Child and adolescent psychiatrist talks about transgenderism

[ArabeIIaScott]

Grossman talks about the history and ideology of transgenderism.

I've not watched it yet, but thought it was probably of interest to MNers.

It is interesting. She has a book out or coming out? I am interested in checking out reviews.

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/67958998

Barnes and Noble refusing to stock it, apparently.

Really looking forward to watching this. Enjoyed their interview with Hannah Barnes about the Tavistock

Thanks for the link.

Just watched it, it's very good. I am also almost finished her book - Lost in Transnation, also brilliant.

I have seen Miriam Grossman interviewed before. She seems to be down to earth and sensible. She is brave. TRIGGER nometry has been really good on this.

I get the impression there is a growing dawning of realisation of what is actually going on in gender identity medecine.

I. Still. Don’t. Fucking. Understand.what. Gender.is. And I found her a little less articulate about it than I thought she’d be. Is it just me?

I thought the Hannah Barnes interview was great. Highly recommend watching.

Dr Grossman knows her stuff but they were far too polite with her and should have interrupted her more often. She is knowledgeable but boring, sorry. For people who don't know much about the subject it's probably worth watching, but to most on this board it'll be old news.

She spends the first half explaining John Money but doesn't seem to understand that his experiments don't disprove gender ideology, if anything his failure proved something like an innate gender identify does exist. What he didn't prove was the blank slate theory.

Yes I’m glad it wasn’t just me. She seemed to be inferring that there was a difference between men and women beyond the fact of their sexual dimorphism - ie. That girls and boys have definite ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ traits that are not socially induced/influenced. And that Money was proved wrong or right… totally confusing. However I do not deny that she is exceedingly knowledgable and articulate in outlining her experiences as a psychologist/therapist - the Trigonometry duo seemed to be giving her the benefit of the doubt but looked visibly discomfited at times. And as much as I am grateful for them broadcasting this issue I do find them both a bit annoying and supercilious in their ‘tone’.

'And as much as I am grateful for them broadcasting this issue I do find them both a bit annoying and supercilious in their ‘tone’.'

Well yes they can be a bit like that. Their interviews are a mixed bag - some quite robust questions, sometimes a bit of Beavis and Butthead type sniggering. They're generally pretty good at shutting up and letting people make their points though. I do wish that Francis wouldn't stare at the guests in such a gormless way

I watched earlier, I agree she was a bit boring for those who know all of the basics and there wasn't any new information to my mind. Also took absolutely ages to get to the point on every issue. I do think the presenters seemed almost a bit deferential - because of her age maybe? They are usually much more animated and challenging. She is a big fish on the gender critical scene in the States I think, and gets respect because she's an actual psychiatrist - stressed she's a medical doctor. Saw her providing testimony to a Senate committee hearing recently so I think she has clout.

"She spends the first half explaining John Money but doesn't seem to understand that his experiments don't disprove gender ideology, if anything his failure proved something like an innate gender identify does exist. What he didn't prove was the blank slate theory."

Exactly my thoughts and I found it very frustrating to watch.

She did cover this later on the interview - i.e. how gender ideologists were spinning the John Money story to say it proves their theory of there being am innate gender identity (or psychological sex)

I haven’t listened to much, but isn’t the point that Money’s experimental techniques and open paedophilic tendencies mean that we shouldn’t place any weight on any of his findings? Even those he created inadvertently, which are now being twisted to imply something that doesn’t follow.