"There’s always trouble in the Church of England.... They’re always tying themselves in knots about something or other."

"But this is a big one, because they’ve decided that their whole operation is a festival of ableism and that their meek priests are not feeling very blessed at all. One, quoted in a new report called 'All Kinds of Minds,' says that the pressure of trying to appear 'typical' means that when he gets home after a hard day at work (me neither) he has to lie on the floor to literally ground himself.... [T]he report reckons that the pressure on vicars to be loud and interesting puts intolerable pressure on those who are 'neurodivergent.'..."

Writes Jeremy Clarkson, in "I know how to fill churches. Deconsecrate them/My idea to fill the pews would mean hiring out churches for parties — but a new report focuses instead on calming down neurodivergent vicars" (London Times).

Clarkson goes on to crack some jokes at the expense of the neurodivergent, but I didn't think the jokes were much good, so let's just read that article he linked to: "Church urged to embrace neurodivergent parishioners (and priests)/A report says the assumptions that preachers should be extroverts and worshippers must sit still were contributing to 'cultures of ableism.'"

"I had to wrestle with myself as a feminist to do it, and it was a lot of money. But I'm very happy with the result."

"No one noticed for like six months. And then I wrote the piece, and now everyone wants to talk about it. But that's okay too. But, yeah, my daughter, who's 13, has autism, said, 'I will never respect you if you do it.'... You know, everyone has to figure it out for themselves, but don't buy into the feminine beauty myth. You know, that you can do and be whoever you are in whatever way you want to treat your body and your face and it's up to you. You know, that's a personal personal thing... I just didn't want everyone to think I look sad when I feel in fact very happy...."

"While devoting most of her time to her son, Monita Wong said she needs to maintain a little distance."

"On the second floor of the foundation building, she incorporated two small bedrooms, for [her husband] and herself. 'I am reluctant to go back to the condo,' she said. When the owner of the lot next to the condo chopped down the spruce that Matthew loved, she brought the stump to the foundation building. 'I could not stop them,' she said. 'But I thought it would be good to have it here. It is outside now.'"

From "A Grieving Mother Safeguards Her Son’s Artistic Legacy/The troubled painter Matthew Wong’s star was on the rise when he died [by suicide] at 35. His mother, Monita Wong, is making sure his work can still be seen" (NYT)(gift link so you can see more of the mother's story, some of the son's paintings, and photos with the captions "Wong's paint tubes, stained sneakers and even the light switch were relocated from his studio" and "Monita Wong carried over the clutter to recreate her son’s studio in the headquarters of the Matthew Wong Foundation in Edmonton, Alberta").

Quote from an art dealer: "He was a very attractive, tall figure, very well spoken. It was very refreshing the way he talked about art in general and not of himself. He was very direct and clear. I had no idea he was depressed. I had no idea he was autistic."

"It is profound to hear people be so aware of and forthcoming about their hopes, and poignant to hear them baldly articulate what we all crave — companionship and acceptance."

"As much as the series focuses on neurodivergent experiences, it illuminates the universal experience of seeking connection and withstanding disappointment. Its cast members’ bald articulation of their desire for companionship and acceptance gives us a gift: the opportunity to see ourselves in these unlikely stars...."

From "The Unlikely TV Show Restoring Everyone’s Faith in Dating/Without exploitation, 'Love on the Spectrum' captures the triumphs and travails of dating. It has become one of Netflix’s most popular shows" (NYT).

From the comments over there: "[T]he reason this show is so successful is that it is one of the only, if not the only, show that truly depicts how important innocent, authentic, messy, real love is. In the show, love and finally being in partnership is a heart-opening, inspiring, special dream.... While the rest of society suffers through hollow culture of situationships, social media, p*rn, red pills, gender division, AI, this [is an] endearing alternative...."

I'm reading that this morning and blogging it because it's very close to how I answered, last night, when Meade asked me why I watched this show.

"Private equity firms are making vast profits from investing in ADHD clinics which provide assessment and treatment for tens of thousands of NHS patients."

