Did anyone else come away with the impression that this guest's perspective is "I'm always right, those that disagree with me are insane, and there's no further nuance necessary"? Not saying they shouldn't have been invited, but this was a rare case where I thought listening to an ep was not time well spent.
Wait just a minute! As far as euthanasia is concerned, Canada has MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying), which had all the same protections Josh described in Australia. There are significant protections in place.
I came to make a similar comment. In Canada you can not access MAID just because you are “ poor or homeless “. Norvan you have it if you have moribund depression.
The way that Dana described her situation, I may have thought that she may fit the category closer to Intersex. A bit more clarification on Transgender/Transexual/Intersex may have been useful here in discussion.
I do not want to offend anyone here, but these are my thoughts, apologies if I sound clownish. This interview came across as bitter (not from Josh, who did a particularly good job of 'pushing back' without instigating a fracas). Nevertheless, as heavy handed as Dana was, she was still worth listening to. Dana clearly has broad experience, personal and political, with 'trans' rights and cultural acceptance. Taking a step back, it was interesting to hear how she spoke about her life and the current culture. She sounded exactly like a Baby Boomer, which I say without ridicule - it was interesting. Towards the end, she claimed that "social constructs" (i.e. gender identity) were not scientific and that it is 'appalling' to think of identity as a subject of science. This view is one I would like to hear challenged. It may not change anyone's mind, of course. But one person who may present a valid counter-argument against Dana is the evolutionary biologist (specifically, ornithologist), Richard O. Prum. For years Prum has written on sexual selection, and late last year he wrote a book, "Performance All the Way Down", about the role of performance in genes and sexual development. Josh, you might both enjoy and be good at dissecting Prum's new book in an episode. It might help people like me understand things better.
Did anyone else come away with the impression that this guest's perspective is "I'm always right, those that disagree with me are insane, and there's no further nuance necessary"? Not saying they shouldn't have been invited, but this was a rare case where I thought listening to an ep was not time well spent.
I'm not sure how to respond other than if I say, yes, you're right, then I have to ask do you come across as always right :) :)
Wait just a minute! As far as euthanasia is concerned, Canada has MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying), which had all the same protections Josh described in Australia. There are significant protections in place.
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html
I came to make a similar comment. In Canada you can not access MAID just because you are “ poor or homeless “. Norvan you have it if you have moribund depression.
Very interesting guest, Josh! Thanks, I really enjoyed the discussion. A lot of different/fresh takes on things.
The way that Dana described her situation, I may have thought that she may fit the category closer to Intersex. A bit more clarification on Transgender/Transexual/Intersex may have been useful here in discussion.
I do not want to offend anyone here, but these are my thoughts, apologies if I sound clownish. This interview came across as bitter (not from Josh, who did a particularly good job of 'pushing back' without instigating a fracas). Nevertheless, as heavy handed as Dana was, she was still worth listening to. Dana clearly has broad experience, personal and political, with 'trans' rights and cultural acceptance. Taking a step back, it was interesting to hear how she spoke about her life and the current culture. She sounded exactly like a Baby Boomer, which I say without ridicule - it was interesting. Towards the end, she claimed that "social constructs" (i.e. gender identity) were not scientific and that it is 'appalling' to think of identity as a subject of science. This view is one I would like to hear challenged. It may not change anyone's mind, of course. But one person who may present a valid counter-argument against Dana is the evolutionary biologist (specifically, ornithologist), Richard O. Prum. For years Prum has written on sexual selection, and late last year he wrote a book, "Performance All the Way Down", about the role of performance in genes and sexual development. Josh, you might both enjoy and be good at dissecting Prum's new book in an episode. It might help people like me understand things better.