Appreciate the update on the media, legal, and medical views on this subject. The best part of witch trials and these episodes are the interviews with people holding differing views and having them respond to criticisms in more than 280 characters.
Loved this episode! Witch Trials and The Tortoise many part series on Tavistock were the only careful documentary style walks through these topics that I’ve found. These conversations feel like walking through a bog with many chances to drown but you managed to keep a lightness with clear sign posts in the podcast series.
Hoping you'll consider my feedback as someone directly affected by GC politics. There were a number of moments in this episode that give me pause.
Many times, the phrase "issue" was used without defining what the issue is. In my understanding, the issue is the extent to which trans people, particularly trans women, should be integrated into society. Rowling believes the answer should be practically not at all.
Helen Lewis claims that "gender affirming care" is accepting "activist framing." What could this mean besides implying that gender identity in children is fake?
The allusions to Scandinavian countries was frustrating because gender affirming care is STILL more accessible there than the UK and parts of the US.
The Cass Report has not been peer reviewed, and multiple papers are in prepeint challenging her methodology.
Lewis claims that only American organizations support gender affirming care but WPATH is a world wide org.
I expected a longer time considering why darts, billiards, and chess are moving to ban trans women. Certainly that indicates a degree of moral panic? Trans women have no advantage in these sports, you would agree?
Helen Lewis and Jesse Singal have stirred a lot of controversy in the trans community, and I have an issue with them being presented as objective. If anything, Lewis is allowed to control the framing of her trans critics, presenting them as unreasonable.
The escalation of Rowling's rhetoric was not mentioned. I am hopeful that part 2 will cover this. Rowling calls trans women "the p*nised," reducing us to a walking set of genitals. She has denied Nazi war crimes against trans people. She has said that "cross dressing men" are "the most pandered to demographic."
Hi Chloe, thanks for listening and for sharing your thoughts. I’ll try to respond to each one as best I can.
First: The "issue" we are broadly referring to is the wide-ranging debate about sex and gender that encompasses everything from the proper treatment for children with symptoms of gender dysphoria to how to balance fairness and inclusion in women’s sports. This includes many deeper questions about biology, gender identity, what is acceptable public discourse, and a host of other fascinating and deep queries.
Second: When Helen Lewis says "gender-affirming care" is an "activist framing," she’s sharing her view that it’s neither the clearest nor the most neutral way to describe the treatment. It’s also not the language used in the media or medical establishments in many other countries. This is partly because the phrase assumes a belief that most people do not hold about gender, which is another fascinating aspect of “the issue” being debated.
Third: While it’s true that some U.S. states have adopted incredibly harsh restrictions on minors seeking medical transition, it is still far more accessible in the U.S. more broadly than it is now in countries like Sweden. The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare conducted a series of studies and decided to change course. Access to services like hormone therapies, which are readily available to even very young children in much of the U.S., are now reserved only for "exceptional cases" and are generally provided within research settings to ensure close monitoring and evaluation of outcomes. This is a recent development, and everyone I’ve spoken to in this field agrees that with ongoing studies, more changes are to come.
Fourth: The Cass report was indeed not peer-reviewed, but that’s because it was not a scientific paper intended for academic research but an independent assessment commissioned by the government. This means it does not undergo the same process as academic papers but is instead scrutinized through public consultation and governmental oversight.
Fifth: Helen didn’t say that only “American organizations” support gender-affirming care. There are several organizations in the U.K. that Helen has reported on that support such care. She was pointing out that while all American medical treatment organizations (like the American Academy of Pediatrics) have adopted the affirmative model, it has become increasingly out of step with the medical treatment organizations in places like Sweden, France, Norway, the U.K., and other countries.
Sixth: I agree that the discussion about the possible advantages that male puberty might give to players in darts, billiards, chess, etc. was/is worthy of more discussion. To tell you the truth, that section was longer in earlier drafts. However, my friends who were kind enough to listen to those drafts told me that the whole episode was way too long, so I had to make cuts where I could. Personally, I’m not sure if male puberty would give players an advantage in those sports/games, and you are right to point out that some people might take advantage of research into other sports to be preemptively discriminatory toward trans players. However, I’ve not seen any calls to ban trans players from competing altogether, just an expansion of the “open” category where all can compete, no matter the puberty they went through. Though, like we say in the episode, not all trans women athletes are happy with this proposed compromise.
