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.

She's not pro-choice.

Check these out;

And then there are the women dressed up as Mifepristone taking to the streets. Their chat is, “Eff the courts. Eff the state. You can’t make us procreate.” Judging by the looks of them, I think they’re good.
An inflatable IUD is also on display. Who is that supposed to appeal to? An 18-foot IUD only makes women around the world shudder. No one wants to even think about that.
Meanwhile, they are giving away free abortions pills and vasectomies at the DNC this week. Don’t think all the fun is for the ladies. If you men had something you forgot to take care of, you can put an end to it right down the street from where Kamala Harris is accepting the Democrat nomination Thursday night. After all, Chicago is known for its hot dogs!
This is all very consistent with the Democrats’ abortion plan in general: All the time is fine. There are no limits whatsoever. Get the abortion on-demand. You can get it street side. You can it in the privacy of your home. The one thing you can’t do is pray outside of an abortion clinic. It’s kind of crazy.
I’ve said this before, but I was liberal when I was younger. I was a Democrat. I was raised in a Democrat household. But whether you are pro-abortion or not, there is no question you are taking – to be most charitable to the pro-choice side – the promise of a life. How do you celebrate that in the street? How do you say, ‘Yay! I’m going to dress up as the little thing that will kill a baby. So fun.’ That is insane to me.

https://www.megynkelly.com/2024/08/19/megyn-kelly-reacts-to-abortion-activists-protesting-at-dnc/

Lovely how she thinks slamming other women for their looks is a valid argument, isn't it. I have to wonder if she thinks the same way about women protesting sexual assault. If that was an attempt at humor, it was an epic fail. Witty she is not.

But I think it’s different in Kelly’s case. She isn’t just voting for him - she’s promoting him to her viewers/listeners. Is she then effectively saying, “I don’t like this person; he’s actually despicable to women in particular, but because some of his policies might be okay, you should vote for him”?

If so, the ethics of that is somewhat questionable.

You have admitted you agree with her on one of the primary reasons for this; the medical transition of children. So why is it so questionable to you? It’s not that big a stretch, surely?

I am not trying to stop the discussion at all. I am all for discussion about the topic.

Agreement on a single aspect, IMO, is not enough to encourage others to vote for an odious person for POTUS. Her motives may be questionable. It wouldn’t be quite as bothersome if he hadn’t attacked her previously; but now it appears to sell, to me, the wrong message to young women and girls. She’s fine with someone that abused her, and will even promote him for President - and take payments to do so. There’s just something wrong with that.

Who is she taking payments from though?

Okay. So when you wrote “What they can’t do is expect people will simply not discuss the opinions stated,” were you meaning you’d like people to ignore my posts? (However awkwardly stated.)

If so, that’s somewhat censoring of you.

You gave an assumption based on your own personal reasoning. This is not 'evidence'.

It's fine to suggest theories or ideas, even if they are totally speculative. But making a theory up does not in any way constitute 'evidencing' an argument.

No, the fact you agree with her on a single aspect should indicate it’s not too far for her to feel strongly about a couple more that determines her vote. You’re only two issues away from agreeing with Kelly on everything she determines to be important to vote for, so I don’t see how it can be baffling to you she wants to vote the way she does and somehow conclude it’s actually because she’s being paid to say such things.

Her podcast is hosted on Sirius XM, owned by Liberty Media. Liberty is owned by billionaire John Malone, a libertarian who is also a Trumper. No doubt Kelly earns a great deal via views alone, but the real deal comes via cross-clicks. If you’ve ever seen a Kelly link on another pundit’s Twitter (or vice-versa), these links (views) add up to revenue. And so it goes for other Trump pundits like a huge network.

Megyn Kelly changed her political home drastically and publicly and few people do that. (I can’t show you a payslip for proof - but ?)

What? We’re going from one issue to three?

My point is, you and Kelly are a Venn diagram of overlapping beliefs, but somehow you think everything outside of the overlapping circles on Kelly’s side is the result of her being a paid shill. It’s completely illogical, and in keeping with your pattern of castigating conservative women for expressing opinions.

Is it because you’re insecure in your beliefs? You seem to need to say “well, I agree with Kelly/Deeming/KJK on medicalising children, but she’s horrible because of x, y, z.” Are you worried people will think you’re - shock! - also conservative?! Or do you think it’s contagious? That you’re going to catch right wing cooties if you just say you agree with her on something and don’t qualify it with her horribleness?

Or do you just like to be contrary? Which is it?

Oh. So Megyn Kelly chooses to use a hugely popular streaming platform to host her work, that a huge number of others also use, and because the owner of that platform has a particular political view (but the platform doesn’t seem to be specifically skewed or targeted with any political leanings) all those using that platform are ‘being paid’ by the person who that major shareholder supports politically?

Is that how you have framed this?

Well. It's a theory.

Sirius XM was founded by Martyn (sp?) Rothblatt, apparently.

One could make other interesting theories about that.

I mean Fuck! I think that Harris has a fucking huge issue!!!

https://www.siriusxm.com/blog/democratic-national-convention-listen

😁

Someone tell Jill Biden.

(Image off of Wikipedia, because it's important to cite Sources when creating elaborate theories)

And I think that any Australian Labor Party commentator should get the fuck off Sky Australia and most of Australian media if this is the new standard that has to be considered. I mean. Fucking hell - Kristina Keneally is a shill for Trump and who the fuck knows who else now too! I mean, I didn’t think she was a good Premier of NSW, but I never knew she was a shill for the supposed far right. Who the fuck knew?

Rothblatt was indeed a founder.

This is huge fucking news!

Anybody with a YouTube channel better go and investigate all the shareholders for google …. Just in case…

Ahhh no…. Formula one lovers are going to be very pissed off too!

I mean - Sky Australia? You’d use that to support an argument?

Good lord above.

Not quite, no.

Good try, though.

Not sure if you’ve seen Sky Australia, Alison, but it’s Conservative on steroids. Labor commentators on there are few and far between.