Thank you for this comprehensive, straightforward, cogent critique.
I think many of us knew the NYT wouldn't do a responsible report on this phenomenon. They have spent years writing the most biased bullshit masquerading as journalism and censoring gender-critical comments by readers. So there was no way they were going to produce a reputable podcast.
It's disgusting and infuriating how complicit they are in the harms being visited on people by this insanity.
The journalists who put this together have, for sure, read Jamie Reed's affidavit.
They know what we know.
There are lots and lots of people who don't know what we know, and who can be snowed by "transphobia transphobia transphobia" tactics.
But these journalists: they KNOW. They really know. And they are still lying and providing cover and plausible deniability. Unforgivable. How can they do it?
Kathleen, they are completely unethical. It's infuriating. They are complicit in harming children. I hope there will be a reckoning someday. But I'm not holding my breath.
Excellent article, I had a feeling we were having a conversations, a rare pleasure in reading where I often have to pause to imagine what someone means.
I had to gasp and laugh at the Dutch comment. My husband is Dutch (I am naturalized) and aside from him (naturally) it is quite accurate. My word is “smug”. And medical smugness doesn’t stop at medical malpractice on children.
A brief story - My admin in Holland (we worked in Gorinchem) in the 90’s gave premature birth to quite large twins, and had to suffer through two avoidable medical maladies.
She developed puerperal fever, which I thought was eliminated in the 19th century. Not only that but her doctors dismissed her fever as her being fussy until her kidneys shut down and she was a day away from death.
Second, when the premature newborns finally came home, she mentioned that there was a strange silvery look in their eyes. It has a name, leukocoria, which is caused by excessive oxygen in the incubator causing excessive blood vessel growth in the eye, retinal detachment, scarring and blindness (Stevie Wonder). It was something I also thought was eliminated long ago, in the 50’s. Likewise she was dismissed as being simply fussy.
I’m neither a pediatrician nor obstetrician but I knew of both illnesses instantly when she described her ordeal returning to the office a year later.
One hygiene condition, one iatrogenic (medically induced) condition, both solved long ago, both at the hands of Dutch physicians. People have universal care, but of apparently appalling quality at times with no recourse. She was forced to sign release of culpability in order to get further care or so she thought.
My own experience with the patronizing Dutch system and withering criticism to their face is another story itself in the biochemistry of a virus.
When my husband and I watched the two parts to the Dutch Zembla documentary on the Dutch clinic, it was flabbergasting. It makes one go back and read everything they’ve done to realize how bonkers it truly is.
As for Jamie Reed.
I find podcasts a terrible ways of doing journalism. I contrast it to reading, where you can pause to reflect on an idea at the time you read, and ignore irrelevant details - tone of voice, awkward delivery, visual distractions and artificially constructed editing - it’s not difficult to make a wise person sound foolish, or vice-versa.
A podcast is to written journalism what a celebrity reading a book is to reading, e.g. not reading, not journalism. It’s amateur documentary film, and therefore subject to all the problems of the medium. The Zembla documentary created the question in my mind that drove further reading. A biased podcast manages the opposite.
Thank you so much! It’s great engaging with other Dutchies. My experience with the Dutch health service has been largely positive. Orthopedics is not (or certainly was not) a strength, plus they are terrible at diagnosing celiac disease, but we have been lucky otherwise.
I listened to this podcast and unfortunately, I thought Jamie Reed did not come off very well at all. I could see that the interviewers were pushing a particular line of thought rather than being impartial. But I didn’t think Reed managed to explain herself at ALL when given the chance. She just kept eluding to things she saw without naming them (maybe it was edited out? Maybe she was advised not to speak about this before she went to court?) and kept repeating that patient satisfaction is not the goal. I disagree in that I think patient satisfaction is a factor in medicine, although perhaps it should not be the driving force. She could have elaborated to explain what that meant but she didn’t. I have read her work so I was rather dismayed as to how she came off in this podcast.
I think it was deliberately cut that way. Plus this was two years ago in the middle of the furore surrounding her testimony. They should have interviewed her this year.
