Gender Identity

Abigail Shrier Worries Teenage Gender Transitions Lead to 'Irreversible Damage'

The controversial author on her acclaimed and condemned book, being deplatformed, and the future of free expression in an increasingly polarized marketplace of ideas

|

HD Download

"In the last decade, there's been a sudden explosion…in teenage girls identifying as transgender," says Abigail Shrier, author of Irrervisible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. "My book explores what's going on. Why do so many young teenage girls suddenly decide that they want to leave womanhood? And why are so many doctors and therapists and teachers helping them?"

Abigail Shrier's Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters was one of last year's most celebrated—and condemned—books. It showed up in year-end lists of top books but was also banned by Target and her publisher was disallowed from buying ads at Amazon.

"Shrier's book is a dangerous polemic with a goal of making people not trans," wrote an American Civil Liberties Union attorney on Twitter. "We have to fight these ideas which are leading to the criminalization of trans life again."

A lawyer by training, Shrier says she supports the rights of adults to undergo gender-reassignment surgery. But she thinks teenage girls are making irrevocable changes to their bodies that in coming years they might wish they could reverse.

In a new paperback edition of Irreversible Damage, Shrier follows up on several of the women she spoke with and details her experiences of being deplatformed. Reason's Nick Gillespie talks with Shrier about the controversy over her book, whether her sales benefitted from the Streisand effect, and the future of free expression in an increasingly polarized cultural landscape.

Photos: ID 177128012 ©  | Dreamstime.com, ID 146353778 © Surabky | Dreamstime.com, ID 88582104 © Juan Moyano | Dreamstime.com, ID 87820851 © Feng Yu | Dreamstime.com, Fanatic Studio/Gary Waters/Newscom.

Music: Bring to Light, by Max H, Artlist. 
Hosted and narrated by Nick Gillespie; edited by Noor Greene; additional graphics by Isaac Reese; audio by Ian Keyser.

NEXT: Microsoft Is Using Bitcoin to Help Build a Decentralized Internet

HD Download

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Shrier’s book is a dangerous polemic with a goal of making people not trans,” wrote an American Civil Liberties Union attorney on Twitter. “We have to fight these ideas which are leading to the criminalization of trans life again.”

    By “fight”, the ACLU attorney means “censor”.

    1. It’s encouraging to see ACLU employees and Koch / Reason libertarians leading the fight against First Amendment absolutism. Recall that it was Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky who wrote Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America.

      Of course I’ll never read Shrier’s vile tome. But I’m sure it qualifies as hate speech and is therefore worthy of being banned.

      1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid in the range of 7,000-14,000 dollars a month…KJH Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

        See….. Click Here

        1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid ind the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

          See……………VISIT HERE

      2. What Reason Libertarians besides this Berlatsky character oppose First Amendment rights? Name them so I can unsubscribe. What is a First Amendment “absolutist” anyway?

        “So-called “hate speech” is a red herring for censorship, especially of political views one disagrees with. It is common practice on the left to call for the muzzling of political opponents (What would Mario Savio say about this fairly recent revolting development?) Opposed to minors getting sex-changes without parental consent? Hate speech. Question the legitimacy of “gender dysphoria” claims in the burgeoning numbers of children lining up for chemical castration or genital mutilation? Hate speech.

        Here’s some hate speech for you: You probably don’t have the balls (or ovaries, as the case may be) to read Shrier’s book, let alone the verbal skills.

        Declaring you will never read the book in question is typical of an intransigent ideologue.

    2. Any evidence for that claim?

      1. Yes. The ACLU’s despicable, anti-civil liberties behavior over the last four years.

        1. When has the ACLU supported censorship?

          1. Fairly regularly. Do try and keep up.

            1. Regularly? So it should be easy to provide a citation, right?

              1. Well, this book was cited in this article. That’s one.

                1. Nowhere in this article is the ACLU shown to be calling for censorship (you can want to ‘fight’ an idea by means other than censorship).

                    1. Yes, so they would know how to advocate for the government to do that if they wanted. But there’s no evidence they have.

                  1. “Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.” – tweet from Chase Strangio, ACLU deputy director for transgender justice

                    1. oopsie…

              2. Chase Strangio, a lawyer for the organization and its deputy director for transgender justice said that “stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100 percent a hill I will die on.

                Right from Russia Times. Your kind of people. Idiot.

                1. He doesn’t seem to be calling for the government to censor the book.

                  1. “Stopping the circulation of this book” is censorship. Whether the government’s invovled or not. It’s one thing for the publisher to say “We can no longer afford to publish this book.” it’s quite another for a third party to say, “Nobody anywhere should be buying and selling, let alone publishing, this book.”

                    1. No, it’s not. It’s no more ‘censorship’ than, say, you not letting me stand in your yard waving a sign, or telling your neighbor he shouldn’t let me do the same in his yard.

                    2. It’s no more ‘censorship’ than, say, you not letting me stand in your yard waving a sign, or telling your neighbor he shouldn’t let me do the same in his yard.

                      Strangio makes no stipulations about respecting anyone’s property rights and implies a specific disregard for them. Again, me not letting you stand in my yard is not censorship, Strangio saying no one in anybody’s yard should be able to buy/sell/write/read the book is.

                    3. “Strangio saying no one in anybody’s yard should be able to buy/sell/write/read the book is”

                      Where is he saying that, do you have another source for that? Because that’s not what he says in this source, it’s what you’re reading into what he actually said.

                    4. Where is he saying that, do you have another source for that? Because that’s not what he says in this source, it’s what you’re reading into what he actually said.

                      When he says “circulation”, do you think he’s talking about the blood flowing in his own veins or do you think he’s talking about restricting others’ ability to communicate and transact freely?

                      Dumbass.

                    5. You can try to stop circulation of a book without advocating government force, happens all the time.

                    6. Censorship does not need to equate to Government Censorship. If you want societal pressures to ban a book, you are 100% advocating for it to be censored.

                    7. So if you won’t let me stand in your yard with a sign and you make a tweet saying you would like if everyone the neighborhood turned me away you’re ‘censoring’ me?

                    8. Queen Anathema/White Mike is trying to pretend that censorship is only censorship if the American Government does it.

                      And look at this stupid trick he’s trying to pull:

                      “So if you won’t let me stand in your yard with a sign”

                      See?
                      Chase Strangio unequivocally stated that “Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.” No beating around the bush, but absolutely stopping circulation.
                      But weasel-fucker White Mike is pretending that Chase Strangio owns the publisher or the book seller and is simply refusing to bake the cake.

                      What made you decide to be so evil, Mike?

                    9. Queen Amalthea
                      July.13.2021 at 3:44 pm
                      You can try to stop circulation of a book without advocating government force, happens all the time.

                      Censorship does not require government force. This is merely what people who support censorship pretend so they can avoid being understood as pro censorship. Left wingers always find a way to argue meanings of words which is why they’re useless in life.

                  2. Of all the stupid things I’ve read, this is the latest. If you think that’s not censorship, stay out of the conversation and let the adults talk.

                    Censorship isn’t just a government action. And get up off of your damn knees.

