I've noticed that there are a lot of small anti-trans organizations popping up, but I wonder how much impact they will have. Somehow all these small organizations need to be hammered into one great organization which, because of its size, will have some clout. But then, that would mean letting Republicans into our midst, and they have their own craziness.
I've written about this before, but it still confounds me HOW and WHY transgender ideology has so much appeal to liberals. Perhaps liberals watch too many science fiction shows in which people get transformed into this or that, and the star ship's doctor (with his 25th century medicine) can turn a human being into anything at all -- a Klingon into a Romulan into a Vulcan, like turning a pig's ear into a silk purse. There has been too much talk about how a person can be anything he or she wants to be -- but it just isn't true. Human beings are physical creatures, and our bodies tell us who and what we are.
I still remember that argument I had (via email) with a poetry editor who was worried sick about how torturous it was to be a child living in the wrong body. He was completely convinced that such children must be allowed to transition IMMEDIATELY if not sooner, lest they commit suicide. So many of the talking points of trans activists have been accepted as fact by too many people. Most people assume that the activists know what they are talking about and are being honest, but they aren't. They are pushing false ideas meant to fool people, meant to give their little gender revolution a chance. And all those talking points seem to make perfect sense to liberals. Liberals see their acceptance of transgender ideology as a mark of their development as progressives.
I do think part of it is, "This is too complicated for me to understand, so I'll just accept whatever they are saying. Besides, there is now a new minority for me to feel sorry for."
What is the problem with "letting Republicans into our midst"? This kind of blind bias is so annoying.
DEMOCRATS ARE PROMOTING AND PUSHING THE DESTRUCTION OF CHILDREN. REPUBLICANS OPPOSE THE DESTRUCTION OF CHILDREN.
When one group is doing something evil, an intelligent person would oppose that group. What can be done to shake the faith of "dead-dog Democrats" about this party which is doing so much evil?
Republicans are also promoting the destruction of the country itself by following a bigoted, capricious and narcissistic pied piper who would destroy our democracy just so that he can feel the love his father never gave him.
Uh huh, and how exactly are they doing that? The only democracy destruction is coming from Dems who, as this post is about, would rather destroy kids to achieve ideological purity, and who, per Senile Joe et al, use law enforcement as a weapon against political enemies.
Listen, because Republicans are right on the trans issue, doesn't mean they are suddenly wonderful people. You don't think that Trump is more dangerous to Democracy than Biden is? If so, you are a fool. Trump would be happy to scrap all of America's democratic institutions in order to feel loved.
Biden is not senile. Yes, he has embraced transgender ideology, but only because he doesn't fully understand it. Like a lot of Democrats, it sounds like a good thing to him; it sounds like inclusiveness to him. Overall, it's good to be inclusive. Even I feel that trans people have a right to exist. What they DON'T have a right to do is to change society in unscientific ways to suit themselves.
You know, if you Republicans really think that you can brand yourselves the party of civil rights simply on the trans issue alone, you are totally crazy.
Actually, I see it differently. I think politicians generally have political or ideological motivations, but I think the general Democratic public is more motivated by the feeling that each of us is best suited to make decisions for ourselves, particularly when it comes to what will make us happy, or what we cannot live with. That may be misplaced in the case of young children making decisions about fertility, for example, but I don't see too many average citizens thinking about this issue in terms of ideological purity. I think it's more a tendency to try to see things from others' perspective and to defer to other people about their own personal experiences.
Have you ever considered that your liberal media lies to you about EVERYTHING, not just trans stuff? This is an ignorant statement and one reason I am not willing to associate with democrats. Speaking as a former life long democrat btw.
And here we go, George. This "blind bias" you speak of is alive and well from both sides.
And, as an aside, Donald Trump himself accepted and bragged about getting Caitlyn Jenner's endorsement in 2016 and said while campaigning that "she can use whatever bathroom she wants in Trump Tower." If you think for a second that he, or any Republican (with the possible exception of those who are either genuinely evangelical Christians or who rely on them to stay in office) will not flip on this issue the very second it becomes politically advantageous for them, you might want to look at how he's gone from calling himself the most pro-Israel president ever, to freaking out right-wing Jews because he said in a recent interview that Netanyahu needs to wind down his war because he's losing pubic support. And btw, the only reason Trump gives a flying fig about Netanyahu's level of support, is that Trump is afraid that Bibi's political problems will become an albatross around his own orange neck.