"The NHS has become dependent on privately-run services to diagnose ADHD and autism, leading to an 'exponential' growth in ADHD spending which is 'blowing NHS budgets.' More than half a million people in England are on NHS waiting lists for ADHD assessments. Under an initiative called Right to Choose, they have a legal right to get assessed privately and the NHS will pick up the bill. This has led to a proliferation of private providers, several of which have attracted private equity investors looking to generate quick profit."

From "How ADHD became a multimillion-pound industry for private equity/NHS has become dependent on privately run services to diagnose ADHD and autism as patients given legal right to assessments under Right to Choose initiative" (London Times).

Clicking on this headline, I had no idea it was going to be about the challenges faced by persons with neurodivergence.

The headline (in the NYT): "Your Wedding Doesn’t Have to Be Long, Loud or Uncomfortable."

And I hallucinated an "ress" after "Your Wedding D." I thought the news was "Your Wedding Dress Doesn’t Have to Be Long, Loud or Uncomfortable." Yes, those full-scale wedding dresses must be uncomfortable! I've gotten married twice, but never in one of those famous white things that I grew up thinking belonged to the past. 

I scrolled through the article looking for the new short, quiet, comfy wedding dresses, saw all the mentions of neurodivergence but still clung to my misreading. I thought neurodivergent women must have distinct preferences in clothing and wedding dressmakers are coming up with solutions. 

But, no, it's not just about the dress. The whole wedding is subjected to scrutiny from the point of view of the neurodivergent. I finally read the article competently, and I must say these accommodations for neurodivergent people still produce weddings that are way too much for me:

"He describes how — in his view — his ex-wife weaponised gender medicine to cut him out of his daughter’s life..."

"... how his daughter went from being sectioned for anorexia to being affirmed in her trans identity by all the adults in her life except him, how she was given a prescription for testosterone after one online session with a counsellor, and how this was injected by her local NHS GP with no blood tests or clinical evaluation.... J was diagnosed with autism aged 13. At 14 she was sectioned because she had become severely malnourished.... Before she was sectioned, J had told her parents that she was a lesbian, and then she and her best friend said that they were in fact boys in a gay relationship. 'These are two autistic girls who were ostracised in school,' says [the father]. After J came out of hospital, she ate nothing for a week. Then her mother made a deal with her: if you start eating, I will let you take the gender drugs.... He remembers the last time he saw her.... 'When she said goodbye, her smile was the same girly shy smile she had as a little girl. Somewhere in there is my daughter.'"

From "Father’s anger at girl’s potentially fatal testosterone dose/The child, who was 15 at the time, was given the prescription by the private GenderGP clinic after one online counselling session" (London Times).

To be "sectioned" is to be forced into hospitalization.

"Texas becomes the first state to allege that taking [Tylenol] while pregnant can cause autism, despite unsettled scientific evidence."

I'm reading "Texas AG Paxton files Tylenol lawsuit, taking cues from Trump, Kennedy" (WaPo)(free-access link).

Excerpt: "For decades, scientists have been studying whether acetaminophen is linked to autism and ADHD. But sorting out a connection has proved elusive, researchers say. For example, many pregnant individuals take acetaminophen to reduce a fever, which itself could affect a baby’s development, according to the FDA."

How mystifying is that? The rule should at least be against use when pregnant unless it is necessary to reduce fever that is high enough to affect the development of the unborn child — a rule to be applied by doctors.

By the way: "pregnant individuals."

Only?

I'm reading this NYT column by Jessica Grose: "Kennedy’s Comments on Circumcision Are Only Going to Confuse and Shame Parents."

The headline makes it sound as though human beings cannot be trusted with information. We'll only get confused or descend into shame.

What's the issue here?

On Thursday, Kennedy, the secretary of health and human services, said in a cabinet meeting, “There’s two studies that show children who are circumcised early have double the rate of autism. It’s highly likely because they’re given Tylenol.” Was he trying to persuade parents to avoid circumcision, Tylenol (the most popular brand of acetaminophen) or both?...

