site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34504 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is The Washington University Transgender Center whistleblower a troll or a crank?

Last week @PmMeClassicMemes posted about the whistleblower Jaime Reed, and the Missouri Independent's and the St.Louis Post Dispatch investigation into Washington University Transgender Center:

The afffadavit should be sufficient to dismiss Reed as a troll or a crank. Choice quotes, paragraphs 15 & 59:

15. One patient came to the Center identifying as a “communist, attack helicopter, human, female, maybe non binary.”

59. Children come into the clinic using pronouns of inanimate objects like “mushroom,” “rock,” or “helicopter.”

Many journalists as well as state officials took seriously the allegations that children Sexually Identify As An Attack Helicopter, in a breathtaking display of credulity.

Back when TracingWoodgrains posted about his hoax op against Libs Of TikTok one of the arguments for her credulity, or failure to do due diligence, was that somewhere in the made up documents they sent her was an “obvious” joke. The other argument boiled down to “Haha! How could you believe schools would teach kids about furries?”. Now, as it happens the joke was only obvious if you happened to be terminally online dramanaut, and Poe's Law is a thing, but if there's a group taking credit for a hoax, then yeah, it's safe to assume it was a hoax.

ClassicMemes' criticism follows the same pattern, which is why my original response was “well played”, but the more I thought about it, and the more I looked into it, the less sense it made. For one, for it to hold water, Reed would have to be a pro-trans troll trying to discredit trans-sceptics like Bari Weiss, right? And yet, that's not the approach that was taken, the story is somehow supposed to discredit Weiss, Singal, as well as Reed. Weiss, and Singal should have recognized another “obvious joke”, and Reed is supposed to be a vile transphobe making things up to discredit the clinic, without any regard for believability. Well, no one said she's a smart troll, or like ClassicMemes said, she could also just be a crank. Still, if we're leaning on the existence of cranks to explain the whole story, isn't it weird how it's never considered that a troubled kid might have actually been saying some crazy shit?

Originally I wanted to look into the whole thing myself, but it turns out it's hard to compete with experienced journalists who can do this sort of thing full time, and who's reputations are on the line. Jesse Singal got in touch with Jaime Reed, and asked about the incident. She gave the names of the specific people involved in the incidents, and described it in detail:

Lofquest explained that the patient was reporting that their mental health had worsened since starting hormones. The patient also couldn’t clearly define their gender identity. That prompted Reed to pull up their chart on her computer to try to figure out what was going on. The clinic uses Epic, a popular program for keeping track of patient records. Included in this patient’s Epic chart, in the “Media” tab where additional information can be added, was the letter of support from an outside therapist that had apparently been used to justify the decision to immediately start them on hormones upon their arrival at the clinic.

The patient was quoted in the letter as saying they identified as a “communist, attack helicopter, human, female, maybe non binary.” The therapist also wrote that the patient reported that they “hope for the transition to feel better in my body and no longer just in a flesh box.”

She also sent Jesse her Google Doc with notes about her situation, last modified on Jan 5th, where the attack helicopter incident is mentioned. Now, the doc itself is just her private notes, and at this point she cannot give the actual Epic notes, only recount the incident, so it's not proven, but that's some amount of doubling down. One thing to consider is that of all the people involved, she's currently the only one who has anything to lose by lying. Everyone disagreeing with her claims just gave a few statements to the newspapers, at the moment she's the only one with an affidavit that can get her dinged for perjury. If she's a crank, she's absolutely batshit insane.

Mainstream Media Investigation

On the other hand, there are some questions about the credibility of the Missouri Independent's and the St.Louis Post Dispatch investigations. In another article Jesse Singal writes:

There are far too many allegations in these stories to cover them all, and verifying many of them will require both time and access to the patients and parents in question, their children’s medical records, or both. For now, I simply want to draw attention to two major omissions from the coverage so far: the first has to do with Kim Hutton, who is presented by the Post-Dispatch as a “baffled” parent of a patient at The Washington University Transgender Center who fervently disagrees with Reed’s assessment of the Center’s services; the second has to do with Jess Jones, a former staffer who has been quoted bashing Reed at length and expressing confidence in the quality of care delivered by the clinic.

