What? What? What Did They Just Say?

I am horrified and surprised that they said this? Was it taken out of context?

I ran across this post on the International Transgender Health Facebook page by Kelly Winters.

My analysis of the Shrier interview of Drs. Bowers and Anderson on a Raymondian/TERF web site and a call for immediate statements of support for affirming approaches to Trans health care by the Boards of WPATH and USPATH. These opinions are my own and do not represent those of ITH group members or the moderation team.

"Transgender and Non-Binary communities, families, allies, and providers have been deeply shaken this week by the appearance of WPATH President-elect, Dr. Marci Bowers, and USPATH President, Dr. Erica Anderson, in an interview by transmisist author Abagail Shrier (2021). Drs. Bowers and Anderson gave inflammatory criticism of affirming health care policies and puberty suppression care on the anti-trans Bari Weiss blog site. Their choice of such a biased venue to voice their concerns is particularly troubling...

Ms. Winters wrote on her Trans Policy Reform Blog,

The following list describes just a few of the concerns that have been shared with me:
1. Agenda of Intolerance.
Malice and disinformation from Abigail Shrier about Trans and NB people and their health care are very well known in Trans and intersectional communities (GLAAD, 2021). Her book, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters (2020), has inflicted enormous harm to Trans youth and was particularly offensive and defamatory toward Trans-masculine youth (Eckert, 2021; Turban, 2021). Dr. Bowers later stated, on her Twitter page (2021) and in correspondence reported by D’orsay (2021), that “my comments were no doubt taken out of context and used to fit a narrative on the part of Ms. Shrier”. However, anyone with expertise on contemporary Trans health issues should have been familiar with Shrier’s reputation and anti-trans agenda. In the blog piece, Ms. Shrier consistently misgendered trans-masculine youth as “girls.” She misrepresented punitive elements of gender-conversion psychotherapies, discredited by WPATH and unlawful in a growing number of jurisdictions, as commonly accepted mental health practice before the last decade. She conflated it with Dutch terminology of “watchful waiting” that has a different meaning (de Vries, 2012). Shrier uncritically promoted the harmful and discredited 70-80% “desistance” myth that “nearly seven in 10 children initially diagnosed with gender dysphoria” would spontaneously become cisgender in adolescence (Temple Newhook, 2018). It is mystifying and concerning that executive officers of WPATH and USPATH would choose Shrier as a reporter and Weiss’ malicious blog platform, rather than reputable media, medical, or WPATH/USPATH channels
2. Defaming Diversity.
3. Harm Reduction.
4. Nuances of Informed Consent.
5. Politicalization of Affirmation. The psychological and quality-of-life benefits of affirming approaches to Trans and N-B youth care have been longitudinally studied (Olson, et al., 2016) and well established in policy (Murchison, 2018). Moreover, principles of affirming authentic gender expression, bodily integrity, and self-determination have been internationally acknowledged as fundamental human rights (Cabral, 2015). However, Dr. Bowers’ interview statements have mocked affirming principles of care in bombastic, politicized terms: “There are definitely people who are trying to keep out anyone who doesn’t absolutely buy the party line that everything should be affirming, and that there’s no room for dissent.” And this: “I think maybe we zigged a little too far to the left in some cases” (Shrier, 2021). These platitudes of “to the left,” and “party line,” misrepresent the past three decades of scientific inquiry and clinical evidence that are reflected in modern, affirming approaches to Trans health care. She later added statements that, “Medical and surgical treatment is safe and effective. Not only is regret rare but it is on the decline” (D’orsay). While these points are valid and consistent with WPATH policy, they do little to mitigate the damage and confusion of the prior political rhetoric on affirming Trans health care.
6. Ambiguous Condemnation. Dr. Anderson is quoted in the interview as describing Trans-masculine youth at UCSF as “natal females,” rather than with respectful terminology. She criticized modern affirming approaches to youth care with vague and histrionic terms of “‘sloppy,’ sloppy healthcare work,” “rushing people through the medicalization,” and “failure — abject failure — to evaluate the mental health of someone historically in current time…” (Shrier, 2021). The latter suggested a call to return to archaic practices that presumed underlying psychopathology for gender-diverse youth, but, once again, she was not specific. Anderson did not clarify if sparing a gender dysphoric youth the trauma and potentially permanent disfigurement of incongruent pubertal development constituted “sloppy” work or “rushing…medicalization.” Ambiguity in her interview with Shrier left her intentions open to broad interpretation. Again, Dr. Anderson’s choice of Shrier and a malevolent blog site to make such statements is astonishing.

I am really surprised at Drs. Anderson and Bowers doing the interview and I would most definitely like to hear from the two doctors have to say.

So far all I have been able to find out was that she said “my comments were no doubt taken out of context and used to fit a narrative on the part of Ms. Shrier” But when asked to produce the whole transcript she declined.

I will anything more that I find out.