I have nothing but respect and admiration for Jamie, she is amazing and incredibly courageous. But she is not the best speaker on this for “the paper of record”. The person best equipped to speak about this from a medical and psychiatric perspective (and that would be willing to) is Miriam Grossman, for a variety of reasons. Of all the brave professionals who are speaking out in the US, Dr. Grossman alone has the credentials and gravitas that are necessary to stand against a professional racket like the AAP.
Dr. Grossman is a compelling speaker and her professional expertise is impressive. However, Jamie Reed has several advantages over her: she worked for years at a gender clinic. Her insider’s perspective is worth gold. Also, she is a lifelong progressive, and was even married to a “trans man.” Given the appalling political polarization of this issue, I think “liberals” are more likely to listen to what she has to say.
I have and I do. I have met her personally and spoken to her and heard her testimony. I’m saying that a child psychiatrist (a medical doctor) is the ideal spokesperson for the opposing perspective because this is fundamentally a medical scandal.
Yes, they should have come back later to interview her, if she would speak to them again. I wonder if she has spoken up about how she’s portrayed in this podcast. Probably the worst part was that half her air time was spent in an argument with an angry parent over something in her affidavit. It gave the impression, I believe intentionally on the part of the NTY, that Reed isn’t to be trusted.
As someone who's worked in journalism for 40 years, I can tell you that the podcast producers edited the conversation that way. They have ultimate power over what appears in print and/or audio. They are the final arbiters. I'd put money on Jamie Reed's having said a lot more and explaining herself well, yet that info being cut to push the producers' bias.
To be fair, Marci Bowers also didn’t come off well for the same reason. Repetitive and couldn’t explain herself. Also a bit combative for no apparent reason. Although, the interviewers weren’t hostile towards her. But maybe that just fed into the NYT narrative about Americans being “extreme on both sides” and how we deviated from the Dutch who were “correct.”
Thank you for explaining The Protocol’s journalistic malpractice so clearly, Bev.
And thank you for getting me to go read Jamie’s affidavit from beginning to end (it’s not that long, I hope everyone will).
I thought it was so deliberate, so disrespectful - it took my breath away. Thank you for your comments - I’m glad you read the affidavit!
Excellent analysis. I have restacked, and agree that everyone should read the affidavit. Jamie Reed is a true hero.
Absolutely right about this propagandistic series ‘The Protocol’. Can almost hear the NYT ‘journalists’ lips smacking at the series title.
It’s actually not about ‘the Dutch protocol’ at all, but the journalists themselves..
Thank you for this comprehensive, straightforward, cogent critique.
I think many of us knew the NYT wouldn't do a responsible report on this phenomenon. They have spent years writing the most biased bullshit masquerading as journalism and censoring gender-critical comments by readers. So there was no way they were going to produce a reputable podcast.
It's disgusting and infuriating how complicit they are in the harms being visited on people by this insanity.
The journalists who put this together have, for sure, read Jamie Reed's affidavit.
They know what we know.
There are lots and lots of people who don't know what we know, and who can be snowed by "transphobia transphobia transphobia" tactics.
But these journalists: they KNOW. They really know. And they are still lying and providing cover and plausible deniability. Unforgivable. How can they do it?
Kathleen, they are completely unethical. It's infuriating. They are complicit in harming children. I hope there will be a reckoning someday. But I'm not holding my breath.
Excellent article
This is why we came to Substack, isn’t it folks?
Excellent article, I had a feeling we were having a conversations, a rare pleasure in reading where I often have to pause to imagine what someone means.
I had to gasp and laugh at the Dutch comment. My husband is Dutch (I am naturalized) and aside from him (naturally) it is quite accurate. My word is “smug”. And medical smugness doesn’t stop at medical malpractice on children.
A brief story - My admin in Holland (we worked in Gorinchem) in the 90’s gave premature birth to quite large twins, and had to suffer through two avoidable medical maladies.
She developed puerperal fever, which I thought was eliminated in the 19th century. Not only that but her doctors dismissed her fever as her being fussy until her kidneys shut down and she was a day away from death.
Second, when the premature newborns finally came home, she mentioned that there was a strange silvery look in their eyes. It has a name, leukocoria, which is caused by excessive oxygen in the incubator causing excessive blood vessel growth in the eye, retinal detachment, scarring and blindness (Stevie Wonder). It was something I also thought was eliminated long ago, in the 50’s. Likewise she was dismissed as being simply fussy.