                    1. “Censorship isn’t just a government action.”

                      That’s the only kind of ‘censorship’ that anyone should worry about. The other stuff is called ‘freedom.’

                    2. By that logic, Queen, we shouldn’t worry about lynchings because they’re not government killings.

                      Sorry, but that’s just stupid. Injustice may be worse when it’s carried out by the government but it’s still wrong and worthy of rejection when it’s imposed by private parties.

                    3. Injustice may be worse when it’s carried out by the government but it’s still wrong and worthy of rejection when it’s imposed by private parties.

                      Worth noting that the Nazis didn’t start the book burnings in pre-war Germany. The Chancellor absolutely approved, but the DSt (German Student Union) was raiding archives and burning books well befor the Nazis.

                    4. That’s the only kind of ‘censorship’ that anyone should worry about. The other stuff is called ‘freedom.’

                      So is private racism, sexism and gay bashing. Do you go around criticizing people for saying that these things are bad and should be opposed too? No one has any business opposing private discrimiation?

                    5. “By that logic, Queen, we shouldn’t worry about lynchings because they’re not government killings.”

                      A lynching is a violation of another’s rights. You don’t have a right to have good circulation for your book.

                    6. You don’t have a right to have good circulation for your book.

                      Show me where Strangio says “good”. You call me out for my interpretation of the words on the page and then inject words that aren’t there? Fuck you.

                    7. That reply was to Rossami, btw. I ‘injected’ the word ‘good’ because Stangio, absent a call for government force, cannot stop mere publication of the book. He can argue people shouldn’t buy it or publish it, that’s his right (are you saying he should be forced not to argue that) and that’s not ‘censorship’ but freedom.

                    8. I ‘injected’ the word ‘good’ because Stangio, absent a call for government force, cannot stop mere publication of the book.

                      Publication isn’t circulation and you aren’t fooling anyone. You know that calling for a book to be removed from circulation is censorship while saying a book should suffer bad circulation is just expressing an opinion. You’re full of shit. Normal humans would recognize when they’re doing more harm to their position than good.

                    9. “”That’s the only kind of ‘censorship’ that anyone should worry about. The other stuff is called ‘freedom.’””

                      Wouldn’t freedom be letting the guy put the book in circulation?

                    10. Wow, you’re quite quick to toss out allegations of bad faith. The publication of a book means there’s automatically going to be some circulation (they’re not going to publish it and seal it in a box), hence my choice of words.

                    11. “Wouldn’t freedom be letting the guy put the book in circulation?”

                      As long as he’s not calling for forcible stopping of circulation then he’s just exercising his freedom (to ask people not to circulate it, for example). Should he be prohibited from speaking against circulation of the book? That in itself would violate freedom of speech and involve actual censorship.

                    12. “As long as he’s not calling for forcible stopping of circulation”

                      But that’s exactly what he’s doing you human garbage, and you know it.

                      You can’t get much clearer than “Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.”

                  3. “When has the ACLU supported censorship?”

                    You wrote that. I responded to it. How heavy are those goalposts?

                    1. No goalposts changed, I’ve been wanting evidence and you’ve failed to provide it.

                    2. I did provide it. You’re a liar.

                    3. No, you provided a single instance of an ACLU employee saying he wanted to stop circulation of a book. He did not call for government to take a part in that.

                    4. “When has the ACLU supported censorship?”

                      You wrote that. I responded to it. No mention of government. How heavy are those goalposts?

                    5. No goalposts changed, I’ve been wanting evidence and you’ve failed to provide it.

                      Still waiting for your take on Deb Frisch when it comes to cancel culture, ho.

                  4. Your statement originally was “I don’t see the aclu calling to ban it”

                    Now that cite is provided to disprove you, you change it to the government isn’t censoring the book.

                    Nice try mong.

                  5. Queenie is being deliberately obtuse. That’s the whole bit with this poster/sock.

              3. <a href="https://scheerpost.com/2021/05/02/why-the-aclu-abstained-from-the-blm-censorship-controversy/"Regularly&quot; is definitely a stretch.

                But the ACLU in recent years has become dodgy on certain speech issues, and even where it has remained “good”, they’ve had massive internal battles with lots of resignations (and prior/former ACLU leadership criticizing) the defense of certain kinds of speech.

                The ACLU is also leaning hard into concepts such as “social justice” and “equity” which, at their core are antithetical to the liberal idea of “shared humanity” and individualism. They are, by definition, collectivist ideals which strip the individual of their worth, and instead elevate their worth by their group identity.

                In lieu of the traditional, iconic and organization-defining willingness — eagerness — of the ACLU to defend free speech precisely when it has been most controversial and upsetting to liberals, what we now get instead are cowardly, P.R.-consultant-scripted excuses for staying as far away as possible: “We don’t have anyone who is closely plugged into that situation right now so we don’t have anything to say at this point in time.” That sounds like something Marco Rubio’s office says when asked about a Trump tweet or that a corporate headquarters would say to avoid an inflammatory controversy, not the reaction of a stalwart civil liberties group to a publicly debated act of political censorship.

                In this particular case, it is not difficult to understand the cause of the ACLU’s silence. They obviously cannot defend Facebook’s censorship — affirmatively defending the stifling of political speech is, at least for now, still a bridge too far for the group — but they are petrified of saying anything that might seem even remotely critical of, let alone adversarial to, BLM activists and organizations. That is because BLM is one of the most cherished left-liberal causes, and the ACLU now relies almost entirely on donations and grants from those who have standard left-liberal politics and want and expect the ACLU to advance that ideological and partisan agenda above its nonpartisan civil liberties principles. Criticizing BLM is a third rail in left-liberal political circles, which is where the ACLU now resides almost entirely, and thus it again cowers in silence as another online act of censorship which advances political liberalism emerges. Indeed, BLM is an organization which the ACLU frequently champions:

                1. I screwed up the link formatting, but it appears to work.

                2. So your evidence of censorship is that they haven’t condemned BLM or Facebook? That’s…not censorship.

                    1. So you think not condeming BLM or Facebook is censorship?

                    2. Queenie, are you really this idiotically obtuse?

                3. Ironic, since if they actually defended the whole Bill of Rights they wouldn’t be so dependent upon the left.

                  1. So who is the new shit poster? She’s managed to run and pretty much wreck this entire thread with niggling distractions similar to a 4 year old repeatedly asking “why, why, why?”, which is exactly what a shit poster sets out to do.

                    1. Asking for evidence strikes you as shitposting? Interesting.

                    2. Queen Anathema is White Mike’s sockpuppet for when he wants to act cunty and abandon the ‘respectable’ bit.

                    3. Analthea isn’t that new, at least a year old. But they are definitely muted, and I strongly recommend that everyone else ignore it. We could ignore the morons, and have intelligent conversations, or, y’know, that. Up there.

                      Though I’ll admit that it’s vaguely amusing to me to watch people hammer the shit out of a grey bar.

    3. Is Shrier calling for being trans to be criminal, or for not performing irreversible procedures on otherwise physically healthy minors?

      That is a rather important distinction for the ACLU to recognize, right?

