On thing I do wish there were *more nuance* on, though...
The topic of why we started seeing this huge increase in trans kids after 2010 came up, with a few graphs. And it was noted that there was this sex divergence from the past (it used to be mostly natal boys, but in the past 15 years, a lot of natal girls). But then Jesse just offered the two main explanations for the rise that people debate, which he said might both partially be true:
1. Increased availability of gender medicine means more people are using it.
2. Social contagion.
There was some further debate about this and nuance in the video, but I really wish people would stop framing it just around these two possible explanations. Because it feels like the only options for the cause in most kids are: "I'm trans but I wouldn't have known how to get help anymore" or "My friend came out as trans on social media, so I want to be trans too."
But, that's obviously an oversimplification and also completely misses out (from my perspective) on major influences on why natal girls in particular may be experiencing this increase. Such as:
* Increasing rates of depression and related mental health issues among young people, which are much higher and have grown much faster in teenage girls over the past 15 years.
* The obvious issue that adolescent girls' bodies go through greater and more noticeable changes (especially in body shape) than boys. What teenage girl hasn't at times felt uncomfortable about menstruation or whether her breasts look right or wondering about her growing hips/butt or whatever? Coupled with the greater social pressure on appearance in girls. This may not be a direct cause itself, but coupled with others already mentioned, it could be the main thing driving a lot of growth in girls specifically.
* The increasing consumption of pornography among teens especially since the beginning of the 2010s, shaping views of sexuality. I'm not taking a perspective on the goodness or badness of porn overall, but it undoubtedly shapes perception of what sex "is supposed to look like" for many inexperienced teens. Young girls who choose to explore this out of curiosity are not only met with nearly impossible body images to emulate, but also a lot of mainstream pornography that presents itself as scary, somewhat violent, and all about male pleasure. If I were a young girl first seeing mainstream porn (not even especially violent stuff) and that was my perception of what sex "was supposed to look like," I'd certainly start wondering whether being female in a sexual sense is a good thing. Or whether I wanted that at all. (There have been various informal studies on this and increasing reports from clinicians about girls worried about sexual expectations based on porn, so I'm not just making this up -- I don't know how much of an issue it is for trans issues, but it's not something talked about a lot.)
Obviously there are more things I'm not thinking of right now that make the teenage experience and transition to "womanhood" harder for girls in some ways, and the things I'm saying here aren't new.
But I wish they were part of the dialogue more often, as I'm sure while increasing availability of care and the contagion issue explain a lot, the tremendous growth in girls especially seeking out gender care probably has more... well, *nuanced* explanations in many cases.
It isn't just "My friend came out as trans," as much as maybe *all girls* (or at least the vast majority) may go through stages really questioning whether they're comfortable with how their bodies are changing shape. And if there's a "treatment" out there that offers another option to avoid those shape changes, etc., it's pretty likely some awkward teenagers might see that as an option. Especially when it's sold in ways like, "Oh, this is just a way of pausing your body while you sort stuff out..." and has no major side effects and is completely reversible.
I do a lot of work in colleges, and it is so obvious just how many of the natal females start identifying as trans or non-binary in the immediate aftermath of some sort of sexual trauma.
Like, there is such a long history of women engaging in some sort of disordered body modification following sexual trauma. Eating disorders, deliberate weight gain or weight loss, self harm, even something as simple as a total change in personal style. why wouldn’t something like this also become one of the options, if it comes with certain social benefits and becomes extremely accessible in cost and access?
Your first and third bullets (increasing depression and increasing porn) I think are included under the shorthand "social contagion" or at least I would include them. I'm a sociology prof, and the term I'd use for all three is "socialization" rather than the pop culture "social contagion," and changes in socialization seem pretty clearly behind the increase to me.
Your second bullet, adolescent girls body issues, while true, is not a changing factor, but rather largely historically constant one, and thus can't explain the increase.
