Brava, Martha, for this comprehensive look at recent news reports, both responsible and irresponsible. There've been far too many of the latter.
Is the tide shifing? Maybe. Like you, I'm not celebrating quite yet. Not only do I think we still have a long road ahead, I also think the backlash against the truth is powerful. The fact that Trump is in office is only making our fight harder. So many liberals (supposed liberals), are, as you know, digging in their heels. For people constantly exhorting us to "trust the science," they refuse to do so when it comes to Transworld.
Exactly. As a lifelong Democrat my party can no longer claim to support science, women, children as long as they are passengers on the absurd TRA bandwagon.
I'm not fond of the acronym TRA, short for "trans rights activist", because these people are not advocating for any "rights" as traditionally understood, but rather for special privileges for a set of self-selected men.
As possible alternatives I suggest "transqueer activists" (TQAs) or “trans entitlement activists” (TEAs) or “trans privilege activists" (TPAs).
The problem with the word "rights" is that most people think "rights" are a good thing. This is of course a deliberate strategy by the TQAs, who have (I'm sorry to say) proven to be masters of language manipulation.
I was just assuming it meant trans radical activists. I agree on not using “rights” when “demands” is what the they are talking about. Demanding compelled speech, self IDing their way into women’s spaces and harming vulnerable young people.
Urban Dictionary says TRA means "Trans Rights Activist". Acronym Finder says TRA means "Transgender Rights Activist" or "Trans Rights Activist" (or 71 other possibilities not relevant to this discussion, such as Taiwan Railway Administration). I have not found any source that interprets the R in TRA as standing for "radical".
Important observation, Mark, around the distinction between rights and privileges, and strategic leveraging of the positive association that surrounds "rights." These activists are masters of obfuscating language. "Transgender" itself defies rational explanation, yet the term is now so embedded that it is unquestioningly used by most, which has the effect of implictly validating a nonsensical concept. I think even "trans" -- a prefix meaning "across" or "through" -- needs to go, too, as the only thing changing is appearance, and not even that in some instances. These people certainly do not change sexes, and the manner in which they are using the word "gender" also remains conveniently muddled.
That said, I like "gender activists," which I think can survive a lack of clarity around "gender." Or, how about "nonbinarians"? Or, "Biological Flat Earthers"? :)
You are of course correct about "trans" itself being misleading, as no one actually "transitions" from one sex to the other. Alas I think that word is now too deeply embedded in common language for there to be much hope of replacing it anytime soon. Also, it's important to use language that can be broadly understood, so that we don't just end up talking to ourselves. So I reluctantly accept (and use) "trans", but refuse to accept the transqueer cult crusade being about any kind of "rights".
I agree. I use "trans-identified" for individuals who want to be validated as the opposite sex. To me it implies (rightly) they are caught by delusion (or sexual fetish). "Trans" as a shorthand for "transgender" has more of the validating effect I want to avoid.
I honestly can't keep straight* in my head whether a "trans-identified man" is a man who falsely claims to be a woman, or a woman who falsely claims to be a man. So I have to assume that a significant fraction of other people are similary confused by this term.
I think the majority of people who support gender ideology also have Trump Derangement Syndrome; they so loathe him as an individual that they cannot and will not see any good in any of his policies. They're fundamentalists at heart; they like things simple. Like it or not, we have Trump to thank for what gains have been and will be made against the harms done by "transgender lunacy." (His language may be inflammatory, but it's accurate.) Harris and Walz would have continued down Biden Road, perhaps even more aggressively.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is not a real thing. Republicans have been selling Democrat Derangement Syndrome since the 1980s--"libtards," "Demoncrats"--and nobody coined a cute little marketing term for it, so it went largely unchallenged.
But as soon as Republicans went completely off the deep end and tied themselves to a career criminal who brags about sexually assaulting women and led his followers to build a gallows at our nation's Capitol building to assassinate our elected representatives and overthrow our democracy. . .suddenly we have a cute little marketing term for objecting to him.
I loathe Trump and his criminal cabal with every fiber of my being, but I still have to acknowledge that his EO on Transword (and on DEI, another subject) was correct.
I'm afraid, though, that it's only causing the Dems to dig in their heels deeper.
Trump is the living epitome of everything we've been warned against in our Federalist Papers and even the Christian religion (of which I am not an adherent, but most Trump-voters are).