Why not read it for exactly what it is, an observation that you can take into account when deciding whether to have your child circumcised and, if you do, what form of pain relief do you want? What's confusing or shameful about that? Health info often comes in this form — studies find that a substance is associated with a health problem. It might not be causal, but don't parents have the right to decide if they should take the risk?

"On bad days, Ms. Martinez said, the pain is 'unbearable.' So she was confused and upset on Monday when President Trump encouraged pregnant women to 'tough it out'..."

"... without Tylenol. He claimed that acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, could be a cause of autism, even though doctors say it is safe in moderation. Ms. Martinez immediately contacted her doctor, asking whether she should continue taking pain medication. After hearing that it was OK, she still called her mother in tears, overwhelmed by the fear of being blamed for whatever might go wrong.... In interviews with pregnant women and doctors, they described how Mr. Trump’s announcement added a new wrinkle of worry. As it is, pregnant women do not need to look very far for advice and admonishment; it comes from all directions, even from strangers on the street...."

From "A President’s ‘Surreal’ Advice Worries Pregnant Women/The administration’s guidance to avoid Tylenol and 'tough it out' prompted anxiety, especially for expectant women who face pain" (NYT).

One reason to avoid having children is the fear that you'll do something wrong or — like that mother in tears — the fear that other people will think you did something wrong. Why complicate your life with such things? The babies themselves may grow up into beings who tell you you've done it wrong. Thank God some women dare to have children. But what are the rest of us to do — we who feel called to protect children? Only Ms. Martinez knows how bad her pain is and how much Tylenol might help. Who but she should decide if it's worth the risk to take Tylenol after the President has cast aspersions upon it?

By the way, here's an interesting episode of the "Modern Wisdom" podcast: "Why Population Collapse is Closer Than You Think."

Does Tylenol cause autism? There's an obvious and now unavoidable experiment that will answer the question.

Now, absolutely no one should take acetaminophen during pregnancy. Who would?

Later, take note of whether the rate of autism declines.

I'm seeing: "Scientists have reacted with dismay at the announcement [linking acetaminophen to autism], warning that the 'fearmongering' will prevent women from accessing pain relief during pregnancy" (in "Taking Tylenol in pregnancy linked to autism, Trump to claim/The president promises ‘one of the biggest medical announcements in US history’, claiming a discovery as to why the disorder developed and treatment" (London Times)).

What's the opposite of "fearmongering"? False reassurance? I don't think this is fearmongering but a wise balance of factors. Who would take acetaminophen while pregnant if it might cause autism? I suspect that what these "scientists" are "dismayed" about is not about the future but the past. It's not that women are going to be afraid. Going forward, they'll just refrain from using acetaminophen. It's easy to use an abundance of caution with respect to something so specific. What's dismaying is the burden of guilt to be laid on women who have already used acetaminophen during pregnancy.

"Robert F Kennedy Jr is expected to announce a potential link between pregnant women’s use of the over-the-counter pain medication Tylenol and autism in an upcoming report...."

"The findings would run counter to a large body of scientific research. JAMA Psychiatry published a large study of nearly 2.5 million children in Sweden last year and found no causal link between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and a child’s risk of autism. The research suggests that any previously observed associations were likely due to other underlying factors. Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against manufacturers of acetaminophen products, claiming they failed to warn pregnant women about the potential risk of autism. A federal litigation related to these claims was dismissed in late 2023 and again in August last year after a judge excluded expert testimony due to a lack of sufficient scientific evidence linking prenatal acetaminophen use to autism...."

From "RFK Jr to announce link between use of painkillers and autism/The US health secretary is expected to release a report linking the use of the over-the-counter drug Tylenol during pregnancy to the neuro-developmental disorder" (London Times).

"I think you would prefer the human race to endure, right?"/"Uh............"/"You’re hesitating"/"Well, I don’t know. I would....... I would....."

