the NYT) do excellent work on Blocked and Reported. I highly recommend it.
157 Recommend"
About this Michael Powell article, which may be his last for NYTimes as he is moving to The Atlantic:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/ucla-dei-statement.html
"“It’s our job to make sure people of all identities flourish here,” [Professor Brian Soucek] said. “It’s not our job to make sure that all viewpoints flourish.”"
Jesus, thats harrowing.
That was me! ❤️❤️❤️❤️
I find that programs like the Majority Report are targeted at the lowest common denominator of people interested in politics. This is the worst of sports fandom for people who are too nerdy for sports but not nerdy enough to actually care about the nitty gritty of public policy, or truly invested enough in politics to care about how change occurs, why people believe what they believe (outside of "stupidity" and/or "evil"), or how to defend your beliefs to people who challenge them. It's the same modality and mentality that the worst Fox News programming employs. There is little intellectual curiosity or willingness to hear out other points of view in good faith. Little willingness to seriously or honestly engage with complexity or disagreement, little willingness to challenge their own priors or their viewers' priors. These are not serious political minds. They are emblematic of the worst tendencies of contemporary American politics: tribalism, ego, grandstanding, stubbornness, anti-intellectualism, smugness, image-obsession.
I admire Jesse's optimism in trying to seriously engage with them, but I can't say I'm especially surprised that they conducted themselves so poorly. After all, when that's the image that one has created for oneself, one which has earned one good money and an echo chamber of adoring fans, why change?
Isn't this also a bit like the emotional rush (pun intended) of old school talk radio?
Like a soap opera, it's not about the stories' truthfulness, it's about the (melo)drama.
That's a good pun.
How the heck did Jesse stay so composed during that... Well done! My heart rate and blood pressure rose during those clips. Agreed on the importance of nudging people in the margins.
God…Sam Sedar is so pretentious, listening to him is torturous
My only experience with Seder up to now has been from him voicing the character of Hugo the health inspector on Bob's Burgers, so I can be sure if he sounds annoying and dumb to me because that's my association with Hugo or if he was cast as Hugo because he sounds annoying and dumb.
"BOB, your email said conservatives, not attorneys general. Do you want me to READ the email to you, BOB?"
Whoa! The more you know!
The only way I got through this was imagining him as Hugo the whole time, which made it hilarious.
I agree, that was my first exposure to him and he comes off as really condescending and obnoxious.
Jesse you truly win the award for having the most bizarre Hatred:Reasonableness ratio on the internet.
If I didn’t see proof of it on Twitter back when I read your article in 2018, I truly wouldn’t believe it. I’ve showed many reasonable people I know various writings of yours, sometimes people agree, sometimes disagree, then I always go “yeah this guy is bombarded with death threats” they’re just baffled.
The people who view you as a demon have truly lost the plot, but as you said, it’s important to engage with them sometimes, not to change then but to shine a light for they’re audience to see how absolutely bonkers this is.
First they came for the fat honky dicks and I said nothing because I did not have a fat honky dick
I've thought about this a little more, now my blood pressure has returned to normal. I don't know their standard demeanour - I'm just assuming from the clips that they're self-righteous, preachy know-nothing bellends, but I'm sure there are good people on both sides - so I wonder how much of their obnoxiousness was just reactive because they were caught so unprepared. Sam clearly didn't expect Jesse to actually call in.
I said earlier that Emma sounded like she was having a mental health event, and to me that's how a revision panic might feel if I too had spent the preceding year calling the examiner an arsehole on the Internet, only to find him in my house asking me to explain the cocks I'd drawn on the exam paper.
None of this is any kind of excuse.
Lolllll metaphot
Sam Seder sounds like a drunk uncle badgering his wife about some marital dispute, Twitter is clearly a font of discord and madness, and I question my understanding of people when I try to explain why anyone would subscribe to Majority Report
Seriously listen to it and forget the context - Sam forgot to take the trash out, Jesse scolded him for it, and he is doing everything he can to avoid admitting that he should have taken the trash out.
It’s too bad Jesse is no longer torturing people at Abu Ghraib cause he could have used the audio of his appearance on TMR to torment his captives.
My ears are still bleeding.