      1. She’s not. If anything, she takes a libertarian view on it for adults.

        1. Which makes the ACLU representative’s statement a vicious lie.

          1. This is a surprise coming from an activist?

      2. The Cliff’s notes is, she’s deeply concerned about the rapid rise of medical procedures for minors being pushed through, hastily by activists with a fairly apparent agenda.

        1. Don’t forget the complete lack of evaluation/screening. Claiming to be trans is enough to permanently alter them even if there is some other issue that may be more appropriately dealt with sans surgery/hormone alteration. Buyers remorse is a bitch for life in this case.

          1. There are some that have had the “buyer’s remorse.” Don’t know of any that had the original transition as a youth.

        2. Her conversation with Joe Rogan was great as well

      3. Disagreeing with a prog is “criminalizing” them. That’s how ridiculous their victim complex has gotten.

    4. And how is making people “not trans” in any way not a desirable goal? I mean, if someone thinks that transitioning is the only way to deal with their gender dysphoria, fine. But it seems entirely preferable to treat the problem in other, less drastic ways and try to make people comfortable with their own bodies if that is at all possible.
      And the fact that, for at least some of the girls she talks about (and very likely most of them), there is irreversible damage done, is not even a controversial point. It is an undisputable fact.
      I am really shocked at how many people condemn this book and defend the practices described.

      1. I mean, if someone thinks that transitioning is the only way to deal with their gender dysphoria, fine.

        Nominally, the goal of transitioning is to wind up the other gender, a.k.a. ‘not trans’. A sterile girl who’s had her ovaries removed and had plastic testicles grafted on, relying on hormone injections for the rest of their life, is not a man. Presumably, the goal is to go to bed a woman and wake up the next morning in a fully functional male body. But then, all of this assumes no completely irrational psycho-babble that convinces people being intersex and suicidal is a good thing.

        1. I’m not sure I can even see a coherent nominal goal in there at all.

          Another particularly ridiculous thing about all this is that no one has any idea what it feels like to be the other gender. Some people might imagine they do, but there is absolutely no way to know that at all.

          1. Therefore the melodramatic rhetoric about being dehumanized when scepticism about the efficacy of gender transitioning is expressed.

          2. I’m not sure I can even see a coherent nominal goal in there at all.

            At the very least we can agree that ‘transitioning’ implies an origin and a destination, right? Someone involved, even if we disagree with the means, has the goal (or should) of improving their station in life rather than just mutilating people, right?

            1. Yes. That’s pretty much what I’m trying to say.

      2. The major issue is that there’s typically a lot of baggage going into an individual thinking they are trans and it should be a very critical feature of therapy and psychology to work through the underlying baggage before proceeding with irreversible treatments.

        I’ve watched people on psychosis inducing pain medications think they are trans suddenly out of the blue whose underlying condition was depression brought on by trauma and the medication given him for pain and substance abuse. The INTERNET coached him into thinking he was trans. He no longer thinks that and has been clean for a year.

        We should be taking our time in diagnosing these people, but there is an internet subculture full of people with mental health issues self-diagnosing and isolating themselves from all support structures. Forcing therapists to not question trans self-diagnosis is going to be disastrous for countless people who have different issues that no one is addressing.

    5. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h… Read More

    6. And by “criminalization” they mean……. I don’t know what.

      Haha. Words are funny.

  2. First Matt Welch is a segregationist and now Nick Gillespie is a SoCon.

  3. Meanwhile people are still in jail and denied bail for walking around the capitol building taking selfies. Silence is consent to that.

    1. Who is in jail for walking around the capitol building taking selfies?

      1. About 30 people. Russia is nicer to their political opponents than Biden is to his. Many kept in solitary and forced to undergo deprogramming. All having committed no “crime” worse than trespassing….and that was with the Capitol Police letting many in themselves.

        1. Can you cite to a case where someone is being denied bail awaiting charges for walking around the capitol building taking selfies?

          1. Most of the detainees haven’t been charged. But you knew that.

            1. Can you cite to the case of someone being held without being charged?

              1. What a knowingly stupid statement.

                1. So you can’t so cite?

                  1. Can you?

                    1. Don’t be silly, I’m not making a claim, I’m questioning one. One that no one seems to be able to support.

                    2. Unfalsifiability. Have a grownup explain it to you.

                    3. You don’t seem to know what unfalsifiability is. A claim was made that people are being held for walking around and taking selfies. Such a claim could easily be shown to be true or false. I asked for evidence for that claim. None has been presented.

                2. I’d like to know as well who is being detained without being charged.

                    1. And before you squeal that the article is two months old, so it might not still be the case, here’s one from 4 days ago.

                      https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1

          2. I have tried this before.

            They are not going to cite specifics. Because when any specifics DO come to light, it becomes obvious that the reason why many of these individuals are in jail is not MERELY for ‘taking selfies’, but for demonstrated violent or criminal intent either before or after Jan. 6. It is extremely common for judges to deny bail or to set bail to very large sums if they think that the accused is a violent threat to the public.

            It is much like the “social media censors conservatives” narratives. They want you to think that social media execs are censoring conservatives for their political views. When instead, it turns out, most of the time, the conservatives who were banned were not banned because of their views per se, but because of their assholish behavior.

            And the funny thing is, I’m quite sure that there probably ARE people who are being unjustly imprisoned, or people who are being unjustly censored on Twitter. But Team Red is not honest when discussing these, they are heavily invested in the victimhood narrative instead.

            1. Pretty soon, your fatass is going to be confronted by your fantasies becoming reality.
              Your life doesn’t matter.

              1. Your article doesn’t mention anything about individual circumstances for their detention.

                Also I find it ironic that you cite an article from ‘Just the News’, which bills itself as ‘honest reporting’, when every single article on the front page of its site pushes a right-wing narrative. Go figure.

                1. Also I find it ironic that you cite an article from ‘Just the News’, which bills itself as ‘honest reporting’, when every single article on the front page of its site pushes a right-wing narrative. Go figure.

                  Pretty fucking ironic from someone who posted an article from The Root, which is the Daily Stormer for black people.

                2. This from a guy who’s posted shit from the Daily Kos. Here’s a tip, the shit you gobble daily on CNN and MSNBC is so far left that ordinary reporting seems right wing from your perspective.

              2. This seems to be a report about bad incarceration conditions. That’s indeed troubling but it’s a long standing and widely spread one. It doesn’t seem to be about anyone being held for walking around taking selfies.

                1. You can look up the charges in multiple sites.

                  And the article I cited was from MAY. With no serious charges at all…WHY ARE THEY STILL IN FUCKING CUSTODY FOUR MONTHS (now six months) later?

                  1. If you can look up the charges in multiple sites why haven’t you yet provided a case where someone was charged for walking around taking selfies? Should be easy, right?

                    And yes, it’s terrible how long it takes for things to go to trial, but that’s a long standing widespread thing in our nation.

                    1. Here’s a list of people charged. https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1

                      You can judge for yourself, but a lot of the charges sound like nothing more than typical civil-disobedience protest stuff, some of which included little more than walking around in the capitol for a while.

