Amazon sells most of the books sold in the U.S. This includes 72% of all adult new book sales online and 80% of ebook sales. With great power comes great responsibility, though. Amazon has now taken the brazen step of stopping all sales of Ryan Anderson’s book on gender dysphoria, When Harry Became Sally, falsely characterizing it in the process. You cannot find Anderson’s book mentioned anywhere on Amazon’s website.  Here’s a few things that have recently come to light.

First, a March 16, 2021 article in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Amazon Won’t Let You Read My BookAn enterprising state attorney general might want to look into why it was withdrawn from sale now.” Here’s an excerpt:

In a letter last week to four U.S. Senators, Amazon justified its decision to delist “When Harry Became Sally” by claiming it frames “LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness.” This recycled charge is as false now as when Mr. Bezos’ newspaper first made it.

.   .   .

Why would Amazon exercise its unrivaled market power to banish my book? Because the book is changing minds in a continuing debate about how best to help patients who experience gender dysphoria. “When Harry Became Sally” has been praised by medical and legal experts—and that’s what makes it unacceptable to the woke.

And, indeed, the false “mental illness” allegation was made by the Washington Post, then retracted (and the headline of the hit piece was rewritten) after the Post was unable to produce any evidence for that claim.

Here is an excerpt from the the website of the books publisher, Encounter Books:

Everyone agrees that gender dysphoria is a serious condition that causes great suffering. There is a debate, however, which Amazon is seeking to shut down, about how best to treat patients who experience gender dysphoria. When Harry Became Sally is an important contribution, praised by medical experts, to that conversation.

No good comes from shutting down a debate about important matters on which reasonable people of good will disagree. Amazon is using its massive power to distort the marketplace of ideas and is deceiving its own customers in the process.

—Ryan T. Anderson, author When Harry Became Sally and Roger Kimball, Publisher, Encounter Books

Encounter then indicates why Amazon’s conduct should matter to all of us, linking to Amazon’s own statement for why it refuses to sell Anderson’s book:

Encounter Books is committed to publishing authors with differing views on a wide range of issues of public concern. We do this because a free society requires robust debate and spaces where dissenting opinions can be expressed unimpeded.

If Amazon, which controls most of the book sales in America, has decided to delist a book with which some of its functionaries disagree, that is an unconscionable assault on free speech. It will have a chilling effect on the publishing industry and the free circulation of ideas. It must not be left to stand unchallenged.

Note: Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and the Founding Editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, New Jersey.  I would like to read Anderson’s book for myself, so I have ordered it from Encounter Books.  I would assume that a lot of people would like to decide for themselves, rather than allow Amazon to dictate what they should be reading.

There is also a bit of personal context for my grave concerns about Amazon decision to censor us.  None of us should be subjected to any form of a Nanny-State.  After the Suess uproar, Amazon dictated that I could not have a book that I had previously purchased from Amazon: And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street.  I wanted to see that book for myself to determine whether it was inappropriate. It is not for any other person or entity to tell me what ideas are appropriate for me.  Here is Amazon’s cancellation email for the Suess book. 

—

In addition to everything above, it occurs to me that Amazon is claiming an expertise in mental health at a time when there is intense disagreement among true experts in mental health. Consider, for example, the experts relied upon by British High Court in the Keira Bell case (1/12/2020 Decision):

A child under 16 may only consent to the use of medication intended to suppress puberty where he or she is competent to understand the nature of the treatment. That includes an understanding of the immediate and long-term consequences of the treatment, the limited evidence available as to its efficacy or purpose, the fact that the vast majority of patients proceed to the use of cross-sex hormones, and its potential life changing consequences for a child. There will be enormous difficulties in a child under 16 understanding and weighing up this information and deciding whether to consent to the use of puberty blocking medication. It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.

Here is a commentary on the result:

Yesterday’s High Court judgement, which set strict limits on how far children can consent to puberty-blockers, was not meant to be a verdict on gender-identity treatment, let alone on the transgender movement. As Keira Bell, who brought the case, said: “This judgment is not political, it’s about protecting vulnerable children.”

Nevertheless, the case has political implications. For years, anyone who raised concerns about gender-identity treatment was shouted down, and told that the experts knew what they were doing. But now those experts have had to present evidence in court: the defendant was the NHS trust responsible for gender-identity treatment, and the judges heard evidence from the country’s leading specialists. And the result is a judgement — from senior judges — that the standard practice was not doing enough to protect children. Moreover, the ruling exposed just how little is understood about these treatments.

Apparently, Amazon would find this British High Court Decision (and commentaries like the above) as inappropriate reading material.