...

The “baffled” line was compelling enough that it was integrated into the article’s headline. But Colleen Schrappen, the article’s author, doesn’t note that Kim Hutton is the cofounder of TransParent, a group that advocates for trans kids and their access to medical treatment.

...

But in this case, the undisclosed conflicts are even more severe: not only is Hutton the cofounder of TransParent, but she actually helped create the very gender center being scrutinized.

Another issue is that both articles lean heavily on the statements of Jess Jones an ex-coworker of the whistleblower Reed, who quit working in the clinic because Reed was just so toxic, and who "feels like she could go line by line to her affidavit and debunk it all”. Well, it turns out this goes both ways:

Reed vehemently denied just about everything Jones claimed about her here and elsewhere in these articles.

...

At the most basic factual level, Reed told me that it was simply false that Jones chose to resign in 2020, let alone that they did so “primarily” because of Reed herself. Rather, she said, Jones was furloughed in April 2020 as the pandemic spiraled out of control

...

Reed explained that whenever the clinic got a referral from a potential new patient, there was a process in place to make sure the education liaison — Jones, for a period of time — engaged in the necessary follow-up communication to offer the family educational resources, a discussion around any issues they were having with their school or school district, and so forth. Reed said Jones “did not do the necessary follow-up often, or document it,” and that she “was seeing that they were not closing the loop back or documenting in the electronic medical record the work that they were supposed to be doing.” Reed shared a spreadsheet she kept at the time tracking new referrals. The spreadsheet, which has personal information about patients redacted, appears to contain many instances of Jones failing to complete their follow-up duties, as demonstrated in this screenshot of the top of it

There's more and I'm not going to quote the entire article, but I do want to note how Reed's statements are accompanied by screenshots of actual documents, in contrast to the statements given to he Missouri Independent's and the St.Louis Post Dispatch. As a humble contribution from me I'd also like to address this part from the Missouri Independent:

“When [lawmakers] do their job, what happens to the transgender center you used to work at?” Free Press journalist Emily Yoffe asked.

“I do not believe it can continue to function,” said Reed, who is married to a transgender man.

“You want it closed down,” Yoffe inquired.

“I believe it’s the only way to stop hurting more kids,” Reed said.

This is your run-of-the-mill journalistic context-cutting. From this exchange what is the impression you get? That she's ideologically against transition? Here's the relevant exchange from the town hall, and here's a follow up on the statement. She believes that the current view is based on a false picture given by the transgender care providers, and that there needs to be a moratorium, and an investigation to get the whole thing sorted out before transition services for minors can be resumed.

All in all, I'm leaning in the direction of these being coordinated hit-pieces than an actual investigation, but time will tell.

The attack helicopter line always seemed plausible to me because kids say some weird things. The weak part of Reed's account is that she had a tendency to frame what could be very real malpractice by the clinic in maximalist terms that make it easy to 'debunk' by finding single counterexamples

Reed claimed that it was a common tactic to say 'you can have a living daughter or a dead son' then later admitted only one clinician said that. Reed said that patients weren't warned about vaginal tissue atrophy but it's listed on the pamphlet the clinic gives out.

Reed's affidavit claims "nearly all" of the patients have severe mental illness and that the clinic "almost never" allowed her to prescribe psychological care. Then the Missouri Independent finds parents (the Freels not Hutton) who says their child has no mental health issues and pursued social transition and counseling for a year before starting medical transition. So are they the tiny exception to the "almost never" and the clinic has them on speed dial to cover for the rest, or are they typical and Reed is exaggerating the prevalence of a few outlier cases? We don't have statics here for medical privacy reasons.

To return to the salacious attack helicopter bit, originally #15 from the Affidavit says that a patient "came to the center identifying as a communist attack helicopter". Now Reed adds says that was a line from a letter recommending hormones from an outside therapist. The first account makes it seem like people were walking in identifying as attack helicopters and getting prescribed puberty blockers on their first visit when really they had been seeing an outside therapist previously who recommended the treatment. Reed said she didn't know this was a meme and was concerned about that it indicated a lack of clear gender identity. We don't have the letter, we just have that she wrote the attack helicopter line in her Notes app contemporaneously. It's possible the doctor was a hack, it's possible Reed misread a joke, but being overly credulous of the recommendations of outside therapists is pretty different from handing out estrogen to kids coming in identifying as attack helicopters.

