1/ Here's the full letter from grad students that Yoel Inbar believes prevented him from getting hired as a psych prof by UCLA. On the one hand it's pretty wild, but on the other it's pretty much exactly what you'd expect, in all the worst ways.
2/ Among other things, Inbar stands accused of being mildly skeptical of diversity statements on the grounds that we don't know whether they accomplish anything, and of thinking it isn't a good idea for professional psych societies to wade into issues like abortion.
3/ As is often true in these letters, there are real leaps in -- and struggles with -- basic argument. Oftentimes one sentence does not logically flow into the next one. The authors -- dozens of grad students -- seem confused about basic aspects of how language and science work:
4/ Apparently it is the responsibility of researchers to deny that there is a biological basis to disgust, because something something something naturalistic fallacy. Blank slatism ratcheted up to 11. This is the next generation of psychologists! We might be doomed.
6/Don't wanna downplay the significance of Yoel's crimes: He also stands accused of saying he listens to grad students (fucking monster), and of calling one particular grad student who confronted him "intense" to third parties. (I think he said he called the *situation* intense.)
7/ Perhaps most alarmingly, Yoel Inbar's own research is not fixated on the precise identity categories these students are most interested in. Allowing him on campus would risk contaminating the university with truly harmful ideas, like that we're all united by a shared nature.
8/ In conclusion, academic psychology is in wonderful shape, the kids are being taught well, and there's nothing to worry about here. We have prevented harm.
Very frustrated The Cut published this. This is such an overstatement of the available evidence, and such a minimization of the potential risks. We don't know *how* risky these treatments are, but serious side effects in the U.K. and Sweden involved kids in their teens, not 50s!
2/ Anyway, it's increasingly pointless to even rebut this stuff. A dam has burst and almost every single major outlet is on board spreading medical misinformation that is potentially quite harmful. Will take awhile for things to get back on-kilter.
3/ "And yes, maybe when she is 50, she will have some bone-density problems."
2/ If this policy were enacted, it would mean that users could get suspended or banned for e.g. publishing the Swedish health authority's view that "the risks of [youth gender medicine] currently outweigh the possible benefits[.]"
3/ This proposal is the natural endpoint of GLAAD's yearslong campaign to slander and bully anyone with questions about an area of medicine that, it turns out, is in dire evidentiary straits. Suppressing evidence and discussion is an awful, awful thing to do to trans youth.
In recent weeks a lot of left-of-center commentators have discovered an interest in this, or gotten more interested in it -- @RottenInDenmark, @ryanlcooper, @SamSeder, etc. None of them *ever* addresses this. They intentionally omit it. They think their audiences are morons.
2/ Hobbes' only mention of Finland, for example. And it's a misleading tweet. He's comparing careful evidence reviews to much more lightweight policy statements, press releases, etc. -- many of which only actually support the Dutch approach and/or have misleading citations.
1/ Briefly, while this is at least *not* a deranged critique of my work and doesn't involve wild and false legal claims about my imminent imprisonment, I disagree with it pretty fervently and think it's a bit disingenuous.
2/ One way a whistleblower can prove they're credible is by passing information on to the media. Wong knows this because she authored a (much bigger, more involved) piece in which a Facebook employee came forward and provided Wong with internal documents.
3/ In a medical or mental-health context, it'll basically be impossible for a whistleblower to prove their trustworthiness without providing *some* degree of information about patients to a journalist (and later investigators). Journalists then have to make judgement calls.
2/ It could certainly be the case that Reed is not telling the truth, but she provided me with full blow-by-blow details of the incident that sparked the helicopter-child reference in her affidavit. And it lines up with what has happened elsewhere.
3/ Ever since I've been in this game I've been told "If you think you have some reporting that can advance a story that's of national interest, make sure to publish it late on a Friday," so I did that here