When I was invited to go on Piers Morgan Uncensored, I was deeply undecided. I knew Morgan was quite conservative and religious, and I’ve seen clips of him bullying his guests. So I had a back-and-forth with the producer, trying to discern what Morgan wanted to ask me about. I got a long list of questions, which I decided I could field, but it turned out that Morgan was on my side about the sex binary, the need to treat trans and non-binary gender people with respect and dignifty, but also for the need to discuss the issue of what happens when trans rights conflict with the rights of other groups, most especially women. Further it also turned out that the big issue for Morgan was trans women in women’s sports, something I could easily discuss. Finally, I asked several of my friends who had been on that show, who encouraged me to go on.
So I said “yes”—with some trepidation. I emphasized that I didn’t want to debate, because I don’t see debates as a good way to rationally discuss issues (you can see a failed attempt below), and I prefer to express my views in talks or written articles, where rhetorical dexterity is not so important. That was fine with the producer. They gave me half an hour, and then said there would be a multi-person debate following my segment, though they didn’t tell me the participants. They are listed below. They sent a fancy studio truck to my University, complete with a Chicago background and a satellite broadcasting dish, and lo and behold, I was on t.v. (taped).
It turned out that yes, Piers and I agreed in our one-on-one, which goes for the first 25½ minutes below and involves mostly sports. My segment was followed by a heated debate. Here’s the YouTube description:
This week, House Republicans passed a bill that bans transgender women and girls from school sports, and soon that legislation will advance to the Senate. Speaker Mike Johnson, says this move protects young girls, but others say this will further ostracise vulnerable kids. Emotions are running high, and people on both sides of the debate are reporting receiving online abuse and death threats.
To cover this vital discussion, Piers Morgan speaks to biologist Jerry Coyne, who left the Freedom from Religion Foundation due to its position on sex and gender. Then, he turns to his panel made up of host of ‘Tomi Lahren is Fearless’ Tomi Lahren, Executive Director from the progressive organisation, Rebellion Pac, Brianna Wu and trans rights activist, Eli Erlick for their expert opinions.
I had heard of Tomi Lahren and Brianna Wu before, but not Eli Erlick. (Wu and Erlick are trans women, while Lahren is a biological woman, but hates that term and prefers to call herself just “a woman.”) But I knew little about any of them. It turns out that both Wu and Lahren agree that extreme trans activism was hurting the trans movement, while Erlick basically takes issue with everything I said. Everybody save Erlick got quite exercised, and of course there was no rapprochement.
But one thing that came out, which is mentioned on Wikipedia, is that Erlick, at the least, had a plan to illegally supply puberty blockers to “trans children and adolescents”. And at least one source says that Erlick actually followed through with this distribution, which is clearly unethical and possibly dangerous. (At 46:00, Erlick more or less admits she did indeed do the distribution.)
I think Wu would have had a bit more credibility had she not characterized Erlick and her confrères as “trans freak show friends”, and the same with Lahren and her “rainbow mafia” designation. (Wu is clearly disturbed that the excesses of gender activists could have helped Harris lose the election.)
Nevertheless, I do agree in general with what Wu and Lahren said. Even conservatives (e.g., Lahren and Morgan) can be right about some things, and this is one of them. Surely organizations like the ACLU or FFRF would not approve of the illegal distribution of puberty blockers to children!
Anyway, here’s the 50-minute video, which shows that, at least at present, there is no possibility of a thoughtful adjudication of the few areas in which trans rights clash with women’s rights.
Addendum: Although Erlick denies that the authors of study described below—mentioned by Lahren at 46:45—tried to bury it, Erlick is wrong.It has, as far as I know, still not been published. Read the NYT article below by clicking the headline, or find it archived here:
An excerpt:
An influential doctor and advocate of adolescent gender treatments said she had not published a long-awaited study of puberty-blocking drugs because of the charged American political environment.
The doctor, Johanna Olson-Kennedy, began the study in 2015 as part of a broader, multimillion-dollar federal project on transgender youth. She and colleagues recruited 95 children from across the country and gave them puberty blockers, which stave off the permanent physical changes — like breasts or a deepening voice — that could exacerbate their gender distress, known as dysphoria.
The researchers followed the children for two years to see if the treatments improved their mental health. An older Dutch study had found that puberty blockers improved well-being, results that inspired clinics around the world to regularly prescribe the medications as part of what is now called gender-affirming care.