                    2. Can you point to one that meets the criteria claimed?

                    3. How about this one: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1n2kFCbTxJ8FrKoPKx0N165jAK-Pa31nD
                      Doesn’t sound like she did anything but go into the building and walk around.

                    4. “On January 6, 2021, “nolie1174” and MCDONALD participated in a group chat titled “Rally Squad.” At 8:37 pm, “nolie1174” told the group, “We weren’t just there we went farther than almost anyone into the building . . . [m]aybe about top 15 people.” After another participant responded “Hellll yeaaaaa,” “nolie1174” stated, “Me and Savannah are FUCKING STORMTROOPERS.”

                    5. Yes, no one denies that they went into the building.

                    6. They seemed to be at the forefront, trespassing and disrupting first and farthest.

                    7. Trespassing is not a crime that warrants extended detainment.

                    8. White Mike’s a death penalty advocate for members of the public trespassing in public spaces.

                  2. Can you cite one, that has specifics about an individual that you believe is being unjustly incarcerated?

                    Look I am totally willing to believe that there are individuals who are being unjustly incarcerated. But I don’t assume everyone in jail is there improperly. I’m not a bleeding-heart liberal, after all.

                    1. Compared to the treatment of the rioters of 2020, this is insane.

                    2. How about the one I link above (which I just picked off the first few on the list of people charged)? Those are not charges that should put anyone in jail for more than a day. And would often be dropped in the context of a protest followed by mass arrests.

            2. The Q Shaman is charged with trespassing and disorderly and has been denied bail as a flight risk. There are no violence charges against him. Meanwhile a violent illegal was let out of jail and cut a guys head off and played soccer with it. You know damn well what’s happening.

              1. “”Strong evidence, including Chansley’s own words and actions at the Capitol, supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States Government,”

                https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/2a/b1/53669a594173967bdef974ac218c/jacob-chansley-detention-doc.pdf

                1. Odd, the picture in that article looks like the Capitol Police were inviting him in.

                  1. It doesn’t matter if he’s let in if he’s going in, by his own words, to capture and kill people.

                    1. ”It is complete bullshit that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States Government,”
                      There, FIFY.

                    2. Those are his own words the complaint alleges.

                    3. You mean the ones that he now claims he was threatened and coerced to say?
                      It’s not like a prosecutor ever threatened to crucify someone in order to get a phony confession, right?

              2. Meanwhile a violent illegal was let out of jail

                What does one have to do with the other?

            3. Haha. Wow.

              So, is team blue ever “heavily invested in the victimhood narrative” in your opinion? Like maybe when they howl about “criminalization” when someone mildly questions the wisdom of encouraging kids to make permanent alterations to their bodies?

          3. GFY

          4. What does any of this have to do with the article or the subject at hand?

          5. Can you cite a case where someone did not tell you to Fuck Off for being a pedantic piece of Proggie shit?

            Asking for a friend …

  4. Abigail Shrier Worries Teenage Gender Transitions Lead to ‘Irreversible Damage’
    The controversial author

    Openers that would have seemed insane a decade ago.

  5. “Why do so many young teenage girls suddenly decide that they want to leave womanhood?”

    Ugh, this narrow-minded bigotry reminds me of my brother-in-law’s reaction when I came out as nonbinary (they / them).

    In fact, we trans people don’t “suddenly decide” anything. We are born this way. And after years — or sometimes decades — of cisnormative society assigning our gender based on totally arbitrary factors like “reproductive organs,” we eventually summon the courage to tell the world who we’ve always been.

    1. Shriner notes that a large number of the girls are autistic and, from my own experience of puberty, wishing I were a boy instead was not an infrequent thought and I was perfectly healthy.

      I can’t imagine what an autistic girl would be going through in experiencing that transition, physically and socially.

    2. OBL, I think you’ve outdone yourself. This is brilliant.

  6. To think, almost all of this shitstorm came out of a seminal 1987 paper titled “Doing Gender” which spawned some 13,000 spinoff academic works.

    Know your Agrippa…

    1. Your source itself says that work was based on other earlier work.

      1. Of course it was for fuck’s sakes. Marx’s work was based on Hegelian philosophy. Angela Davis was influenced (and taught) by Marcuse, who came from the Frankfurt school– and so on.

  7. I’ve got friends who have had to deal with this. It really sucks.

    1. Yes, expecting children to not make life-changing decisions is wrong and that it’d be best to have them be adults before doing so is just a small step before shoving them in ovens.

      1. The children’s parents are making the life changing decisions, right? As a parent I do that all the time.

        1. Your decisions are why your kids will end up in prison.

          1. My kids are doing fine, thanks. But as a parent I know that I make ‘life-changing’ decisions for them all the time.

            Who do you want making those decisions? The government?

            1. Ask your doctor to sterilize your kids. See how it goes.

            2. No. Do you want that? Because that’s part of what’s going on. Don’t waste my time demanding citations unless you’re willing to provide (a relevant) one first.

              1. The government is overruling parents and making their children get these procedures?

                1. Don’t waste my time demanding citations unless you’re willing to provide (a relevant) one first.

                  1. What am I supposed to cite? You’re making the claim here, that government is overruling parents decisions to not get these procedures for their children. If that’s the case surely you can cite to it.

                    1. Don’t waste my time demanding citations unless you’re willing to provide (a relevant) one first.

                    2. You’re making the claim, but you still cannot provide evidence for it.

                  2. Shit-posting on shit-posting.

                2. Canada declared a father abusive and denied him custody over it. Another parent in TX I think had a kid who the courts threatened to take custody from.

                  California has outlawed any therapy that tries to “convince” them they are not trans. So if someone was molested and hates their body because of it thinks they are trans, the therapist can only address the trans part and not see if there’s an underlying issue. Or a girl who is having a difficult time with puberty would rather be a boy… no support for the actual issue, just affirmation for the trans part.

        2. If your child asks you to cut off a leg for no reason, you should go to jail for doing so.

          1. Well, that depends. If a doctor recommended my child’s leg be amputated I should have the freedom to make that decision. You’d like that to be a governmental decision, no doubt.

            1. Idea: answer the question POSED. Not the one you WISH was posed.

              1. It’s argument fails if it does that.

              2. I’m trying to help you out, your question was a rather obvious inapt analogy. We’re talking about parents making decisions about which medical procedures a doctor offers. And it seems you want the government to make those decisions, not the parents.

                1. “I’m trying to help you out, your question was a rather obvious inapt analogy.”

                  It’s an EXACT analogy.

                  “We’re talking about parents making decisions about which medical procedures a doctor offers.”

                  Again, if your child asked YOU to cut off their leg for no reason and YOU went along with it, you should go to jail.

                  Sorry if this easy analogy was a bit too complex for you. Will try and simplify further in the future.

                  1. It’s not an apt analogy at all. None of these cases involve a parent conducting a procedure on their child, they involve a parent giving a doctor permission to perform a procedure.

                    Why do you trust government more than parents?

