Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
This happens over and over again. It happened with the Southern Poverty Law Center. It happened with the ACLU. It happened with the Audubon Society. And now it’s happening with the Sierra Club. What is happening? An organization with a narrowly defined but admirable mission cannot resist the ideological Zeitgeist, and embraces social justice precepts that are not universally accepted. The organization becomes riven with controversy, and it erodes, becoming damaged. (This also happened with Scientific American, remember?)
The NYT from a week ago tells us how this is happening to the Sierra Club, which has lost money and membership after deciding to branch off into Social Justice Warriorism. Read about it by clicking the headline below, or find the article archived here for free.
I’ll put the upshot under bold headings, which are mine. Indented bits come from the article:
Why the club was good.
The Sierra Club was founded in 1892 to protect the Sierra Nevada mountain range in California, but it grew into a giant of American environmentalism.
It helped expand national parks, keep dams out of the Grand Canyon and establish Earth Day.
In 2016, the club was at the height of its success, leading what many in the green movement consider the most successful environmental campaign put on by anyone in the 21st century: “Beyond Coal.”
Its secret was focus, according to activists involved. The club put its energy behind the single, measurable goal of closing all of the country’s 500-plus carbon-spewing, coal-fired power plants. Armed with more than $120 million from billionaire Michael Bloomberg, they used lawsuits, petitions and protests to convince regulators and utilities that coal plants were too dirty and expensive to keep operating.
The move to social justice:
During Mr. Trump’s first term, when the Sierra Club was flush with donations, its leaders sought to expand far beyond environmentalism, embracing other progressive causes. Those included racial justice, labor rights, gay rights, immigrant rights and more. They stand by that shift today.
. . .It drove away longtime volunteers who loved the club’s single-minded defense of the environment, by asking them to fully embrace its pivot to the left. Some even felt they were investigated by the club for failing to go along. Many hard-core supporters felt the Sierra Club was casting aside the key to its success: It was an eclectic group of activists who had one, and sometimes only one, cause in common.
The club hired Mr. Jealous, its first Black executive director, that year to stop that slide, but his tenure accelerated it as accusations of sexual harassment, bullying, and overspending piled up.
The club became one in a string of “resistance” groups from Mr. Trump’s first administration that arrived at his second already exhausted from liberal infighting.
“It’s almost like uprooting a sequoia and converting it into an ax handle,” said Aaron Mair, a former board president.
Things got worse:
At the same time, the club asked its supporters to agree with positions farther from the environmental causes that had attracted them in the first place.
It issued an “equity language guide,” which warned employees to be cautious about using the words “vibrant” and “hardworking,” because they reinforced racist tropes. “Lame duck session” was out, because “lame” was offensive. Even “Americans” should be avoided, the guide said, because it excluded non-U. S. citizens.
The club even turned on its own founder, John Muir, with Mr. Brune saying the environmental icon had used “deeply harmful racist stereotypes” in his writings about Native Americans and Black people in the 1860s.
You can see part of the language guide below and a link to the whole thing, which is simply ludicrous.
They even came down on Israel:
In 2022, a group of union members asked the Sierra Club to “follow [its] values of antiracism and justice” and cancel sightseeing trips it operated in Israel, in protest of the country’s treatment of Palestinians.
“Palestine is an environmental issue from our standpoint,” Erica Dodt, the president of the Progressive Workers’ Union, which includes Sierra Club employees, said in an interview. “People are a huge part of our environment.”
The club postponed the trips. But Sierra Club officials said the club heard a backlash from donors including Mr. Bloomberg, the major funder of “Beyond Coal” who also gave to humanitarian causes in Israel. His staff declined to comment. The Sierra Club said he is still a donor.
Within days, the Sierra Club reversed itself and announced more trips to Israel.
If Palestine is part of the Sierra Club’s remit, and that includes “people” because humans are “part of the environment,” then there is nothing that does not become part of the Club’s mission!
The outcome: the Club lost members and money. and membership fractured:
The group has lost 60 percent of the four million members and supporters it counted in 2019. It has held three rounds of employee layoffs since 2022, trying to climb out of a $40 million projected budget deficit.
Its political giving has also dropped. Federal campaign-finance records show $3.6 million in donations from the Sierra Club during the push to defeat Donald J. Trump in 2020, but none as Mr. Trump stormed back to the presidency in 2024.
And this year, as the Trump administration returned better organized and better prepared than in its first term, the Sierra Club was the opposite. While Mr. Trump boosted coal power, canceled wind farms and rolled back pollution limits, the club was consumed by internal chaos, culminating when the board fired its executive director, Ben Jealous, a former president of the N.A.A.C.P.