But the American trial did not find a similar trend, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said in a wide-ranging interview. Puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements, she said, most likely because the children were already doing well when the study began.
“They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years,” said Dr. Olson-Kennedy, who runs the country’s largest youth gender clinic at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles.
That conclusion seemed to contradict an earlier description of the group, in which Dr. Olson-Kennedy and her colleagues noted that one quarter of the adolescents were depressed or suicidal before treatment.
This is a prime example of scientific truth being kept under wraps because it undermines people’s ideology.
I’ve been watching that interview this morning and wondering when you would post about it. Good job! Can’t say the same about the panel discussion that followed. Best take-away is that when someone like Eli Erlick calls you unscientific then you know you’re on the right track.
I’ll write more about this kerfuffle tomorrow in a post called “The FFRF strikes back”. And then, I hope, that will be it.
I watched it yesterday, after the YouTube algorithm suggested it for me. Good job!
Looking forward to viewing this at the gym today! Glad you didn’t have to debate. Making an argument in print or in an interview is an entirely different genre. Too much of debate is directed at preventing the other person from making the case. I suspect that this is what I’ll see in the debate segment of the piece.
Debating is a popular kind of news/entertainment segment, but they often just regress to opposing sides just yelling at each other.
Yes, there needs to be some measure of how effective each side was, such as the net number of attendees who registered changing their minds after they heard the debate. Otherwise it is just two sides yelling at each other and the audience cheering on their partisan champion.
Even if your side highly unpopular in that audience goes from 90-10 against you to 80-20 against, it means you won.
Yes, the Intelligence Squared debates do a before and after audience poll like that. Boris Johnson humiliated himself in his debate with Classicist professor Mary Beard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Just finished watching. You were excellent, and the format—expert testimony followed by debate—was quite good. Piers Morgan did a good job keeping the chaos to a dull roar.
The woman in the middle—the mean one—won’t win out in the end, simply because she is so unlikeable. Her first statement—that you didn’t know what you were talking about and your position is contradicted by the rest of the scientific community—was dishonest, as she was referring to the various traits that are correlated with sex and not the definition itself. If you were there at the debate, you’d have had to jump in with a correction, but it’s probably better that you stayed above the fray and let the other three—plus Morgan—hash it all out. Nice job!
Just watched the half with your interview and was glad to see you make so many excellent points.
When the trans rights advocates charge you with “wanting to eliminate trans people” by their lights they’re not wrong — because “who they are” is uniquely dependent on everybody accepting their mandated definitions. You’re arguing with the definitions. You’re undermining the reality they’ve created.
Agreed they’re not wrong. Genderism is a linguistics project not a biology or culture project, so debating the meanings of words is debating the existence of a “trans” person (“adult human female”, “born in the wrong body”, etc.).
Such an important point, “Genderism is a linguistics project…” To keep this in mind is to maintain a grasp on reality. That’s why these discussions rarely go anywhere with the party clinging to their linguistics. It’s crazy making and the real offense is that it’s been allowed to weasel its way into science. It takes a lot of fortitude to keep pushing back (as Jerry does) against this. He said it best at the outset of the interview, “What a thicket of weeds we have to hack our way through”.
Yes, good point, but if they mean that I want all people who see themselves as trans simply gone, they’re dead wrong!
Yes exactly (and “dead wrong” is apt). They make a kind of motte-and-bailey defense: they will accuse you of wanting “trans” people to not exist (and imply that you want them to be dead), then retreat from that ludicrous accusation to admit that you’re just talking about the definition of what sex a “trans” person is. It’s linguistics all the way down.
What I find interesting about the comments on X is that many people are frustrated at the idea that we would need a professor of evolutionary biology to tell us that people cannot change sex. Some advocates for the trans community have tried to confuse the public on this question but I don’t think, by and large, that they’ve succeeded.
In my opinion, gender ideology played a relatively small (but not zero) role in the election. I think immigration and inflation were bigger issues. In my opinion, Sunny Hostin sank (played a role in sinking) KH’s chances for election. That was not her intent. That was the effect.
I don’t think any of us think that gender ideology played a big role in the election. But I think it played SOME role in the election. I don’t think I’ve ever said otherwise.
That is correct. I watched your interview with Piers Morgan. In my opinion, it was quite good.
Congrats, Ceiling Cat! Great job on the interview!
As for gender ideology and the election, it definitely pushed ex-Democrats like me toward Dark MAGA and made some independents who might’ve voted for Harris stay home.
