Helen Lewis in the Atlantic - Gender medecine and the suicide lie

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/06/transgender-youth-skrmetti/683350/

Archive

https://archive.ph/qDisi

'Trans-rights activists like to accuse skeptics of youth gender medicine—and publications that dare to report their views—of fomenting a “<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/qDisi/theflaw.org/articles/profiting-from-moral-panic/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">moral panic.” But the movement has spent the past decade telling gender-nonconforming children that anyone who tries to restrict access to puberty blockers and hormones is, effectively, trying to kill them. This was false, as Strangio’s answer tacitly conceded. It was also irresponsible.'

(Actual title is 'The Liberal Misinformation Bubble About Youth Gender Medicine', because Helen Lewis is a lot politer than I am.)

'Because of WPATH’s hostility, many on the American left now believe that the Cass review has been discredited'

Many in this country do as well, which goes to show how much influence the USA has on the TRA's in the UK.

I've come across a lot of comments on all types of social media platforms that say this, I respond with a reply that Cass hasn't been discredited it's WPATH that's in the wrong, but it gets no traction because they're not listening.

So my answer to 'can this misinformation bubble ever be burst?' right now is No.

Multiple ploppers have come to FWR to tell us that Cass has been discredited and refuse to read the links we provide that debunk this zombie myth 😵‍💫

They want Cass to have been discredited and so will not interact with any information that says otherwise.

Agreed

Thanks! Good article. I like her honesty and the fact she admits she changed her mind once she saw how weak /false the evidence base was

I tend to find Lewis' writing on the subject infuriatingly restrained, tbh.

But it's fairly clear, and it's in the Atlantic, so it may help with switherers in the middle.

I think she tries to seem to sit on the fence as much as possible.

Agree ^

Yes, I suppose so. But it doesn't come off as even-handedness. It comes off as ineffectual and slightly weaksauce.

Just my personal view.

Her personal brand is very much about being as Liberal a Liberal who ever Liberalled.

She is only outdone in this, at times, by Jesse Singal. I find them so annoyingly wishy washy at times because they see the problems inherent in Genderism but refuse to take a principled stance against it. They keep saying there are some kids who might benefit from having their mental development stunted and their bodies sterilised by drugs and surgery.

I think it’s HL’s best contribution so far (“infuriatingly restrained” is perfectly put @ArabellaScott ) she has written for those refusing to climb down off the fence who could, if they’d just take the chance to assess new compelling information. It’s a good article for friends and family who might be looking for an off ramp so I’m bookmarking . But IIRC I found her a bit smug and patronising on BAR podcast last year. Before her misinformation bubble popped and she discovered she’d been leaning on some zombie facts.

Her position has always been "but I'm reasonable, not like those bigots" while she quietly shifts over into bigot territory more and more as the years go by. This would be less annoying if she didn't do this without firmly asserting her moral superiority.

Yes. This sums it up well.

i wonder has she said anything about the latest pronoun rumble on twitter. I notice that each time the pronoun debate rumbles around there are less twitter people in support. And more and more vocal about rejecting them. And more and more well articulated points as to why people won’t be using them now. (Actually the points are not new to MN readers, they have been discussed here for years.)

Yes. The Atlantic has a major contingent of the original never-Trumpers on staff and as freelance/guest writers. The ethos that arose was to never criticize the substance of the Democrats' policies unless it can be shown to be electorally harmful to fighting Trumpism. This leads to a position similar to the NYT times, GI is legitimate (at least in some form) but the way TRAs have gone about achieving their ends are counterproductive to their own cause, as formulated by themselves.

Is it HL who is responsible for the tiresomely wishy washy coverage in Private Eye? I find it very annoying. If it were anything else as absurd and harmful, they’d be on it like a ton of bricks.
(But it is essentially a rather louche lad’s mag and the old boys there do probably equate trans with the closeted homosexuality of the mid last century.)

When these people thought that genderism was politically beneficial to their tribe, they offered it their support, and now they think it isn't, they're willing to make critical noises. The worst of it though is they're not stupid and will have been aware of some of the harms of genderism for quite some time but will have viewed their impact to have been a price worth paying.

Similar thinking was at work in Rochdale, Rotherham, etc.

I like her approach - calm, measured, evidence-based. There’s a place for passion and taking sides, but for me the way Helen Lewis writes and thinks is thought provoking. I find the more emotional arguments just make me wary of a personal motive hiding behind the words, whichever side they come from.

She ends with a sentence that really speaks to me:
”We can support civil-rights protections for transgender people without having to endorse an experimental and unproven set of medical treatments—or having to repeat emotionally manipulative and now discredited claims about suicide.”

That sentence:
"We can support civil-rights protections for transgender people without having to endorse an experimental and unproven set of medical treatments—or having to repeat emotionally manipulative and now discredited claims about suicide.”

So she means she realises that mutilating and sterilising minors is really, really unpopular, but thinks the liberals/Democrats can get away with trans-identifying men in women's sports, prisons, rape centres, homeless shelters, changing rooms, toilets, spas, you name it

I think it’s really good piece written in a very influential way - it’s not inflammatory it just examines actual facts, actual studies etc and cuts through the rhetoric. But I’m a fan of her writing. It is important to look at subjects with clarity and from both sides as a decent journalist which she does well and excellent end point

I read it, in the US context, as supporting trans peoples rights not to be discriminated against in employment and housing etc. So basically what we have in the UK, but that doesn’t exist in many parts of the USA.

I haven’t seen her argue for allowing self ID into toilets, shelters, sports etc. If you have, I’d be interested to read the link.

It's not emotion that I find lacking in her work. It's precision and clarity.

A deliberate woolliness. It makes my teeth itch.

It is somewhat discordant to read someone writing about misinformation and obfuscating information while they persist in continuing to use someone’s preferred pronouns. Reading about Strangio and Levine, I don’t believe it is clear that both of these people are transgender themselves which does seem pertinent to this article.

I agree. I don’t want to read someone’s emotional response when I am reading something such as this. I would prefer to read precise facts.

I read this and it is still wooliness from her. And still signalling her personal position, not just pointing out the discrepancies.

I was struck by the omission of the fact that Levine is transgender, because he was extremely influential in the Biden administration. I rather like Joe, and his wholesale capture by the trans lobby did surprise me somewhat.