But also believes 12-year-olds should be trusted when they identify as the opposite gender
A medical professor and paid advocate for the transgender lobby recently took to Twitter to criticize me for not consulting an “expert” when it comes to LGBT issues.
Dr. Jack Turban gets paid $400 per hour to testify on behalf of the transgender lobby in support of the chemical castration of children. He also teaches at the University of California San Francisco.
He took issue with an opinion piece I wrote at the Washington Examiner where I argued that polling on gender issues is skewed to favor the liberal position, with specific reference to a Grinnell College poll on “gender-affirming care.”
“Matt’s educational background is in Catholic studies and political science, not medicine,” he wrote. “This is typical of this kind of media coverage. Right-wing views on #trans people are about their political and religious views, not science.”
Matt’s educational background is in Catholic studies and political science, not medicine.
— Jack Turban MD 🏳️⚧️🧠🏳️🌈🩺 (@jack_turban) April 2, 2023
Let’s take a look at his argument. First, Turban (pictured) believes that a 10-year-old boy can chop off his genitals and become a girl. There’s nothing scientific about this. Second, let’s get to his argument that because my background is in Catholic studies and political science (and economics), my views are not to be considered.
After Turban retakes Biology 101 to learn about XX and XY chromosomes, it might be helpful to take an introductory Latin class. My argument was not specifically about the science behind transgender drugs and surgeries but how to ask the general population for its opinion on LGBT issues and how policymakers are being misled by polls.
Political science is the study of the polity which means in Latin the “citizenship, political organization, constitution of a state, administrative direction.” The word “policy” has the same root in Latin and Greek.
So if we are playing a credentialism game, it would seem entirely appropriate for someone who has two degrees in political science to weigh in how the “polity” are asked about their views on a specific “policy” in order to inform “politicians.”
Policies are rarely a scientific equation – instead they involve trade-offs and considerations on the pros and cons. There are some policies to me that are binary, pardon the pun, such as abortion or transgenderism. But other policies occur on a spectrum – pardon the second pun.
For example, debates about how to regulate pollution cannot just come down to what the consensus among environmentalists is. We would want to consult economists to figure out the best trade-offs and we would also want to consult industry leaders to see what would be the effect of the regulations on their growth and ability to hire and pay people.
Policies have ripple effects – it might be worth considering for example whether to pursue the most effective policy in terms of reducing pollution or to pursue smaller goals that will inflict less harm on the population and thus enjoy broader support.
Curiously, I have actually asked Turban for his input before, but he never responded. And in an article for LifeSiteNews, I referenced four social scientists and a journalist who writes about academic studies who criticized the professor’s research methods.
These critics ranged from Professor Michael New at the Catholic University of America to Elle Lett, a “Black, transgender woman, statistician-epidemiologist and physician-in training” and University of Michigan social scientist Avery Everhart, a “gender-queer woman” involved with Northwestern University’s Center for Applied Transgender Studies.
This type of academic gatekeeping is nothing new.
For example, University of Washington Professor Holden Thorp, who also edits scientific journals, outright said that he does not want to read submissions from people who disagree with his government-heavy approach to climate issues.
The problem is that people like Turban bring their political views into science – and sometimes the scientists are wildly wrong.