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

The “News” Media is the Dying Canary in the Coal Mine

I have lost respect for many institutions over the past few years. Not so much the members, but the leadership (which causes many member to fall silent). Exhibit A is our so-called "news" media. I have been collecting dozens and dozens of examples at my website, Dangerous Intersection.

It often boils down to these organizations failing to be curious about what is going on. Failing to question powerful people. Failing to vigorously cross-examine the leaders of the political parties they obediently serve. Journalists should be out there pissing off ALL of our leaders with probing questions, but they are too often serving as stenographers and megaphones for highly questionable positions. This great danger to our country is invisible as long as you cling to one side or the other (democrat serving or republican serving) "news" media.

I challenge anyone reading this to start reading "the other side" and, better yet, independent journalists, in order to get a much better view of what is going on. You'll find many of those independent journalists have left mainstream news to strike out on their own (e.g., on Substack), disgusted with what has happened to their employers.

Here's a recent example: Why were reporters failing to grill Pfizer executives and our political leaders on whether the vaccinations would stop transmission of COVID? How many dozens of bad policies resulted because our "news" reporters decided to parrot public officials rather than vigorously question them?

Continue ReadingThe “News” Media is the Dying Canary in the Coal Mine

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

Michael Shellenberger: Regarding Hurricanes, the News Media Narrative Does Not Fit the Facts

Michael Schellenberger makes a strong case for journalism malpractice and warns us that prominent news outlets are working hard to prevent meaningful conversations.

Continue ReadingMichael Shellenberger: Regarding Hurricanes, the News Media Narrative Does Not Fit the Facts