American healthcare is individualized and it seems plausible to me that there are doctors out there giving puberty blockers and HRT to kids who don't need them, it's plausible some such doctors worked at this clinic. Reed also doesn't seem like an anti-trans ideologue, but she also wasn't careful about making precise well documented claims.

I'll concede the claims being imprecise, but regarding the documentation, as much as I'd love to see it, what exactly is the legality of raiding the clinic for patients' data?

Of course it's ideological, as would be the case for a whistle-blower doing a report on how the clinic they worked at was disregarding the risk to the lives of trans youth from suicide and pushing conversion therapy on them.

The difference there is that the media would be doing pieces on how wonderful the whistle-blower was and how this revealed the ugly agenda of anti-trans activists.

When/if the Zeitgeist does swing around to mainstream "hey maybe putting ten year olds on puberty blockers is a bit risky", then the whistle-blowing around clinics being pressured by interest groups to just rubber-stamp and be a conveyor belt for transition will be celebrated by the media. We're not quite at that point yet, hence the "this is all in the same vein as Project Veritas to do away with our human rights" coverage.

I think it is starting to swing around, but we're still in the area where stories like this are celebrated, not regarded with horror and outrage.

Oh, the kid is around twelve now? And has two trans parents? And it was all "her" idea to speak out on trans issues and be a fashion model? And the biological father sure doesn't sound like a spineless wimp who has washed his hands of all responsibility? Though it does sound like he was legally bullied into it, as with all the best divorce and access cases:

Noella and her younger brother Levi (who his parents say is a boy and wants to remain a boy) were born to Dee and Dee’s then-husband, Timothy McCord, a scientist in the Chicago area.

McCord told The Post he has no issue with Noella coming out as trans but said he is somewhat concerned about her life being too public as a model. As for Noella having any possible future medical intervention, like being given puberty blockers and hormones, McCord said he is not quite sure what to make of that.

“I have no say in it,” he said. “She’s not my kid anymore.”

Well, I guess Desmond is Amazing is a bit long in the tooth now he's 16, time for fresh meat! And what fresher than a then-10 year old "youngest ever transgender model for New York Fashion Week"?

And what fresher than a then-10 year old "youngest ever transgender model for New York Fashion Week"?

So I wonder about this. I don't pay much attention to trans issues in particular, but I've run into headlines and documents claiming that kids can know they're trans even before they can talk, which would be quite a bit fresher than 10 year olds. It seems to me that, to whatever extent that such a belief exists, it must be quite niche and extreme even within the trans activist circles, but one of the defining features of the wider progressivism movement that can be said to hold the trans activist movement within is that it seeks to bring the niche and extreme to the mainstream. Could we see some trans toddler celebrities in the future?

Could we see some trans toddler celebrities in the future?

Perhaps; there are already children who are socially transitioning at young ages.

When I met Gracie, she was a few months out of kindergarten — pretty young for a transgender kid, I thought. Gracie lives with her parents and younger brother in a small city in the East Bay. She is already two years into her transition, having started her public life as a girl at four. The family began by discarding her boy name and referring to Gracie as “she” and “her.” She was also allowed to wear girl clothes outside the home, and her parents changed the gender on her birth certificate to avoid confusion at school.

The flip side of the Russell case above was the Zucker case, where a doctor involved with a clinic treating transgender children was controversially fired because his approach was too conservative. One trans activist website at least isn't too dubious about accepting the narrative:

Kenneth J. Zucker (born 1950) is an American psychologist whose ideology has caused profound harm to sex and gender minorities over the course of his long career. Zucker has created several disease models to describe these minorities. He has promoted many more sex and gender “disorders” via The Archives of Sexual Behavior, a journal he edits. He developed a non-affirming model of care for gender diverse children that has been described as “child abuse.” Zucker was fired by his employer CAMH in 2015, his clinic was shut down, and his model of care has now been outlawed in many jurisdictions.