I’m neither a pediatrician nor obstetrician but I knew of both illnesses instantly when she described her ordeal returning to the office a year later.
One hygiene condition, one iatrogenic (medically induced) condition, both solved long ago, both at the hands of Dutch physicians. People have universal care, but of apparently appalling quality at times with no recourse. She was forced to sign release of culpability in order to get further care or so she thought.
My own experience with the patronizing Dutch system and withering criticism to their face is another story itself in the biochemistry of a virus.
When my husband and I watched the two parts to the Dutch Zembla documentary on the Dutch clinic, it was flabbergasting. It makes one go back and read everything they’ve done to realize how bonkers it truly is.
As for Jamie Reed.
I find podcasts a terrible ways of doing journalism. I contrast it to reading, where you can pause to reflect on an idea at the time you read, and ignore irrelevant details - tone of voice, awkward delivery, visual distractions and artificially constructed editing - it’s not difficult to make a wise person sound foolish, or vice-versa.
A podcast is to written journalism what a celebrity reading a book is to reading, e.g. not reading, not journalism. It’s amateur documentary film, and therefore subject to all the problems of the medium. The Zembla documentary created the question in my mind that drove further reading. A biased podcast manages the opposite.
Great work.
Thank you so much! It’s great engaging with other Dutchies. My experience with the Dutch health service has been largely positive. Orthopedics is not (or certainly was not) a strength, plus they are terrible at diagnosing celiac disease, but we have been lucky otherwise.
I listened to this podcast and unfortunately, I thought Jamie Reed did not come off very well at all. I could see that the interviewers were pushing a particular line of thought rather than being impartial. But I didn’t think Reed managed to explain herself at ALL when given the chance. She just kept eluding to things she saw without naming them (maybe it was edited out? Maybe she was advised not to speak about this before she went to court?) and kept repeating that patient satisfaction is not the goal. I disagree in that I think patient satisfaction is a factor in medicine, although perhaps it should not be the driving force. She could have elaborated to explain what that meant but she didn’t. I have read her work so I was rather dismayed as to how she came off in this podcast.
I think it was deliberately cut that way. Plus this was two years ago in the middle of the furore surrounding her testimony. They should have interviewed her this year.
I have nothing but respect and admiration for Jamie, she is amazing and incredibly courageous. But she is not the best speaker on this for “the paper of record”. The person best equipped to speak about this from a medical and psychiatric perspective (and that would be willing to) is Miriam Grossman, for a variety of reasons. Of all the brave professionals who are speaking out in the US, Dr. Grossman alone has the credentials and gravitas that are necessary to stand against a professional racket like the AAP.
Dr. Grossman is a compelling speaker and her professional expertise is impressive. However, Jamie Reed has several advantages over her: she worked for years at a gender clinic. Her insider’s perspective is worth gold. Also, she is a lifelong progressive, and was even married to a “trans man.” Given the appalling political polarization of this issue, I think “liberals” are more likely to listen to what she has to say.
But what if they’re not willing to listen?
Have you been listening to Jamie testifying around the country this year? Didn’t you find her testimony compelling?
I have and I do. I have met her personally and spoken to her and heard her testimony. I’m saying that a child psychiatrist (a medical doctor) is the ideal spokesperson for the opposing perspective because this is fundamentally a medical scandal.
Yes, they should have come back later to interview her, if she would speak to them again. I wonder if she has spoken up about how she’s portrayed in this podcast. Probably the worst part was that half her air time was spent in an argument with an angry parent over something in her affidavit. It gave the impression, I believe intentionally on the part of the NTY, that Reed isn’t to be trusted.
Exactly. It was clearly intentional. That is what made me so angry.
As someone who's worked in journalism for 40 years, I can tell you that the podcast producers edited the conversation that way. They have ultimate power over what appears in print and/or audio. They are the final arbiters. I'd put money on Jamie Reed's having said a lot more and explaining herself well, yet that info being cut to push the producers' bias.
To be fair, Marci Bowers also didn’t come off well for the same reason. Repetitive and couldn’t explain herself. Also a bit combative for no apparent reason. Although, the interviewers weren’t hostile towards her. But maybe that just fed into the NYT narrative about Americans being “extreme on both sides” and how we deviated from the Dutch who were “correct.”