July 9, 2026

AIN’T HEAVY:

The Surprising Ways That Siblings Shape Our Lives (Susan Dominus, May 6, 2025, NY Times Magazine)

And then there are siblings. “I think the influence of siblings on each other is an area in psychology that has not nearly received the attention it deserves,” says Lisa Damour, a psychologist and author who writes about adolescence. “When we look at child development, our main frameworks have been around the influence of parents on children, and that’s the established tradition that we’ve had a hard time moving past.”

Anyone raising more than one child, Damour says, or who has a sibling, intuitively knows that sibling relationships play a powerful role in affecting who we become. “If parents are the fixed stars in the child’s universe, the vaguely understood, distant but constant celestial spheres, siblings are the dazzling, sometimes scorching comets nearby,” wrote Alison Gopnik, a developmental psychologist, in a review of a book about siblings in 2011.

A body of research has been growing in recent years that adds clarity and depth to our understanding of how significant the impact of siblings can be. Researchers have studied how siblings influence one another’s choices and life trajectories through competition; they have uncovered deeper knowledge of so-called spillover effects, the ripple effects of how one sibling’s experiences affect another’s; and they have brought rigor to bear on popular ideas about birth order. New tools of genetic research may challenge or sharpen previously held conceptions about siblings. The data set of families whose stories might shed light on some of these interactions is limitless, but one place to look is at siblings who have long fascinated me: those in families in which a surprising number of brothers and sisters have found their way to the top of the ladder of success. Some of the dynamics described in the research, in those families, might be borne out in the extreme. Siblings, at their best, can urge one another on; competing and collaborating — whether intentionally or not — they help chart the course of one another’s lives.

THE ONLY EXISTENTIAL THREAT IS INTERNAL:

How Israel Lost Americans (Michelle Goldberg, 7/08/26, The New York Times)


It’s been obvious for some time that Americans are souring on Israel, but a Gallup poll that came out on Friday marks a turning point. For the first time in the poll’s 25-year history, it found, more Americans sympathize with the Palestinians than with the Israelis. The shift wasn’t just among Democrats, whose opinion of Israel has been in free fall in recent years. According to Gallup, only 30 percent of independents now sympathize with Israel; 41 percent sympathize with the Palestinians. Among adults under 35, support for Israel has fallen to a record low of 23 percent. With numbers like this, bipartisan backing for Israel, long a constant in American politics, will in time become unsustainable.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel famously prides himself on his ability to shape American policy. As he said in a secretly recorded 2001 conversation, “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.” Yet he has presided over an ongoing collapse in American Zionism and could eventually go down in history as the prime minister who lost Israel’s most important ally.

Israel’s imploding reputation is largely a consequence of its oppression of the Palestinians, in particular the mass killings in Gaza, which millions of Americans watched up close on social media. At the same time, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank — which is increasingly turning into outright annexation — is making Zionism and liberalism seem incompatible. Today, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, about 7.2 million Jews preside over a slightly larger number of Arabs, if you combine Israel’s Palestinian citizenry with the populations of Gaza and the West Bank. The majority of those Palestinians are stateless and have almost no guaranteed rights, as we see in the growing number of settler pogroms in the West Bank and the systematic ethnic cleansing of villages.

As Ariel Sharon understood, becoming the oppressor was always going to be fatal to Israel’s position in the West, nevermind the damage to the state itself and the soul of the people.

NET ZERO IS INDEPENDENCE DAY:

Drone warfare turning oil from asset to liability: Both Ukraine and Iran wars have shown oil shipping, refining and infrastructure are highly vulnerable to drone attacks (Bill Mckibben, July 9, 2026, Asia Times)

But if our attack on Iran has made other nations demonstrably more nervous about relying on the import of hydrocarbons, Ukraine’s attacks on Russia’s petroleum network should make them nervous about depending on the stuff even if they don’t have to bring it in from afar. It turns out that in the drone age it’s a very risky business, because it relies on colossal pieces of infrastructure that can’t be easily defended.

