3 ms·
This is an extremely biased article, coming from an extremely biased source - a source which says that its writers come from left and right, though after scanni
by superultra 3y ago
This is an extremely biased article, coming from an extremely biased source - a source which says that its writers come from left and right, though after scanning through the Twitter feeds of most of its writers, it’s clear it’s ultra conservative.
The article itself and seemingly the book seem like Jordan Peterson manifest. The book is not by a therapeutic professional, but by a WSJ op-ed writer, who’s last book was written against “the transgender craze seducing our daughters.”
As a parent I’m keenly interested in the topic of adolescent therapy, and reasonable critique about therapy should be happening. Unfortunately this is not a reasonable critique.
- docdeek 3y agoLeaving aside the source of the article and the background of the author, can you point to the issues with the argument of the book? What makes the critique unreasonable in your view?
- superultra 3y agoBut why would I leave behind the bias of the source, the article author, and the book author? The article alone has a ton of clickbait red flags. It uses hyperbolic phrases like “devastating picture” and “takes a sledgehammer” and “school regimes.” The only data source mentioned in the article is one that indicates that people are more unhappy now than ever. The argument here is that the reason for this is…therapy? So what is there to take issue with? It’s just opinions, and given the framing of both the article and the book itself - why should I entertain it more than I already have? Give me a data based critique and I’m happy to engage because I believe there is a valid critique of modern therapy. edit: This is a more nuanced and informed critique on the state of modern therapy, and while it doesn't directly address adolescents, they do discuss that group in relation to perpetual therapy: https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/02/how-we-became-addicted-therapy/677532/ https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/02/how-we-...
- locopati 3y agoWhen an author has argued in bad faith and with questionable sourcing, as Shrier did when writing about trans kids, that's sufficient to doubt her when it comes to her new work.
- baciggy 3y agoWhat leads you to believe she argued in bad faith? That's quite a weighty accusation.
- locopati 3y agohere let me google that for you https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/2020...
- baciggy 3y agoLinking to an article written by someone whose income is dependent on these medical procedures isn't exactly a convincing argument. Turban is infamous for being biased to the point of malpractice. Check out Jesse Singal's critiques of his research, for example.
- locopati 3y agoJesse Singal is another biased reporter on trans issues. Maybe cis people should trust trans people to know what we need rather than undermining us from an outsider perspective that has no understanding. You're defending these two people, so I'll ask... do you believe trans people exist? if so, do you believe we should be allowed to determine our own needs and care?
- baciggy 3y agoNot really, you just don't like the conclusions he reaches in his analysis because they conflict with your beliefs.