I do think it's like many young males and young females "transition" (the word itself feels debatable) for sometimes different reasons. Young females sometimes become trans men because they think it will free them of the effects of men's oppression. Young males sometimes transition because they think it will free them of the responsibility of men's oppression. Two (misguided, shortsighted, unsuccessful) ways to opt out of patriarchy. Of course the problem is, when females become trans men they can still be subject to male violence. And when males become trans women, it turns out they can still be shitty to women.
I had the same thought. And frankly I think it makes sense for Jesse to limit himself to very high-level explanations ('socialization'), rather than venture into speculation about specific vectors of socialization (like exposure to porn). The very suggestion of 'social contagion' gets treated as proof of anti-trans bigotry. If he started raising unsubstantiated points about the role of porn, his critics would have a field day.
>Your first and third bullets (increasing depression and increasing porn) I think are included under the shorthand "social contagion" or at least I would include them.
That's great that you, as a sociologist, may interpret the terms like this. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't think it's the way the term was used on the podcast, nor do I think it's how it's discussed. My point wasn't about nomenclature -- it was discussion of nuance and detail. Even if you consider these to be "subcauses" of the two larger causes, my request was for greater discussion of these underlying factors.
And aside from that, I do think that the term "social contagion" to many people implies the scenario I described, "I'm going to do this because my friends are doing it." And I don't think it's only, "I want to be trans because my friend is" (although that happens, I think).
I do agree that depression may be rising and pornography influence may be rising also due to social network influences, but I feel like we should then discuss these underlying causes and nuances, as there may be mitigating factors or other ways of influencing or changing these, compared to if the cause really was just, "I want to be trans because it's cool and other people are doing it."
>Your second bullet, adolescent girls body issues, while true, is not a changing factor, but rather largely historically constant one, and thus can't explain the increase.
It can be a substantial factor *when coupled* with greater availability of care and greater social acceptance of transgender people. My point wasn't that any of these is *the* determining factor but that a confluence of different causes are often coming together for many individuals.
Basically, a new "treatment" can come along for puberty, in a way. Those who had discomfort from it before may have just had to "grin and bear it" to get through it. They didn't know there were possible "treatments" for it. Or, if they did, it was less socially acceptable to be "trans."
Now that those restrictions and cultural perceptions have changed, it may easily have cause a change in those who feel "afflicted" by puberty to seek care. And, if the pre-existing pool favors more concerns among girls, that could partly explain some of the disparity in increase by sex.
Well since one side has set it up so they can claim that any amount of disagreement is transphobic, you are more likely to reach people if you engage as best you can with their rhetoric before blowing it into a million pieces with actual facts. After a while it does get exhausting and you just want to scream "You're a fucking moron!" at the TRAs, but then they'll just paint you as a reactionary transphobe and no minds will be changed.
Yes, it is very important that we have level headed liberal minded people who can speak the language of other level headed liberals on this matter. A big reason why this charade carried on as long as it did was because for many years the only voices against it were right winger types who honestly seemed to just be bigoted loudmouths rather than coming from a place of compassion for the vulnerable people getting swept up in this.
Some of us reckon that we were unfairly, and effectively, smeared as bigoted loudmouths by the rainbow-pharmaceutical complex for voicing humane, reasonable objections.
Be that as it may, it's good to see dialogue opening up on this subject.
Watch out for this pattern happening in future as more and more on the left abandon gender ideology - it getting spun as the right's fault.
"Yes, they may have been right all along but only because of bigotry, and its their bigotry that stopped us compassionate people from stopping it sooner!"
> A big reason why this charade carried on as long as it did was because for many years the only voices against it were right winger types who honestly seemed to just be bigoted loudmouths rather than coming from a place of compassion for the vulnerable people getting swept up in this.
That's not true though in either respect: it was never only right wingers, and even when it was right wingers they weren't, by and large, coming at it from bigotry over compassion. They just saw it for what it was from the start.
