Academic Freedom and Cancel Culture

[mahagonny]

Meanwhile, the staunch supporters of free expression on the Spotsylvania, Virginia school board are removing books they don't like from library shelves.

Whether they like them or not is irrelevant. I don't like John Denver's singing much, but I wouldn't hide his recordings from minors.
Freedom of expression in your society at large and what should be in public school libraries that's available to minors, and also available to teachers to assign for reading, are different situations calling for different processes of judgment. How would you like your middle school kid reading the Marquis de Sade?

I doubt he would, since he'd find it boring. But at least he'd learn a good reductio against 'natural' arguments against homosexuality: the anus is round, penises are cylindrical, therefore obviously one was made for the other.

But you know what? If he wants to try reading it, he can. I don't have a problem with it. We can talk about it together.

Did you read the part where he performs 'surgery' on someone which he knows he doesn't know how to do, then watches him die, and gets prurient pleasure from it? I don't think I'd want you near my kid.

[Parasaurolophus]

And? I read some serious blood-and-guts historical fiction in eighth grade. Also horror. And even some of Mein Kampf. I also played video games and watched movies and TV. Oh, and I watched pornography, too. Lots of it. So did every other eighth grade boy I knew.

I'm not saying I'd force him to read it. Just that he can, if that's what he wants to, and he can read as much of it as he's interested in reading. And I'll be there to guide him through it.

[ciao_yall]

Think of "puberty blockers" for a moment. Should we have a free market in puberty blockers?

Look at a market in organs as an analogy. The latter half of the 20th century's most ardent free marketeer said no, there shouldn't be such a market. Why? Because its existence would influence the time of death of some, perhaps many, people! The regulation that  has emerged in the US to deal with this problem is voluntary supply with demand determined by survival chance and quality. A market of sorts on which no money changes hands.

Analogously, I would not trust doctors on average to correctly prescribe puberty blockers, each of whom has a different tradeoff between helping patients and making money. This is analogous to death in the sense that a wrong decision is very, very costly to the individual.

From the thread discussion, there is clearly justified worry over quasi-political solutions and situations. I'm saying a free market for puberty blockers doesn't work well either.

We ain't nowhere.

Edit: spelling

I also don't think "doctors on average" are prescribing puberty blockers. Specialists might, but only after an intense screening protocol over quite some time.

And no doctors want to make money.

Even fewer doctors want to be sued for malpractice and lose their licenses.

[Wahoo Redux]

Mind your own business, Marshy.  It is not your place to decide what is good for other people.

Consider two scenarios:

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I am a boy. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I have breast cancer. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

Do both of these make sense? If not, how much due diligence should apply in each case to determine whether this is appropriate?

Dumb, Marshy.  Hypotheticals are even weaker than anecdata.

And we let the doctor decide what is the best medical and ethical procedure with the parents' consent (as I imagine that is the law).  That's why we have doctors.

And leave people alone.  The Dudley Do-Right moral crusaders pretending that they stand for common sense and the rights of the downtrodden are always the worst. 

[mahagonny]

And? I read some serious blood-and-guts historical fiction in eighth grade. Also horror. And even some of Mein Kampf. I also played video games and watched movies and TV. Oh, and I watched pornography, too. Lots of it. So did every other eighth grade boy I knew.

I'm not saying I'd force him to read it. Just that he can, if that's what he wants to, and he can read as much of it as he's interested in reading. And I'll be there to guide him through it.

Speak for yourself. I did not watch pornography in eighth grade, and frankly I'm not thrilled with how you turned out.
There's some pervert who puts some of those books in the children's libraries because he gets a thrill from it.

[Parasaurolophus]

And? I read some serious blood-and-guts historical fiction in eighth grade. Also horror. And even some of Mein Kampf. I also played video games and watched movies and TV. Oh, and I watched pornography, too. Lots of it. So did every other eighth grade boy I knew.

I'm not saying I'd force him to read it. Just that he can, if that's what he wants to, and he can read as much of it as he's interested in reading. And I'll be there to guide him through it.

Speak for yourself. I did not watch pornography in eighth grade, and frankly I'm not thrilled with how you turned out.
There's some pervert who puts some of those books in the children's libraries because he gets a thrill from it.

I was speaking for myself.

Also note that you were in eighth grade what? 50 years ago? We had the internet.

[mahagonny]

Yes I know, the internet. I also believe it's unhealthy.
ETA: the fact that you had access to internet pornography does not mean you were errant as a 13 year old. It means that society is failing its children and their parents. I don't know what should be done about it.

[smallcleanrat]

Mind your own business, Marshy.  It is not your place to decide what is good for other people.

Consider two scenarios:

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I am a boy. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I have breast cancer. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

Do both of these make sense? If not, how much due diligence should apply in each case to determine whether this is appropriate?

Neither of those make sense, and neither would happen.

Is the self-diagnosis of the issue the nonsensical part, or the self-prescribed treatment, or both? What physician response would be appropriate to both?

People self-diagnose and demand specific treatments all the time. That's not a new trend.

