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.

Someone has googled again! Well done!

Okay. It’s an extremely strong theory without the evidence of a payslip. Your last sentence is nonsense, BTW - how can you even know that?

You made some assertions and didn't offer references. So people will google. Even when an assertion seems quite wacky, it's often interesting to consider new angles.

Up until the point one decides an assertion based on invented hypotheses and imagined correlations is a pointless waste of time, of course.

Subsequent responses indicate you are just after creating an argument based on phantasmal conspiracies, rather than meaniingful discussion, so I'll leave you to it.

I am not censoring anyone and you have assumed my motivations. If I remember correctly, assuming and attributing motivations to others is something you have a tendency of doing .

Your theory doesn’t hold up to scrutiny though. But it is good that you have now admitted it is just a theory.

How about this as a better theory? Kelly likes to have an audience for her views, and, being persona non grata in liberal media spaces, she went to a platform that wouldn't censor her or suddenly ban her, and she built up a massive audience, and according to the current dynamics of the media, this means that she gets a very handsome amount of money.

Also, she looked at the presidential race and decided that if you put the candidates in a two-horse race against each other, she thinks that, overall, Trump would be better for the country and for some issues that are very important to her. She thinks this even though she's aware of his significant flaws and strongly disagrees with some things he's said and done.

This is grown-up thinking. It's better than "that one is evil so this opposing one is good".

I think that if someone is a social and political commentator and they want to be paid for that, then they will use services and media that will enable that. Considering how most very large media platforms are publicly listed, life is going to be very limited for any social and political commentator who relies on an income to choose a service that is politically pure enough to subsist on.

To vilify someone for the choice of using a commercially available platform says a great deal about the person making the claim.

@nauticant
That certainly seems a more rational explanation than @MessinaBloom's conspiracy theory.

People who criticise the trans agenda get pushed out of the left wing/ liberal media. They end up only being able to get their message out using right wing platforms. They are then described as right wing mouthpieces despite any left wing views they still hold and sometimes accused (as in this case) of being paid by the right wing.

How many times have all of us posting on here been accused of being funded by the far right? This is the same thing.

I agree Oldcrone as you probably know.

However, considering the very same platform that these accusations about Megyn Kelly have been based on has democrat content too, this entire arc of accusation seems to fall to pieces from the first moment.

At the end of the day it comes down to issues - not personalities. Trump has a deeply unpleasant persona and is of limited intellectual ability, and Kamala Harris comes across as flaky and out of her depth.

People who will vote for Trump will be doing so based on what he says he stands for on issues that are most important to them, often in spite of his demeanour. I imagine, though, there are a number that actually like his demeanour - he doesn't give a fuck - and that sort of attitude appeals to some.They like that he's tough and won't take any shit.

Those who will vote for Kamala mainly based on the fact that she's a black woman are obviously already sold on identity politics, and she will be the candidate most likely to deliver on that. Those that really don't like identity politics will not vote for her. I imagine those for whom abortion is the single most important issue will vote for her too.

I see other posters have already followed up on this but, since you directed it at me, I'll respond too.

What you had posted was a long answer to a different question. Surely you realised that people were asking for evidence that Kelly was being funded by Trump, not that she had switched to endorsing him (something that anyone with access to YouTube could have checked out)?

I understand the snippy response though - it's the kind of thing I do when I realise I've painted myself into a corner, even though I know I'm only going to make things worse. Good to see you've since acknowledged that it was all just a theory rather than fact.

Except, Helle, that’s not what I said.

We've established here that you have your own personal theory about Megyn Kelly's support for Trump, which you are obviously entitled to, @MessinaBloom but there isn't really much more that needs to be said about it, I don't think. No one is actually obliged to take your word for it.

Anyway, all sunlight on this issue is valuable I think.

Anyway, all sunlight on this issue is valuable I think.

Yes, those in the audience who heckled her when she pointed out children are having mastectomies, as if it was a lie, only for Maher to shed the sunlight on the fact it’s true. Those audience members and those watching at home will have no choice but to reflect on the reality of what is being done, and Kelly (of all people, shock! Swoon!) is right about it.

I really enjoy listening to Megyn Kelly. I like her directness. Not many women in the politics /podcast space have her straight talking approach.

She has quite a 'male' energy, so can take them on, which I think puts some people off and can seem 'ranty'. (we'll get shrill next...) I'm quite ranty myself on some topics so that;'s proba;y why she appeals to me.

She's very open about her changing views on Trump. She is not a republican she's an independent. She’s admitted that voting for Tump has been quite difficult for her given what he did to her personally but she is so committed to the 2 issues of transing kids/ women rights and immigration, so she's voting for him anyway.
You can agree with her on transing kids and disagree with her on immigration (but even Kamala Harris is now at least pretending to agree with Trump’s immigration stance so I'm not sure what the disagreement is anymore...?)

She previously worked for Fox so she's hardly new to a conservative space. And she lost her job and livelihood due to a cancel culture mob, so it's hardly surprising she's now on a libertarian platform saying what she wants, and making money because people like it.

It's hilarious that the accusation is: she's making money being anti Trump...yes because many people agree with her. It's not a conspiracy 😂

I like Bill Maher too.
He's not tribal and is prepared to piss off his own 'side' if he thinks they are wrong. Which is rare in current politics.

But he does makes money from being funny about his liberal views... because people agree with him and like it. Bastard.

That was such an interesting g moment. the audience confidently thinking they knew the right way to go, to jeer at the conseravtive women and her crazy views, only for Maher to say: no, that's actually happening.
Then silenece.

The power of the crowd.

Good on Maher. He was prepared to challenge and disgaree with MK on some topica agree on others, disagree with his audience, and still respect MK at the end of it.

We need more of that.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Do you think that we have to like a candidate personally to think they are the best choice? What if you don't like either choice?

She's not asking him to dinner, whether she thinks he's nice isn't relevant.

I was really happy to see that happen too Malaga, Bill has come a long way in his understanding of this issue, plus he’s happy to tell the live audience when they’re wrong about an issue - I quite like that about him.

I also like the fact that he wants guests from a wide range of political opinions on his show - he’s very much a proponent of working across the aisle where possible and he doesn’t seem to live his life in an ideological silo because a lot of the conservative guests he invites onto his show are his personal friends too.

I haven’t watched any of these shows from the US, but it does seem that Bill Maher has a good approach. It is one where he can agree with some things and not others which I used to think was a normal way to engage with people.

But does that mean that he will now forever be aligned with Megyn Kelly by some people who to think along the same lines as Pesutto’s leadership team?

Bill Maher is the US celebrity living embodiment of Colin Wright’s meme ‘The Left left me”.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/358/680/965.jpg

What I’m saying is it’s unethical of Megyn Kelly to promote a candidate to millions of listeners/viewers that she personally abhors. Particularly from a feminist perspective, to suggest that is okay to vote for someone who has convictions for rape, reversed Roe vs Wade, and has a mountain of misogynistic comments behind him, is perverse.

But it’s okay if the “feminists” here don’t see it the same way.

Megyn Kelly at a Trump rally last night explaining why she's voting Trump:

https://x.com/willchamberlain/status/1853628275794317779?t=NFdZFSi0XzX1fSSxYuK8Lg&s=19

Trump does not have convictions for rape that is untrue. I think his behaviour is similar to Bill Clinton. But none of these people are nice people. Is it better that George Bush/Tony Blair are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths for lying about the Iraq war?