As a gay man, I find what this doctor is doing to you extremely unsettling. This is the kind of bullying we'd endured in decades past - absolutely disgraceful.
I love the way he tried to buy himself greater authority by signing off with a long string of credentials, most of which are relatively unremarkable and not conveying any particular authority on the issue. My professional association generally frowns on referencing professional credentials unless you have expertise directly related to the issue at hand.
I was suspended from Twitter Wednesday for responding to an ezine article that called women menstruators with this: "Are you a menstruator or just a mental masturbator? Are you a cervix haver or a prostate packer? Sperm spiller? Vas deferens in the diaper? Urinal user? Outie butt plugger? Foreskin owner? Its so hard to tell these days." So, yeah, they hate the taste of their own medicine and the women who serve it to them.
"As a journalist, she should also have the skills to recognize feedback from subject matter experts and adjust views accordingly."
This is the most jarring line for me. And it's almost unnoticeable. It is flagarant epistemic trespassing for this guy to imply dominion over your point, and he is taking it for granted that newsroom staff won't question it. It's alarming how routine this is becoming in newsrooms as we are headed towards the "therapeutic totalitarianism" depicted by Dreher and others. The health professions need a chin-check, and your post is a solid start.
I don't want journalists to obsequiously Kowtow to a pharmacist (or a professor, or a physician). That is why I was so put off by the implications of Max's comment below:
"No, that's not how it works. You're suggesting that because you took undergraduate classes in epidemiology that your opinion about COVID should be taken seriously. I'm far more interested in the opinions of medical professionals and other people who do this for a living.
Same with climate change: I'm uninterested in debating the science here with people who aren't climate scientists and think said scientists are 'grossly overstating the problem'.
When it comes to matters of scientific expertise, let's listen to the experts."
* From comment section re: The Line article, "Max Fawcett: India's green energy ambitions outstrip our own, Mr. Kenney."
I saw those tweets. It was the first time I'd been exposed to the kind of Orwellian and circular thinking these nuts use to make themselves look so innocent and victimized. Very impressive, but very scary. This "person who used to have a uterus but it was removed for fibroids" would never go up against them. I'd be slaughtered. So glad you can laugh at them, and that they haven't the power to make you fire yourself, har-har-har. I'll keep my subscription.
Thanks Jen. You couldn't have found a better way to show the importance of what you are doing at The Line. Like you, I'm sick and tired of cancel culture, which at base, seems to be an attempt by certain groups to seize cultural power on our society. That's not to say that I, like many right-wing figures, want to remain the past by failing to acknowledge the real problems and discrimination that cancel culture is trying to address. But means to an end are not less important than the end. And cancel culture as a means to the desired ends is not worth the cost of freedom of expression.
I love this response from one of your supporters on Twitter: "Is he implying that Transpeople are stupid? Surely you wouldn’t forget that you have a cervix just because you identify as male now?"
Could this be a new example of the "bigotry of low expectations"?.
I saw these tweets - Ms. Gerson is the latest in a very long line of women who have been essentially told to sit down and shut up - the men are going to decide the language now. She is also (to my great joy) the latest in a long line of women who thought about it for a second and said "No". These "activists" are misogyny in disguise - if you want to see them in real action, Follow Dr. Debbie Hayton (the UK), or Meghan Murphy (Canada) or JK Rowling or any number of people who have been attacked, vilified and had their entire lives upended for crossing paths with one of these misogynists. The biggest irony here? Dr. Hayton is a transwoman who doesn't buy into their ridiculous ideology so they attack her very fiercely. This is a phenomenon being enabled by a society that has lost its mind to the very few who insist on ideological purity in every single facet.
it's quite rich for the good doctor to say you retweeted him so he'd be inundated with twitter trolls, when he himself tagged in Dr Jen Gunter with the hopes of engaging her 323K followers/trolls
Thank you so very much! You have me subscribing. Sadly, women in th US are in for a rough ride and as a lesbian who is a nasty "vagina fetishist" the backlash this insanity and authoritarianism will inspire will see the LGB as scapegoats, as our big names (Stonewall, HRC, GLAAD) sold us out. We are now the bigots for having a sexual orientation. I can't thank you enough and look forward to The Line exposing the gaslighting and DARVO like tactics of an ideology divorced from reality.