                    1. I trust somebody not whoring for attention more than parents of “trans”

                    2. Well, like most statists you want government to make other parents parent the way you would. I see.

                  2. if your child asked YOU to cut off their leg for no reason

                    But it’s not “for no reason”. That is why the analogy is inapt. Nobody is going to their parents and saying “Hi, I’m a boy, I love being a boy, but I want to try being a girl, so will you let me?” There is going to be some underlying mental health reason for the request to transition.

                    1. Mental health is always tricky that way. For adults too. There are tons of cases where people are treated against their will for mental illness and they later thank everyone who forced them to get the treatment they needed.
                      As a individualist libertarian I am always somewhat uncomfortable with that. But it’s hard to deny that it is beneficial to the people who are forced to do the thing that they didn’t want to do at the time. With this issue, I fear we are going to see a lot of the opposite: people growing to adulthood and asking why the fuck no one stopped them from ruining their lives. We are already seeing some of that and we will see a lot more of it in coming years.

                2. A broken leg is not even remotely equivalent to gender identity. In our ED we see a number of confused, disturbed young people who have in recent years seemed to have concluded “oh, that’s my problem.” The power of suggestion happens; any person who embarks on such a route should at the very least be of the age of majority, or at least old enough to legally purchase alcohol before they have their primary and secondary sexual characteristics permanently altered. Questioning such a decision is responsible, not hateful.

        3. Keeping them chained up in a dark closet is your right.

    2. Me, too. And it does suck.

      1. Mental illness does suck.

        But I wouldn’t call an anorexic “fatty” either.

  8. We live in a crazy society where failing to blindly accept controversial medical positions and procedures is equivalent to heresy.

    1. Mengele would be so at home if he lived in these times

      1. He’d be pushing mandatory vaccinations alongside Fauci.

        1. They’d be twinning.

          1. Whether they realize it or not, you could probably trace every bioethicist’s viewpoints back to him.

            1. The operative portion is “twin”

              1. Totally missed that. Well done.

        2. Mandatory gender reassignment for all gays, because “reasons”.

          1. That’s what we’re headed for in the case of gay boys. The pressure on them to “transition” is becoming a genocide against gay men.

    2. Only if you passively let those not the society who are pushing that intolerant view have their way, or if the only way you push back is to be whiny and play the victim.

  9. Leave the gonads and hormones alone until they’re an adult and can make their own decision. Simple. Too simple in fact.

    People too young to make decisions like joining the military, voting, and smoking, nonetheless get to make decisions as huge as removing their genitals and undergoing procedures that require lifelong hormone treatments.

    1. Dangerous words.

  10. So, we have teenage Laura here, who doesn’t like being Laura, and wants to become Luke instead. Let us suppose that the parents and their doctor all consent to the gender reassignment procedure. What, if anything, should the government do about it?

    There would seem to be two options available:
    1. Government should do nothing, and permit free adults (the parents) to make free choices about how to raise their children, guided by medical professionals that they trust, even if we personally don’t agree with the decision.

    2. Government should forcibly prevent the procedure from taking place, because it is a form of child abuse.

    Option #1 seems like it is the more libertarian-friendly option, as it does not insert government in between the consenting medical decisions of all involved.

    But if we go with Option #2, again from a libertarian perspective, then there ought to be a bright dividing line between when government coercion is justified and when it is not, in the name of preventing child abuse. Otherwise, that power will inevitably be used arbitrarily and capriciously to trample all over the rights of otherwise well-meaning parents.

    Should corporal punishment be considered child abuse?

    Should certain types of religious indoctrination be considered child abuse? And no NOT just ‘forcing kids to go to church’, I’m talking about more extreme versions, like forcing kids to undergo a religious fast, or to undertake a religious pilgrimage.

    What if parents permit their children to participate in well-known highly risky behavior, such as working in certain types of farms or factories, participating in certain types of sports, knowingly approving of certain types of risky sexual or pharmaceutical behavior?

    Would all of these count as child abuse? If not, then where would you draw the line, and why?

    Furthermore, in all these cases, would you advocate that the government charge these parents with the crime of child abuse? Should the doctor be charged with malpractice?

    What I mainly see is a lot of ad-hoc complaints about transgenderism without consideration of the larger issue involved. If you’re going to complain about transgender teens, without a principled framework within which to work, then the complaints are little more than special pleading.

    1. Again, the problem with having the child become an adult before they make this decision is…what?

      1. Why should they have to wait?

        1. Because it’s very likely that it will be a bad decision that they will regret for most of their life? There is little or no evidence that early transitioning leads to better outcomes later in life. And it looks like evidence to the contrary is mounting.
          It’s the same reason most people favor discouraging children from getting tattoos, or becoming addicted to drugs or getting pregnant.

          1. It’s the same reason most people favor discouraging children from getting tattoos, or becoming addicted to drugs or getting pregnant.

            To a certain extent I agree. But IMO the question in this context shouldn’t be, “is it a bad idea?” The question should be, “should it be banned by the state?”

            1. Any thoughts on gay conversion therapy?

              1. Jeff supports it being taught in schools as a critical theory.

              2. It’s unnecessary. Kids who can be convinced to be heterosexual weren’t gay in the first place, and will get over thinking they are on their own. Kids who ARE gay won’t be changed by any deliberate interventions. And, yes, some kids DO go through a “gay phase”.

          2. Shouldn’t this be the decision of the parents, child and doctor? You want it to be the government’s?

            1. Should the government sit back and allow a parent and doctor to maim a child? I’d argue no.

            2. Some things are appropriately illegal.

              1. Well, why should this be? If it’s because ‘it’s life altering,’ well, parents make those decisions all the time.

                1. Well, we can argue about that.
                  If shit hadn’t already gotten so crazy with this stuff, I wouldn’t say there should be a ban. First we need government to stop encouraging it.

                2. Do parents sterilize their kids?

                  Can parents pimp out their kids if the kid agrees?

                  Can parents leave a 5-year old alone with a firearm?

            3. Professional ethics should be sufficient to do no harm; the harm of inflicting unnecessary and surgical alternations clearly outweighs waiting until the person is old enough to decide for themselves. Minors cannot legally enter into contracts, why should this be any different?

        2. Because they are nowhere near mature enough to make that decision. They aren’t at 18 either, but that is the legal cut-off and they have to deal with the consequences.

          1. Children are not mature enough to make lots of decisions, that is why parental approval is, or ought to be, required for the major decisions. So again why should it be illegal for children to do this, with parental permission, and with the recommendation of a doctor?

            1. chemtard radical deathfat thinks gender reassignment surgery should be done for a four year old if the parents and doctor agree.

            2. Ok for a 10-year old to smoke crack if the parents go along with it?

              Get body art of a swastika on the forehead?

      2. Well, to answer the question seriously, it’s that going through puberty as one gender (obviously) causes specific gender based bodily changes.

        Which doesn’t particularly make it a good idea to let a 10 year old transition before they hit puberty simply because it will make it easier, but it is simply a fact that “waiting until they are an adult” *does* have a permanent impact on the ability to effectively transition. (Insofar as it can be done effectively at the level of technology we have right now anyway at all.)

        It’s kind of a “there are no good answers” problem. Children are too immature to make this decision, but waiting until they’re an adult causes difficulty should they still want to transition at that point as well.

        As far as “the government should just stay out of it”, while I’m generally on board with that, how far should it be taken? Foot binding? Female circumcision? (I mention that last one for the irony factor since lefties are generally the ones banging the drum on that topic as well, but from an opposition standpoint.) I mean, if the parents want it, and the child thinks they want it, and a doctor can be found to perform it, why *not* allow clitoridectomy?

    2. Where parents can override the desires or decisions of their adolescent children is always a tricky question for libertarians. I tend to think it crosses a line that should not be crossed. Parents have some positive responsibility for preventing their children from permanently damaging themselves before they reach adulthood.

      If government and activists would get their nose out of other people’s business I’d be a lot more neutral on this. But I find the pressure on some parents to affirm their children’s gender confusion utterly despicable.

      1. Parents have some positive responsibility for preventing their children from permanently damaging themselves before they reach adulthood.

        I completely agree with that. But this responsibility does not always have to be enforced by men with guns from the state. For example, I think it sets a rather poor example for certain parents to permit their kids to train to participate in MMA, to the extent that they compete to beat the shit out of other competitors on live TV. I find that disgusting. And those types of competition can definitely be life-altering especially if one is on the losing side. I would absolutely advocate against any parent from permitting their children from doing so. BUT, do I think that it should be banned by the state? I am very hesitant to do so.

        1. “For example, I think it sets a rather poor example for certain parents to permit their kids to train to participate in MMA, to the extent that they compete to beat the shit out of other competitors on live TV.”

          MMA has an amazingly low incidence of injuries caused by opponents of almost any sport. Your same concern can be cited for soccer and cheerleading.

          “And those types of competition can definitely be life-altering especially if one is on the losing side.”

          Not especially, no. MMA is not boxing and tends to not have the lifelong damage boxing causes.

        2. Ideally, I’d agree that an all out ban isn’t necessary. But right now you see at least some state governments actually pushing this stuff and trying to make it easier for children to do without parental consent or knowledge. I find a ban preferable to that situation.

          1. Honest question, which states are for allowing these procedures absent parental consent or knowledge?

            1. WA state is working on it. CA as well.

              1. Citation?

                1. I’m currently looking for the laws being proposed in Washington. Generally they fall under the umbrella of “healthcare services” which can be provided to minors sans consent of parents… “gender affirming” (a laughable term when you think about it) treatments would fall into those categories– such as abortion etc.

                  Exceptions to parental consent laws in some states have steadily expanded to include “gender-affirming” care. Oregon in 2015 passed a law allowing minors ages 15 and up to obtain taxpayer-funded puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex change surgeries without parental consent. California passed a similar bill for children in foster care in 2018.

                  In March, California lawmakers introduced a separate bill, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, that would hold health insurance companies criminally liable if they disclosed sensitive medical information to parents about their dependents, including treatment and procedures that have been done without their knowledge.

                  Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom also approved a fund in September that earmarks taxpayer money for “gender-affirming health care services” including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for youth. Hundreds of health clinics are popping up on middle and high school campuses across the state.

                  1. OK, thanks for that citation. I would oppose that.

            2. VT as well, I believe.

              And it’s insane enough that states are subsidizing it anyway. The most generous view that seems at all reasonable is that we really don’t know much about gender dysphoria/trangenderism or how best to treat it. There is no science showing that transitioning or medical treatments improve outcomes for people with gender dysphoria at any significant rate. But we have activists and governments leaping ahead of all of that and simply assuming that what the radical activists want is totally the right thing for everyone. It’s really quite sick.

              1. Do you think it’s possible the doctors involved know more about the medical benefits of these procedures than you?

                1. Unlikely, unless these doctors are holding onto some super-secret research that is not available to the public. Medicine is as much art as science and doctors believe stupid, wrong crap all the time. Doctors are also as susceptible to ideological possession as anyone.

                  1. Well, they also have terminal medical degrees and experience in the field. And internet commenters are pretty susceptible to ideological possession.

                    1. Well, good thing someone wrote and honest and well-researched book about the topic then.

                    2. The lawyer person here?

                2. I trust medical professionals to want to make money to fund their expensive educations and lifestyle.

                  Their degree is not permission for my brain to fall out.

    3. So, we have teenage Laura here, who doesn’t like being Laura, and wants to become Luke instead. Let us suppose that the parents and their doctor all consent to the gender reassignment procedure. What, if anything, should the government do about it?

      Are there any other conditions, wishes, desires that may consented to by Laura and her parentsthat would be “too far” or “off the table”? Anything and everything is on the table. Thought experiment. Go.

      1. Well, sure. If Laura said “I want to rob a bank”, and the parents said “sure, honey, and here, let me get the shotgun for you”, then that should be ‘off the table’. If they actually try to rob a bank, both parents and child ought to go to jail.

        But that’s kind of a glib answer, I know.

        In terms of actions that parents, children and other professionals might all consent to, that don’t involve violating the rights of anyone else outside of that group, I would say that incest is off the table. Child abuse, or at least the clear-cut cases of child abuse, tend to be nonconsensual between parents and children.

        Did you have something in mind?

        1. Did you have something in mind?

          When I first hit ‘submit’ I actually didn’t have anything specific in mind, because I was primarily focused on health/medicine/surgery. Then I remembered the Rotherham Scandal.

          Young Pakistani girls in England, being spirited away by their parents to be married off to old men.

          I’ll bet you a percentage of the young girls greater than 0 would have told investigators they “consented” to the marriage. Because parents can… you know… sometimes have influence over what their charges might ‘consent’ to.

          1. I think you’re mixing two British scandals. Rotherham was about local girls, mostly of local stock, being exploited by East Asian men and the reports being ignored by the police because they didn’t want to look racist. Something like 1400 girls over about a decade and a half.

            1. You’re right, I am, these isolated incidents get very confusing. Yes, the Rotherham scandal was the British Pakistani (or East Asian as the local press put it) men exploiting the young girls.

              The scandal I was referring to may not have had a catchy name.

              Thank you for the correction.

          2. Also, two obvious ones I mentioned above, foot binding and clitoridectomy.

            I’d actually consider “mutually desired” sibling incest which was approved of by the parents to be *less* damaging than any of these other things, if only because the fallout could be limited through the use of contraception. Presumably some sort of semi-permanent hormonal one, because convincing the twins to use condoms regularly is too prone to failure.

            And yes, I’m absolutely splitting the devil’s chin hairs with a monomolecular razor here. I’m not advocating for incest, but *relatively speaking*, it would cause less permanent physical damage to the participants. (I make no commentary regarding mental damage.)

        2. Incest seems like a decent parallel example. What if a brother and sister just really want to fuck each other and parents consent? Is the outcome of that, a potential child possibly mildly damaged from inbreeding and possible adult psychological issues, so much worse than that of a woman realizing in her early 20s that because no one tried to talk some sense into her when she was a depressed teenager, she might never be able to have children or have a normal sex life?