The RNC didn't have to choose him for their candidate. They could have gone with Nikki Haley. The fact is that they have weaponized Trumpster Derangement Syndrome against America, in exactly the same way they spent the past several decades weaponizing Democrat Derangement Syndrome against us. They went with Trump because deranging their voters has been proven to *work*.
Is Trump's Republican Party making huge strides in helping us fight the gender ideology industry?
ABSOLUTELY.
Is it because Trump gives a rat's a**?
OF COURSE NOT.
He could have done all this in 2017-2020, after Obama pushed the gender ideology industry on us in 2013-2016. But Trump didn't. Why? Because James Pritzker gave him a big fat pile of money in 2016, that's why. And Trump wouldn't be doing it now, if Pritzker were still donating to him. But Pritzker's not, because Trump didn't try hard enough to push Pritzker's gender ideology industry in 2017-2020. Pritzker pulled his funding from Trump in a snit. . .and it blew up in his face.
Now the RNC (late to the party) is using the gender ideology industry to destroy the DNC from within. And it's working, because the DNC is cooperating. They don't have to. They're choosing to. Because money.
One thing we've learned from Republicans over their decades of Democrat Derangement Syndrome is that threats of backlash are just that: threats. In reality, most extreme political stuff simply moves the Overton Window. That's what the RNC has done to America all our lives, from Nixon, to Reagan, to Bush Sr, to Bush Jr: each one was more extremist than the one before, and yet Republicans still voted for them because they were still on the fringe of the *current* Overton Window.
So that's what the Republican Party is doing to the gender ideology industry right now: moving the Overton Window.
And Democratic voters--along with very visible Dem politicians like Jonah Wheeler--are moving it too.
Great line: "So yes, the tide may have shifted and started to go out. But the waters have not receded far enough to reveal the mudflats of ideological muck under the ocean of disinformation in which we’ve been swimming."
Thanks, Martha, for this overview of the (in some instances) changing legacy media landscape. I'm also a retired longtime journalist, and can say, with appropriate disgust, that The New York Times and the Associated Press have been appalling in their adoption of ideological language and bias around gender ideology. Confessore, at least, suggests appropriate skepticism -- a foundational tool of good journalism -- is finally returning.
I remain deeply disheartened that people I once respected are so easily led; they live in a media echo chamber and obstinately avoid dissonant information. Progressive media shouldn't have to change their minds for them; they need only think critically, for themselves. Nonetheless, I recently heard a friend relay and affirm an acquaintance's concern for the safety of her "trans son" (i.e. daughter), as if there is any evidence that gender-dsyphoric youth are being physically threatened. Meanwhile, trans actvists march with signs publicly advocating punching and shooting feminists who believe in the sex binary, and in some instances have themselves assaulted so-called terfs.
These unthinking, easily manipulated progressives have latched onto trans-identified boys and men in their need for a simplistic victim/oppressor narrative; meanwhile, they deny or downplay the real harm occurring to confused children of both sexes and all females who have lost their rights to single-sex sports and spaces due to this pernicious, cult-like ideology. I don't think they're going to change their minds any time soon, even if their media masters do. They didn't think their way into the Church of Gender Woo, and they're not going to think their way out.
Thank you, Cate. It is heartening to hear from another disillusioned journalist, albeit another retiree. Sadly, skeptical reporters and editors who are still employed fear the consequences of speaking their minds.
True, but I can't excuse cowardice, personally or professionally. To me, reporters who have keep silent -- or worse, colluded -- in the travesty of "reporting" surrounding this issue have dishonored themselves and the profession. I expected myself to behave with integrity as a working journalist, and still think it an appropriate standard.
I admire that you and others are still doing good work; thank you. As a politically active lesbian who saw the gay rights movement hijacked by ideologues (with whom many former gay allies are now complicit) as well as a journalist who lost respect for her profession, I'm too sickened by the whole mess to want to participate beyond commenting.
I also found this - when I send the link to some Dem friends, two cut me off silently, the third said that DIAG was a cover for a far right organisation. None so blind ...
Children (most of whom would grow up to be gay) can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can "consent" to have sex with an adult. Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve their participation in pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not. It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions.
I hope people are leaving comments at the FTC’s website, which is soliciting public comments about so-called "Gender-Affirming Care" through Sept 26th. Here’s the link:
The Docket No. is FTC-2025-0264, and this link takes you directly there.
Click the blue “COMMENT” button and let ‘er rip. You can read other comments first if you like, you can download the instructions, you can comment using your real name or anonymously. It’s up to you, but please do comment, esp because it’s being spammed by “trans” “activists”, and we need to step up!
I didn't think I'd have anything to comment, because I don't have a member of my family in the Trans panic. (Well, I do, but it's my 65-year-old brother, whose cult allegiance is his own problem.)
However, this morning I went to UMass Chan Medical School, where they were flying the gender ideology flag alongside the American flag and Massachusetts flag.
And I remembered that we have had to ask our doctor not to refer us to doctors at UMass anymore, because we can't use the UMass patient portal MyChart--which falsely lists the medical lie that our sex is "assigned at birth" and demands we list our sexual orientations and genders, in order to register. We can't register under these conditions, so we can't read messages from our UMass doctors through their patient portal.
We have complained about this to the UMass Chancellor of our city (especially MyChart listing a medical lie on our medical records), but he refused to do anything about it.
So, now I've reported him and his hospital to the FTC for fraud.
The tide has definitely not shifted in Canada. The situation might even be worse now since anyone questioning anything concerning the trans issue is presumed to be a MAGA supporter who is all for Canada becoming the 51st state.
Our erstwhile fearless leader, Justin Trudeau, once insisted, on International Women's Day no less, that "trans women are women (!!11!!) 🤨🙄".
But at least that page is now archived, though, at one point, it had been deleted -- maybe restored because I had archived it myself, possibly 8 months ago:
Juniorwheelhoss, I think that every therapist and physician who has supported and encouraged this madness deserves to lose his or her medical license and be criminally prosecuted, to boot. But I know that'll never happen.
When this fever finally breaks, I think its promoters will silently crawl back into the woodwork and pretend it never happened -- just as they did with the Satanic Panic of the 1980s -- and they'll hope that the rest of us won't remember. But we will. We will remember. And I, for one, will keep reminding them of it.
I will have a link to this article in my weekly newsletter 20250818. The WP is the press agency of the Democratic Party and any leader that knows how things work, will understand what is happening.
If democrats had gotten their shit together before November 2024 we wouldn’t be in this mess. I’ll never vote democrat again until you get a hold of these men in women’s intimate spaces. As a woman who was sexually assaulted by a man (his sexual identity didn’t matter when his dick was out). I’ll be following closely but I don’t have any hope as too many have drunk the trans cool aid.
> "... the ideological underpinning for gender medicine ..."
... is absolutely monstrous, barking mad. Boils down to the "idea" that because some confused kids happen to exhibit some traits more typical of the other sex -- "gender non-conforming" -- various "doctors" sell those kids the idea that they should mangle their genitalia to resemble those of the other sex.
> "Then a voice chimes in, 'I am so hated for just existing and being who I am.' ..."
More barking mad and quite unscientific claptrap. In particular, transwomen are not "hated", they're simply told the truth that they're not females and won't ever qualify as such.
> "[Chase Strangio] ... once declared, 'A penis is not a male body part. It’s just an unusual body part for a woman.' ..."
Nice to see you calling Chase a woman. Also nice that you seem to be aware of the 2016 Slate article where she makes that claim:
CS: "There is plainly no one type of body that we could accurately label a 'male body.' ...."
One might think that one with some testicles would be a good start, particularly since standard biological definitions stipulate that "produces sperm" is the defining trait for "male". But something that Chase won't ever have -- so never a male herself.
Thanks for cross posting my piece. Indeed the Dutch Protocol is quite problematic. I inserted a hyperlink to an article in The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy called "The Myth of Reliable Research in Gender Medicine" about the Dutch researchers' flawed methodology.
Brava, Martha, for this comprehensive look at recent news reports, both responsible and irresponsible. There've been far too many of the latter.
Is the tide shifing? Maybe. Like you, I'm not celebrating quite yet. Not only do I think we still have a long road ahead, I also think the backlash against the truth is powerful. The fact that Trump is in office is only making our fight harder. So many liberals (supposed liberals), are, as you know, digging in their heels. For people constantly exhorting us to "trust the science," they refuse to do so when it comes to Transworld.
Exactly. As a lifelong Democrat my party can no longer claim to support science, women, children as long as they are passengers on the absurd TRA bandwagon.
I'm not fond of the acronym TRA, short for "trans rights activist", because these people are not advocating for any "rights" as traditionally understood, but rather for special privileges for a set of self-selected men.
As possible alternatives I suggest "transqueer activists" (TQAs) or “trans entitlement activists” (TEAs) or “trans privilege activists" (TPAs).
The problem with the word "rights" is that most people think "rights" are a good thing. This is of course a deliberate strategy by the TQAs, who have (I'm sorry to say) proven to be masters of language manipulation.
I was just assuming it meant trans radical activists. I agree on not using “rights” when “demands” is what the they are talking about. Demanding compelled speech, self IDing their way into women’s spaces and harming vulnerable young people.
Urban Dictionary says TRA means "Trans Rights Activist". Acronym Finder says TRA means "Transgender Rights Activist" or "Trans Rights Activist" (or 71 other possibilities not relevant to this discussion, such as Taiwan Railway Administration). I have not found any source that interprets the R in TRA as standing for "radical".
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TRA
https://www.acronymfinder.com/TRA.html
Clearly, we must find some way to return TRA to its rightful owners, the Taiwan Railway Administration. Maybe low on our list, but still.
LOL!
Important observation, Mark, around the distinction between rights and privileges, and strategic leveraging of the positive association that surrounds "rights." These activists are masters of obfuscating language. "Transgender" itself defies rational explanation, yet the term is now so embedded that it is unquestioningly used by most, which has the effect of implictly validating a nonsensical concept. I think even "trans" -- a prefix meaning "across" or "through" -- needs to go, too, as the only thing changing is appearance, and not even that in some instances. These people certainly do not change sexes, and the manner in which they are using the word "gender" also remains conveniently muddled.
That said, I like "gender activists," which I think can survive a lack of clarity around "gender." Or, how about "nonbinarians"? Or, "Biological Flat Earthers"? :)
You are of course correct about "trans" itself being misleading, as no one actually "transitions" from one sex to the other. Alas I think that word is now too deeply embedded in common language for there to be much hope of replacing it anytime soon. Also, it's important to use language that can be broadly understood, so that we don't just end up talking to ourselves. So I reluctantly accept (and use) "trans", but refuse to accept the transqueer cult crusade being about any kind of "rights".
I agree. I use "trans-identified" for individuals who want to be validated as the opposite sex. To me it implies (rightly) they are caught by delusion (or sexual fetish). "Trans" as a shorthand for "transgender" has more of the validating effect I want to avoid.
I honestly can't keep straight* in my head whether a "trans-identified man" is a man who falsely claims to be a woman, or a woman who falsely claims to be a man. So I have to assume that a significant fraction of other people are similary confused by this term.
*No pun intended!
I think the majority of people who support gender ideology also have Trump Derangement Syndrome; they so loathe him as an individual that they cannot and will not see any good in any of his policies. They're fundamentalists at heart; they like things simple. Like it or not, we have Trump to thank for what gains have been and will be made against the harms done by "transgender lunacy." (His language may be inflammatory, but it's accurate.) Harris and Walz would have continued down Biden Road, perhaps even more aggressively.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is not a real thing. Republicans have been selling Democrat Derangement Syndrome since the 1980s--"libtards," "Demoncrats"--and nobody coined a cute little marketing term for it, so it went largely unchallenged.
But as soon as Republicans went completely off the deep end and tied themselves to a career criminal who brags about sexually assaulting women and led his followers to build a gallows at our nation's Capitol building to assassinate our elected representatives and overthrow our democracy. . .suddenly we have a cute little marketing term for objecting to him.
Trumpster Derangement Syndrome is the real thing.
Well said, Eleganta.
I loathe Trump and his criminal cabal with every fiber of my being, but I still have to acknowledge that his EO on Transword (and on DEI, another subject) was correct.
I'm afraid, though, that it's only causing the Dems to dig in their heels deeper.
Trump is the living epitome of everything we've been warned against in our Federalist Papers and even the Christian religion (of which I am not an adherent, but most Trump-voters are).
The RNC didn't have to choose him for their candidate. They could have gone with Nikki Haley. The fact is that they have weaponized Trumpster Derangement Syndrome against America, in exactly the same way they spent the past several decades weaponizing Democrat Derangement Syndrome against us. They went with Trump because deranging their voters has been proven to *work*.
Is Trump's Republican Party making huge strides in helping us fight the gender ideology industry?
ABSOLUTELY.
Is it because Trump gives a rat's a**?
OF COURSE NOT.
He could have done all this in 2017-2020, after Obama pushed the gender ideology industry on us in 2013-2016. But Trump didn't. Why? Because James Pritzker gave him a big fat pile of money in 2016, that's why. And Trump wouldn't be doing it now, if Pritzker were still donating to him. But Pritzker's not, because Trump didn't try hard enough to push Pritzker's gender ideology industry in 2017-2020. Pritzker pulled his funding from Trump in a snit. . .and it blew up in his face.
Now the RNC (late to the party) is using the gender ideology industry to destroy the DNC from within. And it's working, because the DNC is cooperating. They don't have to. They're choosing to. Because money.
One thing we've learned from Republicans over their decades of Democrat Derangement Syndrome is that threats of backlash are just that: threats. In reality, most extreme political stuff simply moves the Overton Window. That's what the RNC has done to America all our lives, from Nixon, to Reagan, to Bush Sr, to Bush Jr: each one was more extremist than the one before, and yet Republicans still voted for them because they were still on the fringe of the *current* Overton Window.
So that's what the Republican Party is doing to the gender ideology industry right now: moving the Overton Window.
And Democratic voters--along with very visible Dem politicians like Jonah Wheeler--are moving it too.
I think it’s a Totally Ridiculous Acronym. I usually say things like “males who insist they are females” or females denying their biology.
Great line: "So yes, the tide may have shifted and started to go out. But the waters have not receded far enough to reveal the mudflats of ideological muck under the ocean of disinformation in which we’ve been swimming."
Thanks, Martha, for this overview of the (in some instances) changing legacy media landscape. I'm also a retired longtime journalist, and can say, with appropriate disgust, that The New York Times and the Associated Press have been appalling in their adoption of ideological language and bias around gender ideology. Confessore, at least, suggests appropriate skepticism -- a foundational tool of good journalism -- is finally returning.
I remain deeply disheartened that people I once respected are so easily led; they live in a media echo chamber and obstinately avoid dissonant information. Progressive media shouldn't have to change their minds for them; they need only think critically, for themselves. Nonetheless, I recently heard a friend relay and affirm an acquaintance's concern for the safety of her "trans son" (i.e. daughter), as if there is any evidence that gender-dsyphoric youth are being physically threatened. Meanwhile, trans actvists march with signs publicly advocating punching and shooting feminists who believe in the sex binary, and in some instances have themselves assaulted so-called terfs.
These unthinking, easily manipulated progressives have latched onto trans-identified boys and men in their need for a simplistic victim/oppressor narrative; meanwhile, they deny or downplay the real harm occurring to confused children of both sexes and all females who have lost their rights to single-sex sports and spaces due to this pernicious, cult-like ideology. I don't think they're going to change their minds any time soon, even if their media masters do. They didn't think their way into the Church of Gender Woo, and they're not going to think their way out.
Thank you, Cate. It is heartening to hear from another disillusioned journalist, albeit another retiree. Sadly, skeptical reporters and editors who are still employed fear the consequences of speaking their minds.
True, but I can't excuse cowardice, personally or professionally. To me, reporters who have keep silent -- or worse, colluded -- in the travesty of "reporting" surrounding this issue have dishonored themselves and the profession. I expected myself to behave with integrity as a working journalist, and still think it an appropriate standard.
I admire that you and others are still doing good work; thank you. As a politically active lesbian who saw the gay rights movement hijacked by ideologues (with whom many former gay allies are now complicit) as well as a journalist who lost respect for her profession, I'm too sickened by the whole mess to want to participate beyond commenting.
Thank you so much!!
I'm finding that my fellow liberals tend to just assume that since the hhs report is related to trump, it's wrong. Unbelievable.
I also found this - when I send the link to some Dem friends, two cut me off silently, the third said that DIAG was a cover for a far right organisation. None so blind ...
Children (most of whom would grow up to be gay) can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can "consent" to have sex with an adult. Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve their participation in pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not. It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions.
I hope people are leaving comments at the FTC’s website, which is soliciting public comments about so-called "Gender-Affirming Care" through Sept 26th. Here’s the link:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2025-0264-0001
The Docket No. is FTC-2025-0264, and this link takes you directly there.
Click the blue “COMMENT” button and let ‘er rip. You can read other comments first if you like, you can download the instructions, you can comment using your real name or anonymously. It’s up to you, but please do comment, esp because it’s being spammed by “trans” “activists”, and we need to step up!
