Mick Hartley

This astounding paper reminds me of Hannah Arendt's The Banality of Evil: 'The net effect of this language system was not to keep these people ignorant of what they were doing, but to prevent them from equating it with their old, ‘normal’ knowledge.' 1/5https://t.co/nPNlm033r6

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) December 28, 2024

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Full thread:

We're all used to the obfuscatory language gender activist medics and their cheerleader, insist upon. 'Gender affirming care/treatment' is so much nicer sounding than 'sterilisation, surgical mutilation and provision of toxic drugs to troubled minors'. 2/5

But this paper breaks new ground. It acknowledges that by the usual medical standards ('old normal knowledge') transitioning minors has not been found to be the unqualified success many have claimed. The proposed solution? Jettison the old knowledge. Redefine success. 3/5

'Yes, some young people given irreversible surgeries and hormone regimes regret it. Yes, some have complex problems that transition doesn't fix and may worsen. But hey, they wanted it and were given it. That should be the new metric of success!' 4/5

I'm not sure I've ever read a better example of what Arendt described when analysing those determined not to break ranks, yet who felt the need to justify their participation in atrocities: 'self-deception, concealing a ruthless desire for conformity at any price.' 5/5

You start with the ideology, which you cannot possibly gainsay as your whole livelihood is bound up in it, and then find ways to present the facts to fit. Obscure language and as much "technical" jargon as possible always help.

[As I've argued before, Arendt was wrong about Eichmann: he was no dim bureaucrat but a committed Nazi. His defence – that he was just obeying orders – fooled Arendt, but didn't fool the Israeli court. But Arendt's more general point about the banality of evil still stands.]