        3. The bottom line is, we’re jumping the shark with this. The number of children going through some kind of ‘gender reassignment’ process, be it medical or merely social has gone up dramatically in the last few years, and most of it (arguably) has been pushed by a small number of activists who scream “phobe!” the instant anyone asks questions about it. We’re sitting here debating the medical benefits (or lack thereof) while missing the bigger picture.

          I believe that the activist wing responsible for this is not interested in the care and well being of your children, they’re attempting to do exactly what the Gender Theory (and critical theory) academics explicitly said they wanted to do, going back to the 1970: Disrupt societal “norms” to bring about the end of the Capitalist Hierarchy.

          To re-re-repeat what one former revolutionary Trotskyist said about immigration and borders: “We didn’t give a damn about immigrants, we wanted to bring about the end of the Nation State, and opening the borders was one means to that end”

          I believe we’re seeing the practical, applied results of exactly that, an attempt to disrupt everything from a perspective of race, gender with an attempt to destabilize society and let the “anti-capitalist” revolution take place. Meanwhile, we’re debating the long term effects of puberty blockers on your 9 year old.

          1. I think a lot of it us driven my the dissatisfaction trans adults have with acceptance in general and see having the transition earlier as more successful in generating acceptance as the gender they identify as.

            Just trying to see it from the trans activists point if view.

            1. Ack, unreadable typos.

            2. And to address your comment more directly instead of giving you an hour long podcast with a trans woman, almost no one had trouble “accepting” trans people– when trans people had a more specific and clear definition.

              When ‘trans’ suddenly became “anyone who stood forth and declared”, and everyone was told that they MUST participate in said declaration, that’s when “acceptance” became strained. And the speed at which this happened should alarm any reasonable person.

    4. Haha. They can do what they want, I don’t care. But they are mentally ill. Still, not my problem.

      Is that a “complaint”, Jeff? Am I being a “victim”?

      You’re an idiot.

  11. Hint: Its not really controversial. When “kids shouldnt have their tits or balls chopped off and be given synthetic hormones befor they can see Casino or Showgirls in a theater” is a controversial idea, you need to get out of your bubble.

  12. I wonder how the number of teenage girls wanting to change genders compares to the number of teenage boys wanting to change genders. And I wonder why Shrier is only concerned about the former.

    1. From what I have heard form her in other interviews, it is much more common among girls right now and happens in a very particular social context with girls and that is why it was her focus for the book.

      1. Most MtF trannies tend to be incredibly mentally ill autists (John Walker “Brianna Wu” Flynt), narcissistic assholes looking for political cover (Charles “Charlotte” Clymer), or they were gaslit by their Munchausen-by-proxy parents into thinking they were girls (Coy Mathis, Jazz Jennings).

        Trannyism tends to be a lot more common among people with autism, just by virtue of the fact that they interpret their inability to read or understand social cues, and their tendency to hyper-fixate on things, leads them to believe that they were born the wrong gender, when they simply have a developmental disability.

        I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they had the dude on The Good Doctor go through transition surgery before the series is up.

  13. Apparently cis men that take HRT for a few weeks become sterilized.

    If they are 18 or older and I’m not being forced to pay for them then I have no issues with it.

  14. Why is medical intervention required at all to transition to a different gender?

    1. That’s always a good question for the social constructionists.

      I can never quite tell if it’s different people who disagree within the trans movement (or whatever it is) or if it really is as incoherent as it seems. The ideas of transgenderism and of non-binary, gender fluidity, for example, seem pretty much completely at odds. One is a strange kind of biological essentialism (“I was born this way”) and the other a complete turn to social constructivism (that still oddly thinks people need to medically modify themselves).

      1. I went back to Pluckrose’s book this week after I took a hiatus, and re-read some of the chapters. I can’t recommend this book enough, btw. The gender theorists specifically laid out a thesis that suggested that biology had no part to play in gender roles, and gender roles were entirely created by dominant discourses.

        let’s say… for a minute that I agree with that 100%. I am no 100% on board with the Gender Theorists’ view of gender and gender roles. Let’s say I’m all in on Doing Gender, Mapping the Margins all of it. I’m on board. I’m a convert. You got me, I lost, you won, I raise my fist in solidarity. End patriarchal capitalism.

        If gender is nothing more than a performative act which was reinforced by patriarchal and dominant discourses, then perform something else and get the medical community the fuck out of it. Debate over. If you need puberty blockers, surgery and hormone injections to be a different gender, then maybe, just maybe it’s time to admit that biology could play a teensy weensy role.

        1. Expecting logic and consistency from that crew just shows how far you have to go in your mental transition, you cishet patriarchal shitlord. 😉

        2. That book is definitely on my reading list. Pluckrose and Lindsay are doing amazing work.

          1. Be warned, Pluckrose’s book is not the “fun, cultural” critique that Murray’s book was. It’s a hard core, deep academic dive. I have to often re-read sections two or three times. I’m listening to the audio book (which has some minor problems– it seems she recorded it at various stages and the audio quality can change from section to section).

            But she quotes these paper’s authors, sometimes at extreme length, and I have trouble knowing what is Pluckrose’s interpretation and what these jackholes are really saying. Surprisingly, the craziest shit is not Pluckrose’s remarks, but the actual texts of some of these papers.

            But ironically, it’s actually given me (in a twisted way, I admit) a strange appreciation for what some of the theorists propose. Not that I think they’re “right”, but you can even begin to see how the mainstream has taken their ideas and either through misinterpretation or just plain stupidity have run with things in ways that muddled the original message.

            One theorist even went so far as to critique the very terms she invented that are now used regularly in the media as being “appropriated by white culture and whiteness”.

            1. I wonder if any of the academic theory people are now saying “Oh,shit, this stuff was just supposed to keep me employed in academia, not escape into the real world”. I think a lot of academics can be like that. Enjoying the purity of their own bullshit to actually seeing the real world consequences.
              I’ll say that in as a philosophy major in college I was exposed to a lot of the “Theory” type ideas and a lot of it is interesting in its way. A lot of the ideas are philosophically valid in their way. But so is solipsism and you don’t see a lot of people going around saying that’s the right way to look at the world.

              1. The little bit of Foucault that I’ve dived into is an interesting philosophical exercise in working through the concept of “definition”. I certainly appreciate the basic outline of what post-modernists were trying to do in the deconstruction of certain historical constructs.

                They entirety of the “anti-CRT” movement is about application, not really about theory. Post-modernism tells you nothing specific about identity beyond the fact that it’s not rigid. And that’s fine. It’s all been corrupted by a few key players into this grotesque thing we now call “diversity training”.

              2. I wonder if any of the academic theory people are now saying “Oh,shit, this stuff was just supposed to keep me employed in academia, not escape into the real world”. I think a lot of academics can be like that. Enjoying the purity of their own bullshit to actually seeing the real world consequences.

                No, because I think many of them actually believe it. That’s one of the ways in which my views have slightly changed.

    2. If you’re not a sexist, and you believe any thoughts or feelings are appropriate for persons of either sex, why would you think “transitioning” is ever necessary?

