This is something I've been wondering for a while now. Why haven't we had any moment where Johanna Olson-Kennedy, Rachel Levine, or Marci Bowers have been subpoenaed before Congress to explain why the science is or isn't actually settled re: children transitioning. Seems like a GOP that loves grandstanding as much as they do, they'd salivate over the opportunity to ask about Olson-Kennedy withholding a report she was commissioned because of political reasons, or Levine's intervention in WPATH guidelines. Yet we've not seen anything like it to my knowledge. I do think activist clinicians and endocrinologists owe it to the public to articulate why the science is on their side, especially when federal dollars are at stake and a GOP Congress has subpoena power. Or am I missing something? (Almost certainly.)
They get their orders from above and the big man himself doesn't care about the subject beyond its capacity to harm his enemies. President Haley's Congress might've been doing this.
Do you think that schools (including elementary) should do things like celebrate Pride Week, have Pride parades and hang Pride flags? I used to be a huge supporter of these things and organized them myself in the various K-9 and K-12 schools I have taught in. Now I’m not so sure.
Yeah, this is a good one. It's always difficult to work out where the line is between being inclusive and trying to tell kids what politics they should have. I mean, somewhere out there will be people who object to schools teaching messages like "smoking is bad".
That's the ethical side. There's also the tactical side: given the obvious fact that a lot (perhaps most) of the drive for MAGA is people wanting to stick it to the libs, how much do we encourage that by telling homophobic parents that their kids are going to have Pride Lessons at school?
Jessica Riedl had a Twitter thread linking to research that shows a trans woman's brain is configured like a woman's brain, and that a trans man's brain is configured like a man's brain.
No claim that these configurations are linked to any traits beyond a sense of gender identity, as far as I recall. But apparently men's and women's brains have their physical differences, and a trans woman's brain has one set of differences (female), and a trans man's brain has the other (male).
Are you familiar with the research? If so, do you think it's reliable?
My (very limited) understanding is that those differences largely disappear when you account for sexual orientation. The remaining differences are in an area that, as you say, is suspected to be responsible for body self-identification. I'm no expert though, so I'd love to see Jesse dig into it as some point.
These studies often don't control for whether someone has taken HRT.
That said, even ignoring all those caveats, the results tend to be that the trans people still firmly align with their sex, their just towards one end of the bell curve.
It certainly suggests that homosexual individuals are more likely to have certain brain features than others. I don't know that it means there's some sort of brain pattern that every gay person has though. The study I read suggested that both homosexual and transgender individuals tended to have less sex-specific differentiation in certain brain regions.
I think this is a red herring. If we take brain scans of 100 women and 100 men we'll likely see a bell curve in pattern,as in not all women brains will look exactly alike and not all men brains will look exactly alike. And on the fringes of the curves there will be overlap. An easy similar example is height. Women on average a shorter than men, but that doesn't make a tall woman a man or a short man a woman. These brain scans just prove that not all brains are the same.
It should surprise nobody that the tallest man ever is taller than the tallest woman ever. What is interesting to me is that the shortest man ever is *shorter* than the shortest woman ever.
This is made extra interesting because research shows that the same relationship applies to IQ: men have higher representation at both ends of the intelligence spectrum. There are more genius men than genius women and more male morons than female morons.
Pointing out the implications of these facts will get you banned in some parts of reddit.
Like most of your readers, I subscribe because I admire and appreciate your nuanced, thoughtful, and thorough approach to reporting on polarizing topics. Most notably, you take this approach to gender issues, even when it results in a blast furnace of rage from one side or the other. It’s so rare today to find such high-quality work, especially in those lanes.
I’m wondering whether you believe you’re taking that same nuanced, thoughtful, and thorough approach to Israel/Gaza issues, and why or why not? I’m someone without any strong biases towards one side or another, but since I work in national security, I understand too well how difficult it is to get good information on what’s going on and how tricky it can be to tell honest brokers from bad actors in war zones.
For example, I noticed you said on X that Israel seemed to be engaged in “indiscriminate bombing.” The word “indiscriminate” has a highly technical and complex meaning in international law and military operations, to the point that entire PhD dissertations are written about it. Have you talked to military lawyers and experts on both sides to draw a well-grounded technical conclusion that indiscriminate bombing is going on? Or is this more of a shoot-from-the hip take based on the truly horrific things that are happening to innocent people?
