In which I go on Piers Morgan Uncensored (sex and gender issues, of course), followed by a debate
When I was invited to go on Piers Morgan Uncensored, I was deeply undecided. I knew Morgan was quite conservative and religious, and I’ve seen clips of him bullying his guests. So I had a back-and-forth with the producer, trying to discern what Morgan wanted to ask me about. I got a long list of … Continue reading In which I go on Piers Morgan Uncensored (sex and gender issues, of course), followed by a debate
When I was invited to go on Piers Morgan Uncensored, I was deeply undecided. I knew Morgan was quite conservative and religious, and I’ve seen clips of him bullying his guests. So I had a back-and-forth with the producer, trying to discern what Morgan wanted to ask me about. I got a long list of questions, which I decided I could field, but it turned out that Morgan was on my side about the sex binary, the need to treat trans and non-binary gender people with respect and dignifty, but also for the need to discuss the issue of what happens when trans rights conflict with the rights of other groups, most especially women. Further it also turned out that the big issue for Morgan was trans women in women’s sports, something I could easily discuss. Finally, I asked several of my friends who had been on that show, who encouraged me to go on.
So I said “yes”—with some trepidation. I emphasized that I didn’t want to debate, because I don’t see debates as a good way to rationally discuss issues (you can see a failed attempt below), and I prefer to express my views in talks or written articles, where rhetorical dexterity is not so important. That was fine with the producer. They gave me half an hour, and then said there would be a multi-person debate following my segment, though they didn’t tell me the participants. They are listed below. They sent a fancy studio truck to my University, complete with a Chicago background and a satellite broadcasting dish, and lo and behold, I was on t.v. (taped).
It turned out that yes, Piers and I agreed in our one-on-one, which goes for the first 25½ minutes below and involves mostly sports. My segment was followed by a heated debate. Here’s the YouTube description:
This week, House Republicans passed a bill that bans transgender women and girls from school sports, and soon that legislation will advance to the Senate. Speaker Mike Johnson, says this move protects young girls, but others say this will further ostracise vulnerable kids. Emotions are running high, and people on both sides of the debate are reporting receiving online abuse and death threats.
To cover this vital discussion, Piers Morgan speaks to biologist Jerry Coyne, who left the Freedom from Religion Foundation due to its position on sex and gender. Then, he turns to his panel made up of host of ‘Tomi Lahren is Fearless’ Tomi Lahren, Executive Director from the progressive organisation, Rebellion Pac, Brianna Wu and trans rights activist, Eli Erlick for their expert opinions.
I had heard of Tomi Lahren and Brianna Wu before, but not Eli Erlick. (Wu and Erlick are trans women, while Lahren is a biological woman, but hates that term and prefers to call herself just “a woman.”) But I knew little about any of them. It turns out that both Wu and Lahren agree that extreme trans activism was hurting the trans movement, while Erlick basically takes issue with everything I said. Everybody save Erlick got quite exercised, and of course there was no rapprochement.
But one thing that came out, which is mentioned on Wikipedia, is that Erlick, at the least, had a plan to illegally supply puberty blockers to “trans children and adolescents”. And at least one source says that Erlick actually followed through with this distribution, which is clearly unethical and possibly dangerous. (At 46:00, Erlick more or less admits she did indeed do the distribution.)
I think Wu would have had a bit more credibility had she not characterized Erlick and her confrères as “trans freak show friends”, and the same with Lahren and her “rainbow mafia” designation. (Wu is clearly disturbed that the excesses of gender activists could have helped Harris lose the election.)
Nevertheless, I do agree in general with what Wu and Lahren said. Even conservatives (e.g., Lahren and Morgan) can be right about some things, and this is one of them. Surely organizations like the ACLU or FFRF would not approve of the illegal distribution of puberty blockers to children!
Anyway, here’s the 50-minute video, which shows that, at least at present, there is no possibility of a thoughtful adjudication of the few areas in which trans rights clash with women’s rights.
Addendum: Although Erlick denies that the authors of study described below—mentioned by Lahren at 46:45—tried to bury it, Erlick is wrong.It has, as far as I know, still not been published. Read the NYT article below by clicking the headline, or find it archived here:
An excerpt:
An influential doctor and advocate of adolescent gender treatments said she had not published a long-awaited study of puberty-blocking drugs because of the charged American political environment.
The doctor, Johanna Olson-Kennedy, began the study in 2015 as part of a broader, multimillion-dollar federal project on transgender youth. She and colleagues recruited 95 children from across the country and gave them puberty blockers, which stave off the permanent physical changes — like breasts or a deepening voice — that could exacerbate their gender distress, known as dysphoria.
The researchers followed the children for two years to see if the treatments improved their mental health. An older Dutch study had found that puberty blockers improved well-being, results that inspired clinics around the world to regularly prescribe the medications as part of what is now called gender-affirming care.
But the American trial did not find a similar trend, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said in a wide-ranging interview. Puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements, she said, most likely because the children were already doing well when the study began.
“They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years,” said Dr. Olson-Kennedy, who runs the country’s largest youth gender clinic at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles.
That conclusion seemed to contradict an earlier description of the group, in which Dr. Olson-Kennedy and her colleagues noted that one quarter of the adolescents were depressed or suicidal before treatment.
This is a prime example of scientific truth being kept under wraps because it undermines people’s ideology.
What's Your Reaction?