I usually stay out of trans threads, and I don’t consider myself a blind partisan (oh really), but I think reed’s account is completely credible, no need to hedge. I don’t see how the articles and pmmeclassicmemes’ post constitute debunkings. Why is it absurd that kids say weird shit, or that most patients at the clinic have mental health problems? Just ask if you have a problem, and medical science will find one (very affirming).

So on one side, plausible allegations by an old bolshevik, on the other, the 50 stalins crowd. They are incapable of reigning in their excesses internally, so obviously the criticism will come from a disgraced party member or an enemy.

Agreed. It is not at all surprising that a patient at a child gender clinic is both delusional and Extremely Online.

Nor is it surprising that gender clinics simply take them at their word and push hormones as they do in every other case we know of.

All in all, I'm leaning in the direction of these being coordinated hit-pieces than an actual investigation, but time will tell.

I wouldn't go as far as to say as its coordinated. But I do think there's something going on here.

My personal opinion is that this is a huge threat to the kayfabe structure. I.E. the model that essentially the left (or at least parts of the left) are good guys and everybody else is the bad guys. Why do I think that? Because I really do believe once we start drilling down into this, we're going to find that at some level, the current in-favor models of identity and power are simply not healthy for people. And it's not just this one issue, to be clear. I think across the board, I see a real defensiveness when this comes up. That postmodern deconstruction is simply not healthy for individuals or society.

And to make it clear, I'm someone who actually believes in Trans identity. I think that it makes sense that some % of the population is going to have an innate sense of gender dysphoria. And they should be cared for in the best way possible, including transition. But I don't think that's all that's going on. I think there are people being victimized by this postmodern deconstruction. And I also think there are people out there exploiting it.

Your post brings to mind something Jonathan Haidt has been saying for a while, which is that modern SocJus/idpol/wokeness/progressivism/etc. is performing anti-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on the populace (one contention of his being that this is largely responsible for increase in mental health issues among teenagers and teenage girls in particular). CBT teaches various techniques for dealing with negative experiences, such as decatastrophizing - not jumping to the worst conclusions based on the data - or taking ownership of one's reactions - instead of "this made me feel bad," it's "this happened, and I reacted by feeling bad." These have obvious direct negative counterparts in SocJus, with microaggressions being explicit calls to presume some sort of bigotry from ambiguous behavior, and claims that speech that one deems as hateful are directly responsible for literally harming that person.

From my mostly nonexpert layman perspective, as someone who grew up immersed in the antecedents of modern SocJus, I definitely think there's a lot of truth to this. One example that really struck me happened way back in 2016 after Trump got elected, and a lesbian I knew was literally shaking for fear that it would be at most a couple of years before she would be sent to death camps. I recall being baffled by how absurd a belief that was, and how clearly her suffering was caused by all the people who had actually convinced her that Trump would be the next Hitler, rather than by Trump and his ilk.

Yeah, I saw the anti-CBT stuff. I also noticed that it really set off the anti-anti-woke people that I tend to see around (I.E. the people who are not particularly woke, but have a strong dislike for communities like this). I would agree this is fairly similar.

One example that really struck me happened way back in 2016 after Trump got elected, and a lesbian I knew was literally shaking for fear that it would be at most a couple of years before she would be sent to death camps.

The thing is, some people just don't get the message that you're not supposed to actually believe this, that this is just hyperbole and exaggeration. That's along the same lines of what I'm talking about, which I do think is somewhat narrower than the anti-CBT stuff, but I also think the effects are substantially more drastic. And the other part of it, to be blunt, is that I think there are people who are just "wired" in such a way to take things seriously. I'd identify as that type of person. It's not that I'm overly serious...it's just that I strongly believe you should live whatever beliefs you have. That you should say what you mean and mean what you say.

Down below there's a thread about living rather than professing your values. That assumes that said values/ideology is actually meant to be lived anyway. Which in a lot of these cases, I truly don't believe is the case.

Deteriorating mental health among liberal teen girls in particular. IIRC conservative teen girls are doing better than liberal teen boys on that front.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats