Review of You're Teaching My Child WHAT?

Dr. Miriam Grossman, formerly Anonymous MD, has written another book, entitled You're Teaching My Child WHAT? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Education and How They Harm Your Child. My thoughts about this book are almost identical to my review of her earlier book, perhaps because the books have nearly identical tone and content. As I stated in that review, "This evident alarmism --- PC is so insidious that the author must remain anonymous or risk Birkenstocks being thrown through her front windows --- that pervades the book may cause parents and aggrieved social conservatives to pick up the book, but it does no good for Dr. Anonymous's arguments and alienates people who might otherwise agree with her." As in her previous book, Dr. Grossman makes valid points in the most invalid ways, alleging cover-ups and duplicity and a single radical academic agenda when none exists.

I have three responses specific to this book.

First, Dr. Grossman refers multiple times to a controversy between parents and experts, for instance saying "The `experts' are wrong, and parents are right." presuming parents are opposed to the allegedly radical agenda of comprehensive sex education. In fact, nearly all parents, even very conservative parents, favor school sex education that teaches birth control: 89% of all parents, more than 80% of Born Again Christian parents, and 51% of parents who call themselves politically very conservative.

Second, Dr. Grossman identifies herself in this book as an Orthodox Jew. I find it strange that she spends an entire chapter lambasting the sex education advocacy group SIECUS for encouraging sexual experimentation rather than abstinence when the only sex education curriculum developed by Orthodox Jewish institutions is based on SIECUS guidelines (Life Values and Intimacy Education sponsored by Yeshiva University's Center for the Jewish Future, published by KTAV, all institutions considered arbiters of "Authentic Judaism"). She does not try to reconcile this discrepancy, I suspect because that would blur the simple dichotomy she is trying to create between religion/parents/tradition (=good) and academia/sex education advocates/SIECUS (=bad).

Third, her chapters on homosexuality and gender identity, the latter entitled "Genderland", are problematic in ways beyond the scope of this review. She cites some legitimate research such as Lisa Diamond's fantastic 10 year longitudinal qualitative study of lesbian and bisexual women published in the 2008 book Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire. Diamond found that nearly all of her women subjects' sexual orientations seemed to change spontaneously. Grossman uses spontaneous sexual orientation change among women to bolster the case for attempting to induce changes in sexual orientation among both men and women. Besides the spontaneous vs. attempted induced changes difference, Diamond looked only at women. Grossman lists many differences between men and women in the realm of sexuality earlier in her book, all of which would imply that a study of women's sexual orientations has no relevance to men's sexual orientations. Of course mentioning NARTH is a total non-starter.

This book does make some valid points and could be readable if all the alarmist bits were pulled out and the rest toned down. As I stated in my review of her previous book, I don't think that her points are repressed at the level of academic research, but as in many areas perhaps research simply is not adequately disseminated: this certainly wouldn't be the first area where quality of health care suffered because practitioners followed their intuitions instead of evidence-based guidelines or the evidence was never disseminated in the first place.


Cutting out the alarmism would make the book about 20% shorter but would give it a chance of being looked at by those she critiques. It seems like she's not interested in dialogue, just in fomenting alarm among the alarmed. Too bad. It could have been otherwise. She wrote this book while a recipient of a Clara Booth Luce fellowship, a fund that has funded moderate research by journalist Laura Sessions Stepp, also an affiliate of the moderate group National Campaign Against Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

What a wasted opportunity for dialogue.

Review of Unprotected

This book is unfortunately one that can be accurately judged by its cover. A girl in an uncomfortably-short skirt and high-heeled strappy sandals, slumps dejectedly at a table, her Burberry purse slung over the other shoulder, shadows and limbs strategically placed. And by its title, Unprotected: A campus psychiatrist reveals how political correctness in her profession endangers every student, by Anonymous, M.D. This evident alarmism --- PC is so insidious that the author must remain anonymous or risk Birkenstocks being thrown through her front windows --- that pervades the book may cause parents and aggrieved social conservatives to pick up the book, but it does no good for Dr. Anonymous's arguments and alienates people who might otherwise agree with her.

