These folks are trapped, perhaps hopelessly, in a bubble in which the only explanation for concerns about youth gender medicine is transphobia. Like, it's *impossible* there are good-faith questions. I'd feel bad for them but they are spreading a huge amount of misinformation.
2/A large number of pioneers in youth gender medicine have come forward with concerns -- Steensma, de Vries, Olson-Kennedy, Bowers, among others. You are completely conspiracy-addled if you think some evil puppet masters are controlling the discourse on this subject. Aggravating.
3/ Parker Molloy, in particular, has *actually* worked behind the scenes (and openly!) to attempt to rather viciously punish and denounce journalists who question her preferred narrative on this subject. It's rich for her to claim shadowy influence here.
4/ Not new. It's a deeply conspiratorial belief system in which nothing happens in the medical community without TERFs pulling the strings secretly. If it were "multiculturalists" or "Jews" instead of TERFs it would be recognized as a deranged viewpoint.
5/ What's so frustrating about Parker's conspiracy theory is that #actually, a major factor in the Swedish government's U-turn was a coverup scandal involving kids who got blockers at Karolinska and then suffered awful side effects. No empathy.
6/ Someone tweet at Parker and ask her politely how many times she has DMed or texted journalists angrily to demand they cover this issue differently. I'm curious what estimate she provides. I know of multiple such cases.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's extremely irresponsible for John Oliver to clam that puberty blockers are reversible. The NHS *deleted this claim from its website* because no one actually knows. There are all sorts of unanswered questions involving not just bone density but cognitive development
2/It's been disturbing watching liberal outlets spread misinformation on this stuff. The GOP policies are harmful overreach, and should be called out as such, but it shouldn't require distorting the evidence about medical procedures being conducted on children to make that point.
3/ Here's a snippet of an interview I conducted with a Swedish journalist whose documentary broke news of a major scandal there involving the side effects of "fully reversible" puberty blockers. It's just some spinal damage -- we're all good liberals.
1/ Amazing on so many levels -- absolute zenith of the EXPERT HERE genre. The claim "crunchy foods have been linked to lowering levels of cortisol in the body" appears based on one study (n = 17, all mid-20s males) that had nothing to do with crunchy foods onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…
2/ 158k+ likes for a TikTok which claims "Crunchy Potato Chips could save your life"
TRUST THE SCIENCE
3/ Anyway obviously if someone is pain various things could distract/soothe them, including potato chips. But maaaan is the whole SCIENCE LITERALLY SAYS genre bad
2/ I don't understand how this tweet is still up. This idea that it's okay to lie, as long as you're lying for a good cause or to attack a bad person... it's bad for journalism! This would be a very easy thing to correct and apologize for.
3/ The best part of this ep isn't when I talk (that's never the best part of any ep), but rather Szeps' dramatic reading of the I'M SO SORRY THIS IS HAPPENING TO YOU tweets in respond to Anderson's announcement that she was brutally mildly disagreed with
I obviously knew this going in, but spending a couple days in Laramie and talking to U of Wyoming kids and faculty members really hammered home how completely cut off I am from... everything. It's depressing!
Like my talk was centered mostly on the idea that "grit" is massively overrated, because *of course* people don't "get what they deserve." Very obvious to me and an uncontroversial observation in privileged Brooklyn. But to first-gen college students it's pretty controversial!
The faculty members I met with tended to side-eye "wokeness" (or whatever) but the idea that *that* had a particularly negative impact on their ability to do their jobs... nope.
Again, this is not original and I've mentioned this before, but worth keeping in mind.
1/ Thread: This Vox article is really bad. It seriously overstates the evidence for the efficacy of youth medical transition while attempting to pressure science journalists -- already scared of this subject -- into not doing their jobs.
2/This isn’t a factual error, but rather a ridiculous argument. No, red states did not pass draconian laws because of a handful of major-outlet pieces, *all of which fundamentally favored youth transition in the case of thorough assessments*. Common claim used to cow journalists.
3/ As proof Emily Bazelon erred in her reporting, St. James points out that her article was “[e]ntered as supporting evidence for Texas’s” anti-trans policies. I’ve explained previously why this is a ridiculous and bad-faith claim.
1/ I wrote a piece about a very silly idea that has infected journalism: that it is our job to hand-hold readers to the "correct" moral conclusions, and that if we don't they will scurry off and become fascists.
2/ This gave me an opportunity to look into a controversy that had always bugged me: the insane reception to Josh Harkinson's excellent 2016 profile of Richard Spencer, which tons of journalists willfully misread and spread ridiculous distortions about
3/ "I’m the guy who did the first investigative piece about Richard Spencer, but instead of attacking all the hacks who wrote clickbait about him, they went after me."