  15. The hormone treatments are most effective I am sure when they start before puberty can propel a body’s development in the direction nature intended. That simply makes sense. Unfortunately that time in development corresponds with when emotional maturity is nowhere near where it needs to be to make a rational life decision.

    What is happening here in my opinion is a fiercely protective and ready-made acceptance and support group that is very appealing to young disaffected girls. Simply state that you are trans and they swarm to your defense, making almost certain that you are not counseled to reflect seriously enough on the consequences of acting on your assertion. It is not a recipe for good decision making.

    1. What is happening here in my opinion is a fiercely protective and ready-made acceptance and support group that is very appealing to young disaffected girls. Simply state that you are trans and they swarm to your defense, making almost certain that you are not counseled to reflect seriously enough on the consequences of acting on your assertion. It is not a recipe for good decision making.

      The entire self-described therapy system admits that… it’s IN THE NAME, fer chrissakes. “Gender Affirming Therapy”.

      “You believe it, we make it true!” should be the fucking sales tagline.

      1. It’s part and parcel with a lot of other causes; there can be no argument, you are either for it [and tolerant, accepting, and “good” or you aren’t and you are a cisgendered patriarchal bigot.

        Susceptible and malleable young women are getting caught up in it; just as a minor cannot legally enter into a contract, neither should such persons be able to make such decisions before they are old enough to make that decision for themselves.

        1. As an anti-sexist, I’ll go ahead and say that making that decision is always wrong, and it’s unethical for medical professionals to facilitate such self-immolation. As a libertarian, I say medical “transitioning” for adults should not be prohibited by law.

  16. I remember the time I went to the hospital with a fractured pelvis and they gave me a couple of Vicodins for the pain. After a few minutes, I insisted I was Superman, so the doctor kindly handed me a cape and opened the window for me. Exactly as he should have.

    1. Think I know that hospital. Is it located on Lois Lane?

  17. “Abigail Shrier Worries Teenage Gender Transitions Lead to ‘Irreversible Damage'”

    Really! How could you permanently damage somebody by cutting off his d**k and b*lls, gouging out a fake c**t where his d**ck used to be, filling his chest with silicone and pumping his body full of hormones in opposition to what his genes expect?

  18. For fuck’s sake, guys, don’t feed the trolls. Don’t write for the illiterate. Don’t stand up for cowards. And don’t rationalize for toadies.

  19. To those who don’t have the beginning of a clue;
    FOR ANYONE Gender Transitions Lead to ‘Irreversible Damage’
    It is being cruel to pander to someone’s delusions instead of getting them the mental help they need.

    1. Well, duh. Irreversible damage is the whole point of medical transitioning.

  20. I’m starting to think that the modern trans movement is mostly fashion. Time to bring back lip plates, neck elongation, and foot binding.

    1. We’ve already brought back the niqab.

  21. Tony isn’t here. That helps things a bit.

  22. In the past, the US used laws to prop up counterfactual narratives of racism, sexism, etc. We recognized that an argument that can only stand with a gun to your head isn’t a valid argument, yet here we are and the ACLU of all places is defending the government. Shameful.

    Yes, telling someone YWNBAW is the same as wanting to criminalize their trans status. Totally.

  23. The pro-Trans activists have a serious problem, or rather several. ‘Gender Reassignment Surgery’ is a fraud, while few people go so far as to flat out claim it transforms the patient (victim) from one sex to the other, it is heavily implied…and it simply ain’t so. ‘Gender Reassignment Surgery’ creates a eunuch who has been cosmetically mutilated as well. Hormone therapy, especially cross-gender, is nowhere near as safe as it is being portrayed. If a serious examination is made of the Trans movement, it will blow up. So those pushing it must make sure no serious examination is made, at least until they have moved on to their next idiocy and are nominally out of the blast radius.

    The ones NOT out of the blast radius will be the victims; those who were persuaded that ‘Gender Reassignment’ would benefit them. The perpetrators of the Trans scam don’t give a f@rt in a hurricane about THEM.

  24. Look, we know that psychiatry has a very big problem that diagnoses come in fads. Multiple personality disorder was ludicrously rare until it entered pop culture. Then there was an explosion of diagnoses, which reversed, and now there are serious questions whether it even exists or is just an expression of schizophrenia.

    I could say the same about repressed memories, which became all the rage, even getting people convicted of abuse based on nothing but recovered memory therapy. However, it went out of fashion and people realized that while memory loss exists, recovered memories are almost completely manufactured.

    Continuing on, we can say honestly that gender dysphoria is currently fashionable. We are making irreversible changes to children by hormone therapy. These children do not have the knowledge, understanding, or the wisdom to make these choices, and no one can make this for them. We cannot use doctor’s judgement as a guide because it’s currently fashionable and you can keep asking doctors until one agrees.

    I don’t see why this is controversial. We need to support and care for these children as they are. When they are adults, they can make the choice to transition. Not before.

    1. I support 100% of physical gender transitions (including hormone therapy) for adults who are mentally competent. I’m also ok with them for some children who undergo significant psychological care–at least a years’ worth (and preferably more) by someone who didn’t have a pre-existing agenda. Anything less is potentially malpractice on the part of the doctor performing surgery or prescribing hormones, and possible child abuse on the part of the parent allowing it.

      I predict in 5-7 years that there will be a very large number of new-adults (mostly female, per the data Schrier claims) who will deeply regret their decision to undergo gender transition surgery and will want to transition back to male. They will for the simple reason that the numbers back up the notion that this is, for most, a psychological compulsion helped on by current fashion–as Ben suggests.

      Proponents of question-free, pre-adult gender transition are potentially promoting permanent damage to a large number of children. Yes, we should live in a free society where people have the right to make their own choices. Unfortunately, none of these activists promoting gender transitions without question, or ACLU lawyers trying to silence rational discussion, will ever once apologize or admit any blame. And they aren’t willing to listen to reason. These are people who care far more about ideology than the individual they might be helping to destroy.

      1. “I support…physical gender transitions (including hormone therapy) for adults who are mentally competent.”

        Suffering from the delusion that one is the opposite sex, or pathological revulsion at ones own sex, cannot coexist with mental competence.

        1. There are people with genuine physiological disorders involving abnormal hormone levels and things like hermaphroditism… creatures that “God” created deliberately confused. These, fortunately, represent a very small number of folks, nothing like the ridiculous numbers we see today.

          Most interested parties fit the DSM description of a mental disorder–though having a mental disorder alone is not enough to deem you mentally incompetent.

          1. I would say a mental disorder of such magnitude, and resulting in self-harm, does imply incompetence.

  25. Gender dysphoria is a disorder that doctors treat by indulging it ONLY because it is a feminist dog whistle.

    SRS is the physical mutilation and sterilization of people with a disorder. That’s what it is.

  26. My take on this as a medical doctor is that I refuse to participate in any surgery that involves removing healthy tissue.
    The only exception I make to this hard and fast rule is prophylactic mastectomy and ovary removal in women with the BRCA gene.
    There is a lot of good research that women with this gene will eventually develop breast cancer given enough time.

    Removing perfectly healthy penises, or breasts, is something I will not participate in.

    1. What about foreskins?

Please to post comments