*** Sponsored Content ***
Abigail Shrier, author of “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,” will be speaking tonight (Oct. 11) at 7:00 p.m. at the University of Virginia. Register here.
If you can’t make it to Charlottesville, you can livestream the event by clicking here.
(comments below)
Hopefully, everyone will either protest peacefully or just ignore this speaker. Interesting timing having this event on National Coming Out Day.
So our society is best served by encouraging everyone to only listen to those with whom we agree?
agree or disagree?
” Shrier did not interview most of the transgender adolescents she wrote about.
Shrier’s book tells the stories of several young people who came out as transgender to their parents. The book claims that these adolescents and young adults were not actually transgender, but actually just confused. The problem is Shrier didn’t actually interview any of these people she wrote about.
The author’s note points out that she only interviewed their parents, who uniformly did not accept their children’s transgender identities. Many of them were estranged from their kids because the children were so hurt by their parents’ rejection. To actually understand the psychology of these young people, one would need to talk to them, not simply rely on stories from parents with whom they do not speak.”
That article you cut and pasted from was written by someone with a vested interest, and in my view misrepresents the facts.
I know someone personally who has been ill served by the medical community’s harmful and scientifically unfounded bias toward gender affirming care.
Some people may be happiest after transitioning, but there are also many who are being harmed for life. It’s a real problem that needs to be acknowledged and confronted.
You are welcome to deny all you want, but that doesn’t change the facts. Lives are being irreparably harmed.
“Do no harm” must be restored to medical practice.
I will address your comments above if you are willing to admit your own misstatements and misrepresentations.
Is that agreeable?
no it’s not. And it’s not true in the first place. And, even if it was, it does not change the fact
that this woman wrote a book without interviewing the very trans kids she claims to “know”.
Fine, I’ll expose your misrepresentations anyway.
LarrytheG
“…why would you
intervene any more of less than you would for ANY such medical procedure where people make their own choices?”
LarrytheG:
“…at the end of the day why are YOU messing with other people’s business in the first place? What is your justification?”
Who’s treatment have I “intervened” with? Name them.
Who’s business have I “messed with”? Name them.
I am discussing important topics as they relate to public policy and doing so in a public forum the same as you. I have never “intervened” or “messed with” anyone’s personal life and I resent your accusation.
Have you openly opposed trans medical treatment as a concept? I don’t think I have heard you say
that in some cases it is justified, and lay out where you think it is or not. So do you think sometimes it is justified or it’s wrong 100%?
You ARE very much messing in other people’s business when you advocate that the govt get involved and reject formal medical treatment care for them to transition. Isn’t it their choice?
What is it about the concept of children that so confuses you liberals?
Children don’t know what they are doing most of the time. Their brains are not fully developed.
Leave the kids alone.
I agree completely BUT if the parent is involved in the decision what is it about you
Conservatives who still insist the govt should involve itself in the decision?
The government has a legitimate role in protecting children from harm. It’s illegal to get a tattoo in Virginia if you are under 18. You can’t drive a car until you are 16.5. You can’t vote until you are 18 or drink alcohol until you are 21.
If the parents are involved in the decision, and actual medical doctors going by a formal standard of care, then what is the justification for the govt involvement? Tattoos? jeeze DJ… what would they be charged with? drinking? You didn’t mention Cannabis (Marijuana)… why not?
Botox, breast implants? Both legal for minors if parent agrees.
Hell, if they want to withhold lifesaving medical treatment, the parents can do that too.
Odd world where mommy & daddy can’t abort, but can let junior bleed out because transfusions violate Imaginary Dude’s covenants.
Botox wears off and breast implants can be removed. I would rather that these procedures be illegal for children but they are less dangerous than breast removal, for example.
Rhinoplasty…? No age limits… Liposuction…?
If the parents agree that the kid should be able to drive at 14 and a psychologist agrees that the kid in question has the maturity of a 17 year old … guess what?
The kid still doesn’t get a license.
There is no blood test or MRI that can diagnose transgenderism. It’s just somebody’s opinion whether the kid really is transgender or just going through a phase.
There is no medical “science” here – just professional opinion.
If the boy wants to wear a dress and the parents agree – fine. But, until the kid is 18, no hormone treatment, no surgery.
for the things that ARE currently legal with a parental permission – why would you not
want to abide by the law and actually advocating interfering with the parents legal role?
“If the parents agree that the kid should be able to drive at 14 …”
The child can still drive an automobile – just not on public roads. Ask any teenager on a farm… The law is to protect the public not the child…
Now do guns…
No, YOU do guns.
Please explain why you do not want a young boy to be able to be taught how to safely handle a fire arm but you DO want him to be able to decide to have his penis cut off.
How can the public be protected and not the child? If an underage driver crashes a car, both the underage driver and the kid are at risk.
Are you saying a child driving a vehicle on a farm can’t be injured? If the object of the law was child protection (as you claim) no parent would be able to allow any minor to drive a vehicle in any circumstance. Did your folks allow you to drive a motorcycle off-road when you were younger? You want to discuss how many kids are injured through off-road ATV use?
No, YOU do guns.
Please explain why you do not want a young boy to be able to be taught how to safely handle a fire arm but you DO want him to be able to decide to have his penis cut off.