Seventh: I admire the reporting that both Jesse Singal and Helen Lewis have done on this subject, even as it has cost both of them a lot of grief. I think they’ve shown courage at a time when many journalists have been afraid to chase their curiosity for fear of having their characters attacked like Jesse, Helen, and even Dr. Hillary Cass. That said, you are right that they are not purely objective journalists in the mold that I try to embrace. Rather, they infuse their journalism with political arguments, more in the mold of an opinion essay. We tried to make that clear in this episode by openly asking Helen to share her opinions and making it clear when she was doing so. Her statements of fact were fact-checked, as they are in The Atlantic and on the BBC.
You are right that in the next installment, we get into some of Rowling’s recent comments and how they’ve evolved since our series came out last year. I hope you’ll listen and come back to share your thoughts again. Thanks again.
Your use of "issue" to mean every single debate on trans identity comes off, to me, like "the Jewish question"
The first two paragraphs of your reply indicate an agnosticism on the metaphysics of trans identity. This explains why the show treats trans people as inherently biased, in my estimation. I would love to hear what evidence you would need to "prove" gender identity exists, besides the testimony of all social sciences.
There is no advantage of male puberty in chess. Your agnosticism here horrifies me, to be honest.
Have you even familiarized yourself with the criticism of Singal's work? It is wide reaching. Not the least of which is the fact that his "reporting" on a St. Louis gender clinic may have violated HIPPA, and led to a conservative campaign to close gender clinics in the state. It was also directly contradicted by local reporting, which could not find any family who felt rushed through gender treatment.
Helen Lewis has said that accessing GRCs would make DV shelters more dangerous, without evidence. This is purely a GC idea, which ignores how these shelters actually work.
I eagerly await your next episode where you conclude Rowling isn't transphobic (just a guess)
Hi again, Chole. Thanks for writing me back. I promise that I'm not interested in antagonizing you or anyone. I'm doing my best to engage in the sort of good-faith conversation that I think is important (though hard).
There is an important and fascinating debate happening in our culture about how best to understand gender and its relationship to sex. I'm not here to argue a position in that debate, only to accurately report that the debate is happening and help people understand the views on all sides. I know that for some, my decision to report on this without staking out a position means I am in the wrong (sounds like you might be among them). I understand that view; I just don't share it.
As far as Jesse goes, yes, I'm very familiar with his work and the criticism of his work. I find this criticism unconvincing and often very cruel. It appears more interested in shutting down his voice than in engaging openly with his reporting. I also find it frustrating that his critics often don't seem to have a good understanding of journalism. For example, HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) violations cover entities like healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, and their business associates—not journalists. Someone like Jesse could potentially face legal action if charged with defamation, gross invasion of privacy, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, but he cannot violate HIPAA. One annoying but important thing that journalists do is make things public that some want to keep private.
The debate around what to do at women's shelters is also understandably sensitive and difficult. I'm unfamiliar with Helen taking such a hardline position on it. In my experience, she usually forms and states her views with nuance and a desire to weigh safety and respect for all people, regardless of how they identify.
And as for the question of whether Rowling is or isn't transphobic, I think people should form their own views on this based on the information we have. I am not interested in trying to sway people one way or the other but in providing them with the info and context to help them draw their own conclusions based on their own values and sense of right and wrong.
Thanks again for being open to sharing your views with me.
FYI, Andy, most of Jesse's most strident critics ARE journalists--especially journalists who've worked with him in the past, or are directly impacted by his work.
He started doing very visible work on trans issues many years ago from a purportedly neutral viewpoint, and frequently got basic factual stuff wrong. He was both called out and called by many journalists (trans and cis), academics, activists, etc., over a the course of a few years. It eventually became obvious what his game was--and it came out that he was part of a circle of anti-trans journalists all backchanneling to undermine trans rights at any cost.
What you've done here is exactly what he does: Pounce on some immaterial difference ("HIPAA doesn't technically apply to journalists!"), and gloss over the fact that he unquestioningly republished children's private, personal medical data that had been squirreled away by a transphobe with no medical training working as an admin at a gender clinic.
