HN Books @HNBooksMonth

The book describing this phenomenon came out two years ago, and was called one of the best books of the year by the Economist and the London Times:

https://www.amazon.com/Irreversible-Damage-Transgender-Seduc...

⬐ gyrovont

It's a very good read. Helen Joyce's Trans and Kathleen Stock's Material Girls are also excellent critiques of this movement.

⬐ a_shovel

Helen Joyce is an eugenics advocate who has stated that she believes it is necessary to reduce the number of transgender people, even happily-transitioned ones, because she sees them as "damaged" and "a huge problem to a sane world" because they require "special accomodation".

⬐ gyrovont

She is not a eugenics advocate. That is a truly nonsensical summary of her viewpoint.

⬐ a_shovel

It is a straightforwardly true description of what she said.

Here's a link. [ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/06/03/helen-joyce-transgende... ] It contains direct quotes and video of her statements. Her statements quoted in the first section constitute support for involuntary eugenics; this means she is an eugenics advocate.

⬐ gyrovont

No it's not, and no she isn't.

She's talking about reducing the number of transitions. As in, discouraging or limiting the medicinal and surgical interventions that people who are unhappy with their sex sometimes pursue.

She is not advocating for people to be exterminated or sterilised or anything like that. That is an absurd reinterpretation of what she actually said.

⬐ a_shovel

She is advocating for reducing the size of a population that she sees as "damaged" because she believes that they place a burden upon society, and she is advocating this in opposition to that group, who would like to continue to exist as they are. I see these as sufficient conditions to call her position "eugenics advocacy". But if removal from the gene pool is a necessary condition in your view, then there are multiple studies linking access to various kind of gender-affirming care with lower rates of suicidal ideation. It's easily Googleable,

She does not specify any sort of medical procedure, and refers to people "dissociated from their sex", so she's probably talking about all trans people, including people who merely change their name, pronouns, and mode of dress.

That she specifically includes those who are happily transitioned shows that this is not motivated by compassion. By including them, she is making it absolutely clear that she wants to prevent people against their will from being able to transition. Most people who transition describe it as enormously benificial. She wants to reduce their number because she describes them as a "problem".

⬐ DanBC

Joyce pushes an antisemitic conspiracy theory. She claims she made a simple error with the names of two charities. (George Soros made a very large donation to a human rights charity, and a very much smaller donation to a pro-trans charity, and Joyce swaps these around to make out Soros paid huge amounts to pro-trans organisations). But, we know it's an antisemitic conspiracy theory because we know where Joyce plagiarised it from - Jennifer Bilek.

Both political parties are removing access to books. When this book is widely available in local bookstores and presented in schools whenever other material related to minority sexual and gender identity is discussed, I will gladly change my mind. https://www.amazon.com/Irreversible-Damage-Transgender-Seduc...

Whether or not this is considered "grooming" is irrelevant. The truth is that only in the past 4-5 years has it started becoming commonplace for the medical establishment to provide "gender-affirming" care (aka irreversible via surgery or puberty blockers), if my child has the slightest suspicion that they, too, are one of the tiny percentage of intersex/trans people.

And if that were the case, and I refused to recognize one of my child's weekly fantasies (he likes to pretend to be a cat, but we don't take _that_ seriously), I would be considered a toxic and "transphobic" parent. That these medical procedures and gender "counseling" could provided to my child without my input or approval (in the name of "safe spaces") should be alarming to most parents.

We need to understand what's going on in our schools and with our children before we smear people with this "transphobia" neologism, because it's not productive nor conducive to discussion.

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Irreversible-Damage-Transgender-Seduc...

⬐ hemogloben

> Whether or not this is considered "grooming" is irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant if people are using the word grooming to sensationalize the discussion and bias it towards being terrified of the 'trans epidemic/agenda'.

> if my child has the slightest suspicion that they, too, are one of the tiny percentage of intersex/trans people

That is not how any of this works. Someone doesn't go on puberty blockers or get Hormone Therapy because they have 'the slightest suspicion'. If you say to a Dr "I think I might be trans", they don't schedule you for any gender-affirming care. They'd refer you to a therapist so you can work through that (and no, the therapist isn't going to talk you INTO being trans, again, not how that works, far more likely to try to talk you OUT of being trans).

> And if that were the case, and I refused to recognize one of my child's weekly fantasies (he likes to pretend to be a cat, but we don't take _that_ seriously)

Pretending to be a cat and being trans are not comparable.