Here’s the NYT chart showing the decline in “champions” (volunteer helpers or people the club endorses, but see below for the decline in membership), as well as the rise in expenses, which are now higher than donations:
They surveyed the members, who aren’t happy:
In late 2020, the club surveyed its dues-paying members, its most hard-core supporters. The members said they supported racial justice, but when asked to choose among priorities they ranked climate change first, and racism tied for last.
More than half of members also said they were worried that the club’s shift toward social justice “will detract from its core mission of protecting the environment” and alienate conservatives, according to a copy of the survey obtained by The New York Times.
Well, it already has detracted from its core mission, which is always the problem. Once again we see an organization flaunting its virtue when it should be institutionally neutral except for issues affecting its core mission. But it was not like that, and lost out.
Then culture began permeating the organization, with allegations of sexual misconduct arising. In response, the Club instituterd a system to “discipline its volunteers”, and some volunteers got investigated without even being told why. The deficit continued to increase and they chose as Executive Director Ben Jealous, who ran the NAACP and “promised employees to make the Sierra Club ‘the most progressive and inclusive employer in the movement, if not the nation.'”.
That, of course, is the kiss of death. Jealous fired 10% of the staff but also hired several “longtime associated as high salaries,” something that smacks of nepotism. Two of those salaries were over $300,000, which is simply ridiculous for the Sierra Club. Its “champions” declined by 60%, and dues-paying members were down by 27% from 2021. Even Jealous himself was accused of sexual harassment, and left the organization:
Is the Sierra Club moving away from Social Justice and back to its core mission? Don’t be ridiculous. Since Jealous left, the Club has shown no signs of reverting to its focus on strictly environmental issue:
In recent weeks, supporters who clicked on the group’s website for “current campaigns” were presented with 131 petitions, some out of date, like calls to support clean-energy funding that Mr. Trump has already gutted, or to support a voting-rights bill that died in 2023.
Patrick Murphy, the club’s current board president, who has helped lead the group since 2020, said in an interview that he could not name any decision he regretted.
“I have a hard time pinpointing how I believe we should have made different choices,” Mr. Murphy said. “And I’m happy with where we are today.”
It’s amazing that in the face of the Sierra Club falling apart, Murphy sticks to his guns. Seriously, they should adopt an institutional neutrality policy, which I think would make the group hew to what it’s good at. But they won’t, and they’ll learn their lesson the hard way.
My favorite part: The Sierra Club put out the Sierra Club’s Equity Language Guide. It tells staffers to avoid words like lame. Fine. But it also tells them not to celebrate clean energy jobs unreservedly because fossil fuel jobs are more likely to be unionized, so maybe we’re pro-coal now. Maybe we’re sort of a coal lobbying shop, actually. The Sierra Club’s Equity Language Guide says not to use the words vibrant or hardworking because they have racial overtones (I’ve never heard that one. Seems kinda racist.). And then there’s this list of words to avoid, which, for an activist organization, is really hard. Especially when trigger itself is a trigger word, triggering them into a new dimension of triggerdom.
Imagine explaining this to the guy who lives in a cabin in Yellowstone and whose job is to check water levels in creeks.
Of all the papers in the special issue of the Journal of Controversial Ideas on censorship in science, the one below is perhaps the most important, as the censorship being imposed can cause permanent damage to humans. I’ve described this censorship before: it involves papers on or critiques of extreme claims of gender ideologues, especially those touting the benefits of what’s called “affirmative care” (adolescent dysphoria—> doctor on board prescribes puberty blockers almost immediately—> hormones, surgery, and gender transition). The recent history of the field, documented in the first paper below, involves repeated attempts to allow questionable claims to stand in the literature. Two examples of this are the unsupported claim that affirmative care prevents suicide, and the release of the paper by Johanna Olson-Kennedy et al, which was held back because the results (puberty blockers did not improve mental health) were not in line with what author thought gender activists wanted to see. The paper by Cohn below (click to read), summarizes many of these forms of censorship or distortion.
Here’s the abstract:
The integrity of the gender medicine research literature has been compromised, not only by censorship of correct articles, but also by censorship of critiques of articles with unsupported (for instance exaggerated), misleading or erroneous statements. Many such statements concern the evidence base, which can be evaluated rigorously using a key component of evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews of the evidence. These reviews currently find there is limited to very little confidence that estimates of benefit from (and sometimes harm from) medical gender intervention, that is, puberty blockers, hormones and/or surgeries, are likely to match true outcomes. Several medical societies and articles in medical journals have been claiming otherwise, misrepresenting the evidence base as a whole and/or relying upon unsupported or non-representative individual study findings or conclusions. For example, high likelihood of benefit and low risk of adverse outcomes from medical gender interventions are often claimed, while less invasive alternative treatment options are either omitted or mischaracterized. Other unsupported, erroneous or misleading statements occur when studies minimize or omit mention of significant limitations, or report findings or conclusions not supported by their own data; these are then sometimes quoted by others as well. In addition, correctly reported studies are sometimes misrepresented. Critiques which attempt to rectify such statements are frequently rejected. Some examples are presented here. Such rejections have stifled scientific debate, interfering with the continual scrutiny and cross checks needed to maintain accuracy in the research literature. Currently, erroneous and unsupported statements circulate and repeat between journals and medical society guidelines and statements, misinforming researchers, clinicians, patients and the general public.
If you want a three-page summary of the paper above, which you really should read in toto if you’re interested in gender medicine, read the article below (click headline to read) gives a terse summary.
I can’t summarize the first paper in detail, and you really should read it for yourself. I can, however, give a few quotes from Linehan’s summary on his Substack, which is a bit choppy (quotes indented below). Linehan begins by citing the paper above:
‘Censorship of Essential Debate in Gender Medicine Research’ has the dullest possible title for what it reveals. In yet another example of trans ideology destroying everything it touches, the most prestigious journals in medicine are refusing to publish corrections to papers that contain demonstrably false claims about gender medicine.
The author, J. Cohn, didn’t set out to write about censorship. She tried to correct errors in published papers. When that didn’t work, she described what happened. She found that multiple systematic reviews (the gold standard in evidence-based medicine) have found low or very low-certainty evidence for the benefits of medical gender interventions. This includes puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery. ‘Low certainty’ means there’s limited confidence the estimated effects will match what actually happens to patients.
The Cass Review, published in 2024, found the evidence for paediatric interventions “remarkably weak.” Several other systematic reviews found the same for patients under 21 and under 26.
None have found that these interventions reduce suicide risk.
Meanwhile, major medical journals keep publishing papers claiming the opposite.
Papers in JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine, and Pediatrics have variously claimed that gender-affirming medical interventions are:
“Widely recognised as essential, evidence based, and often lifesaving”
Known to “clearly improve health outcomes”
Associated with “demonstrated health and well-being benefits”
Linked to regret rates “less than 1%” or “exceedingly rare”
The regret claim is particularly bold given that the studies cited have major flaws. The often-quoted Bustos review included 27 studies, of which 23 had moderate-to-high risk of bias. All included studies suffered from premature follow-up, significant loss to follow-up, or both.
And one more bit:
Medical guidelines are supposed to work like this: researchers conduct systematic reviews of all available evidence, assess its quality, and make recommendations that match the strength of that evidence. Strong evidence gets strong recommendations. Weak evidence gets weak recommendations or no recommendation at all.
That’s not what happened here.
The American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement recommending gender-affirming care wasn’t based on systematic reviews. A subsequent analysis found its cited references “repeatedly said the very opposite of what AAP attributed to them.”
The Endocrine Society guidelines make strong recommendations based on evidence they themselves rate as low or very low certainty. They don’t explain why.
WPATH commissioned systematic reviews, then interfered with them. After publication, they dropped all but one minimum age recommendation (for phalloplasty) under pressure from the Biden administration and the AAP.
This whole field is rife with a form of advocacy so extreme that researchers not only hesitate to publish results that go against the preferred ideological narrative, but also repeatedly distort studies that criticize affirmative care.
This is not the way science is supposed to be done, but it’s what happens when ideology begins to erode the norms of science. This of course is not new: it’s what happened with the Lysenko affair in Soviet Russia (documented in our paper, Jussim et al.), when ideological distortion (and outright cheating) ultimately killed millions of people. Nobody’s claiming that kind of toll for gender medicine, but there is still a palpable human cost to sloppy research.
I have been waiting for several weeks for this first car—a Tesla sedan (or whatever you call it)—to show up on my block again. It finally did, as I wanted to photograph it.
First, the back (license plate number redacted):
And, just to the left of the plate is this sticker:
For zero emissions AND against fascism. How could you ask for more virtue? It reminds me of Greta! But what is that sticker for? It could be saying either or both of two things:
1.) I recognize that Elon Musk is insane.
or
2.) Please do not scratch up or key my car.
It could mean both, of course, as they are connected. The second alternative is okay as it is just there to protect the car, but the first rubs me the wrong way I am no fan of Elon, but I do not go parading that “virtue” all over town. Plus the term “fascist”, like “Nazi”, is being thrown around so widely that it has lost all its meaning.
And think of the poor owner of this vehicle parked right across the street: a $100,000+ Tesla Cybertruck. Is it doomed? I am keeping an eye on the unstickered truck, which is often there, just to see what happens to it. If nothing, then alternative 2) becomes less plausible.
In one of the most aggressive and misguided examples of “whataboutery” I’ve been involved with, quite a few people criticized Lawrence Krauss’s anthology The War on Science (in which Luana and I have an altered version of our Skeptical Inquirer paper), for we had the temerity to show that science was being injured by attacks coming from the Left. OMG! What we should have published, said the blockheads, was a book showing how the Right, instantiated by Trump’s attacks on universities and grants, was doing more damage to science.
And indeed, in the short term that may well be the case. But to exculpate the Left is ridiculous, especially because their attacks are not dependent on who is President. The “progressive” infection of science may last.much longer, especially since it’s being passed on from professor to student, and has now metastasized to many scientific journals and societies. “No, no!”, cried the miscreants, “You should have gone after Trump, and Trump alone!” Well, since this website has concentrated largely on the excesses of the Left, since I consider myself on the Left, readers already know the fallacies of this whataboutery. Everybody and their brothers, sisters, and comrades are already criticizing Trump’s attack on science, and I have been among them. But where else but in this book (and this website) will you find a compendium of criticism about how the Left harms science?
Enough said. I have paid little attention to the critics, for none of them have engaged with the book’s arguments. “Look!”, they shout, “There’s even a chapter by Jordan Peterson. That’s enough to make you throw the book in the fire.” Yes, I find the inclusion of Peterson unfortunate, and his message almost impenetrable, but you don’t damn an anthology because of one weird piece, or because you don’t like the politics of some of its authors. No, you must criticize its contents.
At any rate, Matt ‘Ridley has just mentioned the anthology in The Spectator, and actually seems to like it (cue the attacks on Ridley’s politics). But what really angers him is the Left-wing attacks on science, the very subject of the anthology.
You can read his original article here, but it’s paywalled. Clicking below will take you to a free archived version.
Ridley discusses several issues; I’ll concentrate on what he says about the book (not all that much) as well as the general “wokery” of science, one theme of the anthology that presumably got Ridley revved up:
My, how we all laughed. Thirty years ago the physicist Alan Sokal hoaxed a social science journal into publishing a paper ‘liberally salted with nonsense’ (in his own words) that ‘flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions’. Its title alone gave away the joke: ‘Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.’
Little did we in the truth-seeking enterprise which is real science realise that verbose and vapid social deconstruction was coming for us too. In a new book, The War on Science, edited by the astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss, 31 scientists and scholars lament the corruption of their field by left-wing ideological nonsense. Whereas once a book with this title would have raged at the conservative right pushing creationism and sexism in the teeth of truth, now it is exposing the woke left pushing identity ideology and intersectionality at the expense of reason.
In 2022, Nature, at the pinnacle of the scientific establishment, published an editorial stating that it would refuse or retract papers that ‘could reasonably be perceived to undermine the rights and dignities of an individual or human group on the basis of socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings’. The editors went on to reassure readers that they would consult ‘advocacy groups’ before doing this, just as they once had to consult popes before denying that the Earth circles the sun. This was an open invitation to activists to censor science they did not like. Sure, scientists always had their prejudices, ideological biases and blind spots, but almost by definition regarded those as bad things to be minimised. Here now was a manifesto for deliberately injecting bias into science.
. . . But surely biology was safe, let alone chemistry and physics? How naive we were! Gender became the new front line. Journals were falling over themselves to declare sex a spectrum, despite the fact that all animals divide neatly into a sex with large, immobile gametes and a sex with small, mobile gametes – and there are no other sexes, just some rare developmental anomalies. Deviate from this new Lysenkoism by saying there are two sexes and you will be excommunicated.
Richard Dawkins once pointed out in a tweet that a mostly white woman had been pilloried for ‘identifying as black’, which seemed puzzling given that race is a spectrum in a way that sex is not. Why is it all right for a man to identify as a woman but not for a white person to identify as black? Just for raising the issue, he was retrospectively stripped of his humanist of the year award by the American Humanist Association. They accused him of implying ‘that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while simultaneously attacking black identity’.
. . . Hilariously, the ideologues have painted themselves into an awkward corner in their attempts to decolonise mathematics. They demand non-western slants on algebra and algorithms, which are words of Arabic origin, while rewriting exam problems to replace adding up grocery bills (which ‘carry the ideological message that paying for food is natural’) with calculating how many aboriginal people can fit in a tipi, which is patronising to the point of racism. One right-on mathematician admitted this change was insulting, but only ‘because indigenous people would not divide themselves in the way stated in the word problem. Relational and spiritual factors would dominate’. Meanwhile, New Zealand now requires schools to teach indigenous Maori ‘ways of knowing’ as equivalent to scientific ones. So creationism is fine if brown people do it?
. . . Many scientists continue to do good work unperturbed by this revolt against critical thinking. But the sheer volume of funding, publishing and attention that is being siphoned off into this pathology represents a massive opportunity cost. Grants are being spent, papers retracted, scientists sanctioned, hiring practices altered and peer reviews corrupted, while scientists are self-censoring to prevent their cancellation. Four-fifths of students say they self-censor, many more than at the height of McCarthyism.
. . . Science has always behaved like a cult to some extent, enforcing dogma and persecuting heretics, but it has grown far worse with wokery. Science as a philosophy is still great, but science as an institution is about as true to its philosophy as the church was under the Borgias, and as ripe for reformation.
I have crossed swords with Ridley before, in some critical review I wrote of one of his books (I can’t even remember what it was about), but I’ll cut him a break. Not because he’s on our side, but because he’s right. I’ll let the blockheads go after hm because he doesn’t engage in “whataboutery” in this review. Note that he doesn’t discuss the book’s contents much, but uses it as a springboard to vent his own take, which is what book reviews often do, and, said H. L. Mencken, was really the purpose of a book review.
Luana called my attention to an article on wokeness, in this case describing the ideological erosion of Planned Parenthood (henceforth “PP). Click the headline below to read the WSJ “Saturday essay”, or or find it archived free here.
Notice that the author is Pamela Paul, formerly the Sunday book-review editor and then a columnist for the NYT, whose columns over the last few years were refreshingly heterodox for (see here and here). In this way she could be seen as a white female John McWhorter, but, unlike McWhorter, she also wrote a lot about gender issues, and not in a way that, at least when the paper was about to let her go, did not comport with its gender activism and mania for “affirmative care.” As she wrote in her farewell column,
. . . . the reporting I’m most proud of is when I used my voice to stand up for people whose lives or work had come under attack, whether they were public figures or were dragged into the public eye because they’d dared to speak or act in ways that unjustly elicited professional or social condemnation: A popular novelist ostracized for alleged “cultural appropriation.” A physician assistant who was excoriated on social media for standing up to bullies. A Palestinian writer whose appearance at a prominent book fair was canceled. An early beneficiary of affirmative action who dared to explore its unintended consequences. Vulnerable gay teenagers who described being misled by a politicized medical establishment into dubious gender transition treatments. A public university president who was driven away by a campus besieged with political division. Social work students and faculty undermined by a school that had betrayed its own principles. A public health expert who risked opprobrium from his peers by calling out his profession on groupthink.
The Times may tolerate a bit of heterodoxy, but the columns Paul wrote that were critical of gender activism (see here for a list) were too much. Perhaps the last nail in the coffin was Paul’s “In defense of J. K. Rowling,” guaranteed to rile anyone who mouths the mantra, “A trans woman is a woman.”
At any rate, Paul seems to have found a home as a writer at large for the Wall Street Journal, and has written two pieces for them since June: the one below and the other an analysis of the Trump administration’s assault on scientific journals, which takes shots at both the Right and Left. Paul has trod an increasingly well-worn path: a good journalist let go because they’re insufficiently “progressive,” then finding a new home at a more centrist or even right-wing site (Paul is a classical liberal, and the WSJ’s news and analysis items are more or less centrist).
But I digress. Her new WSJ piece is how the once-estimable organization Planned Parenthood, the reproductive and sexual health care organization whose antecedent was founded by Margaret Sanger in 1916, is going to ground. Perhaps it was predictable that, given its ambit, PP would buy into gender activism, just like the ACLU did or how the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) devolved into ferreting out “hate speech” by people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. (The SPLC was also plagued by financial mismanagement.)
I’ll give a few quotes from Paul’s piece; they’re indented below:
Excerpts:
To American feminists, the Planned Parenthood brand symbolizes liberation and empowerment. To Medicaid recipients and rural women, it means access to affordable contraceptives, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and cancer screenings. To conservatives and opponents of abortion, it means the devaluation of human life and dissolution of the family.
But to many young people encountering Planned Parenthood today, the organization, founded in 1916 as a grassroots movement to provide family planning to poor women, means something else entirely. When a 3- to 5-year-old asks, “Is that a boy or a girl?” Planned Parenthood, currently the country’s leading provider of sex education, suggests replying, “Only an individual can define their gender identity. Gender identity is separate from what body parts a person has.” (Planned Parenthood is also now the country’s second largest provider of cross-sex hormones for transgender treatments.)
On Instagram, where young people are most likely to seek information, Planned Parenthood offers decidedly liberationist advice, including graphic descriptions of sexual techniques. Posts celebrate Pansexual Pride Day and declare that “virginity is a social construct.” In keeping with the organization’s racial justice agenda, which includes support for #DefundthePolice, its TikTok account displays a video of a Black woman seemingly fleeing and then laughing, with the tag, “Running from the police, but then they say, suspect is an abortion-rights baddie.”
As Paul reports, these stands haven’t sat well with the Trump administration:
In March, Trump withheld Title X grants, which fund contraceptive, reproductive and sexual health services for poor people, from at least nine Planned Parenthood affiliates while the administration investigates their compliance with its policies on D.E.I. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that patients do not have the right to sue states for denying state Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood clinics, making it easier for more states to withdraw funding. And earlier this month, Congress passed Trump’s megabill, which effectively ends federal Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood for the next year.
Of course I deplore the withholding of support for reproductive health services for the poor; this is part of the bullying that this Administration is known for. On the other hand, PP has taken on political stances that seem unnecessary given its classical mission:
. . . . The trouble stems from [PP’s] dual and often dueling roles as both a national advocacy organization and a local healthcare provider, one inherently political and the other necessarily nonpartisan. While its roughly 600 clinics offer patient care, the national organization operates as an advocacy group, raising money to support positions that place it firmly on the progressive left in America’s culture wars.
Well, one of these positions I do support: the advocacy of a pro-choice stand to abortion. That’s perhaps one reason the Administration is going after PP. I see the pro-choice stand as something important to the welfare of women, particularly poor ones. But other stands have little to do with at least the original mission of PP.
In the years since Wen was forced out, a different kind of mission creep set in, with the organization tethering itself to causes like democracy reform (including support for expanding the Supreme Court and ending the filibuster in the Senate) and gun control—actions that have alienated some donors, according to former employees. These moves reflect the political motivations of its workforce, increasingly populated by what some employees refer to as social justice warriors—young people who come to the organization for its progressive values more than for its provision of healthcare.
A self-described “champion for social and racial justice,” [PP President and CEO Alexis] McGill Johnson shares this vision. In a 2021 op-ed, she accused Planned Parenthood of focusing too much on “women’s health” and “privileging whiteness.” As she wrote, “What we don’t want to be, as an organization, is a Karen. You know Karen: She escalates small confrontations because of her own racial anxiety. She calls the manager. She calls the police. She stands with other white parents to maintain school segregation.”
Planned Parenthood wants to be the head of the anti-Trump resistance in all its forms, according to one former senior executive at the national office. The question, she said, is who are they alienating in the process?
Now Paul describes other problems with PP, like poorly-run clinics, a decrease in donations, and so on, but the organization is not helping itself by buying into gender activism, at least under this Administration:
Today, Planned Parenthood no longer positions itself as the leading healthcare provider for women and has largely stopped referring to women on its website and in policy statements. The only mention of “women” among its promotional items are T-shirts emblazoned with “Stand with Black Women.” In testimony before Congress, Dr. Bhavik Kumar, then a Planned Parenthood medical director and now chief medical officer at the Greater Ohio affiliate, said that “men can have pregnancies, especially transmen.”
Especially transmen? What other “men” can get pregnant? But let’s proceed:
The organization’s pervasive language around “pregnant people” is intended to be inclusive of transgender people, a cause that the organization connects to abortion rights under the umbrella of “bodily autonomy.” As Planned Parenthood put it on Threads, “trans and nonbinary people are essential to the movement for sexual and reproductive health and rights—the fight for trans rights is our fight.”
Not everyone agrees this is the best approach for a movement founded to empower women. “I don’t understand the national office’s thinking in not allowing anyone to talk about women’s health anymore,” said [former PP President Pamela] Maraldo. “These really, really left-wing ideological postures are to me just as off-putting as they are on the right when they’re counter to basic Americans’ common sense.”