A friend of mine, an observant Jew who every week attends prayer services where the sexes are separated by a curtain, is a prime candidate for a reader who might agree with this book's argument. Her conclusion after skimming the book, however, was, "Books like this make me mad." She objected to its overly dramatic language and attempt to scare the reader into agreement.

Dr. Grossman's arguments (Dr. Anonymous turned out to be psychiatrist Dr. Miriam Grossman from UCLA) are themselves very worth consideration and further research. Here they are. I think any of these could spawn half a dozen good studies. I do not think that they are generally repressed by political correctness at the level of academic research. Research is usually not sufficiently disseminated, though, and maybe that is the problem: this certainly wouldn't be the first area where quality of health care suffered because practitioners followed their intuitions instead of evidence-based guidelines or the evidence was never disseminated in the first place.

At any rate, here they are:

1. Casual premarital sex may be emotionally dangerous for at least some adolescents and young adults, especially for women due to their hormonal response to orgasm and stimulation of erogenous zones. Many young women have strong emotions that accompany what they had wanted to consider casual relationships, which surprise them.

2. People know very little about STDs and underestimate the risks:
a. Condoms don't protect completely against some STDs, especially since adolescents and even young adults don't use them consistently.
b. Younger people are more vulnerable to STDs than older people.
c. Some STDs are incurable and some have a small chance of causing fertility problems over a relatively short period.
d. STDs are given short shrift in the larger health care picture. She concludes college should require universal testing for common STDs such as chlamydia, just as they require universal testing for TB.

3. Abstinence is not considered to be a virtue to the extent that other disciplined behaviors are. (I made this argument a few weeks ago.)

4. Counselors are required to be culturally competent to deal with all potential clients, but while they are taught sensitivity to rare minorities such as transgender and Muslims, this cultural sensitivity does not extend to larger traditional minorities such as evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, and Orthodox Jews.

5. A spiritual discipline, whether meditation, yoga, or traditional religious prayer, appears to be beneficial for mental health in both the short and long term.

6. HIV is more difficult for healthy people to contract from vaginal intercourse than people commonly believe, and this disproportionate fear of HIV may cause anxiety and panic attacks in some people, as well as discounting larger actual risks from more contagious STDs.

7. Abortion has different meanings to different women, and different meanings before and after an abortion. Some women regard abortion as simply a medical procedure, and other women see more profound meaning in abortions, and some women change their beliefs about abortion after their experiences with them.

8. Women underestimate the risks to their fertility of waiting to have children past age 35, most do not know that fertility declines dramatically after age 35, and that fertility technology is very limited in its ability to help women and also very expensive.


These topics can be addressed in both research and in practice.


In research, these topics are neglected, but only to the extent that many women's health and sexual health issues are. When raised in the right way, my experience is that almost everyone considers these to be legitimate arguments and subjects of study.

In practice, it may be another story. It is true that some of these issues are not well-disseminated, but lots of research isn't. People are woefully ignorant about their own health, and the surprise isn't that some issues are neglected, it is that some concerns manage to rise to the top. The concerns she mentions that young adults are highly aware of are weight control, cholesterol, and osteoporosis. The motivation for the the first is immediate self-interest, knowledge about cholesterol comes via middle-aged men, and I'm not sure the third is a concern college students are aware of, but to the extent that they are, their knowledge comes via middle-aged women and grandparents with brittle bones. STDs are hidden and stigmatized and can't be as salient to young adults.



Another problem is that so frequently these discussions are politicized. Many have a suspicion of anything that might turn out to be the socially conservative version of political correctness. It seems to me that in the current administration, this suspicion is more than justified. I've heard from a few different people that the administration has made appointments even at low levels to enforce their socially conservative PC (SCPC). One example went down to the same semantic pickiness that liberal PC is mocked for: the appointee ensured that the term "prostitution" was used instead "commercial sex work," and even those who found the former term offensively pejorative were pressured into using the term. Since the liberals were underdogs in this and many other situations, it seems highly sensible that they would resist what they perceive as SCPC infiltration.

Reasons besides politics why each concern is not disseminated adequately are worth exploring, and I may do that.


I hope that in the future administration, we can move past these political divisions and actually work constructively together to solve these real problems, first by disseminating the existing evidence and then by doing new work. It may be simply an issue of framing issues the right way, and unfortunately this book does nothing to help its own cause.