SURGERY IS NOT PSYCHOLOGY:

The Detransitioner’s Dilemma: The Road From “Sunk Cost” to “Radical Acceptance” (Carol Tavris, July 8, 2026, Skeptic)

To better understand the factors that lead young people to identify as transgender, and then to detransition, data analyst M. Lal and psychiatrist Stephen B. Levine analyzed the stories told by 37 detransitioners—25 biological females and 12 biological males—on publicly available video testimony.4 Their scholarly goal was to identify the main factors (they call “pathways”) into transition and those that eventually led them to change course. Of course this group is not representative of all detransitioners, as if such a sample could ever be created, but their stories corroborate much of what is already known about the young people who find themselves caught in the gender-affirming world and later struggle to get out. Most of the group had originally transitioned in their mid-teens, and detransitioned in their 20s and some even their late 30s.

To know how and why these women and men abandoned their trans identities, we need to know how they adopted them to begin with. Consistent with almost all other studies, Lal and Levine found a high prevalence of concurrent conditions long known to accompany gender dysphoria in young people: psychological disorders (notably autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, eating disorders); sexual abuse; childhood neglect and a history of abusive relationships; and, sadly, homophobia. When young people take a deep dive into the internet to find explanations of their symptoms and suffering, they encounter communities that actively persuade adolescents who are uncomfortable with their bodies, or who have emotional disorders, that they are “really” trans and their problems would vanish with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Many of Lal and Levine’s participants explicitly described the message they heard over and over: “if you are uncomfortable in your body, you are transgender.”

Well, no, you probably aren’t. There are many reasons adolescents (or anyone else) might feel uncomfortable with their bodies. Shall I count the ways? But the normal discomforts, pleasures, and surprises of puberty are magnified for young people on the autism spectrum, who, Lal and Levine found, misattributed the concrete thinking styles, sensory processing difficulties, and social deficits typical of autism to having gender dysphoria. One explained how having a transgender identity provided “a structured, rule-based community” that alleviated his social isolation. Another said that the dysphoria label “perfectly fit” his “severe OCD, undiagnosed autism, and a general sense of alienation.” Participants with ADHD spoke of how transitioning provided a focused goal for their hyperfixations, soothing their unflagging restlessness.

A second route to transitioning, for nearly half of this cohort, was the motive not to become the opposite sex but rather to escape the sex they were. Many had been sexually abused: One young woman’s distress over her developing breasts “was just from sexual abuse,” she said, yet when she told that to her physician, she was given puberty blockers immediately. Another described his transition as “surgical self-harm” to destroy the “boy whose presence was only worthy of contempt” from his father.

In a gloomy reflection of the state of male-female relations today, a significant number of the participants wanted to transition as a way of opting out of the heterosexual dating market. “[My] eating disorder and dysphoria came from the same place,” said one young woman. “If I had less fat, I would look less female.” Several of these women wanted to create a nonsexual, androgynous body rather than a masculine one, to escape the feeling that their body “was on display—like it was somehow ‘there for boys’ or ‘there for men.’”

For their part, several biological males described transition as a “flight from manhood” and a way to suppress what they felt was an overactive libido. (Note to boys: That’s normal, guys—you’re teenagers.) One said he wanted a “sexual lobotomy” to destroy the “brainwashing” that male sexuality was inherently evil. Some wanted to distance themselves from cultural claims of “toxic” masculinity and the “predatory” male; one associated a “caricature of maleness” with being “brutish” and concluded that “I can’t possibly be that.” Another said he had absorbed “a lot of rhetoric about how much men suck.”

Finally, a third route to transitioning was homophobia, another factor that turns up repeatedly in studies of adolescents in gender clinics. Eleven biological males transitioned primarily to escape the stigma associated with being gay; one said that he “100%” wanted to avoid the shame of homosexuality. Several biological females felt that living as a trans man was preferable to living as a masculine lesbian; one transitioned in an effort to bypass the complexities and stigma she associated with being lesbian.