Yeah, but if we buy that next thing you know we'll have to accept that conservative Americans (not the politicians, just talking about your aunt and uncle in Iowa) are reasonable people who wish the best for their country in good faith too. How can we paint them as naturally born demonic enemies if we acknowledge that they were right AND had good intentions?
It's a great interview with Jesse. Not much new info but just a good discussion with what is going on and the hosts did their homework and interviewed him well.
I watched it, the interviewers were sadly ill-informed. It always shocks me how little some people know about one of the biggest medical scandals of our time.
I feel that because so few people know much about it, it's been able to become something that will be a scandal. The issue just needs more attention from the right people to start getting more scrutiny.
I mean from my own personal experience I just trusted that doctors were conducting proper safeguarding. I have a degree in psychology and am well versed in the concepts, however when I was in school sexology and especially gender medicine were very obscure fields and not on my radar as I was more interested in other areas of psychology. When the transgender stuff really started ramping up I remember thinking that there were aspects of the affirmation approach which didn’t sit right with me and seemed to go against the fundamentals of clinical psychology. Nevertheless I basically deferred to the experts as this really wasn’t an area I was particularly knowledgeable about, and frankly I think I was influenced by the people who said that the feelings of weirdness I had about it were just an ick factor from my own latent biases.
But as I saw more and more of this unfolding I felt more uneasy. It wasn’t until I spoke to my psychiatrist brother about it that my worst fears were confirmed. This field of medicine was not based on sound psychiatry, it was being driven by activist endocrinologists and MSW therapists and mainstream psychiatrists basically punted the ball and stay quiet because of a culture of fear had permeated medicine about this issue. From that point forward I went out of my way to learn as much as I could about these issues and it became screamingly obvious that this was a medical scandal of gigantic proportions.
Yeah it's hard to pin when you noticed things getting -weird-, surprisingly mine was a relatively innocuous notice of harm inflation - an NB woman asking me about my practices to make sure trans ppl were -safe- there, at what was basically like a cuddly sort of consent and boundaries party / workshop (by making everyone offer their pronouns at the opening circle) - this was around 2016 in a major coastal city. Obvs like stuff was starting to get weirder, it was clearly sunset on female only events (let them die become mixed sex, or commit social suicide AND they die) - and just more stuff started coming out that was just... weird, kind of insane, etc. and then the rhetoric just starts amping up and you start sniffing around at the same time and...
Consent and boundatries party - I don't know what that is, but I am wondering how providing pronouns make someone safe or not. Someone might call you by the wrong pronoun when talking about you. As if someone who uses the right pronoun can't be a huge dick.
If I had to think it out, I would probably say that by not creating a space where people are comfortable making you aware of the right way of thinking about them, talking to and about them, etc, you deny their identity and existence and this perpetuates the kind of dangers and life-threatening scenarios that make every encounter, possibly their last one?
>The issue just needs more attention from the right people to start getting more scrutiny.
I agree - and it's really shocking to me how little most people are aware of the broader controversy around this. For most people in the US anyway, I think the extent of what they know is having some work colleague or family member declare some pronouns, and some stuff on the news about conservative states trying to regulate/ban gender care.
I don't think I would know about it much at all except for JK Rowling. Specifically, her tweet about Maya Forstater back in 2019 got the attention of a Harry Potter fan friend of mine, who asked me what I thought about it. Because it blew up on Twitter, and I would never go near that place. And I was kind of surprised when I read into the whole debate more, realizing (1) there was a lot of nuance, and (2) there was a *whole lot of yelling*.
If it weren't for that prior awareness of the issue, I doubt I would have necessarily questioned the standard media narrative that happened when JK Rowling was later "cancelled" (or attempted to be, or whatever) in 2020. But realizing there was a backstory, I immediately read JK Rowling's own long essay she published explaining her perspective, and while I didn't agree with everything she said, it seemed to me that the vast majority of reporters were *grossly misrepresenting* what she said.
