Interesting article on transgender kids

[YellowSubmarine]

Yes, the article has a bit of a snarky tone at points, but then she's a journalist not a scientist and she's trying to write in a provocative and entertaining fashion. I wouldn't hold it to the standards of a scientific article on it, but it does bring up good points. In the previously referred to thread I started, I was criticized for insufficiently sensitive language and for not citing anything in the topic.

A "journalist" who has neither the first-hand experience in what it means to be transgender, nor the scientific/psychological background on the matter, and who chooses to write "provocative" (i.e. offensive) opinions, is the very very worst starting point for a good discussion on the subject. Or on any subject that is sensitive.

There's nothing entertaining about more ignorant commentary on a group of people who are fundamentally misunderstood by most of us, often because we heard high-held opinions riddled with ignorance and misconceptions, misconceptions that have caused everything from grave discomfort to death. When you live your life having to explain yourself to people who think they know who you are better than you do, when you face all kinds of insults and abuse (sometimes well-meant, or so they say), the last thing you need is another person who happened to grow an opinion they found entertaining and provocative without actually having that much of a clue. I'd rather take the words of someone with personal experience.

Even if you're supportive and you've done a bit of research on this, it's still very easy to inadvertently write something that comes out as offensive, ignorant and dead obvious, and leads your readers in the wrong direction. To add snarky comments on top is a very bad idea. I've recently realised that I should stay queiter on the subject, as I have inadvetently written things that are insensitive. And not because I didn't understand what I was writing about, but because my lack of intimate knowledge prevented me from noticing subtleties that didn't seem to matter on the surface, but made a great deal of actual difference. And I am a dumb forum user, to do this under the veil of journalism is irresposible.

When I read things like "It is now fashionable to embrace your diverse child." I can't but roll my eyes. Since the only known cases of parents actually trying to force children into the wrong gender are when the children are actually transgender, you can read that sentence in only one way - a snark disapproval of parents who are accepting who their child is. If your child happens to be "diverse", what are you supposed to do, make them conform with societal expectations?! That might be an acceptable language when you're writing casual commentary on what people eat, but here it is utterly unacceptable.

She might have been meaning to be supportive (doubtful), but it's not a subject where you can be without carefully thinking about what you're saying, because otherwise one ends up writing such bullshit that helps nobody. You mean to help, and you end up saying that it's fashionable to not force your child into depression. Yeah, right. If one thinks that's fashionable, they should read or watch some accounts about actual transgender children. There's nothing fashionable about it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Here's an idea: if a journalist doesn't know much about a subject, either they should learn up so they can speak with knowledge, or shut the hell up rather than speculate. This even goes for opinion pieces. What opinion is worth expressing if it's not informed?

I agree completely.

However, and as a general reply not directed exclusively at RM, editorial boards on newspapers have positions that they favor, for example when they endorse political candidates. Opinion pieces need not represent factual matter, and it's up to the paper's editorial board to determine how far they can stray from fact and still meet their standards for publication in their paper. Since 2006, The Globe and Mail has endorsed the Conservative Party of Canada (i.e., the Tories).

Margaret Wente's agenda, which (by the presence of the newspaper name in her byline) The Globe and Mail implicitly endorses, would seem to be to identify transgenderism as fallout from the alleged decline of the traditional family and rise of the Internet. Although she wraps her agenda in the cloak of legitimacy by quoting credentialed sources, a noteworthy subtext in her piece is that anecdotal evidence, divulged over beer, is more trustworthy than peer-reviewed aggregate data. Wente sets herself up as our pal. We're supposed to envision that she's opposite us at a bar table, and she's making sure we know the dirty little secrets here. Wente would have us think that an explosion in incidents of transgenderism is due to an increasing number of parents who, after watching a piece about gender dysphoria on Oprah, take their little girl, who simply throws her dresses in the garbage, to a freshly constructed clinic for treating transgender kids, whereupon she's put on hormones to spare her from puberty. Nope, Wente's experts say, instead of that, it's better to watch and wait. Wente doesn't use the term political correctness and she doesn't explicitly allege that transgenderism is PC run amok, but she's obviously thinking it. To her, transgenderism is proof that society is going downhill because of "screwed-up families." This is exactly the stance one would expect social conservatives to take, from the distrust of science to blaming social ills on the decline of so-called traditional values.

There's a certain unintentional irony in insinuating that the public is too indiscriminate in where they get their information, while simultaneously peddling disinformation. Apparently people have trouble distinguishing opinion from fact, which surely pleases columnists who have an agenda. Of course, Wente's purpose isn't so much as to logically argue as it is to comfort and to reassure—that is, to comfort and reassure those who are predisposed to agree that social ills are due to the decline of traditional values.