What would be weird is if the doctor responds as in your scenario, without any follow-up questions, discussion with the parents, referral to a specialist, or essentially any other action besides signing off on surgery immediately.

There are plenty of examples of doctors making poor decisions or jumping to the most drastic treatments before exploring alternatives, so the scenario is possible. But...a patient says essentially two sentences and is immediately approved for surgery...that seems very unlikely to me. I certainly find it hard to believe this is the norm. What would the doctor write on the insurance form? "Patient said they want it; I didn't ask questions"?

But I get the sense you also think that if such a scenario were to occur, the doctor's actions would receive little criticism from the medical establishment or the public in general? Like this has become considered best practice in the profession? I didn't think that was the case.

And then to lay such a scenario at the feet of "activists" promoting a culture of acceptance which you seem to be claiming pushes for immediate medical intervention whatever the consequences...It's so much more extreme a stance than I've heard from anyone speaking for acceptance of trans people. Acceptance can mean using preferred pronouns/names, not asking them invasive questions about their bodies or medical history, and general just-be-civil behavior (like not making insulting jokes at their expense).

If people are using "acceptance" to mean a doctor's medical judgment should be completely overruled by the patient's demands for a specific type of treatment, I don't think I've run into any yet. I would guess it's not what most people mean when using the term as relates to trans people.

As for the potential side effects and the fact that there is insufficient data to make firm statements about long-term effects...that's pretty much every type of drug/hormonal therapy. A responsible doctor is going to weigh the potential benefits against the potential risks and communicate those pros and cons to the patient (and their guardians', when appropriate).

[dismalist]

Think of "puberty blockers" for a moment. Should we have a free market in puberty blockers?

Look at a market in organs as an analogy. The latter half of the 20th century's most ardent free marketeer said no, there shouldn't be such a market. Why? Because its existence would influence the time of death of some, perhaps many, people! The regulation that  has emerged in the US to deal with this problem is voluntary supply with demand determined by survival chance and quality. A market of sorts on which no money changes hands.

Analogously, I would not trust doctors on average to correctly prescribe puberty blockers, each of whom has a different tradeoff between helping patients and making money. This is analogous to death in the sense that a wrong decision is very, very costly to the individual.

From the thread discussion, there is clearly justified worry over quasi-political solutions and situations. I'm saying a free market for puberty blockers doesn't work well either.

We ain't nowhere.

Edit: spelling

I also don't think "doctors on average" are prescribing puberty blockers. Specialists might, but only after an intense screening protocol over quite some time.

And no doctors want to make money.

Even fewer doctors want to be sued for malpractice and lose their licenses.

Lawsuit against giving the patient what s/he wants? No.

Everyone adult can do whatever they want with their sexuality.

I got interested in the concept of puberty blocker because it denotes the young, who do not have agency, as customers. For those, protection rules have to be developed. I don't know of any, and have not seen any on this thread.

[Wahoo Redux]

FOR GOD'S SAKE, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!

[dismalist]

FOR GOD'S SAKE, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!

Au contraire, I think children should be exposed to more risks than they are by typical middle class parenting skills. If they're not taking enough risks, they're not having enough fun.

But these must be reversible risks like breaking their arms falling off swings. Irreversible risks is a different thing altogether.

[ciao_yall]

FOR GOD'S SAKE, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!

Au contraire, I think children should be exposed to more risks than they are by typical middle class parenting skills. If they're not taking enough risks, they're not having enough fun.

But these must be reversible risks like breaking their arms falling off swings. Irreversible risks is a different thing altogether.

Every time a child sees the news they learn there are a lot of horrible people out there. What are we supposed to do, hide them in the basement?

[dismalist]

FOR GOD'S SAKE, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!

Au contraire, I think children should be exposed to more risks than they are by typical middle class parenting skills. If they're not taking enough risks, they're not having enough fun.

But these must be reversible risks like breaking their arms falling off swings. Irreversible risks is a different thing altogether.

Every time a child sees the news they learn there are a lot of horrible people out there. What are we supposed to do, hide them in the basement?

I said the opposite. 

[ciao_yall]

FOR GOD'S SAKE, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!

Au contraire, I think children should be exposed to more risks than they are by typical middle class parenting skills. If they're not taking enough risks, they're not having enough fun.

But these must be reversible risks like breaking their arms falling off swings. Irreversible risks is a different thing altogether.

Every time a child sees the news they learn there are a lot of horrible people out there. What are we supposed to do, hide them in the basement?

I said the opposite.

Some might say reading about the Marquis de Sade or LGBTQA teens would cause irreversable damage.

[dismalist]

FOR GOD'S SAKE, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!

Au contraire, I think children should be exposed to more risks than they are by typical middle class parenting skills. If they're not taking enough risks, they're not having enough fun.

But these must be reversible risks like breaking their arms falling off swings. Irreversible risks is a different thing altogether.

Every time a child sees the news they learn there are a lot of horrible people out there. What are we supposed to do, hide them in the basement?

I said the opposite.

Some might say reading about the Marquis de Sade or LGBTQA teens would cause irreversable damage.

Now you're saying the opposite of what you originally said. Word games.

End of the announcement.