Again, thank you for the hard work you do, and thank you for entertaining this question.
You are, of course, a science journalist who mostly writes about youth gender medicine. But you also sometimes veer into other topics as well. Do you have a rule of thumb for what constitutes "knowing about" something enough to post about it publicly? As in, if you are writing about foreign policy or yak herding or Indonesian puppet theatre, is there a set number of hours of research you conduct first? Or do you strive to know X amount more than what actually gets written up in a post? Or something else?
Do you think we will ever see a moderate trans movement emerge as a visible counterweight to the maximalism and illiberalism of contemporary "LGBT" groups on trans issues? I can think of a few individuals who are tacking in that direction, but nothing organized yet. Any thoughts on the formation, opportunities, or challenges of such a movement?
Define a surgeon's duty of care: Should they do whatever their patients ask or only what they believe to be medically necessary and beneficial? Compare and contrast the duty of care regarding patient demands for medically unnecessary limb amputations, breast augmentations, face lifts, masectomies, and castration.
Are you team "why didn't Mark leave with Ms Casey?" or team "because he would have ceased to exist, and choosing to spend your last remaining time on the planet with the one you love is preferable to non-existence, no matter how short said time is."?
What do you predict will be the societal impact of AI, say over the next 2, 5, and 20 years? On the job market? On creative jobs in particular? On the culture? On the education system? On war? Are you closer to the doomer or boomer camp? Do you think there is a risk of human extinction related to AI?
Relatedly, please explain how you use AI in your own life, both in the professional and personal realms.
This is something I've been wondering for a while now. Why haven't we had any moment where Johanna Olson-Kennedy, Rachel Levine, or Marci Bowers have been subpoenaed before Congress to explain why the science is or isn't actually settled re: children transitioning. Seems like a GOP that loves grandstanding as much as they do, they'd salivate over the opportunity to ask about Olson-Kennedy withholding a report she was commissioned because of political reasons, or Levine's intervention in WPATH guidelines. Yet we've not seen anything like it to my knowledge. I do think activist clinicians and endocrinologists owe it to the public to articulate why the science is on their side, especially when federal dollars are at stake and a GOP Congress has subpoena power. Or am I missing something? (Almost certainly.)
I have wondered this myself and think maybe they want to talk about this and Biden's condition closer to the midterm elections?
They’re feckless and have short attention spans. I think most Trump appointees simply don’t want to do much work, or think very hard.
They get their orders from above and the big man himself doesn't care about the subject beyond its capacity to harm his enemies. President Haley's Congress might've been doing this.
Do you think that schools (including elementary) should do things like celebrate Pride Week, have Pride parades and hang Pride flags? I used to be a huge supporter of these things and organized them myself in the various K-9 and K-12 schools I have taught in. Now I’m not so sure.
Yeah, this is a good one. It's always difficult to work out where the line is between being inclusive and trying to tell kids what politics they should have. I mean, somewhere out there will be people who object to schools teaching messages like "smoking is bad".
That's the ethical side. There's also the tactical side: given the obvious fact that a lot (perhaps most) of the drive for MAGA is people wanting to stick it to the libs, how much do we encourage that by telling homophobic parents that their kids are going to have Pride Lessons at school?
Jessica Riedl had a Twitter thread linking to research that shows a trans woman's brain is configured like a woman's brain, and that a trans man's brain is configured like a man's brain.
No claim that these configurations are linked to any traits beyond a sense of gender identity, as far as I recall. But apparently men's and women's brains have their physical differences, and a trans woman's brain has one set of differences (female), and a trans man's brain has the other (male).
Are you familiar with the research? If so, do you think it's reliable?
My (very limited) understanding is that those differences largely disappear when you account for sexual orientation. The remaining differences are in an area that, as you say, is suspected to be responsible for body self-identification. I'm no expert though, so I'd love to see Jesse dig into it as some point.
These studies often don't control for whether someone has taken HRT.
That said, even ignoring all those caveats, the results tend to be that the trans people still firmly align with their sex, their just towards one end of the bell curve.
That implies there's an objective brain scan for being homosexual.