In a physical newspaper, the editorial section is generally fairly well indicated. When online, one who lacks the skills to recognize bias can still look for clues such as this:

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I don't see how any of that conflicts with my statement that an opinion should be informed. Journalists shouldn't be off the hook just because they're writing an opinion piece. "I'm just stating my opinion" isn't a license to make up whatever shit you want.

Even greater care should be a requirement when addressing a sensitive topic like transgenderism, considering that trans people continue to face bullying, harassment, and even violence. It's not like this is hand-wringing over some inconsequential political issue, this is fucking with people's lives. Imagine someone who has a transgender child is reading this, and it either convinces them or reinforces their existing belief that their child is "sick" and needs to be "corrected" (read: must identify with their genitalia.) This sort of piece pushes a political point that isn't harmless, it's actually very damaging.

Being an opinion piece shouldn't be a license for irresponsibility and indulging in bigoted fantasies.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't see how any of that conflicts with my statement that an opinion should be informed. Journalists shouldn't be off the hook just because they're writing an opinion piece. "I'm just stating my opinion" isn't a license to make up whatever shit you want.

Even greater care should be a requirement when addressing a sensitive topic like transgenderism, considering that trans people continue to face bullying, harassment, and even violence. It's not like this is hand-wringing over some inconsequential political issue, this is fucking with people's lives. Imagine someone who has a transgender child is reading this, and it either convinces them or reinforces their existing belief that their child is "sick" and needs to be "corrected" (read: must identify with their genitalia.) This sort of piece pushes a political point that isn't harmless, it's actually very damaging.

Being an opinion piece shouldn't be a license for irresponsibility and indulging in bigoted fantasies.

It doesn't conflict with your statement. That's why I said that I agree completely with what you said. What's going on is that The Globe and Mail doesn't agree with your statement. The dissemination of disinformation is on them. People still need to be equipped with tools to recognize it, especially since it's so prevalent.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yes, then I suppose we do totally agree.

 

[sonak]

@ sonak:

You framed things from a more reasonable standpoint yourself this time, but I've seen you comment on Fox News-type trickery enough that you should know when an article is BS. Didn't the fact that the title was a question clue you in on the way things would go from there? Or that it was a clearly biased editorial posing as a neutral analysis? Or that there was no actual hard data or extensive research behind it? Or that it was conflating children talking about how they feel with actual diagnoses by psychologists like they're interchangeable?

of course it's biased. It's not whether a person or an article has a bias that's an issue, since we all do. One can have an ideological bias and use decent arguments. If I write a clearly biased pro-gun control article that cites studies that support my position, then the best approach is to attack my argument and evidence, not my bias.


I don't think she thought that she was really writing a "neutral" article, and it was clearly an editorial-style piece. But I also think that the "mental health professionals are often cautious and hesitant about diagnosing conditions and acting on diagnoses in young children" is a good one because it indicates that reluctance perhaps isn't being shown as much as it should in the case of transgender kids.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't think she thought that she was really writing a "neutral" article, and it was clearly an editorial-style piece. But I also think that the "mental health professionals are often cautious and hesitant about diagnosing conditions and acting on diagnoses in young children" is a good one because it indicates that reluctance perhaps isn't being shown as much as it should in the case of transgender kids.

Nonsense. The article indicates nothing of the kind. What you seem to have a lot of trouble realizing is that all Wente's piece does is hysterically stoke the fear that mental health professionals generally aren't looking out for the best interests of children who they diagnose as transgender. You seem to be predisposed to believe that that fear is warranted, and Wente's piece provides words in print that conveniently affirm it for you. There isn't any objective assessment cited in Wente's piece that indicates one way or the other, whether there's cause for concern that mental health professionals might be harming transgender children.

 

[sonak]

I don't think she thought that she was really writing a "neutral" article, and it was clearly an editorial-style piece. But I also think that the "mental health professionals are often cautious and hesitant about diagnosing conditions and acting on diagnoses in young children" is a good one because it indicates that reluctance perhaps isn't being shown as much as it should in the case of transgender kids.

Nonsense. The article indicates nothing of the kind. What you seem to have a lot of trouble realizing is that all Wente's piece does is hysterically stoke the fear that mental health professionals generally aren't looking out for the best interests of children who they diagnose as transgender. You seem to be predisposed to believe that that fear is warranted, and Wente's piece provides words in print that conveniently affirm it for you. There isn't any objective assessment cited in Wente's piece that indicates one way or the other, whether there's cause for concern that mental health professionals might be harming transgender children.

