FAIR Responds to AG Merrick Garland on Transgender Issues

I agree with the response by FAIR (Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism) to the recent letter sent by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and Children’s Hospital Association to Attorney General Merrick Garland. Here is an excerpt from FAIR's letter:

The topic of best practices in gender-related healthcare is currently the subject of intense debate. In their October 3rd press release, the American Academy of Pediatrics cited a 2018 Policy Statement as the basis for evidence-based gender-affirming care. Now, in 2022, four years of experience has provided a growing body of evidence and patient experiences that do not support the safety and benefits of universal “gender affirming” care as medically established. Recent systematic reviews have concluded that gender affirming care to treat gender dysphoria for adolescence is based on low quality, experimental evidence; ignores underlying mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety, autism, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse disorders, borderline personality disorder, and eating disorders; and may result in irreversible harm—including but not limited to developmental, neurocognitive, psychological, hormonal, and reproductive damage. The Tavistock Gender Clinic in the United Kingdom was recently closed due to these concerns. Moreover, under the gender affirming model, a large new cohort of patients (including the young) are being placed on a lifelong path of medications and dependencies with unknown consequences. It remains unclear whether such treatments will lead to heart disease, cancer, chronic pain, or other serious effects, and whether our healthcare system will be equipped to treat that growing population. Furthermore, a growing cohort of patients are detransitioning and reporting superficial assessments, poor follow-up care, and misdiagnosis of root causes for their gender dysphoria. The opioid epidemic itself was created by “one-size fits all” regulatory mandates to measure pain and treat with opioids, and a political partnership between the AMA and Purdue Pharma which disregarded scientific evidence about the dangers of opioids and prioritized subjective assessments of pain. That approach contributed to the opioid crisis we still grapple with today. Open inquiry and consideration of dissenting voices are imperative to avoid repeating a similar tragedy with respect to gender affirming care.

Any violence or threats of violence should be fully investigated and addressed under the law. But investigating, prosecuting, or silencing those who question or disagree with the still very new and rapidly evolving field of gender affirming care will not only risk violating the First Amendment rights of all Americans, but will prevent the medical profession from determining and providing the safest and most effective treatments for gender dysphoric patients. Rigorous and open debate about the risks and benefits of any treatment—including gender affirming care—must not be suppressed, and to conflate this necessary debate with promoting violence against healthcare workers is deeply irresponsible.

Continue ReadingFAIR Responds to AG Merrick Garland on Transgender Issues

Criticizing Israel’s Treatment of Palestinians Can Ruin the Careers of Journalists: The Case of Katie Halper

Matt Taibbi interviews Katie Halper, recently fired from The Hill. An excerpt:

The controversy began when Michigan Democrat Rashida Tliab spoke at an online seminar on September 20th and said, “It has become clear that you cannot claim to hold progressive values, yet back Israel’s apartheid government.” Tliab gave her talk in the wake of the shooting of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was killed in the West Bank City of Jenin in May. Abu Akleh’s family met with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in July, and asked the International Criminal Court to open a case two weeks ago, simultaneous to Tlaib’s seminar.

Tliab’s comments inspired an immediate reaction from the Anti-Defamation League, which deemed them anti-Semitic. CEO Jonathan Greenblatt ripped Tliab for ostensibly telling “American Jews they must pass an anti-Zionist litmus test to participate in progressive spaces.” The ADL reaction got wide play on stations like CNN.

Katie’s “Radar” argues Tliab’s comments laid bare what has long been a source of tension among self-described progressives, who often tiptoe around the subject of occupied Palestine. As you’ll see above, she approached her subject with great care, leaning on statements from groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Agree with her or not, her editorial certainly wasn’t fake news, or flippant, or gratuitous. It’s what the media business normally wants: a decisive, well-argued opinion.

However, the Hill thought otherwise, and what makes the situation unusual is a media company saying the proverbial quiet part out loud. When editors refused to run the “Radar,” Katie asked flat-out if the problem was the subject of Israel. Though there was some hemming and hawing (at one point she was told the problem was that the show’s focus was on domestic and not foreign policy, despite running content about Brazilian elections, Italy’s new prime minister, and multiple Ukraine pieces that week), eventually they just told her that was, in fact, the case. The next day, she was let go via a curt email ending, “We wish you all the best.”

Continue ReadingCriticizing Israel’s Treatment of Palestinians Can Ruin the Careers of Journalists: The Case of Katie Halper

Today’s 5th Circuit Decision–Netchoice v Ken Paxton–Stuns Big Tech

Today's Netchoice opinion out of the 5th Circuit stuns Big Tech, which claimed that it had a First Amendment right to muzzle viewpoints of users. No you don't, said the Court. An excerpt:

A Texas statute named House Bill 20 generally prohibits large social media platforms from censoring speech based on the viewpoint of its speaker. The platforms urge us to hold that the statute is facially unconstitutional and hence cannot be applied to anyone at any time and under any circumstances.