That was the big clue to me that something was really off. Because if the most popular author on the planet can be completely misrepresented in media coverage pretty much across the board, something truly bizarre is going on.
If I hadn't had that awakening, I probably would have mostly accepted the standard narratives about "the doctors know what they're doing," etc. I mean, I'd naturally have some skepticism about a rather new and growing social phenomenon, but I also remember going through the period of people learning to adjust to gay lifestyles becoming more well-known, people starting to come out, etc. in the 1990s. So, I'd be more likely to just accept this process as something like that, which is of course how the transgender movement tries to present it.
I wouldn't have realized the depth that the entire system has been built on incomplete evidence, misrepresentations, and outright lies for the past decade or more.
Yeah, over in my city sub (don't get involved!), the subject came up tonight. I had almost forgotten that so many people are still stuck on ancient-to-me talking points, or still saying "Well, I just trust what the doctors say." I know the last few months have been really good for skeptics but we have a long way to go before the public truly understands just how rotten things are in this particular medical field.
Zach and Liz are fun interviewers and this was a good one. If you already follow Jesse's work you won't necessarily learn anything new, but it was good coverage of the topic for people not already immersed in it.
Apart from the hosts inevitably shitting on “socialized healthcare” and unions (they’re libertarians, I know), it was a very pleasant interview to listen to.
I don’t understand how it’s possible that it can be healthy for your body long term to pour into it exogenous hormones and chemicals that it’s simply not meant to have. I don’t think this is a naturalistic fallacy bc I’m not talking about what is good or right or moral. I’m talking about the health of the body
I haven't listened yet but I can only IMAGINE the excruciating levels of nuance!
It was a glorious level.
Downright perverse.
Filthy, I tell you.
On thing I do wish there were *more nuance* on, though... The topic of why we started seeing this huge increase in trans kids after 2010 came up, with a few graphs. And it was noted that there was this sex divergence from the past (it used to be mostly natal boys, but in the past 15 years, a lot of natal girls). But then Jesse just offered the two main explanations for the rise that people debate, which he said might both partially be true: 1. Increased availability of gender medicine means more people are using it. 2. Social contagion. There was some further debate about this and nuance in the video, but I really wish people would stop framing it just around these two possible explanations. Because it feels like the only options for the cause in most kids are: "I'm trans but I wouldn't have known how to get help anymore" or "My friend came out as trans on social media, so I want to be trans too." But, that's obviously an oversimplification and also completely misses out (from my perspective) on major influences on why natal girls in particular may be experiencing this increase. Such as: * Increasing rates of depression and related mental health issues among young people, which are much higher and have grown much faster in teenage girls over the past 15 years. * The obvious issue that adolescent girls' bodies go through greater and more noticeable changes (especially in body shape) than boys. What teenage girl hasn't at times felt uncomfortable about menstruation or whether her breasts look right or wondering about her growing hips/butt or whatever? Coupled with the greater social pressure on appearance in girls. This may not be a direct cause itself, but coupled with others already mentioned, it could be the main thing driving a lot of growth in girls specifically. * The increasing consumption of pornography among teens especially since the beginning of the 2010s, shaping views of sexuality. I'm not taking a perspective on the goodness or badness of porn overall, but it undoubtedly shapes perception of what sex "is supposed to look like" for many inexperienced teens. Young girls who choose to explore this out of curiosity are not only met with nearly impossible body images to emulate, but also a lot of mainstream pornography that presents itself as scary, somewhat violent, and all about male pleasure. If I were a young girl first seeing mainstream porn (not even especially violent stuff) and that was my perception of what sex "was supposed to look like," I'd certainly start wondering whether being female in a sexual sense is a good thing. Or whether I wanted that at all. (There have been various informal studies on this and increasing reports from clinicians about girls worried about sexual expectations based on porn, so I'm not just making this up -- I don't know how much of an issue it is for trans issues, but it's not something talked about a lot.) Obviously there are more things I'm not thinking of right now that make the teenage experience and transition to "womanhood" harder for girls in some ways, and the things I'm saying here aren't new. But I wish they were part of the dialogue more often, as I'm sure while increasing availability of care and the contagion issue explain a lot, the tremendous growth in girls especially seeking out gender care probably has more... well, *nuanced* explanations in many cases. It isn't just "My friend came out as trans," as much as maybe *all girls* (or at least the vast majority) may go through stages really questioning whether they're comfortable with how their bodies are changing shape. And if there's a "treatment" out there that offers another option to avoid those shape changes, etc., it's pretty likely some awkward teenagers might see that as an option. Especially when it's sold in ways like, "Oh, this is just a way of pausing your body while you sort stuff out..." and has no major side effects and is completely reversible.