I don't think the tone of the piece is "hysterical" at all. I certainly think the first two paragraphs are written in an intentionally provocative or snarky way but she's a journalist trying to grab and then keep your attention. The rest of the article has a pretty reasonable tone and she cites two different professionals within the piece who indicate their concerns. She does offer hard data in the form of the statistics on increasing diagnosis of it in kids, which depending on your point of view could be meaningful data, misleading data, or meaningless data I suppose.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't think the tone of the piece is "hysterical" at all.

Clearly.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

If I write a clearly biased pro-gun control article that cites studies that support my position, then the best approach is to attack my argument and evidence, not my bias.

I would be happy to, except the article doesn't actually have a shred of evidence to attack. There's no data to support the idea that psychologists are over-diagnosing gender dysphoria whatsoever, just her gut feeling that that's what's happening. The only numbers she presents are that more children are self-identifying as such in certain areas, which is not a professional diagnosis and does not guarantee that any kind of treatment or therapy will follow.

It obviously gives the author great consternation though, and causes her to reminisce about the good ole' days when children would just keep their feelings to themselves and suffer in silence so she didn't have to deal with hearing about it.

 

[sidious618]

Life can be a struggling, dark experience whether you're an adult or a kid. It amazes me that anyone would try to prevent someone from becoming more comfortable in life simply because they go against social norms.

 

[sonak]

Life can be a struggling, dark experience whether you're an adult or a kid. It amazes me that anyone would try to prevent someone from becoming more comfortable in life simply because they go against social norms.

that's not what the article is about at all. The author doesn't even dispute that gender dysphoria is a real condition or that some children might have it. She's just expressing concern at a mindset that seems to think that while in MOST cases you'd take a cautious wait and see approach regarding kids and any serious mental conditions, that in THIS particular case politicization of the issue has made anyone who takes that position open for the sort of knee-jerk criticism that has been seen in places in this thread.

 

[Shanndee]

If I write a clearly biased pro-gun control article that cites studies that support my position, then the best approach is to attack my argument and evidence, not my bias.

I would be happy to, except the article doesn't actually have a shred of evidence to attack. There's no data to support the idea that psychologists are over-diagnosing gender dysphoria whatsoever, just her gut feeling that that's what's happening. The only numbers she presents are that more children are self-identifying as such in certain areas, which is not a professional diagnosis and does not guarantee that any kind of treatment or therapy will follow.

It obviously gives the author great consternation though, and causes her to reminisce about the good ole' days when children would just keep their feelings to themselves and suffer in silence so she didn't have to deal with hearing about it.

+1

The Globe and Mail is one of the papers kept on our lunch room. Wente is well known for writing opinion pieces that are reactionary. She has no credibility whatsoever.

One of our younger workers was furious about one of her opinion pieces. Another one of our employees said "relax, no one listens to that wind bag. Always remember, facts need to be peer reviewed in a scientific publication or they aren't real or didn't happen".

Results replicated by scientific methods, peer reviewed research, and findings presented in a scientific manner or the conclusion is suspect. This is a good rule to follow.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Life can be a struggling, dark experience whether you're an adult or a kid. It amazes me that anyone would try to prevent someone from becoming more comfortable in life simply because they go against social norms.

that's not what the article is about at all. The author doesn't even dispute that gender dysphoria is a real condition or that some children might have it. She's just expressing concern at a mindset that seems to think that while in MOST cases you'd take a cautious wait and see approach regarding kids and any serious mental conditions, that in THIS particular case politicization of the issue has made anyone who takes that position open for the sort of knee-jerk criticism that has been seen in places in this thread.

Yes, thanks for letting us know you feel so strongly about defending a professional concern troll.

 

[Misfit Toy]

I don't think she thought that she was really writing a "neutral" article, and it was clearly an editorial-style piece. But I also think that the "mental health professionals are often cautious and hesitant about diagnosing conditions and acting on diagnoses in young children" is a good one because it indicates that reluctance perhaps isn't being shown as much as it should in the case of transgender kids.

Nonsense. The article indicates nothing of the kind. What you seem to have a lot of trouble realizing is that all Wente's piece does is hysterically stoke the fear that mental health professionals generally aren't looking out for the best interests of children who they diagnose as transgender. You seem to be predisposed to believe that that fear is warranted, and Wente's piece provides words in print that conveniently affirm it for you. There isn't any objective assessment cited in Wente's piece that indicates one way or the other, whether there's cause for concern that mental health professionals might be harming transgender children.

