Megyn Kelly discusses the problems with the 'affirmation only' model of gender medicine - Real Time with Bill Maher (25 Oct 2024)

[UtopiaPlanitia]

On the recent episode, Megyn was interviewed by Bill and, as one of the two important issues that was informing her vote in the US election, she brought up the issue of children being damaged by 'affirmation only' medical organisations and she made the secondary point that gender identity negatively affects women's rights/spaces. She spoke about this in front of a hostile to indifferent studio audience but, as the interviewer, Bill was not hostile or indifferent on the issue.

I went to find the interview on YouTube to post here because I thought FWR would find it interesting. For some reason the YouTube version of the interview doesn't have the section where she discussed gender affirmation with Bill (who was on her side - he even mentioned the Cass Review).

So, instead of the full interview, I'm posting links to two videos discussing the interview: I've noted the relevant times when 'affirmation only' is discussed:

This video is Megyn herself discussing her time on the Bill Maher show (time 5.49 to 7.45):

The second is Amala Ekpunobi discussing the interview and how much Maher has moved on this issue (time 0.00 to 8.19):

If you have access to Sky TV then Real Time with Bill Maher is available on Catch Up and Megyn is the first guest interviewed.

I'm not suggesting all of her beliefs are faux - just some of them

Faux meaning fake, an imitation?

So you are claiming she is being paid by trump to have fake beliefs?

Can you list which of her beliefs are fake, some evidence of the prior alternate ones prior to the pay off, and some evidence that Donald Trump is paying her for them please.

These are quite serious claims to make. They kind of imply that she doesn't have her own mind or opinion, which is pretty 'non-feminist'.

The key to all this is working out which personal opinions are likely to be based on some depth of thinking and evidence, and which are not.

I don't really see why any of her views would be "faux". She did used to be more middle of the road, but I know lots of real Americans that have made a similar transformation in recent years so not surprise there to me.

Played up a bit for media consumption, sure, that seems to be how American pundits work.

I think the accurate take is ‘some’ people think she has ‘faux’ views. But it seems completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Either way, the discussion is getting out there into mainstream media by more and more people.

Has anyone who says TWAW based this on any depth of thinking or evidence?

Surely that's the ultimate 'faux belief ', because nobody really believes that.

If they do really believe it and have based their belief on evidence, why can't they ever explain how they came to believe in such an obvious fantasy?

All good questions.

She was very much ‘middle of the road’ and had frequent well-publicised spats with Donald Trump. She certainly would not have been described as a Trump supporter even if she was a Conservative. For example, when Trump was campaigning in 2015 and on a Fox debate stage, Kelly said to him, “You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals … You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?”
Trump answered, “I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either.”
The next day he tweeted several pointed posts aimed at Kelly. He also told CNN that “there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

That is just one incident from 2015. How does a woman change their politics, and their sentiments, so radically as Kelly has? Answer: funding.

Apologies for the random Hillary Clinton link there!

Just so we're clear, @MessinaBloom is that your evidence?

Maybe it shows that the depth of antipathy that many feel towards radicalised progressive identity politics is far more of a motivating factor than anything else.

Oh dear….

If you listen to Megyn Kelly you'll hear her say that now she's a single-issue voter and that issue is protecting women and girls from gender identity. That explains her antipathy towards Kamala Harris, in addition to Kelly viewing Harris's record as poor and having a low opinion of her capabilities.

These claims about Trump funding Kelly would be stupid if they weren't instead simple mendacity.

How does a woman change their politics, and their sentiments, so radically as Kelly has? Answer: funding.

I absolutely detest Trump, and I'd still vote for him over Harris.

Mainly because I dont want more kids mutilated and sterilised and I believe that Harris will ramp it up whereas there is a small hope that Trump might put somewhat of a stop to it.

It isn't very 'feminist' to accuse women of only being able to have opinions they are paid to have.

There are quite a number of reasons why a woman would chose to says she supports such a man, and ‘funding’ may be relevant or irrelevant. Some people making such a strong declaration are doing so based on their own interpretation that may or may not be reasonable.