Jen, I just caught your story on Jamil Jivani's show. What you did was awesome! To show my thanks and gratitude, I am now a new subscriber. Keep up the great work.
Why is everyone all the sudden so obsessed with labels? Wasn't there a time when being labelled was supposed to feel restrictive? Now it seems everyone can't survive without a label.
But aside from that, it's so true that this whole thing, while trying to separate gender from sex, seems to be reducing everything to bodily functions. As far as I'm concerned, the whole reason we've come to this is because the politically correct centrists have gone so far up their own ass that they come up with terms like "uterus bearer" just to try and appease those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of trans-gendered or non-binary people.
I don't for a second doubt that non-binary people have a much more difficult time getting proper medical care. But there's also no need to de-humanize other people just to accommodate a very small minority.
So, by his logic, we could say that men who get breast cancer do not have the benefit of early detection because, well, we call them “men”. We could remedy that by referring to them as “underdeveloped breast bearers”. They would be eternally grateful, I am sure.
Technocrats do what technocrats do. It's all about power with these folks, and the medical profession are some of the most technocratic. People are a problem to be managed with these folks and don't dare challenge them.
Pffft. I'm sick to bloody death of "experts". They often disagree with one another. What's even worse is the media operates like a pack, and only references the experts that endorse the media's favourite side of an issue. Moreover, it's crazy that our tax dollars are used to subsidize the media. How can they be objective under those circumstances? Naturally they will default to the point of view espoused by government. Reminds me of Pravda prior to the fall of the USSR. Is THE LINE financed by subscribers only, or on the dole, too?
As a gay man, I find what this doctor is doing to you extremely unsettling. This is the kind of bullying we'd endured in decades past - absolutely disgraceful.
I love the way he tried to buy himself greater authority by signing off with a long string of credentials, most of which are relatively unremarkable and not conveying any particular authority on the issue. My professional association generally frowns on referencing professional credentials unless you have expertise directly related to the issue at hand.
I was suspended from Twitter Wednesday for responding to an ezine article that called women menstruators with this: "Are you a menstruator or just a mental masturbator? Are you a cervix haver or a prostate packer? Sperm spiller? Vas deferens in the diaper? Urinal user? Outie butt plugger? Foreskin owner? Its so hard to tell these days." So, yeah, they hate the taste of their own medicine and the women who serve it to them.
Thank you.
"As a journalist, she should also have the skills to recognize feedback from subject matter experts and adjust views accordingly."
This is the most jarring line for me. And it's almost unnoticeable. It is flagarant epistemic trespassing for this guy to imply dominion over your point, and he is taking it for granted that newsroom staff won't question it. It's alarming how routine this is becoming in newsrooms as we are headed towards the "therapeutic totalitarianism" depicted by Dreher and others. The health professions need a chin-check, and your post is a solid start.
I don't want journalists to obsequiously Kowtow to a pharmacist (or a professor, or a physician). That is why I was so put off by the implications of Max's comment below:
"No, that's not how it works. You're suggesting that because you took undergraduate classes in epidemiology that your opinion about COVID should be taken seriously. I'm far more interested in the opinions of medical professionals and other people who do this for a living.
Same with climate change: I'm uninterested in debating the science here with people who aren't climate scientists and think said scientists are 'grossly overstating the problem'.
When it comes to matters of scientific expertise, let's listen to the experts."
* From comment section re: The Line article, "Max Fawcett: India's green energy ambitions outstrip our own, Mr. Kenney."
I saw those tweets. It was the first time I'd been exposed to the kind of Orwellian and circular thinking these nuts use to make themselves look so innocent and victimized. Very impressive, but very scary. This "person who used to have a uterus but it was removed for fibroids" would never go up against them. I'd be slaughtered. So glad you can laugh at them, and that they haven't the power to make you fire yourself, har-har-har. I'll keep my subscription.
Thanks Jen. You couldn't have found a better way to show the importance of what you are doing at The Line. Like you, I'm sick and tired of cancel culture, which at base, seems to be an attempt by certain groups to seize cultural power on our society. That's not to say that I, like many right-wing figures, want to remain the past by failing to acknowledge the real problems and discrimination that cancel culture is trying to address. But means to an end are not less important than the end. And cancel culture as a means to the desired ends is not worth the cost of freedom of expression.
I love this response from one of your supporters on Twitter: "Is he implying that Transpeople are stupid? Surely you wouldn’t forget that you have a cervix just because you identify as male now?"
Could this be a new example of the "bigotry of low expectations"?.
I saw these tweets - Ms. Gerson is the latest in a very long line of women who have been essentially told to sit down and shut up - the men are going to decide the language now. She is also (to my great joy) the latest in a long line of women who thought about it for a second and said "No". These "activists" are misogyny in disguise - if you want to see them in real action, Follow Dr. Debbie Hayton (the UK), or Meghan Murphy (Canada) or JK Rowling or any number of people who have been attacked, vilified and had their entire lives upended for crossing paths with one of these misogynists. The biggest irony here? Dr. Hayton is a transwoman who doesn't buy into their ridiculous ideology so they attack her very fiercely. This is a phenomenon being enabled by a society that has lost its mind to the very few who insist on ideological purity in every single facet.
it's quite rich for the good doctor to say you retweeted him so he'd be inundated with twitter trolls, when he himself tagged in Dr Jen Gunter with the hopes of engaging her 323K followers/trolls
Thank you so very much! You have me subscribing. Sadly, women in th US are in for a rough ride and as a lesbian who is a nasty "vagina fetishist" the backlash this insanity and authoritarianism will inspire will see the LGB as scapegoats, as our big names (Stonewall, HRC, GLAAD) sold us out. We are now the bigots for having a sexual orientation. I can't thank you enough and look forward to The Line exposing the gaslighting and DARVO like tactics of an ideology divorced from reality.
Jen, I just caught your story on Jamil Jivani's show. What you did was awesome! To show my thanks and gratitude, I am now a new subscriber. Keep up the great work.
Why is everyone all the sudden so obsessed with labels? Wasn't there a time when being labelled was supposed to feel restrictive? Now it seems everyone can't survive without a label.
But aside from that, it's so true that this whole thing, while trying to separate gender from sex, seems to be reducing everything to bodily functions. As far as I'm concerned, the whole reason we've come to this is because the politically correct centrists have gone so far up their own ass that they come up with terms like "uterus bearer" just to try and appease those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of trans-gendered or non-binary people.
I don't for a second doubt that non-binary people have a much more difficult time getting proper medical care. But there's also no need to de-humanize other people just to accommodate a very small minority.
So, by his logic, we could say that men who get breast cancer do not have the benefit of early detection because, well, we call them “men”. We could remedy that by referring to them as “underdeveloped breast bearers”. They would be eternally grateful, I am sure.
Technocrats do what technocrats do. It's all about power with these folks, and the medical profession are some of the most technocratic. People are a problem to be managed with these folks and don't dare challenge them.
This confirms why I subscribe. And I would love to hear from Barbara Kay on this!
Pffft. I'm sick to bloody death of "experts". They often disagree with one another. What's even worse is the media operates like a pack, and only references the experts that endorse the media's favourite side of an issue. Moreover, it's crazy that our tax dollars are used to subsidize the media. How can they be objective under those circumstances? Naturally they will default to the point of view espoused by government. Reminds me of Pravda prior to the fall of the USSR. Is THE LINE financed by subscribers only, or on the dole, too?