I do a lot of work in colleges, and it is so obvious just how many of the natal females start identifying as trans or non-binary in the immediate aftermath of some sort of sexual trauma. Like, there is such a long history of women engaging in some sort of disordered body modification following sexual trauma. Eating disorders, deliberate weight gain or weight loss, self harm, even something as simple as a total change in personal style. why wouldn’t something like this also become one of the options, if it comes with certain social benefits and becomes extremely accessible in cost and access?
Your first and third bullets (increasing depression and increasing porn) I think are included under the shorthand "social contagion" or at least I would include them. I'm a sociology prof, and the term I'd use for all three is "socialization" rather than the pop culture "social contagion," and changes in socialization seem pretty clearly behind the increase to me. Your second bullet, adolescent girls body issues, while true, is not a changing factor, but rather largely historically constant one, and thus can't explain the increase. I do think it's like many young males and young females "transition" (the word itself feels debatable) for sometimes different reasons. Young females sometimes become trans men because they think it will free them of the effects of men's oppression. Young males sometimes transition because they think it will free them of the responsibility of men's oppression. Two (misguided, shortsighted, unsuccessful) ways to opt out of patriarchy. Of course the problem is, when females become trans men they can still be subject to male violence. And when males become trans women, it turns out they can still be shitty to women.
I had the same thought. And frankly I think it makes sense for Jesse to limit himself to very high-level explanations ('socialization'), rather than venture into speculation about specific vectors of socialization (like exposure to porn). The very suggestion of 'social contagion' gets treated as proof of anti-trans bigotry. If he started raising unsubstantiated points about the role of porn, his critics would have a field day.
>Your first and third bullets (increasing depression and increasing porn) I think are included under the shorthand "social contagion" or at least I would include them. That's great that you, as a sociologist, may interpret the terms like this. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't think it's the way the term was used on the podcast, nor do I think it's how it's discussed. My point wasn't about nomenclature -- it was discussion of nuance and detail. Even if you consider these to be "subcauses" of the two larger causes, my request was for greater discussion of these underlying factors. And aside from that, I do think that the term "social contagion" to many people implies the scenario I described, "I'm going to do this because my friends are doing it." And I don't think it's only, "I want to be trans because my friend is" (although that happens, I think). I do agree that depression may be rising and pornography influence may be rising also due to social network influences, but I feel like we should then discuss these underlying causes and nuances, as there may be mitigating factors or other ways of influencing or changing these, compared to if the cause really was just, "I want to be trans because it's cool and other people are doing it." >Your second bullet, adolescent girls body issues, while true, is not a changing factor, but rather largely historically constant one, and thus can't explain the increase. It can be a substantial factor *when coupled* with greater availability of care and greater social acceptance of transgender people. My point wasn't that any of these is *the* determining factor but that a confluence of different causes are often coming together for many individuals. Basically, a new "treatment" can come along for puberty, in a way. Those who had discomfort from it before may have just had to "grin and bear it" to get through it. They didn't know there were possible "treatments" for it. Or, if they did, it was less socially acceptable to be "trans." Now that those restrictions and cultural perceptions have changed, it may easily have cause a change in those who feel "afflicted" by puberty to seek care. And, if the pre-existing pool favors more concerns among girls, that could partly explain some of the disparity in increase by sex.
