The Smooth Talker vs. The Fanatic

The NY Times podcast “The Protocol” episode 3

The thrust of this episode is: the Dutch Protocol was very strict and cautious; the psychologist Laura Edwards-Leeper brought it back to the new GeMS clinic in Boston in 2007 and tried to ensure her young patients were given sound psychological assessments; meanwhile, the physician Johanna Olson-Kennedy decided that all assessment (“gatekeeping”) for the “gender transitioning” of minors was needlessly traumatizing and pointless. It is the latter reckless approach that has led to the current backlash and the spate of state-wide bans.

None of this is true, but hey -– a podcast is only so long and we have to simplify a bit. Don’t we?

Before the advent of pediatric gender medicine (referred to in the podcast as “gender affirming care”), Austin Mitchell explains that gender-confused kids “would often end up seeing psychologists who were focused on steering them towards their birth sex.” (You and I might say these psychologists were helping their patients feel more comfortable in their bodies and encouraging them to accept the reality of their sex.) We then hear Laura Edwards-Leeper explaining her notion of what this misguided approach of “steering them towards their birth sex” would have involved: “you just need to take away all of the boys’ toys and encourage them to do the girl things and then they’ll be fine being a girl.” A more reactionary, sexist view of upbringing — or therapy — would be hard to imagine.

We hear that “one of the founders [of GeMS] had been following what the Dutch had been doing and wanted to offer that care in the US.” This was Dr. Norman Spack - not named in the podcast. As soon as he had heard about it, Spack had become obsessed with what would become known as “gender affirming care.” He told audiences, with an air of authority, a lot of the lies that are still being repeated by gender identity zealots today: see this video fragment captured by Malcolm Richard Clark (@Twisterfilm on X):

https://x.com/twisterfilm/status/1573126405378150400?s=46&t=VkP9OFUBYegXTvONMEwcMw

Spack says “transgender” is no more a psychiatric disorder than being gay or lesbian. He asserts that early treatment is essential to prevent suicide - and it proves we are a “truly inclusive society.” The comparison with homosexuality is one of the most harmful myths we have had to contend with. Worse still is the pernicious suicide myth – which trans zealot Chase Strangio had to concede to the Supreme Court was untrue in 2024, when presenting the ACLU’s case against bans on pediatric gender medicine in the Skrmetti case. As for “inclusive” – this is where evidence-based medicine starts to get mixed up with civil rights. Clinicians should not base any medical treatment on some ideological view of social justice.

The episode sets up two opposing points of view: Edwards-Leeper, who says assessment in therapy is needed to determine which kids need puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and possibly surgery, versus the physician Johanna Olson-Kennedy, who leads the gender clinic at Los Angeles Children’s Hospital. Her clinic opened a little later than GeMS and we now hear — with great relief — that it will soon be closing. Olson-Kennedy thinks “treatment” should be child-led, since kids “know who they are.”

Olson-Kennedy is in a relationship with a woman who identifies as a man. She is currently being sued for malpractice by a detransitioner. She is notorious for her suggestion to worried parents about approving mastectomies for their daughters aged around 13: “if you want breasts at a later point in your life, you can go and get them.” She is also known for suppressing the results of a study that failed to prove what she wanted it to prove.

But here’s the thing. The two are proposed as opposites: Edwards-Leeper as the sensible, cautious figure, who says you must screen carefully, versus Olson-Kennedy, who says it’s impossible to tell who will benefit - so the clinic should offer treatment to all children who request it.

The episode highlights the first conference at which the two views clashed. Olson-Kennedy proposed her anti “gatekeeping” view. She said it made no sense to force kids into therapy if they didn’t want it - and the audience gave her a standing ovation.

In fact, the two women’s views are equally appalling. The wonderful researcher Glenna Goldis wrote a detailed account of Edwards-Leeper in her Bad Facts newsletter – highly recommended to anyone who buys into the idea that EL is a reliable commentator or a cautious practitioner.

The Assessment Sham

Goldis tells us that by 2015, Edwards-Leeper was affiliated with Pacific University in Oregon. She co-authored a manual for the American Psychological Association, “Guidelines for Treating Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People.” Again (as remarked in passing by Austin Mitchell in episode 1) we get the ridiculous notion that “gender non-conforming” kids need “treatment.” And as an LGB rights activist I am particularly concerned by the attitude to gay and lesbian teens.

According to this article, sexual orientation is a “construct.” A gender-questioning youth may initially think they are gay or lesbian. The gender clinician can broach the possibility that they may instead have a gender identity issue - which can be alleviated by treatment. As so many LGB detransitioners tell us, the truth is precisely the opposite. Sexual orientation is mistaken - in today’s climate of gender hype - for a “gender identity” issue. The article provides solid evidence for the proposition that gender clinicians are “transing away the gay.”

Olson-Kennedy, interviewed for the podcast, says her work in the gender field grew out of her medical practice treating transgender teens of color for HIV infections. As others have pointed out, it would not be unreasonable to ask whether these boys and young men (who “identified” as female) were working as prostitutes. The question is not asked.

Edwards Leeper presents herself as the model of caution - even though she herself says she approved almost all minors she saw for “treatment.”

Olson Kennedy was one of the first to promote the vile, powerful phrase: “Would you rather have a dead son or a live daughter?” And since kids “know who they are,” if they are already approaching puberty, they should be given blockers straight away. Assessment is ineffective (they would tell you what you wanted to hear) and a waste of time.

Olson Kennedy has done immeasurable harm to so many young people. However, she is absolutely right that no clinician can differentiate between kids who will continue to identify as transgender in the long term and those who won’t. If that is the sole aim of assessment, then assessment is indeed a waste of time. I am sure some people might think a tiny number of boys might benefit from these interventions. I don’t — but in any case, the answer is certainly not to give all children what they demand. Let’s remember, for the past 10-15 years we’ve seen a reversal of the sex ratio, with most kids demanding “transition” being teenage girls and young women.

I wish they would stop calling it “care”. Interfering with young people’s development in this way is not “care.” It is medical malpractice and a global health scandal. But that is something the NY Times reporters Austin Mitchell and Azeen Ghorayshi are either too ignorant or too cowardly - probably both - to suggest to their listeners.

****

With grateful acknowledgment of the work of Malcolm Clark and Glenna Goldis.