That alone wasn’t enough to secure Trump both the electoral and popular vote, though. For that, we can thank Musk, the Democrats’ deception about Biden’s cognitive state, their insistence on Harris as the nominee, their economic mismanagement, and their failure at the border.
The sex/gender issue was the third most-cited reason given by voters for not supporting Harris in the election:
https://blueprint2024.com/polling/why-trump-reasons-11-8/
That’s an interesting poll and site that I was not aware of–thanks for posting the link. Among swing voters who voted Trump, cultural issues was +28 (the highest ranked reason). In swing states where the Trump “they/them” add ran extensively, it certainly could have been the thing that put Trump over the line (as the margins were close in all swing states). I don’t know what it will take for the Dems to step away from the gender and identity nonsense but maybe the fever is starting to break.
My expectation is that ~ nobody will step away in the sense of apologizing and changing public stance. Pronouns will just disappear from bios and email signatures, and people from the former “be kind” brigade will try to pretend they never held these views. Activists will slide back to other “human rights” issues and pretend they never shouted at normies that “TWAW”.
https://x.com/_CryMiaRiver/status/1878421502803972390
+1
It is lamentable that enterprising physicians have not yet devised methods of species-affirming care for those who suffer from species dysphoria. New research on the hormonal control of fur growth might help in this regard. Perhaps the ACLU, among other organizations, could lobby for increased funding of research in this vital area of future medical practice.
South Park season 9 episode 1 already covered this issue in 2005, with their usual take-no-prisoners style.
As a young boy I was a tiger for a week or so but mainly I was a monkey and had to correct my family quite a bit about that. If there had been some kind of monkey serum I could have taken then, maybe I wouldn’t be stuck as a complete horse’s ass now.
LOL!!
George Cazorla (Imane Khelif’s trainer) admitted that he (IK) was male (many times) in Le Point. The article (in Le Point) is from 8-14-2024. The final Olympic match was on 8-9-2024. The IBA notified the IOC that Imane Khelif is male in 6-2023. Djaffer Ait Aoudia published IK’s leaked medical report from the French Bicetre hospital on 10-25-2024. The French hospital ran tests on IK back in 6-2023.
Happy to see you on Piers Morgan. Piers may be somewhat rude sometimes, but his opinion is not extreme in the least. I find him quite moderate politically. I really appreciate that Piers always invite people with complete opposing views. His show is really uncensored and he is definitely a free speech fundamentalist like I am
Erlick is a vile human being. There have been many allegations of rape against him.
https://x.com/Glinner/status/1608286109833854982
I have to put in a caveat here that people are assumed innocent until proven guilty, so an accusation is not a conviction.
That’s why I specifically said ‘allegations’ and not ‘convictions’. I did a quick search to see if any had come to court before I commented, but I couldn’t find much information, so I stated that they were allegations.
He has been very open about to offering puberty blockers off label to children, that’s one of several reasons why he’s a vile human being.
What is a “credible” accusation of rape, as per the link? (The article doesn’t say.
It just calls them all credible.) If we believe all women, including transwomen, the word credible should be superfluous. Even if Erlick has admitted being a rapist, as he is alleged by these credible accusers to have admitted, rape is a legal finding. He might have a vile, toxic, activist reason for admitting to or bragging about something that he knows he won’t be prosecuted for…because it never happened. Fundamentally it remains a he-said-she-said.
And finally, with all these “credible” accusations from ca. 2021, why has none resulted in even a charge, much less a conviction, four years on? Doesn’t even one credible victim want to take the heat of a trial to put him in prison or at least cost him a lot of money to defend himself? I hate to be cynical, but I’m going to be anyway, and say it might suit some partisans to make accusations they don’t have to be cross-examined on as doing sufficient damage for their purposes to the target. That does call into question just what we mean by “credible” accusations.
This harks back to what Sam Harris was saying in connection with Hunter Biden’s laptop. If Donald Trump was such a danger to democracy that anything was justifiable to prevent his election, wouldn’t you want Twitter to suppress the story no matter what was in the laptop? The more damaging it was to Joe, the more you would want it suppressed. If Erlick is that vile, — even if women never lie about sexual assault in normal circumstances — why not falsely accuse him of rape to try to take him down? If you have no money, he’s not going to sue you for defamation. And you’re only in trouble for mischief if you go to the police and make what turns out to be a wholly fabricated complaint, like Jussie Smollet’s “lynching”.