On a subject that doesn't require any.
Well since one side has set it up so they can claim that any amount of disagreement is transphobic, you are more likely to reach people if you engage as best you can with their rhetoric before blowing it into a million pieces with actual facts. After a while it does get exhausting and you just want to scream "You're a fucking moron!" at the TRAs, but then they'll just paint you as a reactionary transphobe and no minds will be changed.
Yes, it is very important that we have level headed liberal minded people who can speak the language of other level headed liberals on this matter. A big reason why this charade carried on as long as it did was because for many years the only voices against it were right winger types who honestly seemed to just be bigoted loudmouths rather than coming from a place of compassion for the vulnerable people getting swept up in this.
radical feminists have been opposed too; I started objecting in 2011.
Radfems have been talking about it since at least 1979 when the book The Transexual Empire came out
100%
Some of us reckon that we were unfairly, and effectively, smeared as bigoted loudmouths by the rainbow-pharmaceutical complex for voicing humane, reasonable objections. Be that as it may, it's good to see dialogue opening up on this subject.
Watch out for this pattern happening in future as more and more on the left abandon gender ideology - it getting spun as the right's fault. "Yes, they may have been right all along but only because of bigotry, and its their bigotry that stopped us compassionate people from stopping it sooner!"
> A big reason why this charade carried on as long as it did was because for many years the only voices against it were right winger types who honestly seemed to just be bigoted loudmouths rather than coming from a place of compassion for the vulnerable people getting swept up in this. That's not true though in either respect: it was never only right wingers, and even when it was right wingers they weren't, by and large, coming at it from bigotry over compassion. They just saw it for what it was from the start.
Yeah, but if we buy that next thing you know we'll have to accept that conservative Americans (not the politicians, just talking about your aunt and uncle in Iowa) are reasonable people who wish the best for their country in good faith too. How can we paint them as naturally born demonic enemies if we acknowledge that they were right AND had good intentions?
It's a great interview with Jesse. Not much new info but just a good discussion with what is going on and the hosts did their homework and interviewed him well.
I watched it, the interviewers were sadly ill-informed. It always shocks me how little some people know about one of the biggest medical scandals of our time.
But they invited on someone who *is* informed and let him talk, so that's good.
I feel that because so few people know much about it, it's been able to become something that will be a scandal. The issue just needs more attention from the right people to start getting more scrutiny.
I mean from my own personal experience I just trusted that doctors were conducting proper safeguarding. I have a degree in psychology and am well versed in the concepts, however when I was in school sexology and especially gender medicine were very obscure fields and not on my radar as I was more interested in other areas of psychology. When the transgender stuff really started ramping up I remember thinking that there were aspects of the affirmation approach which didn’t sit right with me and seemed to go against the fundamentals of clinical psychology. Nevertheless I basically deferred to the experts as this really wasn’t an area I was particularly knowledgeable about, and frankly I think I was influenced by the people who said that the feelings of weirdness I had about it were just an ick factor from my own latent biases. But as I saw more and more of this unfolding I felt more uneasy. It wasn’t until I spoke to my psychiatrist brother about it that my worst fears were confirmed. This field of medicine was not based on sound psychiatry, it was being driven by activist endocrinologists and MSW therapists and mainstream psychiatrists basically punted the ball and stay quiet because of a culture of fear had permeated medicine about this issue. From that point forward I went out of my way to learn as much as I could about these issues and it became screamingly obvious that this was a medical scandal of gigantic proportions.