The evil of what he had done was obvious--so he just kept trying to argue semantics with all of X Dot Com until he had to give up and deactivate.
If his critics are "cruel," it's directly in response to the actual, real-world harm he's enacted by platforming bigots and re-framing hatred as good-faith debate.
By the way, the "issue" of DV shelters is only "sensitive" if you're a bigot. There is no evidence trans women are a danger in these spaces, and it's NAIVE to think these shelters just let any woman waltz through. It's like forgetting that lesbian abusers exist.
It stems from a hypothetical, bigoted fear. One that you are partial to.
The only people who liked your last podcast were bigots and JKR supporters. Trans people broadly hated it. It's not because we're crazy. It's because you went soft on hatred.
I wish hell was real so you'd burn it. For this, for caliphate, for the employees you sexually harassed.
You should drop the pretenses and start calling us tr*nnies, AGPs, and blackface actors.
It's insulting enough that your position implies that ALL trans people may be delusional about their own feelings and needs.
You should go check out Jesse Singal's subreddit and see the vicious hatred and dehumanizing attitudes they have for trans people--particularly trans women.
I hope you look back on this era with remorse for your role in a moral panic. But you won't, you will just be forgotten while you hold on to your ambivalence about if trans people deserve any rights at all.
I also struggle with your pedantry. Jamie Reed violated HIPPA and Jesse facilitated it. You're just splitting hairs bc you wanna blow bubbles on Jesse. I promise you, Jesse hates trans women.
Lmao, you're gonna skip over the part where local reporting completely contradicted Jesse. Unsurprising you love a horrible journalist considering you were fired for your poor research on Caliphate.
Good job being objective over whether I exist. I think this "p*nised lesbian" is gonna tune out.
Good luck with your next objective inquiry into the debate of vulnerable minorities. Hope you don't keep sexually harassing women along the way.
Hi Chloe, while appreciate you as a listener, I fear that you've fallen into a trap that is especially common online, where you attack a person instead of their ideas and ascribe views to others that they do not hold (and in this case, actions as well).
In episode seven of our Witch Trials series Megan shared some helpful questions she asks herself when she's working out her own views in a debate. I think you might find some of them helpful (I know I do) and so I'm sharing them here:
Are you capable of entertaining real doubt about your beliefs – or are you operating from a position of certainty?
Can you articulate the evidence you’d need to see to change your position…or is your perspective unfalsifiable?
Can you articulate your opponents’ perspective in a way that they recognize – or are you straw-manning?
Are you attacking ideas or attacking the people who hold them?
Do you view people who are on your side but who disagree on minor points, as enemies in disguise?
Does every minor transgression or dispute become an indication of a much larger problem – and have to be punished as such? Or can you keep perspective and allow small issues to remain small issues?
Thanks again for listening. And I hope you'll listen to part 2 this week.
You should have invited trans academics like Julia Serano to criticize your show to your face. But then again they'd savage your BS, gender critical "journalism"
You love "healthy" criticism while changing nothing in what you think or do. Did you ask all those women you sexually harassed to have dispassionate conversations about your behavior?
There's a reason only right wing publications like Reason wanna talk to you.
I loathe your phony moral superiority. You're a white man. You will never have to prove the legitimacy of your identity. Not the case for a "p*nised" tr*nny like me.
JK Rowling will never change her mind that every trans woman is a cross dressing man who may or may not want to rape children. But you still seem agnostic on her views of trans people.
Ugh, I’d rather watch Contrapoints three hour take of Twilight that I already wasn’t going to watch. Witch Trials was six episodes of filler with one interesting episode worth of material. Next.
The aspect of the podcast most interesting to the discussion was the bad behavior of online communities and how that is effective as a means of getting a fanbase, but also its opposite. Examining how 4chan was the boys group, and Tumblr the girls was also relevant. Can’t remember if that was one or two episodes it was a year ago.
Appreciate the update on the media, legal, and medical views on this subject. The best part of witch trials and these episodes are the interviews with people holding differing views and having them respond to criticisms in more than 280 characters.
Loved this episode! Witch Trials and The Tortoise many part series on Tavistock were the only careful documentary style walks through these topics that I’ve found. These conversations feel like walking through a bog with many chances to drown but you managed to keep a lightness with clear sign posts in the podcast series.