Banning the word “woman” is guaranteed to alienate not just the Right, but the sensible moiety of the Left. As is this:
Planned Parenthood has also rapidly expanded its services into one of the most contested and politicized areas of healthcare, gender transitions. Its national office does not reveal numbers on these services, instead grouping them into an “other services” category in its annual report. In 2019, that category included 17,791 cases. It rose to 77,858 in 2023. With trans-identified minors, Planned Parenthood follows an “informed consent” model, which, according to its patient guidelines, enables patients to get a same-day prescription for cross-sex hormones after a 30-minute in-person or remote consultation with a staff member. No professional diagnosis is required.
Cross-sex hormones given after just 30 minutes of consultation? How old are these “minors”? Is there a lower age limit? It’s not clear from the data, but surely 12 to 17 is too young:
According to an analysis of insurance claim information by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, at least 40,000 patients went to Planned Parenthood for gender medicine in 2023. About 40% of them were 18- to 22-year-olds. Between 2017 and 2023, it also treated 12,000 kids aged 12 to 17 for gender dysphoria. (These figures do not include patients who paid out of pocket, patients at VA facilities or those covered by Kaiser.)
Don’t get me wrong: this progressivism may not be the main reason why PP is going under—its advocacy of the right to choose abortions may be pivotal, and Paul also reports about the waning of donations and hamhandedness in clinics (I’ve been to one, and it was excellent). And, at the end, she notes that the erosion of PP has inimical social effects, particularly in truncating reproductive and sexual care for the poor. I just wonder why PP has to buy into the affirmative-care model for adolescents and to curtail its use of the word “woman.” It’s not necessary for the organization’s goals, and alienates the powers that be. In the end, PP’s progressivism, which it refuses to abandon, may be its death blow.
I look forward to more articles like this from Paul, who, I think need no longer be afraid of writing what she think lest she alienate her paper.
As I say repeatedly, I find it very difficult to listen to long videos (and long podcasts without visuals are even worse). But I happened to click on the one below, part of the biweekly Glenn Show dialogue between Glenn Loury and John McWhorter, and found it quite worthwhile, even though it’s a bit more than an hour long (Loury gives an advertisement between 11:12 and 13:14). It’s interesting because of the topics: wokeness, race, and their intersection, and McWhorter (with whom I’m on a panel in three weeks) is particularly interesting.
In short, I think they disapproved of my opposition to the Gaza War, my criticisms of Israel’s prosecution of that war, and my praise of Ta-Nehisi Coates’s meditations on the West Bank settlements.
Well, I knew that Loury was a stringent critic of Israel, but praising Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “meditations” on the West Bank, meditations that followed just 10 days visit in the Middle East and did not even mention Palestinian terrorism, isn’t something to praise. At any rate, since Loury retired from Brown, he’s contemplating his next move, and hints that the University of Austin (UATX) has been courting him.
That leads to a brief discussion of whether schools like UATX are the wave of the future: schools that can teach humanities courses without them being polluted by extreme “social justice” mentality. Both men ponder whether universities like that are the wave of the future, and whether regular universities will devolve into “STEM academies”. That, in turn, leads to a discussion, mostly by McWhorter, about music theory and how that, one of his areas of expertise, has been polluted by wokeness.
The biggest segment of the discussion involves McWhorter’s recent visit to Washington’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, and his thoughts about it (read his long NYT op-ed piece, which is very good, here). McWhorter characterizes it as not a dolorous place but a “happy place,” and one that gives a balanced view of black history—a view in which black people are more than simple oppressed people who serve to remind the rest of us of their guilt. It portrays as well, he avers, the dignity and positive accomplishment of African Americans. (McWhorter compares the dolorous view of black history with the narrative pushed by Nikole Hannah-Jones of the 1619 Project.) His description makes me want to visit that museum more than ever (I haven’t yet been but will, and I must also visit the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum).
Finally, they discuss the question of whether they were wrong to be so hard on DEI, given that some aspects of it (e.g., a call for equality) are positive. Here McWhorter is at his most eloquent, saying that, given the overreach of DEI, it was imperative for both of them to have criticized it. As McWhorter notes, the extreme construal of DEI did not “fight for the dignity of black people” and, he says, in the face of that extremist ideology, their silence would not have been appropriate. Loury agrees. At this point McWhorter brings up Claudine Gay, ex-President of Harvard, claiming that she was hired simply because she was a black woman, which was “wrong and objectifying.” (Only McWhorter could get away from saying something like that.) The elevation of Gay, says McWhorter, was the sort of thing they were pushing back against when they opposed DEI.
This is worth a listen, and I’ve put the video below.