YES!
I just came here to say this.
I didn't think I'd have anything to comment, because I don't have a member of my family in the Trans panic. (Well, I do, but it's my 65-year-old brother, whose cult allegiance is his own problem.)
However, this morning I went to UMass Chan Medical School, where they were flying the gender ideology flag alongside the American flag and Massachusetts flag.
And I remembered that we have had to ask our doctor not to refer us to doctors at UMass anymore, because we can't use the UMass patient portal MyChart--which falsely lists the medical lie that our sex is "assigned at birth" and demands we list our sexual orientations and genders, in order to register. We can't register under these conditions, so we can't read messages from our UMass doctors through their patient portal.
We have complained about this to the UMass Chancellor of our city (especially MyChart listing a medical lie on our medical records), but he refused to do anything about it.
So, now I've reported him and his hospital to the FTC for fraud.
The tide has definitely not shifted in Canada. The situation might even be worse now since anyone questioning anything concerning the trans issue is presumed to be a MAGA supporter who is all for Canada becoming the 51st state.
A possible indication of a change in the wind here too in Canada:
https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2023/03/08/statement-prime-minister-international-womens-day
Our erstwhile fearless leader, Justin Trudeau, once insisted, on International Women's Day no less, that "trans women are women (!!11!!) 🤨🙄".
But at least that page is now archived, though, at one point, it had been deleted -- maybe restored because I had archived it myself, possibly 8 months ago:
https://archive.ph/2024.12.14-012504/https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2023/03/08/statement-prime-minister-international-womens-day
I’d rather have a dead doctor who does this to children than surgically mutilated children.
Nuremberg 2.0 can include any and every “physician” involved in this abomination, and the gallows will be working overtime.
The solution turns out to be fairly simple after all.
Juniorwheelhoss, I think that every therapist and physician who has supported and encouraged this madness deserves to lose his or her medical license and be criminally prosecuted, to boot. But I know that'll never happen.
When this fever finally breaks, I think its promoters will silently crawl back into the woodwork and pretend it never happened -- just as they did with the Satanic Panic of the 1980s -- and they'll hope that the rest of us won't remember. But we will. We will remember. And I, for one, will keep reminding them of it.
I will have a link to this article in my weekly newsletter 20250818. The WP is the press agency of the Democratic Party and any leader that knows how things work, will understand what is happening.
If democrats had gotten their shit together before November 2024 we wouldn’t be in this mess. I’ll never vote democrat again until you get a hold of these men in women’s intimate spaces. As a woman who was sexually assaulted by a man (his sexual identity didn’t matter when his dick was out). I’ll be following closely but I don’t have any hope as too many have drunk the trans cool aid.
> "... the ideological underpinning for gender medicine ..."
... is absolutely monstrous, barking mad. Boils down to the "idea" that because some confused kids happen to exhibit some traits more typical of the other sex -- "gender non-conforming" -- various "doctors" sell those kids the idea that they should mangle their genitalia to resemble those of the other sex.
> "Then a voice chimes in, 'I am so hated for just existing and being who I am.' ..."
More barking mad and quite unscientific claptrap. In particular, transwomen are not "hated", they're simply told the truth that they're not females and won't ever qualify as such.
> "[Chase Strangio] ... once declared, 'A penis is not a male body part. It’s just an unusual body part for a woman.' ..."
Nice to see you calling Chase a woman. Also nice that you seem to be aware of the 2016 Slate article where she makes that claim:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/07/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-male-body.html
Another "amusing" claim of hers:
CS: "There is plainly no one type of body that we could accurately label a 'male body.' ...."
One might think that one with some testicles would be a good start, particularly since standard biological definitions stipulate that "produces sperm" is the defining trait for "male". But something that Chase won't ever have -- so never a male herself.
Thanks for a great analysis of Protocol and how it doesn't dig far enough at all.
Also when you dig further into the actual Dutch Protocol itself there is a whole further can of worms as I mention in my cross posting of your piece
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/dont-look-now-crazy-women
Dusty
Thanks for cross posting my piece. Indeed the Dutch Protocol is quite problematic. I inserted a hyperlink to an article in The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy called "The Myth of Reliable Research in Gender Medicine" about the Dutch researchers' flawed methodology.
Thanks for the link 😊
Dusty