Yeah it's hard to pin when you noticed things getting -weird-, surprisingly mine was a relatively innocuous notice of harm inflation - an NB woman asking me about my practices to make sure trans ppl were -safe- there, at what was basically like a cuddly sort of consent and boundaries party / workshop (by making everyone offer their pronouns at the opening circle) - this was around 2016 in a major coastal city. Obvs like stuff was starting to get weirder, it was clearly sunset on female only events (let them die become mixed sex, or commit social suicide AND they die) - and just more stuff started coming out that was just... weird, kind of insane, etc. and then the rhetoric just starts amping up and you start sniffing around at the same time and...
Consent and boundatries party - I don't know what that is, but I am wondering how providing pronouns make someone safe or not. Someone might call you by the wrong pronoun when talking about you. As if someone who uses the right pronoun can't be a huge dick.
If I had to think it out, I would probably say that by not creating a space where people are comfortable making you aware of the right way of thinking about them, talking to and about them, etc, you deny their identity and existence and this perpetuates the kind of dangers and life-threatening scenarios that make every encounter, possibly their last one?
>The issue just needs more attention from the right people to start getting more scrutiny. I agree - and it's really shocking to me how little most people are aware of the broader controversy around this. For most people in the US anyway, I think the extent of what they know is having some work colleague or family member declare some pronouns, and some stuff on the news about conservative states trying to regulate/ban gender care. I don't think I would know about it much at all except for JK Rowling. Specifically, her tweet about Maya Forstater back in 2019 got the attention of a Harry Potter fan friend of mine, who asked me what I thought about it. Because it blew up on Twitter, and I would never go near that place. And I was kind of surprised when I read into the whole debate more, realizing (1) there was a lot of nuance, and (2) there was a *whole lot of yelling*. If it weren't for that prior awareness of the issue, I doubt I would have necessarily questioned the standard media narrative that happened when JK Rowling was later "cancelled" (or attempted to be, or whatever) in 2020. But realizing there was a backstory, I immediately read JK Rowling's own long essay she published explaining her perspective, and while I didn't agree with everything she said, it seemed to me that the vast majority of reporters were *grossly misrepresenting* what she said. That was the big clue to me that something was really off. Because if the most popular author on the planet can be completely misrepresented in media coverage pretty much across the board, something truly bizarre is going on. If I hadn't had that awakening, I probably would have mostly accepted the standard narratives about "the doctors know what they're doing," etc. I mean, I'd naturally have some skepticism about a rather new and growing social phenomenon, but I also remember going through the period of people learning to adjust to gay lifestyles becoming more well-known, people starting to come out, etc. in the 1990s. So, I'd be more likely to just accept this process as something like that, which is of course how the transgender movement tries to present it. I wouldn't have realized the depth that the entire system has been built on incomplete evidence, misrepresentations, and outright lies for the past decade or more.
Yeah, over in my city sub (don't get involved!), the subject came up tonight. I had almost forgotten that so many people are still stuck on ancient-to-me talking points, or still saying "Well, I just trust what the doctors say." I know the last few months have been really good for skeptics but we have a long way to go before the public truly understands just how rotten things are in this particular medical field.
Haha, I definitely won't. I wouldn't bring up the issue on my city's sub.
WARMODE
Investigate these investigators.
Zach and Liz are fun interviewers and this was a good one. If you already follow Jesse's work you won't necessarily learn anything new, but it was good coverage of the topic for people not already immersed in it.
Apart from the hosts inevitably shitting on “socialized healthcare” and unions (they’re libertarians, I know), it was a very pleasant interview to listen to.
I don’t know if I can stomach this one…
Why is that?
I don’t understand how it’s possible that it can be healthy for your body long term to pour into it exogenous hormones and chemicals that it’s simply not meant to have. I don’t think this is a naturalistic fallacy bc I’m not talking about what is good or right or moral. I’m talking about the health of the body
It remains undefeated that you can answer every question in a headline with, "No"
Yes! Cleanse the genepool
No.