I'm not trying to get into a debate over the Israel issue at all, just using a current issue to exemplify the way that Donald Trump is out to protect Donald Trump. The only reason he ever cares about protecting anyone else, is if there is something in it for him. Period. Currently, there is something in it for him to speak our against trans-ing kids, but as crazy as the political winds have been of late, who knows what next year will bring? And if or when this stance is no longer to his own benefit, he will abandon it.
A blanket statement like yours, that the liberal media is lying to everyone on every issue, is stupid and unsupportable. As for being a lifelong Democrat who is now a Republican, the likelihood is that you are simply becoming more conservative in your old age -- that happens to most people. As I say below, the Republicans are against all civil rights except for the civil rights of rich white men -- oh, and white men who love guns.
And btw, no one need listen to any media source to be able to see that Trump is mentally ill and dangerous. It's patently obvious if you read and listen to his own words. All of them, not just the ones that Fox highlights because they make him look good.
"I do think part of it is,' This is too complicated for me to understand, so I'll just accept whatever they are saying.'"
I think this is the main problem with getting people to care about this issue. It is also the main problem in trying to influence physicians to take another look at it. Physicians are so highly specialized these days that they know little about what their colleagues in other specialties are doing or why. And the people who sought "sexual reassignment" during the Nineties were a small group with a rare condition that most physicians haven't studied much, so they just referred these patients on to colleagues. They are still doing that.
People have too much information to deal with these days, and our country has too many problems to manage. Americans generally appear to be in a kind of coma, from which they do not awaken unless a problem directly affects them personally. The recent reaction of American Jews to the anti-Israel demonstrations by Democrats is a case in point. There was shock, outrage and and feelings of betrayal. I, on the other hand, have known about the anti-Israel sentiments of woke Democrats for years. Even if I had not known about this, I would have predicted that leftist activists would support Hamas rather than Israel after the terrorists attacked that country.
This is one Democrat who is on Israel's side, but Netanyahu is in a league with Putin when it comes to caring about humanity as a whole. He is committing genocide in Gaza.
I am not a fan of Netanyahu either. And I have no knowledge of military strategy. Israel is famous for being able to track down Nazis; I was hoping they would adopt a similar strategy this time.
That is a separate issue from pro-Hamas rhetoric and demonstrations by Democrats and woke radicals in this country. This rhetoric has been pushed by radical Democrats for at least several years, including by some Democrats in the House. So it has not been at all surprising to see Democrats demonizing the victims of Hamas terrorists, and alternating between denying and celebrating the atrocities Hamas perpetrated on Oct 7.
Do you really believe that ANYONE approves of what Hamas did on October 7th? I don't think so. They may find reasons to excuse it (Gazans are oppressed, etc.), but I don't think anyone approves of that kind of terrorism.
I just recently signed up for their email list. I have also signed up for an organization in my state that leans right wing because they were the only ones fighting a specific bill to criminalize parents for not supporting medicalization. DIAG is probably a better fit for me, and I hope they can make headway. But the temptation to leave the Democratic Party increases as the insanity continues.
To defeat any aspect of the woke cult and its insane ideology, whether it's "gender," "race," or any other of its obsessions, Democrats, Republicans and independent voters who understand the dangers of this cult will need to form a coalition against it. If Democrats continue to be unwilling to work with Republicans and vice-versa, the United States is headed for the scrap heap.
Really inspiring and I hope this organisation grows to become huge. It helps that this person has a background in public health communications - they express the issues very well. (It's a pity they can't yet reach their own child. I hope that changes soon).
This is how gender ideology will end - when a critical mass of the liberal Left sees through the madness.
I am so glad that you did an interview with DIAG, Eliza.
I joined this organization because I am a lifelong Democrat who lost a daughter to the trans cult.
Why do the medical organizations support GAC?
I think the number one reason is that they are a physician lobbying group. Sure, many believe in true trans, they believe in that narrative. But, money. On the recent DIAG X space on legal challenges, an attorney brought up the money trajectory. In 2007 (in the US), zero profits for Big Pharma and gender clinics. This is Year One. Today, it is a billion dollar industry. In a few years, five billion.
