I wrote about dishonest journalists playing both sides of the gender debate

[Glinner]

Have a look! shorturl.at/clEZ3

I read Lewis's article. Lewis says: "However, the U.S. discussion is more polarized along party lines, with Republicans floating vindictive laws to ban all hormone treatment for children, for example."

Whatever outcomes such laws may have, I think there can be no doubt that the Republicans motives are primarly vindictive rather than pro-child. In context, that's the interpretation I took.

It's interesting what you say about the public reaction to the Philip and Holly interview. Now, I haven't watched it for years, but in times past I vaguely recall the interviews the show ran being sympathetic but still presenting the opposing view. One that stands out in my memory was a mum sending a bill to another mum for ruined baby clothes. The opposing view (don't dress your child in expensive designer clothes and expect them to stay pristine) was offered in a non judgemental way. Some people would argue.... Do you see why people might think...

I kept waiting for the opposing view, particularly from Holly who I think has designed clothes for kids so you would expect her to understand babies wanting things that are easy to put on and move in. I was waiting for someone to jump in with what exactly makes the child trans as opposed to tomboy. Did the parents know not knowing gender was fixed was a normal part of child development? Were they aware of the danger medical transition presented? Why didn't they advocate for a watch and wait approach? Did they consider maybe the child just liked practical and comfort over discomfort and fuss? Did they have any knowledge of twin psychology?

Yet it was all very cheerleading and the reasons presented very much as fact without challenge. That was something I found very disturbing, since all the other controversy pieces didn't affirm radical and arguably less damaging parenting.

Whatever the alleged motive, the outcome is considered by many to be safer for children. I don't ever remember it being regarded as good to carry out surgery for non physical ailments, or medical intervention which will possibly sterilise children. What has given rise to society looking the other way on this?

It does beg the motives on the part of Biden and the Democrats in introducing laws which will pull the rug from under many women and girls. Indeed endanger women and girls. From whence does that vindictiveness spring? Is it on behalf of wealthy donors and influencers calling the tune as they pay the piper?

Off topic but motherland is genius and I know you've stepped back but really good to see your name up there. Especially liked the 'identity as Catholic' and Ricky Gervais /Richard Dawkins reference.

Republicans KNOW that the majority of regular people who vote with Democrats (heck, the majority of the world) would be uncomfortable if they understood that trans health care in children involved off label drugs with serious side effects and loss of future fertility, bone density and sexual function. They know this issue can create a possible wedge within the Democrat party so they are going to exploit it to their advantage. They bother less with issues Dems are well versed on (climate stuff, minimum wage, universal health care). They have their eyes on those suburban moms who will be pissed when their daughters lose out on athletic scholarships because a trans girl bumps their spot like what happened in Connecticut.

Senator Rand Paul was both sincere AND goady when he asked, "where are the feminists?" GOP motives are clear, but unlike the lies about the insurrection and Trumps's loss, they aren't wrong about this ideology and they know it.

The rest of the GOP's platform is so vile and unpopular with the majority that they are looking for wedge issues where they can persuade a few disgruntled leftists or moderates to switch votes and give them a few wins.

I'm sorry I don't have a share token but this article yesterday set off angry readers who are better versed in medicine and science than I am. I am, however, quite aware of shoddy journalism and am writing to the NYTimes to ask how they can produce poorly researched reporting. There are two camps at the venerable Gray Lady, one of classic liberal journalism and one younger, more activist driven with a post-modern slant. Sadly, they've left trans editorial decisions up to the latter group.

www.nytimes.com/2021/05/11/well/family/what-are-puberty-blockers.html?referringSource=articleShare

Check out these Examples of angry readers (who trend Democrat).

@yeahbutnaw

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

The children who are puberty blocked then cross sex hormoned may have difficulty reaching orgasm as adults. That's a lot to give up, imo anyway. Jazz Jennings is a well publicised example of this. It seems odd that you wouldn't consider this to be, at the very least, not ideal. OK , some people don't care much about sex, but it seems terrible to have the option to enjoy sex taken away before you even understand what it's all about properly. To try an smear it as "obsessing about children having orgasms" is laughably ridiculous

Well that was deleted quickly! Sorry I should have ignored it.

I've had a thread deleted. Can't think why. Oh well...

Thank you as always, @glinner.