It certainly suggests that homosexual individuals are more likely to have certain brain features than others. I don't know that it means there's some sort of brain pattern that every gay person has though. The study I read suggested that both homosexual and transgender individuals tended to have less sex-specific differentiation in certain brain regions.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8
I think this is a red herring. If we take brain scans of 100 women and 100 men we'll likely see a bell curve in pattern,as in not all women brains will look exactly alike and not all men brains will look exactly alike. And on the fringes of the curves there will be overlap. An easy similar example is height. Women on average a shorter than men, but that doesn't make a tall woman a man or a short man a woman. These brain scans just prove that not all brains are the same.
It should surprise nobody that the tallest man ever is taller than the tallest woman ever. What is interesting to me is that the shortest man ever is *shorter* than the shortest woman ever.
This is made extra interesting because research shows that the same relationship applies to IQ: men have higher representation at both ends of the intelligence spectrum. There are more genius men than genius women and more male morons than female morons.
Pointing out the implications of these facts will get you banned in some parts of reddit.
What do you think is going to be the next fight in the intersection of medical/scientific world and society?
Like most of your readers, I subscribe because I admire and appreciate your nuanced, thoughtful, and thorough approach to reporting on polarizing topics. Most notably, you take this approach to gender issues, even when it results in a blast furnace of rage from one side or the other. It’s so rare today to find such high-quality work, especially in those lanes.
I’m wondering whether you believe you’re taking that same nuanced, thoughtful, and thorough approach to Israel/Gaza issues, and why or why not? I’m someone without any strong biases towards one side or another, but since I work in national security, I understand too well how difficult it is to get good information on what’s going on and how tricky it can be to tell honest brokers from bad actors in war zones.
For example, I noticed you said on X that Israel seemed to be engaged in “indiscriminate bombing.” The word “indiscriminate” has a highly technical and complex meaning in international law and military operations, to the point that entire PhD dissertations are written about it. Have you talked to military lawyers and experts on both sides to draw a well-grounded technical conclusion that indiscriminate bombing is going on? Or is this more of a shoot-from-the hip take based on the truly horrific things that are happening to innocent people?
Again, thank you for the hard work you do, and thank you for entertaining this question.
You are, of course, a science journalist who mostly writes about youth gender medicine. But you also sometimes veer into other topics as well. Do you have a rule of thumb for what constitutes "knowing about" something enough to post about it publicly? As in, if you are writing about foreign policy or yak herding or Indonesian puppet theatre, is there a set number of hours of research you conduct first? Or do you strive to know X amount more than what actually gets written up in a post? Or something else?
What's the story (evidence-based, pro and con) on whether transgender women should be allowed to compete in women's sports?
That is an unbelievably dumb question.
One may additionally educate oneself on this topic from various good sources! https://www.thefemalecategory.com/
Please define “transgender woman.”
This is a question that is not being addressed seriously in the public sphere, and needs to be.
Why do you interact with people on twitter or blue sky (or any social media platform)?
What are your personal firearm choices for concealed carry and home defense?
What is your one biggest secret, the thing you are most ashamed about and don't want anyone to know?
LoL. Charter member of Alcoholics Anonymous? 😉🙂
What is the best museum exhibit you’ve ever seen?
Why is it so hard for everyone to accept that no one has immunity to groupthink?
Do you think we will ever see a moderate trans movement emerge as a visible counterweight to the maximalism and illiberalism of contemporary "LGBT" groups on trans issues? I can think of a few individuals who are tacking in that direction, but nothing organized yet. Any thoughts on the formation, opportunities, or challenges of such a movement?
Define a surgeon's duty of care: Should they do whatever their patients ask or only what they believe to be medically necessary and beneficial? Compare and contrast the duty of care regarding patient demands for medically unnecessary limb amputations, breast augmentations, face lifts, masectomies, and castration.
Are you team "why didn't Mark leave with Ms Casey?" or team "because he would have ceased to exist, and choosing to spend your last remaining time on the planet with the one you love is preferable to non-existence, no matter how short said time is."?
Was Mark wrong to stay?
What do you predict will be the societal impact of AI, say over the next 2, 5, and 20 years? On the job market? On creative jobs in particular? On the culture? On the education system? On war? Are you closer to the doomer or boomer camp? Do you think there is a risk of human extinction related to AI?
Relatedly, please explain how you use AI in your own life, both in the professional and personal realms.