I don't think the tone of the piece is "hysterical" at all. I certainly think the first two paragraphs are written in an intentionally provocative or snarky way but she's a journalist trying to grab and then keep your attention. The rest of the article has a pretty reasonable tone and she cites two different professionals within the piece who indicate their concerns. She does offer hard data in the form of the statistics on increasing diagnosis of it in kids, which depending on your point of view could be meaningful data, misleading data, or meaningless data I suppose.

With her history, I doubt that "journalistic integrity" means much to her:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/globe-takes-action-on-allegations-against-columnist/article4565683/

In September 2012, Wente was found to have committed plagiarism by Carol Wainio, a blogger and artist who accused Wente of lifting quotes and rewording passages from published sources without credit. Wainio documents on her blog, Media Culpa, a series of columns and articles published from 2009 to 2012, which plagiarize sources including the Ottawa Citizen, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs. On 21 September 2012, the Globe and Mail's public editor addressed the allegations, conceding that "there appears to be some truth to the accusations but not on every charge."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Wente

 

[sonak]

Life can be a struggling, dark experience whether you're an adult or a kid. It amazes me that anyone would try to prevent someone from becoming more comfortable in life simply because they go against social norms.

that's not what the article is about at all. The author doesn't even dispute that gender dysphoria is a real condition or that some children might have it. She's just expressing concern at a mindset that seems to think that while in MOST cases you'd take a cautious wait and see approach regarding kids and any serious mental conditions, that in THIS particular case politicization of the issue has made anyone who takes that position open for the sort of knee-jerk criticism that has been seen in places in this thread.

Yes, thanks for letting us know you feel so strongly about defending a professional concern troll.

I don't feel strongly about defending her. I know nothing about the woman, her history, or her reputation nor do I care. I only found the article as part of an aggregator-site that had a link to it. Since I'm pre-disposed to agree with her on this issue there was probably some confirmation bias there. I'm not a regular reader of her work. I did however find that the article brought up good points and would prefer if the discussion could go off of that rather than ad hominem attacks on her. Perhaps the focus could be on the two figures in the article that she quotes if there are objections to the author.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Since I'm pre-disposed to agree with her on this issue there was probably some confirmation bias there.

We know.

I did however find that the article brought up good points and would prefer if the discussion could go off of that rather than ad hominem attacks on her.

You make it sound like we haven't given Wente's article a fair shake. Just focus on Locutus's post here, especially this part:

If I write a clearly biased pro-gun control article that cites studies that support my position, then the best approach is to attack my argument and evidence, not my bias.

I would be happy to, except the article doesn't actually have a shred of evidence to attack. There's no data to support the idea that psychologists are over-diagnosing gender dysphoria whatsoever, just her gut feeling that that's what's happening. The only numbers she presents are that more children are self-identifying as such in certain areas, which is not a professional diagnosis and does not guarantee that any kind of treatment or therapy will follow.

 

[sonak]

Since I'm pre-disposed to agree with her on this issue there was probably some confirmation bias there.

We know.

I did however find that the article brought up good points and would prefer if the discussion could go off of that rather than ad hominem attacks on her.

You make it sound like we haven't given Wente's article a fair shake. Just focus on Locutus's post here, especially this part:

If I write a clearly biased pro-gun control article that cites studies that support my position, then the best approach is to attack my argument and evidence, not my bias.

I would be happy to, except the article doesn't actually have a shred of evidence to attack. There's no data to support the idea that psychologists are over-diagnosing gender dysphoria whatsoever, just her gut feeling that that's what's happening. The only numbers she presents are that more children are self-identifying as such in certain areas, which is not a professional diagnosis and does not guarantee that any kind of treatment or therapy will follow.

Fine, then rather than hard evidence or numbers, what are thoughts on the views and concerns expressed by the two professionals that she quoted in the article?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Fine, then rather than hard evidence or numbers, what are thoughts on the views and concerns expressed by the two professionals that she quoted in the article?

Here's an idea: Since you're the one who's interested, you do the grunt work and extract the views, concerns, and/or quotations that you'd like feedback on.

 

[sonak]

Fine, then rather than hard evidence or numbers, what are thoughts on the views and concerns expressed by the two professionals that she quoted in the article?

Here's an idea: Since you're the one who's interested, you do the grunt work and extract the views, concerns, and/or quotations that you'd like feedback on.

Well I don't want to limit the scope of feedback, but how about:

1. is the internet and pop culture having the impact of artificially inflating numbers for this?

2. the potential harmful effects that hormone therapy or other treatments can have if done too soon or if the diagnosis turns out to be incorrect

3. this one I mentioned before, but the issue of is the wait and see approach being discredited not by science or sound psychology but politics, and a fear of being labeled conservative or reactionary, as well as confusion between that approach and reparative therapy?


Those are the points/questions I found particularly interesting at any rate