However, it is pertinent here to remember the judge’s reaction to Pesutto’s team’s declarations, I think.

I also think that the you only have to read the writings of someone like Julie Bindel to realise that feminists and women’s rights campaigners have had to readjust their expectations of political parties. I don’t think the reality is as absolute and clear cut as some people would like it to be.

I think that unless evidence of being funded directly by Trump or the Republican Party is produced, the claim of ‘funding’ can be dismissed as a poster’s opinion based on something other than reasonable interpretation of information.

And to be fair, posters can post whatever they want within the guidelines of MN. What they can’t do is expect people will simply not discuss the opinions stated.

I think that Megan Kelly has been one of the strongest voices on this issue and this interview that she did with Ro Khanna, a Congressman for California who is a Democrat shows that she can articulate the argument really well- he seems unable to answer her points except to say 'trust the doctors' and it is nice to see that the discussion is finally bubbling up to the surface in the mainstream in the US.

I agree @Thatmakesperfectsense Megyn has been 100% clear for at least the last two years that she will not vote for a presidential candidate that supports medical transition for children and that does not support protecting women’s rights and spaces. She says it multiple times per episode and she has platformed many left-leaning feminists on her podcast in order to publicise and discuss these issues.

She has discussed having a trans identifying male in her wider family and how difficult she has found dealing with a male with AGP.

Her commitment to protecting women’s rights and preventing surgical harms to children is very sincere and she discussed these items long before the Cass Review opened a space in American society for people to raise their concerns. She always comes at these topics from a point of view of compassion for the women and children, she is not condemnatory of them she wants to protect and help them. She does however have a lot of (justified) anger for the medical associations/doctors as well as for the men who want access to women’s spaces/sport etc.

I also agree with @TempestTost that American political pundits are larger than life in their broadcasts (it’s the same with their sporting pundits too - large personalities seem to be preferred by US broadcasters) but that’s the culture she lives and works in so I accept that it’s not my preferred presentation style and I listen to what she has to say with that fact in mind.

Kelly took Fox News to court for treating her in a sexist manner and she built her own independent podcast up herself after being let go from her daily talk show (I don’t think a talk show was really her type of thing to be honest given she is so interested in politics) so I admire her motivation and determination - she’s definitely more politically conservative than I am but I can agree with some of her views and discard the ones I don’t agree with.

I’m sorry. Is this a court room? I gave you some evidence.

So, in light of what I quoted above, you don’t find it odd that Kelly posted an image of herself dressed in a garbage bag?

There’s no mendacity in what I’m suggesting. The only other thing I can think of is that she has found a well-paying niche with Trump voters.

Is that really the only answer you can think of?

Your problem here is lack of imagination.

There have been a lot of people formerly opposed to Trump that are now supporters, it's not that unusual a phenomena.

They’ve been discussing it, though, and you can’t stop it because you just don’t like the topic.

Women, though? Women he attacked in such a misogynistic way as Kelly?

Kelly has discussed it multiple times on her podcast over the last few years (bloody hell American election cycles are interminable): she doesn't like Trump as a person and she thought he was disgusting for how he treated her.

She is a registered Republican voter and did not think Biden was mentally fit to be President nor does she think Harris will be effective in tackling the issues of illegal immigration and affirmation only gender medicine/erasure of women's rights. Those two reasons are why she is voting for Trump.

Yes, even women, and even people where it got personal.

For a lot of people voting isn't personal in that way. It's about the candidate they think most likely to do the kinds of things they want, as opposed to the kinds of things they don't want.

Anyone in the kind of public media jobs Kelly has had is very thick-skinned, anyway.

I despise Trump and am voting Harris, for a lot of reasons, but my most feminist reason is abortion.

I do find it strange, and disappointing, that M Kelly is voting Trump because I know she's pro-choice and she has endured his sexist and misogynist behavior directly from him.

However, I don't believe she's a paid shill, primarily because it suggests she's not talented enough to earn her own living off her show. She has a lot of followers and she works hard; I think M Kelly is a woman who'd be insulted that she's not good enough to make it on her own.