I would hope as a parent you can distinguish between these weekly fantasies and serious thoughts, feelings, and questions that your child is having about who they are.

> I would be considered a toxic and "transphobic" parent

Yeah... If your kid tells you something big (and potentially to them shameful/scary) about themselves (whatever it is) and you brush it off, that would be kind of toxic and shitty.

> That these medical procedures and gender "counseling" could provided to my child without my input or approval (in the name of "safe spaces") should be alarming to most parents.

In all states, minors who seek transgender treatment need parental consent.

> We need to understand what's going on in our schools and with our children before we smear people with this "transphobia" neologism, because it's not productive nor conducive to discussion.

I agree that this is a complex topic that requires us to have thoughtful in depth discussions, one way to do that is to stop spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt you pulled from a book full of cherry-picked anecdotal stories designed to spread FUD.

⬐ TurkishPoptart

> That is not how any of this works. Someone doesn't go on puberty blockers or get Hormone Therapy because they have 'the slightest suspicion'. If you say to a Dr "I think I might be trans", they don't schedule you for any gender-affirming care. They'd refer you to a therapist so you can work through that (and no, the therapist isn't going to talk you INTO being trans, again, not how that works, far more likely to try to talk you OUT of being trans).

I'm afraid that's not true, or not true anymore. Last year, via SB 5889, Washington Democrats forced insurers to cover gender dysmorphia treatment and gender-affirming care for minors between 13 and 17, without parental consent. It mandates that insurers deal directly with the patient without requiring the policyholder’s authorization. The same is true in all states except for 4 red states. [1]

Yes, if my child were serious about transitioning, we'd talk about it. But if my child is being encouraged to talk about his gender in his 3rd-grade class, which is weird and another problem in itself, that's not the same thing.

So why is it the case that "People who are aged 18 to 24 are more likely to identify as transgender"? [2] For many of the girls in Shapiro's book, the gender craze is an unhealthy mental preoccupation, who encounter support sites on Tumblr which encourage young girls to question their gender identities and celebrates "transitioning". The concern is that the number of people transitioning due to social pressure _massively_ exceeds those who legitimately need to transition.

What's odd is that it's unacceptable to encourage kids _not_ to transition.

[1]: https://mynorthwest.com/3296653/rantz-washington-laws-permit... [2]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/transgender...

⬐ hemogloben

> I'm afraid that's not true, or not true anymore. Last year, via SB 5889, Washington Democrats forced insurers to cover gender dysmorphia treatment and gender-affirming care for minors between 13 and 17, without parental consent. It mandates that insurers deal directly with the patient without requiring the policyholder’s authorization.

I had seen references to SB 5889, though not many places other than the article you linked really discussing it.

Importantly, I don't think this is worrying. You jumped to addressing my statement that all states require parental consent (which, based on SB 5889, was wrong), but didn't address that Drs aren't giving children Gender-Affirming Care based on the 'slightest suspicion'. Even if there are isolated instances, I DO NOT see that happening broadly or epidemically. In fact, the medical community (to the detriment of all parties involved) is still very much BEHIND on dealing with trans patients. (Though getting better with WPATH etc).

> The same is true in all states except for 4 red states.

I searched the article you linked and that didn't seem to be included. I can't find evidence of 46 states allowing GAC without parental consent. Further, 15+ states are looking at passing laws BANNING GAC WITH parental consent and that's just not acceptable and seems counter to this fact.

> talk about his gender in his 3rd-grade class

What do you mean talk about his gender? When I was in 3rd grade we talked about boys and girls a lot.

Or do you mean talk about trans / non-binary people? Because you want to shield your child from the existence of people?

> So why is it the case that "People who are aged 18 to 24 are more likely to identify as transgender"?

Acceptance? LGBTQ identification has also risen over time with acceptance. It turns out that if people discourage you and tell you that what you are is disgusting, people tend not to publicly identify with it?

These aren't trans people being created, they're trans people finally identifying themselves. And it is more noticeable in younger generations because they haven't built an entire life around themselves.

> For many of the girls in Shapiro's book, the gender craze is an unhealthy mental preoccupation, who encounter support sites on Tumblr which encourage young girls to question their gender identities and celebrates "transitioning". The concern is that the number of people transitioning due to social pressure _massively_ exceeds those who legitimately need to transition.

I assume you mean the book you linked previously? I'm not going to comment or speculate on anecdata. For those girls it might have been tough to navigate and I feel for them, that doesn't mean it is an epidemic, it just means the book alleges its an epidemic.