Hoping you'll consider my feedback as someone directly affected by GC politics. There were a number of moments in this episode that give me pause.
Many times, the phrase "issue" was used without defining what the issue is. In my understanding, the issue is the extent to which trans people, particularly trans women, should be integrated into society. Rowling believes the answer should be practically not at all.
Helen Lewis claims that "gender affirming care" is accepting "activist framing." What could this mean besides implying that gender identity in children is fake?
The allusions to Scandinavian countries was frustrating because gender affirming care is STILL more accessible there than the UK and parts of the US.
The Cass Report has not been peer reviewed, and multiple papers are in prepeint challenging her methodology.
Lewis claims that only American organizations support gender affirming care but WPATH is a world wide org.
I expected a longer time considering why darts, billiards, and chess are moving to ban trans women. Certainly that indicates a degree of moral panic? Trans women have no advantage in these sports, you would agree?
Helen Lewis and Jesse Singal have stirred a lot of controversy in the trans community, and I have an issue with them being presented as objective. If anything, Lewis is allowed to control the framing of her trans critics, presenting them as unreasonable.
The escalation of Rowling's rhetoric was not mentioned. I am hopeful that part 2 will cover this. Rowling calls trans women "the p*nised," reducing us to a walking set of genitals. She has denied Nazi war crimes against trans people. She has said that "cross dressing men" are "the most pandered to demographic."
Hi Chloe, thanks for listening and for sharing your thoughts. I’ll try to respond to each one as best I can.
First: The "issue" we are broadly referring to is the wide-ranging debate about sex and gender that encompasses everything from the proper treatment for children with symptoms of gender dysphoria to how to balance fairness and inclusion in women’s sports. This includes many deeper questions about biology, gender identity, what is acceptable public discourse, and a host of other fascinating and deep queries.
Second: When Helen Lewis says "gender-affirming care" is an "activist framing," she’s sharing her view that it’s neither the clearest nor the most neutral way to describe the treatment. It’s also not the language used in the media or medical establishments in many other countries. This is partly because the phrase assumes a belief that most people do not hold about gender, which is another fascinating aspect of “the issue” being debated.
Third: While it’s true that some U.S. states have adopted incredibly harsh restrictions on minors seeking medical transition, it is still far more accessible in the U.S. more broadly than it is now in countries like Sweden. The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare conducted a series of studies and decided to change course. Access to services like hormone therapies, which are readily available to even very young children in much of the U.S., are now reserved only for "exceptional cases" and are generally provided within research settings to ensure close monitoring and evaluation of outcomes. This is a recent development, and everyone I’ve spoken to in this field agrees that with ongoing studies, more changes are to come.
Fourth: The Cass report was indeed not peer-reviewed, but that’s because it was not a scientific paper intended for academic research but an independent assessment commissioned by the government. This means it does not undergo the same process as academic papers but is instead scrutinized through public consultation and governmental oversight.
Fifth: Helen didn’t say that only “American organizations” support gender-affirming care. There are several organizations in the U.K. that Helen has reported on that support such care. She was pointing out that while all American medical treatment organizations (like the American Academy of Pediatrics) have adopted the affirmative model, it has become increasingly out of step with the medical treatment organizations in places like Sweden, France, Norway, the U.K., and other countries.
Sixth: I agree that the discussion about the possible advantages that male puberty might give to players in darts, billiards, chess, etc. was/is worthy of more discussion. To tell you the truth, that section was longer in earlier drafts. However, my friends who were kind enough to listen to those drafts told me that the whole episode was way too long, so I had to make cuts where I could. Personally, I’m not sure if male puberty would give players an advantage in those sports/games, and you are right to point out that some people might take advantage of research into other sports to be preemptively discriminatory toward trans players. However, I’ve not seen any calls to ban trans players from competing altogether, just an expansion of the “open” category where all can compete, no matter the puberty they went through. Though, like we say in the episode, not all trans women athletes are happy with this proposed compromise.