Here’s an archived link to an ad for a consultant oral maxillofacial surgeon at Dunedin Hospital. The curious thing—well, not so curious given that it’s New Zealand,—is the list of required qualifications. Click to read (a New Zealand dollar is worth about 57¢ in U.S. currency):
Some of the details:
About the role
In this newly created role that will be hospital based, we are seeking an Oral Maxillofacial Surgeon for a fulltime, permanent position at Dunedin Public Hospital. We would also welcome candidates with sub-specialty interests.
The successful applicant will be expected to provide the full scope of general Oral and Maxillofacial surgery including but not limited to the management of facial trauma, pathology, infections and orthognathic surgery. Duties includes active participation in inpatient and outpatient clinics, clinical audit, quality, clinical guidelines/pathways, professional development, appraisal and risk management.
Given the catchment area Te Whatu Ora Southern services, you will be able to take on cases that are diverse and complex; providing you with a rewarding role. There will be an on-call roster in place, this is set at 1:3. Our links with the University of Otago and affiliation with the Faculty of Dentistry means that you may be involved in the teaching of Dental and Medical Students.
Mōu ake | About you
Eligibility for vocational registration with the Dental Council of New Zealand
We would also welcome applications from advanced trainees.
FRACDS (OMS) or equivalent board certification
Excellent communication and time management skills
Here’s the part that stamps it as “from New Zealand”. I’ve added links and the translation from Māori, the latter in brackets:
You will also need:
Competency with te ao Māori [the Māori worldview], tikanga [the “right way to doing things” according to the Māori], and te reo Māori [the Māori language] or a commitment to starting your journey and taking ownership of your learning and growth
Experience in projects / initiatives which give effect to Te Tiriti [the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi] principals [sic] and frameworks, and the application of Mātauranga Māori [Māori “ways of knowing”] and Kaupapa Māori [“Māori customary practices”] approaches, particularly as they apply in healthcare settings.
In other words, you need to know a great deal about Māori culture and also speak or be learning the language (however, out of 978,000 Māori in NZ, only 55% say they have “some knowledge” of the language and only about 5% say they can speak the language well. This doesn’t say how many Māori understand English, but it’s surely close to 100%. The requirement that you either know the language or are learning it is, then, largely superfluous; in this way the ad is looking for people who can signal their virtue.
Finally, we have the ubiquitous but ambiguous requirement that the applicant have engaged in “projects/initiatives” that “give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi,” another completely superfluous requirement. “Te Tiriti,” as it’s called, has nothing to do with surgery; it simply specified in 1840 that the Māori would surrender sovereignty to England, but would keep and rule over their lands and villages, and would also acquire all the rights of a British citizen. If you can tell me which “Te Tiriti-themed” projects are essential to have engaged in for this surgeon’s job, and why those projects are necessarily, I’d be glad to hear it.
The is once again an example of how indigenous people leverage their supposed modern oppression to get more “stuff,” how New Zealand has surrendered to that “victimhood” approach, and, above all, how merit is given at least equal priority to indigeneity. (If you’re a great surgeon but know squat about Te Tiriti and can’t speak Māori, I doubt you’d even be considered for the job.)
Over at Point of Order, which is consistently critical of this kind of stuff, Yvonne van Dongen takes the ad apart. Click below to read her snarky but accurate critique:
An excerpt:
If you had impacted wisdom teeth requiring surgery, would it comfort you to know the consultant surgeon was competent in te ao Māori?
Or, say, if you needed oral cancer surgery, is it a bonus if the person operating on your mouth has had experience in projects and initiatives which give effect to Te Tiriti principles?
How about if you had to go under the knife for facial trauma – does it ease your anxiety knowing that the consultant surgeon is steeped in the application of Mātauranga Māori and Kaupapa Māori approaches, particularly as they apply in healthcare settings?
Southern Health thinks the answer is yes to all the above.
This week an advertisement on their careers website for a consultant oral maxillofacial surgeon at Dunedin Hospital stated that competency in te ao Māori, tikanga, and te reo Māori was a requirement. Or at the very least “a commitment to starting your journey and taking ownership of your learning and growth.”
As well, they asked for
“Experience in projects / initiatives which give effect to Te Tiriti principals (sic) and frameworks, and the application of Mātauranga Māori and Kaupapa Māori approaches, particularly as they apply in healthcare settings.”
Apart from spelling principles incorrectly, Southern Health clearly thinks they know what the principles of the Treaty are, even though this is a topic hotly debated thanks to Act’s Treaty Principles Bill.
Apparently, after inquiries from the press, New Zealand Health is reassessing these requirements, and pondering that wondering whether, after all, just merit and experience should be the qualifications. The answer, of course, is “yes.”
