Bill Maher vs. Jon Lovett on trans rights

February 25, 2025 • 9:30 am

Jon Lovett is identified by Wikipedia as

. . . .  an American podcaster, comedian, journalist, and former speechwriter. Lovett is a co-founder of Crooked Media, along with Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor. All three formerly worked together as White House staffers during the Obama administration. Lovett is a regular host of the Crooked Media podcasts Pod Save America and Lovett or Leave It. As a speechwriter, he worked for both President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when she was a United States senator and a 2008 presidential candidate.

And of course you know who Bill Maher is.  In the ten-minute talk argument below, Lovett and Maher discuss issues of kids with gender dysphoria, including these questions:

a.) Can schools hide a child’s desire to transition sex roles from the parents?

b.) Are there social influences that can promote children to want to change gender roles beyond “feeling like you’re in the wrong body.”

c.) Can the government be allowed to ban “gender-affirming care”?

d) Are children dying (presumably by suicide) because they aren’t allowed to transition?

Lovett actually comes off worse here, mainly because he’s spouting Biden-era dogma about sex and making statements that are scientifically dubious. However, I have to call out Maher near the beginning when he says “Obviously sex is more complicated than just two sexes.”  Yes, sex is complicated, but there are just two sexes. This is the mistake I discussed the other day.

Maher also conflates gender dysphoria with sexual attraction. But in the main, Maher makes some good points, and above all emphasizes that these are questions to be debated, not quashed by “progressives” who slander everyone trying to discuss them as “transphob” or “bigots”.

Maher calls the social conditioning of gender-dysphoric kids “entrapment”, which he defines as “suggesting that people do something that they are not going to do,” or “Putting an idea in someone’s head that wouldn’t be there otherwise.” (In this case, the idea is that the child/adolescent is trapped in the wrong body.)

Lovett, in contrast denies the prevalence of social influence on transitioning, while Maher takes Abigail Shrier’s view that many (but not all) children who decide they are in the wrong body are pushed to transition by peers, doctors, and teachers.  As he says, premature transitioning is medically dangerous and perhaps superfluous, not to mention an issue that can hurt Democrats who support it out of virtue signaling. Maher: “To take that risk at that age, before you know shit about anything. . . ”

Lovett makes the familiar but incorrect argument that without gender-affirming care, many kids would die.  He draws an analogy with cardiology, in which heart surgeons sometimes screw up during surgery and their patients die. But that’s a bogus argument because heart surgeons operate (and patients consent) if the consequences of not having surgery are dire. The difference is that we have enough experience to know the risks and benefits of heart surgery.

But this is not the case for gender dysphoria. Withholding hormones and surgery from kids who are dysphoric does not as often touted, leead to depression and death. (“Do you want a dead son or a live daughter?, some say.)  Yet studies show that about 80% of gender-dysphoric children who are not driven to take hormones and surgery resolve as gay (no medical dangers there!) or even cis.  That is a strong argument against the kind of “gender-affirming care” that puts dysphoric kids on a one-way escalator leading first to puberty blockers and then to hormone treatment and/or surgery.

Maher also seems to know more about the recent science than does Lovett, mentioning the ten-year Olson-Kennedy study showing that puberty blockers, touted by ideologues like Lovett as essential to saving lives, do not in fact improve the well being of gender-dysphoric childrene. From the NYT:

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.

Although we the American taxpayers funded this study through the NIH, the results have not yet been released. Why? Because they don’t support the dogma that puberty blockers save lives. Also from the NYT:

In the nine years since the study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and as medical care for this small group of adolescents became a searing issue in American politics, Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s team has not published the data. Asked why, she said the findings might fuel the kind of political attacks that have led to bans of the youth gender treatments in more than 20 states, one of which will soon be considered by the Supreme Court.

“I do not want our work to be weaponized,” she said. “It has to be exactly on point, clear and concise. And that takes time.”

This is shameful. To suppress important data because they “might fuel political attacks” or go against “progressive” ideology is totally unethical.  Maher knows about that study, as do many of us; but apparently Lovett either does not or deliberately ignores it.

Maher also makes the point that insistence on possibly harmful medical intervention without knowing its long-term effects is a stand that can—and probably has—harmed Democrats. (Yes, some Republicans take this stand because they really don’t want trans people around, but you can take that stand for the right reasons, too.)

Maher’s point, with which I agree completely, is that you don’t go ahead with possibly harmful medical treatment until you know what the harms actually are. 

Without further ado, here is the debate, which is mildly acrimonious:

23 thoughts on “Bill Maher vs. Jon Lovett on trans rights”

  1. Thanks for correcting Maher on the number of sexes—I hope he’s willing to get better informed about biology, as I have been doing recently myself.

    As for Lovett, I’m a regular listener of his podcast and have emailed the show multiple times, pointing them (in a kind & helpful way) to reporting that challenged his narratives about “trans” matters. Then I learned about his relationship w/Ari Schwartz, who is a trans-identifying female, and realized that could well be contributing to “soldier mindset”* rather than “scout mindset.”
    (I’m not disclosing anything secret, he’s referred to the relationship publicly.)

    *”Soldier mindset” is Julia Galef’s brilliant metaphor for motivated reasoning.

    1. I always think of Helen Joyce and the japanese soldier when seeing or hearing someone defending sex/gender/trans stuff even when I think that they must see that this and that can’t possible be correct.

      soldier mindset”vd “scout mindset.” never heard about, thanks for letting us know. It’s a good way to see things

  2. I have no data on this but I read that this issue was a number one issue among swing voters. And it certainly took up a lot of oxygen. Not b/c it effects so many people of itself but more because boys in the girls change room (the logical extension and something we’ve seen) effects many parents who have sporty daughters.