Unfortunately for women who have been sexually assaulted, the more of these “credible” accusations there are floating around out there with no attempt to prove any of them, the less credible each and all of them are.
It is very hard to get a rape conviction. Many women don’t even try. Transwomen seem to have extra protection under the law in the UK, i’m not sure if it’s the same in the USA.
I shared Glinner’s comment as he often has more information on these things than is in the public arena, but I haven’t discussed it with him, which is why I didn’t give more details.
He should sue the women for false allegations, like he sued Blair White.
An interesting interview and debate – thanks!
On the male/female brain issue, my understanding is that the studies that have been conducted so far have been flawed because of a) too small a number of subjects; b) same-sex orientation wasn’t taken into account; and c) some subjects were taking cross-sex hormones; and in some instances all three.
Brianna Wu is one of a small number of trans-identifying males who position themselves as “reasonable transwomen”. Their agenda seems to be to persuade women to keep other (unreasonable) trans-identifying men out of their toilets and changing rooms, but to make an exception for them.
Two years is not long enough to study the effect of blockers on children. They can feel elated from the affirmation at first, but then the negative symptoms kick in, like genital atrophy, the realisation that you are sterile, the early onset menopause and, for those put on blockers, before Tanner Stage 2, learning that you will never, ever orgasm.
Suicide statistics seem to be higher for those who who have had surgery. Exulansic documents kids, some of whom have had 6, 7 or more surgeries trying to fix botched operations.
She has a relatively new series called ‘The Dead Names’ which ” documents individuals killed as a result of trans ideology, either directly through medicalization, or indirectly due to lack of recognition of transition as the cry for help and indication of social emotional psychological instability that it so often, if not always, is.”
https://exulansic.substack.com/p/the-dead-names-dagny-nex-benedict
Yes, Exulansic’s X account is an interesting one to follow.
Very much. Exulansic is pretty smart and very well informed in these issues.
D.A.
NYC
That X account shows up as suspended when I went to subscribe/follow.
https://x.com/exulansic
There is however a substack.
I am enjoying the continued discussion on this topic and there are so many things I find I’m trying to sort out for myself personally as well. All this is very helpful. I went to the CFI Conference where Jerry spoke and I drove to Las Vegas and roomed with two people I hardly knew except for zoom meetings. I think Jerry had just written something and I was talking to my two new friends about it and discovered that they were on the opposite side of me. I was shocked. They were both saying – don’t you understand Amy, this is based on what someone feels. You can’t question it – it’s feelings. Which I thought was really strange and obviously devoid of proof or science. Then Steve Novella gave his talk my friends all love it! They’ve found a new brain module (or whatever- I forgot what he said) where what you feel is what your sex is. I don’t know if Jerry realized at the time that it seemed to me that at least half the audience at CFI did not agree with him. I’m very concerned about this turning away from reason and science even within CFI. It’s very odd to me. Also, if you look at, say, Hemant Metha’s site and the comments he gets about the FFRF board members resigning, they love it! But they do not have one scientific fact or argument to back them up. Just a bunch of name calling, ageism and bullying. It’s like a bunch of children cheering on a fight. I thought I could respect groups like FFRF. I hope CFI doesn’t loose members over this, but I was taken aback by people’s attitudes at the conference. Thanks for reading. Amy
Very worrying about the Skeptical movement and its overwhelmingly “progressive“ bias. It’s extremely ironic that you can read a book written by Steven Novella that actually has chapters in it on motivated reasoning.
If the skeptical movement (if there actually ever was one) goes down the tubes, how much will it really matter. After all, the nonexistence of Bigfoot and the sphericity of the earth are now pretty well established.
Pew poll found that on the question of transwomen participating in women’s sports, atheists were more or less split 1/3 each favoring, disfavoring, and being agnostic. So at least on the particular issue there appears to be wiggle room for debate.
New poll from NYTimes on transgender issues just dropped…..Please let me know if you can’t open this link:
“Most Americans Don’t Support Top Trans-Activist Goals, NYT Poll Finds
A Times opinion poll found that the majority of Democrats think women’s sports should be restricted according to sex, not gender identity, and that minors shouldn’t have access to transition drugs.”
https://benryan.substack.com/p/most-americans-dont-support-top-trans
People who endorse gender ideology will be unimpressed by polls, viewing such results as equivalent to a majority of the population being against the teaching of evolution or the integration of public schools.
