I am half way through and it is the same pattern as the rest of them.
-the distraction into pedantry about language, claiming that it is vital to use the correct language and over exaggerating the point to waste time. The issue is that she interrupts constantly and the discussion doesn’t move forward.
-in her approach to educate, she only falls back on her own selective anecdotal evidence (she might understand that published evidence would get analysed and found low standard). It would seem to be very limited because Gender GP will not be tracking their patients to know which customers dropped off due to finding alternative source vs destransitioning. Meaning she refuses to talk about detransitioner claiming there are so few. **
-she denies knowing who people
are which comes across as very dishonest considering how important they are to the discussion and to policy changes. Eg Marci Bowers, Riley Gaines
-she comes across as being focused on being ‘kind’ and evidence based, yet claims to not have read the very commonly discussed studies.
-she also cannot apply logic because maybe she is a true believer and is entirely convinced by superficial platitudes or maybe she knows logic cannot be applied so she is falling back on emotional reasoning.
-she really talks so quickly that it is hard to take everything in and it becomes just noise when the moderator or interviewer is pacing their speech to be understood. This adds to the disordered feel to her arguments.
-on this interview she resorts to making unreasonable accusations and it highlights Starbuck’s attempts to communicate to move the interview along, to find common ground and generally her contribution comes across as high speed, rapid hand movement ranting.
maybe she read the comments about her smile because she wasn’t smiling on this one. Maybe she realised that the audience for this channel has massive numbers being the US market and this one was so important to get right.
In this interview, she came across as completely scattered and discombobulated. I understand she is probably exhausted by the repetition. But this one would have to be considered a fail for building any credibility at all. She couldn’t even claim to be a victim in any way.
She admitted she came on to educate him on language and attitude. To tell him how wrong he was but didn’t have much by way of evidence to support her own opinions.
Unfortunately for her, she has come across as being uninformed by not knowing the people mentioned and her weak attempt at mockingly dismissing people’s attempts at understanding the concept of gender identity via comparisons, and her complete ignorance about child treatment plans for the USA, including the numbers of USA child surgeries.
How the fuck is she supposed to now sell a service when this interview highlights how little she has read or listened to understand what is happening to these children in the USA? This was a failure of an interview in many ways.
** apparently there are ‘so few’ detransitioners yet as a society we are supposed to fully support and acknowledge the experiences of less than a percent of the population. This inconsistency never gets explained.