What a marvelous read, thank you. Does this feel like the end of a particularly sorry period, or just the very start of the end? I worry that so many influencial people have bought into this ideology that we need many more Cass Reports before things really start moving...
Interesting questions! On the first - I would say it's the beginning of the end, rather than the end. A lot of internal guidance, not only in the health sector but also in education and other public services, has been dictated by the gender identity model, and we all know how sclerotic institutions can be. Between management inertia and residual true believers writing their own practice, I think there's a lot of work to do to put this right. (And then there's the issue of private practitioners like Gender GP, which I think demands a whole rethink of the legal framework for prescribing.)
On whether I feel "uncancelled" - I think it's really important to acknowledge that while I've experienced individual instances of shunning (lost work, cancelled events, broken friendships, colleagues in my then-day job denouncing me on social media), I've also worked consistently through this period. I was freelance so I was never "sacked" from anything per se, and even when I'm pretty certain I was blackballed from Guardian comment and features, I was still writing for the books section.
But I do think that the stigma I carried in certain circles c. 2013-2023ish has calmed down. People only rarely send me messages along the lines of "I agree with you but it is simply impossible to be associated with you publicly", which is definitely an improvement. Obviously I'm problematic for a whole bunch of other reasons, but I can live with that.
It’s infuriating, but we always knew that most of the Be Kind brigade was just collecting social points and would turn with the tide, never acknowledging they were doing so. It does make the bravery of the people who spoke up early and often even more impressive.
The ones who I wonder about now, though are those like your former editor who have gone way down the rabbit hole of “Western science is oppressive/we need to privilege personal rationalisations” and who still seem to be dotted all over our media landscape.
I’m thinking of the TV writer who’s currently plugging her book on using psychedelics to manage her longstanding MH issues, and an interview she conducted with an Imperial College researcher for R4’s One to One. I listened to it after Cass came out and it was striking in how it illustrates the sort of assumptions and groupthink that underpinned what we’ve seen around the lack of interest in the efficacy of gender medicine. Really has to be heard to be believed, but in light of Cass the fact it was commissioned and broadcast is pretty sobering.
I was listening to someone a while ago who kept self-correcting "women" to the formulation "women and women-identified people" - and on the one hand I was slightly annoyed because it's a weird way to speak, and on the other I didn't care because this was a perfectly nice person who was just using the formulation they'd learned to be minimally socially disruptive in their field. So, like you say, it was silly but whevs - and if I had to bet, I would say that person will not be using that formulation in six months time. I agree with you that the really curious cases are the ones who've gone deep on this, because there isn't an easy way back once you've publicly committed (and certainly not if you've done that to, for e.g., the point of publicly transitioning your own children). I can only imagine a lot of those people will try to get through by digging deeper.
What a marvelous read, thank you. Does this feel like the end of a particularly sorry period, or just the very start of the end? I worry that so many influencial people have bought into this ideology that we need many more Cass Reports before things really start moving...
Also are you starting in feel "uncancelled"?
Interesting questions! On the first - I would say it's the beginning of the end, rather than the end. A lot of internal guidance, not only in the health sector but also in education and other public services, has been dictated by the gender identity model, and we all know how sclerotic institutions can be. Between management inertia and residual true believers writing their own practice, I think there's a lot of work to do to put this right. (And then there's the issue of private practitioners like Gender GP, which I think demands a whole rethink of the legal framework for prescribing.)
On whether I feel "uncancelled" - I think it's really important to acknowledge that while I've experienced individual instances of shunning (lost work, cancelled events, broken friendships, colleagues in my then-day job denouncing me on social media), I've also worked consistently through this period. I was freelance so I was never "sacked" from anything per se, and even when I'm pretty certain I was blackballed from Guardian comment and features, I was still writing for the books section.
But I do think that the stigma I carried in certain circles c. 2013-2023ish has calmed down. People only rarely send me messages along the lines of "I agree with you but it is simply impossible to be associated with you publicly", which is definitely an improvement. Obviously I'm problematic for a whole bunch of other reasons, but I can live with that.
Thank you! That's all rather encouraging!
It’s infuriating, but we always knew that most of the Be Kind brigade was just collecting social points and would turn with the tide, never acknowledging they were doing so. It does make the bravery of the people who spoke up early and often even more impressive.
The ones who I wonder about now, though are those like your former editor who have gone way down the rabbit hole of “Western science is oppressive/we need to privilege personal rationalisations” and who still seem to be dotted all over our media landscape.
I’m thinking of the TV writer who’s currently plugging her book on using psychedelics to manage her longstanding MH issues, and an interview she conducted with an Imperial College researcher for R4’s One to One. I listened to it after Cass came out and it was striking in how it illustrates the sort of assumptions and groupthink that underpinned what we’ve seen around the lack of interest in the efficacy of gender medicine. Really has to be heard to be believed, but in light of Cass the fact it was commissioned and broadcast is pretty sobering.
I was listening to someone a while ago who kept self-correcting "women" to the formulation "women and women-identified people" - and on the one hand I was slightly annoyed because it's a weird way to speak, and on the other I didn't care because this was a perfectly nice person who was just using the formulation they'd learned to be minimally socially disruptive in their field. So, like you say, it was silly but whevs - and if I had to bet, I would say that person will not be using that formulation in six months time. I agree with you that the really curious cases are the ones who've gone deep on this, because there isn't an easy way back once you've publicly committed (and certainly not if you've done that to, for e.g., the point of publicly transitioning your own children). I can only imagine a lot of those people will try to get through by digging deeper.