"There’s so many questions implicit in this"/"Should the human race survive?"/"Yes.... but I also would like us to radically solve these problems. And so it’s always, I don’t know, yeah — transhumanism. The ideal was this radical transformation where your human, natural body gets transformed into an immortal body. And there’s a critique of, let’s say, the trans people in a sexual context, or, I don’t know, a transvestite is someone who changes their clothes and cross-dresses, and a transsexual is someone where you change your, I don’t know, penis into a vagina. And we can then debate how well those surgeries work. But we want more transformation than that. The critique is not that it’s weird and unnatural, it’s: Man, it’s so pathetically little. And OK, we want more than cross-dressing or changing your sex organs. We want you to be able to change your heart and change your mind and change your whole body. And then Orthodox Christianity, by the way — the critique Orthodox Christianity has of this, is these things don’t go far enough. That transhumanism is just changing your body, but you also need to transform your soul and you need to transform your whole self. And so............................"

It's Peter Thiel, responding to what one might think were easy questions from Ross Douthat, on the new episode of Douthat's podcast, here, at Podscribe.

Go to 00:37:32 to experience Thiel's freakishly long hesitation when Douthat has just asked if he'd like humanity to survive. And I love how he takes the concept of "trans" and runs with it.

Even though Thiel's cogitations wander into Christianity, he doesn't mention The Transfiguration, in Matthew 17. There, Jesus is "transfigured":

"When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a recent press briefing that autistic children will 'never pay taxes,' 'never hold a job,' 'never play baseball'...."

"... many people in the autism community reacted angrily. And yet I was transported back to the psychiatrist’s office and her bleak prognosis that my child might never speak again. I found myself nodding along as Mr. Kennedy spoke about the grim realities of profound autism. It’s not a position I expected to be in. I have never voted for Donald Trump. I vaccinated my children. I consider myself squarely left of center....  I have no interest in defending Mr. Kennedy.... And yet, I think his remarks echo the reality and pain of a subset of parents of children with autism who feel left out of much of the conversation around the condition. Many advocacy groups focus so much on acceptance, inclusion and celebrating neurodiversity that it can feel as if they are avoiding uncomfortable truths about children like mine...."

From "Kennedy Described My Reality" (NYT).

"On Netflix for the past couple seasons, there has been a TV show that displays love — a type of love that I have never seen or experienced before."

"It's a love on the spectrum. Yeah. Best show out right now...."/"So although they have... I call them different abilities... they really about their business in what they desire and what love looks like to them....  And they'll tell you straight up, hey, baby, you don't like this? That ain't going to work for me."/"I'm telling you right now, if everybody dated how they date on 'Love On the Spectrum,' dating would be so easy.... I want to be matter of fact. I want to be able to just go in... It's so amazing to watch because if they don't like each other, they'd be like, all right, cool, I'm fine with that. And they walk away. They'll go on a date and she'd be like, did you have a good time? He was like, not really, not really. I wasn't feeling it. I didn't like you like that. But we could be cool. She'd be like, I understand. Don't worry about it. And they shake hands and hug and walk off.... If I could just wake up in the morning and say how I felt...."

I enjoyed "The Manly Deeds Podcast" talking about one of my favorite TV shows, "Love On the Spectrum":

I like the idea of neurotypical people watching the show and picking up communication hints. Now, the autistic people on the show have been taught skills that are modeled on the communication of neurotypical people. But there is room for learning in both directions.

Here's the trailer for Season 3 of "Love on the Spectrum," which I highly recommend:

"Salmon given antianxiety drugs take more risks, study finds."

Says the headline at The Washington Post — free-access link. Your first thought might be: Scientists, leave those fish alone! But they're not just getting the drugs from scientists:

We’re turning our rivers, lakes and oceans into soups of pharmaceutical pollution.... Nearly 1,000 pharmaceuticals have been detected in waterways around the world.... 

Things we will know by September.

"We’ve launched a massive testing and research effort that’s going to involve hundreds of scientists from around the world. By September, we will know what has caused the autism epidemic and we’ll be able to eliminate those exposures."

Said RFK Jr., at a Cabinet meeting last Thursday, quoted in "Experts Doubt Kennedy’s Timetable for Finding the Cause of Autism/The nation’s health secretary announced that he planned to invite scientists to provide answers by September, but specialists consider that target date unrealistic" (NYT).