In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment. That Amendment, of course, protects every person’s right to “the freedom of speech.” But the platforms argue that buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.

The implications of the platforms’ argument are staggering. On the platforms’ view, email providers, mobile phone companies, and banks could cancel the accounts of anyone who sends an email, makes a phone call, or spends money in support of a disfavored political party, candidate, or business. What’s worse, the platforms argue that a business can acquire a dominant market position by holding itself out as open to everyone—as Twitter did in championing itself as “the free speech wing of the free speech party.” Blue Br. at 6 & n.4. Then, having cemented itself as the monopolist of “the modern public square,” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017), Twitter unapologetically argues that it could turn around and ban all pro-LGBT speech for no other reason than its employees want to pick on members of that community, Oral Arg. at 22:39–22:52.

Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. Because the district court held otherwise, we reverse its injunction and remand for further proceedings.

In the meantime, during Congressional testimony, Facebook admits that it has been coordinating with the Whitehouse & CDC to censor FB users' constitutionally protected speech.

Continue ReadingToday’s 5th Circuit Decision–Netchoice v Ken Paxton–Stuns Big Tech

The NYT Excoriates BYU for Racial Slurs that Might or Might Not have Occurred During a Volleyball Game

Jesse Singal digs into this storiybut, more importantly, into the way the New York Times has once again committed journalistic malpractice. Our media outlets have turned into two competing teams that act like churches. It's as if we are relying on churches to provide us with factual accuracy regarding their respective dogmas:

In light of all this, it’s interesting to read the rest of the Times story and examine which information Patel did and didn’t include. There is no sign he (or the other two staffers who worked on the story) contacted any other member of either team or its coaching staff, or anyone in attendance at the game, or anyone who wasn’t in a leadership, issuing-an-official-statement position at BYU. In the age of ubiquitous social media and gigabytes of video being posted from every live event every second, I bet Patel and his colleague could have contacted at least two dozen individuals in attendance with about an hour of work, if only to get some color about what the atmosphere was like in the student section supposedly hurling these slurs. . . .

As of now, the Cougar Chronicle’s version of this story is better, more complete, and more accurate than The New York (freaking) Times’, in part because it didn’t treat the accusation as automatically true. Rather, the reporters did some reporting. All these days later, the Times story remains up, treating the maximalist account of this incident as more or less settled fact, spreading misinformation, without an update or follow-up article in sight.

This is reason number 2,342,392,398 why I don’t trust journalists who insist that the way forward for journalism is to intentionally stray further from the ideals of objectivity. While few will say it quite so bluntly, in practice, the idea seems to be that because in the past certain groups and claims weren’t given the benefit of the doubt, now they should reflexively be believed, with little need for due diligence.

I can’t emphasize enough how basic the stuff the Times failed to do here used to be: As a journalist, you should always have a tiny but insistent voice nipping at the back of your mind, demanding (to the extent possible) a bit more skepticism, a bit more independent confirmation, and so on. If you think things through journalistically, the fact that BYU hurriedly issued statements denouncing the racism shouldn’t be seen as proof it actually occurred, because of course the institution has its own goals and it wouldn’t look good for it to do anything but issue an abject apology.

Continue ReadingThe NYT Excoriates BYU for Racial Slurs that Might or Might Not have Occurred During a Volleyball Game

NYT Cancel’s Republican Tim Scott’s Op-Ed after Checking with Democrat Chuck Schumer.

Fascinating peek behind the scenes at the New York Times provided by Bari Weiss. This account was published by the National Review:

Weiss, who cited the “illiberal environment” at the Times as reason for her departure from the paper two years ago, first told the story while interviewing Scott on a Wednesday episode of her podcast, Honestly With Bari Weiss. Weiss recalled:

Weiss: Here’s what happened. I was at the New York Times and you or your staff sent in an op-ed about the bill, and why it fell apart. And this is the part I’m not sure if you know — there was a discussion about the piece, and whether or not we should run it, and one colleague, a more senior colleague, said to a more junior colleague who was pushing for the piece, ‘Do you think the Republicans really care about minority rights?’

Scott: Wow.

Weiss: And the more junior colleague said, ‘I think Tim Scott cares about minority rights.’ And then — and here’s the pretty shocking part — the more senior colleague said, ‘Let’s check with Senator Schumer before we run it.’

Scott: Wow.

Weiss: And the colleague, the younger one, refused. Because he said — because that colleague said — it wasn’t an ethical thing to do.

Scott: Wow.

Continue ReadingNYT Cancel’s Republican Tim Scott’s Op-Ed after Checking with Democrat Chuck Schumer.