That’s why I’m leery of citing polls. Though it may help a political argument, it smacks of abandoning the rational and moral high ground. Most Americans support Donald Trump.
I’m not understanding the point. This is a political issue so polls are inherently relevant.
Even more pertinently, it’s a legislative issue. Legislators are moved by polls, predicting as they do their chances of being re-elected, even if activists are not.
But it does help to undercut one popular trans activist line: “You’re just a religious conservative–everyone else agrees with us!”
Interesting – thanks, dd. It seems that a significant proportion of Dems are still at odds with common sense, though.
Excellent interview and I’m glad you did it. Piers is mixed, peeves me off at times with some of his (terrorist) guests but on the whole he’s not terrible and his reach is very, very large.
Another factor is there aren’t many excellent spokesmen for this particular cause so it is important you went on. Collin Wright and Dawkins can’t be everywhere either and I think you put it clearer than even they do.
The discussion afterwards was the maniac zoo of course. Why not let them beclown themselves I say? All the linkages to civil rights and gay rights are dishonest sleights of hand, so sneaky many people at a glance got snookered by the trans cult.
So here we are. I bet as a young professor you wouldn’t have ever imagined being here.
Respect!
D.A.
NYC / Florida
+1 When I was watching Jerry make his points the sounds of the Jerry Springer show were going through my head. (JER — E, JER — E !)
That exact GIF is posted in reply on Colin Wright’s eXtwitter on this.
GIFs!
[ GIF of Orson Welles clapping in Citizen Kane ]
Very nicely done! Thank you for putting your head above the parapet.
Looks like the next thing to explain is how to confirm sex. Some folks seem unfamiliar with birth certificates and, if needed, cheek swabs.
https://x.com/womenarereals/status/1879257903489863776?s=61&t=f3tfa_dRLrupkxoDqTq45g
Gender discordance is a brain-body disconnect. The aim of treatment must be to help vulnerable young people to adjust their distorted self-perception to fit their bodies, not the other way round. “Gender-affirming care” is an oxymoron and is in fact “sex denying”. The underlying premise displaces sex with gender. It conflates the biological reality of sex and the traditional use of gender terms as simply sex descriptors, with a distorted social construct of gender, as defined by pseudo-scientific ideology and beliefs. Sex cannot be changed. Sex chromosomes determine sex, and are an immutable part of our DNA; they are intrinsic to every cell nucleus in the human body. No amount of drugs, surgery and wishful thinking can change our genetic blueprint, our DNA.
When you put it that way, it makes me ask why we change the body to match the self-perception. It is so much easier to change someone’s mind than it is to change their body!
Good interview, Jerry.
As a Canadian, Christopher, presumably posting from Canada, you have to be cautious. The second sentence of Sarah’s comment is almost exactly referenced in Canada’s Criminal Code definition of illegal conversion therapy. You can go to prison for providing, advertising, or “promoting” conversion therapy for homosexual or transgendered individuals. No one knows what “promotion” actually means — presumably it’s broader than advertising. Do note that the Liberal Government’s PR supporting the conversion therapy bill explained that it was banning promotion — remember we don’t have First Amendment rights to freedom of speech — in order to protect the alphabet community from public exposure to hate.
So while it might well be easier to change someone’s mind than to change his body, or just let Nature take its course, saying so is very likely a criminal offence.
Thank you for the reminder, Leslie. Is it not strange that a lot of ‘gender affirming care’ turns out to be conversion therapy at heart – converting gay kids into trans kids? But I’m probably not allowed to point that out either.
I am skeptical that gender identity can be changed by psychiatric practice. What we “must” not do is simply assume that it can be successfully treated that way without any evidence. All behavior and thinking and feeling and self-identity etc., have a presence in the mind. We cannot conclude that because any particular self-identity is found in the mind therefore it is to be treated as a problem to be remedied by changing that mind. There is no such “therefore”.
“The aim of treatment must be to help vulnerable young people to adjust their distorted self-perception to fit their bodies, not the other way round.” For that to work people experiencing gender dysphoria would need to be at least willing to pay a psychiatrist to try to change their mind. Without such customers there will be no such psychiatrists and therefore no convincing record of success that such treatment works to convince people that paying for such treatment is worthwhile. And without such evidence of success at this time it is currently presumptuous to say it “must” be treated that way. The most we can say at this time is that this alternative approach to treatment should be tested to determine if it is viable and if it is preferable based on results.