Seventh: I admire the reporting that both Jesse Singal and Helen Lewis have done on this subject, even as it has cost both of them a lot of grief. I think they’ve shown courage at a time when many journalists have been afraid to chase their curiosity for fear of having their characters attacked like Jesse, Helen, and even Dr. Hillary Cass. That said, you are right that they are not purely objective journalists in the mold that I try to embrace. Rather, they infuse their journalism with political arguments, more in the mold of an opinion essay. We tried to make that clear in this episode by openly asking Helen to share her opinions and making it clear when she was doing so. Her statements of fact were fact-checked, as they are in The Atlantic and on the BBC.
You are right that in the next installment, we get into some of Rowling’s recent comments and how they’ve evolved since our series came out last year. I hope you’ll listen and come back to share your thoughts again. Thanks again.
Your use of "issue" to mean every single debate on trans identity comes off, to me, like "the Jewish question"
The first two paragraphs of your reply indicate an agnosticism on the metaphysics of trans identity. This explains why the show treats trans people as inherently biased, in my estimation. I would love to hear what evidence you would need to "prove" gender identity exists, besides the testimony of all social sciences.
There is no advantage of male puberty in chess. Your agnosticism here horrifies me, to be honest.
Have you even familiarized yourself with the criticism of Singal's work? It is wide reaching. Not the least of which is the fact that his "reporting" on a St. Louis gender clinic may have violated HIPPA, and led to a conservative campaign to close gender clinics in the state. It was also directly contradicted by local reporting, which could not find any family who felt rushed through gender treatment.
Helen Lewis has said that accessing GRCs would make DV shelters more dangerous, without evidence. This is purely a GC idea, which ignores how these shelters actually work.
I eagerly await your next episode where you conclude Rowling isn't transphobic (just a guess)
Hi again, Chole. Thanks for writing me back. I promise that I'm not interested in antagonizing you or anyone. I'm doing my best to engage in the sort of good-faith conversation that I think is important (though hard).
There is an important and fascinating debate happening in our culture about how best to understand gender and its relationship to sex. I'm not here to argue a position in that debate, only to accurately report that the debate is happening and help people understand the views on all sides. I know that for some, my decision to report on this without staking out a position means I am in the wrong (sounds like you might be among them). I understand that view; I just don't share it.
As far as Jesse goes, yes, I'm very familiar with his work and the criticism of his work. I find this criticism unconvincing and often very cruel. It appears more interested in shutting down his voice than in engaging openly with his reporting. I also find it frustrating that his critics often don't seem to have a good understanding of journalism. For example, HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) violations cover entities like healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, and their business associates—not journalists. Someone like Jesse could potentially face legal action if charged with defamation, gross invasion of privacy, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, but he cannot violate HIPAA. One annoying but important thing that journalists do is make things public that some want to keep private.
The debate around what to do at women's shelters is also understandably sensitive and difficult. I'm unfamiliar with Helen taking such a hardline position on it. In my experience, she usually forms and states her views with nuance and a desire to weigh safety and respect for all people, regardless of how they identify.
And as for the question of whether Rowling is or isn't transphobic, I think people should form their own views on this based on the information we have. I am not interested in trying to sway people one way or the other but in providing them with the info and context to help them draw their own conclusions based on their own values and sense of right and wrong.
Thanks again for being open to sharing your views with me.
FYI, Andy, most of Jesse's most strident critics ARE journalists--especially journalists who've worked with him in the past, or are directly impacted by his work.
He started doing very visible work on trans issues many years ago from a purportedly neutral viewpoint, and frequently got basic factual stuff wrong. He was both called out and called by many journalists (trans and cis), academics, activists, etc., over a the course of a few years. It eventually became obvious what his game was--and it came out that he was part of a circle of anti-trans journalists all backchanneling to undermine trans rights at any cost.
What you've done here is exactly what he does: Pounce on some immaterial difference ("HIPAA doesn't technically apply to journalists!"), and gloss over the fact that he unquestioningly republished children's private, personal medical data that had been squirreled away by a transphobe with no medical training working as an admin at a gender clinic.
The evil of what he had done was obvious--so he just kept trying to argue semantics with all of X Dot Com until he had to give up and deactivate.
If his critics are "cruel," it's directly in response to the actual, real-world harm he's enacted by platforming bigots and re-framing hatred as good-faith debate.
Just like you and your team do.
By the way, the "issue" of DV shelters is only "sensitive" if you're a bigot. There is no evidence trans women are a danger in these spaces, and it's NAIVE to think these shelters just let any woman waltz through. It's like forgetting that lesbian abusers exist.