The other reason is social--the parents that go along, the mothers that insist it is perfectly normal that their daughters cut off their breasts and are now happy "sons". And this is so widespread that everyone knows a trans or non-binary person in their wider circle of acquaintances. They often feel that they mustn't say anything that will cause offense. Maybe they are thinking it, but they won't say what could be interpreted as "unsupportive".
Meanwhile, we have an even larger group of invisible parents. Raising a hand, here. We are on PITT, we may have joined DIAG, we support Genspect. But we cannot speak publicly--due to trying to maintain or restore a relationship with our child. We are not being paraded by the HRC to see members of congress. When we do contact our Democratic legislators, we are often met with incredulity, as in, what is wrong with us--so many of those other parents have become loud mouthpieces for the trans movement.
The medical organizations support GAC because the TRAs are organized, single-minded, and bully others into support.
One thing non-professionals do not understand is that the medical professional organizations are not research organizations. They are professional support organizations. They are lobbying groups. They support the BUSINESS of medicine, not the SCIENCE of medicine.
It's also important to understand that 90% of physicians are not scientists. They are technicians of body function. Most experience "science" for 1 year, at the start of med school. After that, they are not scientifically oriented, do not follow science, and do not practice science.
The discussion in "Lost in trans nation" by Murial Grossman discusses the process of the capture of the psychiatry organization by the TRAs. It was not science that did it. It was the matter of "normalization" of trannies.
Sorry, but just because 90% of physicians don't practice research full time does not mean they don't know about science. In other to be admitted to medical school, 2-4 years of upper-level college courses in biology, math including statistics, chemistry, organic chemistry, and physics are all required. And actually, it's the first 2 years of medical school that are completely devoted to the basic sciences as well as advanced anatomy, physiology, and pharmacology. Medical students don't begin clinical rotations until their 3rd out of 4 years, and even then, they are required to continue to complete assignments relating clinical issues to science.
I work with physicians. I know what the students are like. I know the med school curriculum inside and out.
Science is not reading journals. Science is performing studies that result in publications. Few (15-20%) of physicians do that. Most are technicians. Not unclever, but not scientists.
As to the length of their exposure to basic science, it differs from school to school. There are many med schools. Some do more basic science, some do less.
Well, if they spent their time performing research, they wouldn't have sufficient experience actually treating patients. Particularly in today's publish or perish world where, in order to have any job security, one must not only devote themselves to research full time, but approach it almost like a competitive sport. But I disagree-someone with years of training in science (med schools do vary, but pre-med curriculum requirements are quite standard and there are basic requirements all med schools must teach in order for their graduates to be eligible for residency and eventually licensure) and statistics, who knows how to read research studies and keeps up with them, is perfectly well-suited to treat patients. You can quibble over the definition of the term "scientist," but the point is that they understand the science as well as the data. You aren't the only one who works with physicians. I've spent over three decades working in teaching hospitals across 5 different states. I've never met a medical student doing clinical rotations before their 3rd year, and I've had numerous in-depth conversations with physicians from residency to fellowship to attending to department head. They know their stuff. They also know what the science actually looks like when it shows up in a real person.
Most of the parents I have spoken with come across like angry tigers "protecting" their kids. I hear a lot of Democrats talking now (to me personally) about how "gay kids and trans kids" are being assaulted in increasing numbers and need more protection. Does anyone here have confirmation of that allegation? In my city, I see the opposite picture. Kids who are not pretending to be members of some bizarre sexual category are the ones who are "less than." Most of the Gen Z females I know are viciously aggressive towards people who question their gender ideology, so I wonder if the allegations of bullying are just projections of their own intolerance and anger.
Parents that promote "gender transitions" in their younger children, or go along with a social contagion trans identity in their adolescent/YA child, are on the defensive. They don't want the facts.