    It is easy and common for ideologues of both sides to take the “team position” on issues they (clearly here) don’t understand.

    D.A.
    NYC

    1. Besides, even for those without children or interest in sport, it creates a culture of forced lying that can outrage any normal person.

  3. When Lovett says that there are study after study that show that gender-affirming care is livesaving – well, this is just complete nonsense. All systematic reviews have shown that the evidence is sparse and of low quality. WPATH had to suppress the systematic reviews it commissioned because they did not show the desired results.
    At the start Lovett asked Maher: Why not leave it to parents, kids and their doctors? It’s simply a consumer protection issue. Most patients are too trusting of their doctors. They don’t realize that what doctors tell them about treatments’ benefits and risks are just conjectures (e.g., puberty blockers are reversible – there is no evidence for this claim). In any other context leftists would demand that advertisers’ statements about their products have to be true. But in transgender medicine the Dems are hopeless. Ditto for transwomen in female sports. These things are so unpopular among voters, it’s disheartening for those of us who hope that the Dems get their act together again come the next elections. It’s as if they have been lobotomized.

    1. “When Lovett says that there are study after study that show that gender-affirming care is livesaving – well, this is just complete nonsense”

      Yes, and again I have to say (for the n’t time), the gender affirming care(?) we see in the US is nuts for most European. Of course, we have our own activists that always refer to WPATH etc and demand “life saving” care, but the trend among the majority of the public don’t buy this anymore

  4. Is it possible that the last Democratic administration tried pandering to the communicants of gender ideology out of cold, electoral calculation? Perhaps a consultant told the Dems that appeal to the transvestite voting bloc would more than make up for votes lost among what we used to call the working class. Of course, it would be indecorous to “center” the working class, because it is not “minoritized”.

        1. Although out of use these days, the word merits revival because of its precise
          meaning. Language evolves. The use of “center” as a verb used to be limited
          to carpentry, but observe how this use has, uhhh, blossomed.

          1. Hi. My highlighting the term was not due to its current frequency-of-usage, but rather, its usage in this context. Transvestites are typically heterosexual men who dress in “women-typical” clothes for their own sexual gratification. I don’t think that’s the cohort that JG (sa…) intended to isolate.

  5. I’ve seen the social contagion aspect first-hand with family members in a deep blue state who are actively encouraging their children to explore non-traditional gender roles and then posting about it to social media as a way to gain attention for them as parents. “Look at me! Here’s little Jimmy in a dress, and little Jenny in coveralls! My child is special and I’m so tolerant and supportive, even though it’s so hard to do so!” Then come the supportive comments and emojis from their very well educated friends (these are all professional people). It’s very close to Munchausen’s. When the boys were out playing basketball one day, the parents angrily told them to put the ball away and make up basketball cheers using pom-poms instead.

    Regarding the statement that some Republicans take this stand because they really don’t want trans people around, I’ve not met any who take this stance and I see a lot of Republicans. Generally, they A) don’t want to inflict a life-changing, damaging procedure on children; B) don’t agree that boys can be girls and vice versa, but are willing to let people live as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others such as in girl’s sport or in women’s prisons; C) see most of the trans-movement as being pushed on society which leads to more social contagion; D) don’t want to be called bigots because of holding these views and tend to push back when called that.

    Regarding interactions between these two groups (family who are pushing their kids into trans-type roles vs. family who are solid Republicans), the ones who are all-in with the trans movement regularly express hatred toward the Republican family members behind their backs, calling them ignorant, stupid, f-ing rednecks, and nazis just for how they vote and avoid most family gatherings, while the Republicans in the family express nothing but love and concern for the ones pushing trans-ness on their kids, even though some of them will say they just don’t understand it.

    1. I agree with you (and Lisa Lipman) on the contagion effect big time Darryl. I’ve seen it in my own family.
      D.A.
      NYC

    1. Our new, Progressive doctrines on self-definition do pose an interesting question in regard to compiling life tables. On the other hand, these tables themselves could be charged with maintaining the bad old colonial binary of alive/dead. Surely sociologists like Prof. A. Fuentes will soon point out that vast complexities muddy this crude binary distinction, and assure us that a continuous spectrum lies between them.

  7. At one point Lovett seems to pause to take an inventory of all the stuff he wanted to push back on, but there was too much flying around in such a short interview for everything to be properly addressed on either side. The discussion ends up being a bit ridiculous. I don’t blame Maher for wanting to head for the door.

    But Lovett made a lot of unsupported or incorrect statements, and his reference to the conservative fear of gay teachers grooming young men to become gay was particularly absurd. Whether or not it actually happens, a young man supposedly being “groomed”, that is, persuaded that he is gay when in fact he is not, does not involve the young man undergoing hormone or other chemical treatment or surgery. It’s apples and oranges, and the concern over medical transitioning is on an entirely different level. Likening the two is disingenuous. Sexual orientation and gender identity are two completely different things. No red herrings please.

    This has also come up in other discussions I have had, and I have been subjected to abuse as a transphobe for making this point (and I check all the “bad boxes”: white, male, straight and cis, although I have been supported by a couple of gay friends). But as Maher said, and I’m sure he’s gotten his rather larger share of abuse, this has to be a subject for reasonable discussion and debate. Trans advocates really want neither.

  8. It never touches Lovett’s mind, that parents letting themselves be persuaded by doctors and teenage whining are the bad parents.

    1. I’d rather say they are parents who made a horrible mistake.
      After all, parents are supposed to listen when a doctor talks about the medical issues of their child.

Comments are closed.