I am not the one trying to make the case that we should have laws in place designed to protect a minor and we are discussing decisions made by and with a parent. If a parent deems it ok to give a child a gun, the law specifically allows that and actually makes no requirement that they first be taught how to safely handle that weapon.
“It’s illegal to get a tattoo in Virginia if you are under 18.”
“No person shall tattoo or perform body piercing for hire or consideration on a person less than eighteen years of age, knowing or having reason to believe such person is less than eighteen years of age except (i) in the presence of the person’s parent or guardian”
Same exception applies to underage drinking, btw. The age restriction on driving and voting are not about protecting the child.
thank you. I figured DJ was blowing smoke… I gotta learn to follow up on some of these claims he and others are making…
yes.. body jewelry all the rage these days with kids and the parents are “carefully” choosing who will do the deed…
but according to DJ.. it’s apparently “harmful”.
Right. Not possible he was just wrong on one point of the law. He must be “blowing smoke” (i.e. being untruthful).
As happens… we often fail to get told “rest of the story”… here in BR… yes.. I know.. a shocking thing but sometimes if you follow the rest of it.. you do find it out.
I’m assuming earlobes don’t count.
I stand corrected on the tattoo question.
In Virginia, it is illegal for a person under age 21 to purchase, possess or even attempt to purchase alcohol.
The “family exception” laws vary quite a bit from state to state, so it’s impossible to provide a one-size-fits-all explanation about how these laws work.
Some states permit minors to consume alcohol only in a private home, as long as the minor’s parent is present and permits it.
Some states permit minors to consume alcohol only at licensed premises (i.e., restaurants), as long as the minor’s parent is present and permits it.
Some states prohibit minors from consuming alcohol under any circumstances.
And some states have laws that are internally inconsistent. For instance, three states have “family exception” laws that permit parents to furnish their minor children with alcohol, but ALSO have laws on the books that prohibit minors from having any alcohol in their bodies, regardless of how it got there.
In Virginia, “alcoholic beverages may be served or given to guests in such residence by such person, his family or servants when (i) such guests are 21 years of age or older or are accompanied by a parent, guardian, or spouse who is 21 years of age or older”
That spouse thing is pretty interesting as well…
Well, sounds like gun control is a legitimate government role.
Of course it is.
And yet, we prosecute them as adults on occasion.
We shouldn’t. Either their brains are fully developed or they aren’t.
They aren’t.
How many days do we give these snowflakes?
The livestream is very much appreciated, as I am unable to attend in person.
I hope her speech will be viewed by anyone and everyone interested in this topic, and any efforts to disrupt the presentation will be stopped.
If trans activists oppose her views, they should counter them in a respectful way. If an informative response is livestreamed, I will be interested in seeing that as well.
The livestream of the presenters started out with poor audio and I was about to quit when they finally fixed it.
Abigail Shrier was terrific. She was also very gracious to detractors from UVA who asked questions.
My favorite question was about why she speaks at forums that are supportive of her book and views, rather than being questioned by someone who has a different view who could and would challenge her. Her answer was very enlightening. She said she would welcome invitations from those who disagree. The problem is, they not only don’t invite her to speak, they try to prevent her from speaking anywhere.
The left doesn’t want an open discussion. They want only their views to be heard. That’s not how a free society operates.
If I want to listen/watch misinformation from an internet self-taught non-medical expert then her interviews with Rogan and Tuckums are available.
Whatever you disagree with is misinformation?
The general public has no right to discuss these matters, especially as they pertain to public policy?
Medical experts agree that children’s minds are not fully developed. But, even knowing that, some of the so-called experts are willing to perform irreversible procedures on children because the child said that was what they wanted.
Once again, you want to “trust the science”. Only the science isn’t settled.
The flip side is that people like Shapiro and Shrier seem to believe that being trans is something that one can catch from being around other people. Of course, this used to be believed about homosexuals.
“grooming”…
Actor George Takei, who turned 85 last week, tweeted the perfect response over the weekend. He reminded people about how gay kids are usually brought up in a wholly heterosexual environment and it does nothing to change their sexuality. “They ‘groomed’ me to be heterosexual, you know. It didn’t change a thing.
One should try a good declarative sentence or a cite instead of failing at being subtle.
You mean it’s safe to drink after a G? I’m not worried about Ls. From everything I’ve read, I’m one of those already.
Sheesh humorless.
Now Asexual is contagious. You get it from your spouse.
I cant go, but after hearing some attacks on her, and reading about how there was concerted efforts to cancel the book (read about it, these efforts were not to remove them from school libraries, but to remove the book in its entirety), I plan to watch the livestream and draw conclusions for myself.
Thanks for the link.
I posted this as sponsored content to distinguish it from editorial content. It is essentially an ad. The option to post paid sponsored content is available to anyone — as long as it is clearly labeled as such. My reasoning was that simple.
Yeah, it’s in big bold letters. Man must have bread.
But I like it! Wish I could comment on more ads. Take Nutrafol for example…
What does “sponsored content” imply? Who is sponsoring?
Means that someone specifically paid to have this article published here. Not sure who… would be interesting to know… I assume the Jefferson Council but transparency in the media and all that…
Yeah, but it’s good for James and keeps us entertained. And, in this particular case he didn’t have to include the “views and opinions” disclaimer.
Funded media & TJI — as long as the IRS hasn’t a complaint, why should we?
Speaking of censorship, Spotsey bans books, including books on slavery.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.