It stems from a hypothetical, bigoted fear. One that you are partial to.
The only people who liked your last podcast were bigots and JKR supporters. Trans people broadly hated it. It's not because we're crazy. It's because you went soft on hatred.
I wish hell was real so you'd burn it. For this, for caliphate, for the employees you sexually harassed.
You should drop the pretenses and start calling us tr*nnies, AGPs, and blackface actors.
It's insulting enough that your position implies that ALL trans people may be delusional about their own feelings and needs.
You should go check out Jesse Singal's subreddit and see the vicious hatred and dehumanizing attitudes they have for trans people--particularly trans women.
I hope you look back on this era with remorse for your role in a moral panic. But you won't, you will just be forgotten while you hold on to your ambivalence about if trans people deserve any rights at all.
I also struggle with your pedantry. Jamie Reed violated HIPPA and Jesse facilitated it. You're just splitting hairs bc you wanna blow bubbles on Jesse. I promise you, Jesse hates trans women.
You treat Jesse and Rowling like they're victims, but have much much less sympathy for trans women.
Lmao, you're gonna skip over the part where local reporting completely contradicted Jesse. Unsurprising you love a horrible journalist considering you were fired for your poor research on Caliphate.
Good job being objective over whether I exist. I think this "p*nised lesbian" is gonna tune out.
Good luck with your next objective inquiry into the debate of vulnerable minorities. Hope you don't keep sexually harassing women along the way.
Hi Chloe, while appreciate you as a listener, I fear that you've fallen into a trap that is especially common online, where you attack a person instead of their ideas and ascribe views to others that they do not hold (and in this case, actions as well).
In episode seven of our Witch Trials series Megan shared some helpful questions she asks herself when she's working out her own views in a debate. I think you might find some of them helpful (I know I do) and so I'm sharing them here:
Are you capable of entertaining real doubt about your beliefs – or are you operating from a position of certainty?
Can you articulate the evidence you’d need to see to change your position…or is your perspective unfalsifiable?
Can you articulate your opponents’ perspective in a way that they recognize – or are you straw-manning?
Are you attacking ideas or attacking the people who hold them?
Do you view people who are on your side but who disagree on minor points, as enemies in disguise?
Does every minor transgression or dispute become an indication of a much larger problem – and have to be punished as such? Or can you keep perspective and allow small issues to remain small issues?
Thanks again for listening. And I hope you'll listen to part 2 this week.
You should have invited trans academics like Julia Serano to criticize your show to your face. But then again they'd savage your BS, gender critical "journalism"
You love "healthy" criticism while changing nothing in what you think or do. Did you ask all those women you sexually harassed to have dispassionate conversations about your behavior?
There's a reason only right wing publications like Reason wanna talk to you.
When an oppressed minority tells you that your podcast flirts with bigotry... They're usually not wrong, dingus.
I engaged with your arguments plenty. People like you will never accept someone like me. You deserve the attack.
You've fallen into the trap of thinking you're a journalist, rather than a grifter flirting with a hate movement.
I loathe your phony moral superiority. You're a white man. You will never have to prove the legitimacy of your identity. Not the case for a "p*nised" tr*nny like me.
JK Rowling will never change her mind that every trans woman is a cross dressing man who may or may not want to rape children. But you still seem agnostic on her views of trans people.
You suck
What evidence do you need to prove that trans identity is a legitimate category of being?
Answer that before I take you seriously on this topic.
Sorry the trans woman got too uppity for you. There's a reason your audience consists of zero trans women.
I haven't heard the original Witch Trails podcast.. but by Natalie, do you mean ContraPoints? If so yey.
Ugh, I’d rather watch Contrapoints three hour take of Twilight that I already wasn’t going to watch. Witch Trials was six episodes of filler with one interesting episode worth of material. Next.
Ha! Thanks for sharing Maci. I promise we tried our best to be meaty and thoughtful. Out of curiosity, which one did you find interesting?
The aspect of the podcast most interesting to the discussion was the bad behavior of online communities and how that is effective as a means of getting a fanbase, but also its opposite. Examining how 4chan was the boys group, and Tumblr the girls was also relevant. Can’t remember if that was one or two episodes it was a year ago.