Why did he phrase it like that? I do not get the "by September." I could believe that scientists could be chosen to report their best ideas by a particular deadline and that a fact-finder could declare an answer, the way a court, after hearing evidence, could resolve an issue for the purpose of ending a dispute. But that's not the same as knowing. 

I note that he did not say we will know what causes autism. He said we will know what has caused the autism epidemic. Perhaps we will know — or have a pretty good answer to the question — whether the increased numbers are caused by more people seeking the diagnosis, or a changing standard in giving the diagnosis, or some substance (or combination of substances) in the environment, or (to quote Kennedy)  "different ways of parenting." To seek a cause for the epidemic is to ask what has changed. But a lot of things have changed over the years.

Plenty of people were already worried that RFK Jr. was not firmly rooted in science. His "by September" statement stokes that worry — and makes me think he likes to tweak the worriers. 

"If they ever invent a pill where they could say, 'OK, your social skills will be normal, but your ability to concentrate would also be normal,' I wouldn’t take the pill."

"Maybe I am forgetting how painful it was, but I needed my neuro diversity to write that software; I could do all that stuff in my head. That takes a lot of concentration."

Said Bill Gates, quoted in "Bill Gates: 'I would be diagnosed with autism if I were a kid today'" (Yahoo News).

Just because there's a treatment doesn't mean you need to take it. There's a balance between eradicating symptoms and unleashing side effects, and we should be careful not to pathologize human behavior.

Where the treatment doesn't yet exist — like Gates's anti-autism pill — it's easier to decide I wouldn't want it anyway. The unreachable grapes looked sour to the fox in the old fable. It's harder to think critically when the pill is right there — the pill or the surgery. Is effeminacy in a young boy a condition that ought to be treated, or can we embrace human diversity and discourage medical treatment? There might be something parallel to "I needed my neuro diversity to write that software." I needed my effeminate maleness to.... What? What is lost in the pathologizing? What sort of highly valuable person are we medicalizing out of existence?

This made me think of that classic of Critical Race Theory, "The Michael Jackson Pill: Equality, Race, and Culture" by Jerome McCristal Culp, Jr. (Michigan Law Review, 1994). I tried to get Grok to talk about it, and it engaged in blatant censorship: "There is no well-known or credible critical race theory article that discusses or imagines a pill to turn black people white...."

"When the topic turned to vaccines, the discussion was not about banning the product...."

"Kennedy spoke about the need for better study of the vaccine dosing schedule for newborns and the rise in chronic disease, while also rattling off statistics about the increase in autism rates despite multiple studies that have shown no link between vaccines and the disorder and World Health Organization estimates that immunizations have saved 154 million lives.... Here Trump redirected the conversation... while backing up Kennedy’s desire for more research.... He suggested to the drug company executives that they had nothing to fear from further investigation of the causes of autism, saying Kennedy could help put to rest vaccine hesitancy if no connection was found. The aftermath of the dinner, which ended by all accounts with surprising warmth on all sides, has become the stuff of mini-legend in the week that has followed. Trump called it 'a little unusual' in a recent NBC News interview. 'At a point I thought, I can’t believe I am doing this,' another participant said, expressing a sentiment echoed by others."

That's The Washington Post admiring Donald Trump!

The article is "How Donald Trump broke the ice between RFK Jr. and drug company CEOs/The president-elect’s choice for health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is meeting with senators in Washington this week" (free-access link).

Do I need a new tag? Something like "Trump the Great Uniter"? Wouldn't it be funny... I mean, wouldn't it be nice if the old press template — Trump the Divider — failed? And who doesn't want it to fail?! Who doesn't want good things to happen?

Peter Thiel talks to Piers Morgan about Daniel Penny and Luigi Mangione.

It's an interesting discussion, but many people are getting hung up on Thiel's very awkward, disfluent manner of speaking:

Morgan shows Thiel a clip that Luigi Mangione shared on social media. It's a clip of Thiel himself, and Thiel says it's the first time he's heard about the alleged killer's interest in him. In that clip, Thiel says: