> I actually found the misgendering part relevant. If Jamie Reed was as progressive as she claims, wouldn't that be something she would do "correctly?"
The thing is we don't know what "correct" is; we don't know the patients, we don't know how she interacted with them, we don't know what they preferred, etc. The author sees patients in quite early stages, and many may well have referred to themselves by the biological pronouns.
It gets much more complicated around the edges than some people pretend. It's an easy enough cudgel to use, and sometimes it's appropriate, but here it's just a distraction at best, and FUD at worst.
> And as the rebuttal author notes, JR was an intake worker, with limited access to the full story of these patients, and without proper medical training to do a full assessment.
There's a lot of FUD surrounding that in the rebuttal; obviously the author of that knows even less about the case than Jamie Reed, and there's lots of assumptions about how good she was or wasn't familiar with the case.
Besides, we can do this the other way too: is Erin Reed a doctor? Does she have medical training? Does she do full assessments? The entire point of Jamie's story was that not everyone with vague issues surrounding gender at a fairly young ages has gender dysphoria. I don't know if that's true or not, but merely being transgender doesn't mean anything here; your experience doesn't really provide any value, and is quite likely to bias you. What worked well for you doesn't necessarily work well for others.
That is probably a good summary of the entire allegation/conflict: "the trans community is very biased towards what worked well for them personally, and refuse to consider that it doesn't work for everyone".
Your last statement was interesting: "the trans community is very biased towards what worked well for them personally, and refuse to consider that it doesn't work for everyone."
You could add "non" in front of trans and it would probably be true as well, no? I just happen to know a bunch of trans people who feel like the dominant culture doesn't really serve them well. I trust that they have thought through it well, and know how it impacts them more than you have.
To me this whole conflict really seems less about trans people and non trans people. It's about people that don't trust the medical establishment and those that do. There are a lot of questions all over the place if you look there, and I'm not sure where I stand there.
The thing is we don't know what "correct" is; we don't know the patients, we don't know how she interacted with them, we don't know what they preferred, etc. The author sees patients in quite early stages, and many may well have referred to themselves by the biological pronouns.
It gets much more complicated around the edges than some people pretend. It's an easy enough cudgel to use, and sometimes it's appropriate, but here it's just a distraction at best, and FUD at worst.
> And as the rebuttal author notes, JR was an intake worker, with limited access to the full story of these patients, and without proper medical training to do a full assessment.
There's a lot of FUD surrounding that in the rebuttal; obviously the author of that knows even less about the case than Jamie Reed, and there's lots of assumptions about how good she was or wasn't familiar with the case.
Besides, we can do this the other way too: is Erin Reed a doctor? Does she have medical training? Does she do full assessments? The entire point of Jamie's story was that not everyone with vague issues surrounding gender at a fairly young ages has gender dysphoria. I don't know if that's true or not, but merely being transgender doesn't mean anything here; your experience doesn't really provide any value, and is quite likely to bias you. What worked well for you doesn't necessarily work well for others.
That is probably a good summary of the entire allegation/conflict: "the trans community is very biased towards what worked well for them personally, and refuse to consider that it doesn't work for everyone".