The assertion that the number of people now identifying as trans/non-binary "_massively_ exceeds those who legitimately need transition", isn't born out by current evidence, seems potentially explained by acceptance, and seems very akin to the shock people had at how many people were LGB when that started gaining acceptance (and the idea of being gay because you thought it was cool).

> What's odd is that it's unacceptable to encourage kids _not_ to transition.

I don't know what to say if you earnestly think that's the minority view. It isn't. Which is why being trans sucks...

As I said before (then flippantly, now more seriously), yes this is a complicated topic made more so by the discussion of children and transition. But sensationalizing, fear-mongering, and irrationally banning things because technically my kid COULD (with a shitty dr and a slight suggestion) get GAC is just going to make things worse.

⬐ P5fRxh5kUvp2th

I too worry about the trend of pushing children too soon into transgenderism and especially chemical induced changes.

OTOH, calling it grooming is out of line and I personally get really tired of people trying to appropriate negative words to further their own personal agenda. It's possible to disagree without calling it grooming.

If this is grooming, then so is teaching a child that loyalty and trustworthiness are important. It's grooming in only the most technical sense, which is not what that word means in common vernacular.

The people involved in this are earnest in wanting to prevent harm (albeit misguided imo), an actual groomer is someone who is purposefully shaping a person so as to __cause__ harm.

> There is no substantial, mainstream group advocating for this.

No true Scotsman is transgender, either.

> This is the subject of conservative misinformation[1].

It’s also the subject of high quality investigative reporting:

https://www.amazon.com/Irreversible-Damage-Transgender-Seduc...

> Children cannot get irreversible surgery in the US. They may be given puberty blockers, which are completely reversible

The effect of delaying puberty until adulthood is irreversible and we don’t have studies that rule out long term side effects.

> and only until they're adults and able to make a decision for themselves.

Ok - so the decision to medically alter the course of their development is made for them, at a time when you admit they are not able to decide for themselves.

> And none of this happens without the consent of a board-certified physician who is under oath (and the threat of lawsuit and/or losing malpractice insurance) not to do anything to harm the patient.

Which is increasingly happening in other countries.

And why does a doctor get to make this decision without the parents?

> Why are doctors deciding that minors with healthy genitalia need to have them surgically altered?

> Also, wait until you hear about circumcision. You're going to be really outraged at the surgical alteration of minors with healthy genitalia then!

I am in fact outraged at the practice of circumcision. Aren’t you?

I do not agree. How is that transphobic? Is the action of inviting an author motivated by irrational fear of trans people? Are the views[1] of the author irrational and based in fear of trans people?

My understanding is the author is skeptical of the rise in reported cases of gender dysphoria over time. She contends that the rise in cases is partly a result of tangential social influences that are ultimately detrimental do development of kids. Rational skepticism is not phobia.

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1684510317

⬐ sp332

It's not just skepticism though, she strongly staked out the opposing position. I would say it is irrational to have such a strong opinion on such little evidence.

Also, -phobia doesn't only mean fear. It can also mean dislike or hatred.

⬐ alphachloride

A strong opinion and skepticism are not exclusive.

Now we come to the core of the issue: what constitutes an acceptable balance between strength of opinion and evidence? Who arbitrates that? I say it is quite subjective.

You say her opinions are irrational and exhibit phobia. I disagree: I'd say putting such a definitive label on her position is irrational.

⬐ UncleMeat

> How is that transphobic?

This is a frustrating line of argument. What would make you the authority on what transphobia is?

> Are the views[1] of the author irrational and based in fear of trans people?

To "arrive" does not mean "to cross a river". To be "awesome" does not mean "to be terrifying". Meanings are not constructed by etymology. Transphobia is not "the irrational fear of transgender people".

The author is not a "rational skeptic", as clearly evidenced by her wildly biased choice of analysis presented as solid science. Her work has been widely criticized by the scientific community and is not far off from forming opinions about racial differences in IQ by asking aparthied leaders about their opinions and experiences and taking it as gospel evidence.

⬐ alphachloride

I do not presume to be an authority. In fact, that is what my original comment was asking: What is transphobia? You have rejected one definition but failed to provide an alternative. That leads me to the second part of my original comment: is it something subjective that you'll know when you see it?

I'll have to read her work in more depth to form an opinion on the rigor of her work. Suffice to say, I view your evaluation of her work with skepticism as well.