If you’re not in the middle of debates about trans rights & research on trans lives, you might be wondering what critics mean when they say Abigail Shrier’s work is transphobic. Allow me to lay a few points out for you, taken—for convenience—from her article in #Quillette. 1/ 
Shrier frames her work with the familiar stance of: I’m just asking questions! I’m only reporting on these ideas some have, what can be wrong with that?! Don’t stop the messenger of common sense ideas!
Then she lines up her words to make it sound like that’s what she’s doing. 2/
Then she lines up her words to make it sound like that’s what she’s doing. 2/
It is noticeable, however, that reporting on current research relating to trans girls isn’t what she’s doing. She’s made up her journalist mind that groups of professionals—with researched & constantly re-evaluated guidelines & ethics behind them—are merely “rubber-stamping.” 3/
In this need that she sees for challenging those professionals’ “rubber-stamping,” she stretches the concept of “science” to claim it for herself. She implies she is writing science and then complains that the National Association of Science Writers disagrees with her on that. 4/
And that study by Littman which she mentions in the above screen shot? It is well known for having no merit for medical work or other questions of care in relation to trans youth. See my lengthy quote-thread below. 5/
https://twitter.com/Katja_Thieme/status/1035970142599933952?s=20
So, you can see: Littman's study has been heavily criticized, and judged by experts as having no merit for medical decisions. Shrier says her book is exclusively based on that article. She also makes her own claims about medical decisions. That stuff stinks to high heaven. 6/
And the stink gets worse. A key critique of Littman’s paper was that she based her claims about trans youth not on work directly with trans youth, but on what parents of trans youth told her. Some of those parents Littman recruited from anti-trans discussion boards. 7/
On the basis of those parents’ comments, Littman poses “social contagion” as a reason for some youth’s transness. The reason of “social contagion” has been soundly rejected by other researchers. But, lo, Shrier accepts it and treats it as confirmed. 8/
I used colour-coding in the above screenshot to show you Shrier’s anti-trans use of language. Parents—some of whom are anti-trans—are neutrally named and positioned as authorities on their children’s lives. Their children, on the other hand, are called by denigrating language. 9/
Knowing all that I’ve just shown, this point by Shrier—“I am no activist”—reads like a lie. At least it is a lie in the sense that people who assert trans rights & better efforts for trans health are routinely called “activists” as if that’s a disqualifying attribute. 10/
Just like Shrier herself does in the below excerpt.
Don’t believe her when she claims parents have to affirm a child’s interest in transness “no questions asked.” Parents can ask questions. Support systems for parents are an important element of care. 11/
Don’t believe her when she claims parents have to affirm a child’s interest in transness “no questions asked.” Parents can ask questions. Support systems for parents are an important element of care. 11/
And that comment she throws in at the end of the paragraph: “let the conversion therapy take its toll”?
The clunking sound is Shrier’s mask slipping and falling noisily onto the floor. 12/
The clunking sound is Shrier’s mask slipping and falling noisily onto the floor. 12/
Whoa! A meaningful detail of which I had not been aware. 13/
https://twitter.com/kristinrawls/status/1328166922903543809?s=20
@threadreaderapp unroll
The book itself is terrible. Zinnia has a number of threads on just how terrible. Please visit her account and follow her critique. 14/
https://twitter.com/ZJemptv/status/1328400654818283521?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
