Do you have a refutation that's a length most people would be willing to read? I don't need to keep hearing about the author's problems with misgendering.
Thanks for pointing that out. I was watching for "misgendering" when reading it. And I did read the whole thing!
I actually found the misgendering part relevant. If Jamie Reed was as progressive as she claims, wouldn't that be something she would do "correctly?" I suppose you could say she no longer believes in trans identities, so that's why she isn't willing to do it anymore. But it feels like she is attacking the medical establishment and not the people, and as such would support what I'm assuming 100% of her patients desire, no? And, if you were to accept that she is writing for a conservative audience, it follows that that crowd would be turned off by using she when talking about someone born with a penis.
I found the rebuttal compelling and I'm struggling a lot with this issue. The fact that so many medical organizations support the current care guidelines feels very contradictory to the assertions made by JR.
And as the rebuttal author notes, JR was an intake worker, with limited access to the full story of these patients, and without proper medical training to do a full assessment.
All in all, both articles are worth a read.
After reading them both, I did feel like JR's was a well coordinated hit piece with dubious assertions, but would love to hear a rebuttal of the rebuttal!
> I actually found the misgendering part relevant. If Jamie Reed was as progressive as she claims, wouldn't that be something she would do "correctly?"
The thing is we don't know what "correct" is; we don't know the patients, we don't know how she interacted with them, we don't know what they preferred, etc. The author sees patients in quite early stages, and many may well have referred to themselves by the biological pronouns.
It gets much more complicated around the edges than some people pretend. It's an easy enough cudgel to use, and sometimes it's appropriate, but here it's just a distraction at best, and FUD at worst.
> And as the rebuttal author notes, JR was an intake worker, with limited access to the full story of these patients, and without proper medical training to do a full assessment.
There's a lot of FUD surrounding that in the rebuttal; obviously the author of that knows even less about the case than Jamie Reed, and there's lots of assumptions about how good she was or wasn't familiar with the case.
Besides, we can do this the other way too: is Erin Reed a doctor? Does she have medical training? Does she do full assessments? The entire point of Jamie's story was that not everyone with vague issues surrounding gender at a fairly young ages has gender dysphoria. I don't know if that's true or not, but merely being transgender doesn't mean anything here; your experience doesn't really provide any value, and is quite likely to bias you. What worked well for you doesn't necessarily work well for others.
That is probably a good summary of the entire allegation/conflict: "the trans community is very biased towards what worked well for them personally, and refuse to consider that it doesn't work for everyone".
Your last statement was interesting: "the trans community is very biased towards what worked well for them personally, and refuse to consider that it doesn't work for everyone."
You could add "non" in front of trans and it would probably be true as well, no? I just happen to know a bunch of trans people who feel like the dominant culture doesn't really serve them well. I trust that they have thought through it well, and know how it impacts them more than you have.
To me this whole conflict really seems less about trans people and non trans people. It's about people that don't trust the medical establishment and those that do. There are a lot of questions all over the place if you look there, and I'm not sure where I stand there.
Read the first one starting with "Jamie starts right out of the gate with right wing talking points designed to paint transgender people as being a “trend” or “social contagion.”"
If you are okay with the provided debunk proofs then...
I'm not asking for a tldr, and I don't need a point by point refutation of someone's personal experiences. I'm asking for them to write it in a more readable format. (Even you admit you skimmed it, and didn't really read it!)
It's missing the forest from the trees, and non persuasive to me.