In some cases, I think they're on the defensive because they carefully considered their options, made the choice that they felt was best for their child, and are seeing benefits to their child. I'm aware that many children do poorly after beginning medical transition, but I'm also aware of some who, at least so far, improve dramatically. And I do think that if we're going to allow space and respect for parents who continue to oppose a path their child desires for themselves, even after the child is in their 20s and 30s and has stuck to their trans identity for decades, we also need to respect parents who have done their research and who felt and continue to feel that transition is the better choice for their child. Parents in the US have traditionally had wide latitude in raising children, even if their practices are completely contraindicated by decades of research, unless and until there is an actual (as opposed to theoretical) risk to the child's life. I do have serious doubts about the idea that a politician or legislature can make the best decision for every single child under their jurisdiction with regard to how to address mental problems. I would really love to see politicians stay out of medical treatment, AND see doctors able to make treatment decisions with their patients, based on research, without politicians stepping in the middle. But I have no idea how to get there.
Here is what I never see mentioned, the obvious elephant in the room--they would all have been perfectly fine in their own natural bodies. No, they wouldn't be dead. They would be fine--if medical transition wasn't a possibility. And it has only recently been a possibility.
As for happiness, people are often happier when they have a cheering squad.
Making the Democratic Party the locus of evil here is foolish and wrongheaded and I find it hard to believe that any genuine liberal would endorse such an approach. My politics are based on two things -- a commitment to civil liberties and a social-democratic policy orientation. I can take a heterodox position on a number of particular issues (as I tend to do with several components of the transgender agenda) without losing sight of the main fight -- a more economically just society, with stronger unions, measures that decrease the gap between rich and poor, a robust social safety net, and investments that reduce poverty and increase social mobility. This has been the heart of the Democratic agenda since FDR and it still commands my loyalty.
This is all the more true in 2024, a time when we have to choose between liberalism and authoritarianism. I know the choice I will make -- I will vote Democratic, as I always have. I reject single-issue politics, and I vociferously reject Donald Trump and the Republican party.
My view of transgender issues is shaped by my commitment to civil liberties, above all freedom of thought and speech. Everything is open to debate. Cancel culture must be resisted. Women's voices must be heard and the interests of women and children protected. We need to follow the science and health care must be evidence-based. Our goal should be to bring public opinion (particularly elite opinion) back to these points. Accomplish that, and the politicians will follow. Making the Democratic Party the primary target of our efforts is like taking the wrong off-ramp -- it will make our destination harder to reach.
The Democratic Party that was committed to civil liberties has gone away, and is now an authoritarian organization that opposes free speech and a free press. The problem goes a lot farther than the so-called "gender" controversy. I have been a radical leftist my entire adult life, and the Democratic Party has become that which I have always opposed.
No, that isn't true. ONLY ON THE TRANS ISSUE are Democrats in the wrong. Republicans are wrong on every other issue. What you are describing is the Republican party, not the Democrats. If this one issue, the gender issue, can turn you against the Democrats on all other issues, then you were never a Democrat to begin with.
You are completely confused about the Democratic Party of 2024. The alphabet groups have huge impact. The trannie madness has infected the Dems top to bottom. ANY state which is a blue state has enacted laws which make the state a "trannie refuge" which allow children who trannie-identify to seek treatment without parental approval - this is true of MN, CA, OR, WA.
I am a Republican. I do not support Trump. I support abortion. I oppose trannie insanity.
And your ridiculous notion that "Democrats support civil liberties" is amazing. Democrats oppose civil liberties. Only the Republican party support "classic liberal views" which involve the free exchange of ideas and free discussion.
Well, I've been a Democrat since the age of 16, energized by Bobby Kennedy's campaign for president in 1968. And I became a fervent civil libertarian after reading J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" in a college philosophy class just a few years later. I know a lot of Democrats like me (particularly of my vintage). Perhaps you should get out more.
Any chance for a truce? We might find common cause in support for free speech and skepticism toward trans activist ideology. And I'm glad to hear you don't support Trump. He's the biggest threat to American democracy I've seen in my lifetime.
I'm sorry, but Republicans are the Party of Hate. They hate everyone, blacks, Hispanics, gays, and trans people too -- everyone except for white men. I am a Democrat who is against transgender ideology -- the ideology, not the people. Democratic support of trans ideology is misguided, but it is a natural outgrowth of their support for human rights.
Of course, we can't forget that things used to be the other way around. Republicans (the "party of Lincoln") were once the party of civil rights, but Nixon's and Reagan's "southern strategy" welcomed the Democratic bigots into their party, and now the transformation is complete. At the same time that the Republicans were embracing the worst Democrats, Democrats were renouncing their racism, which drove those bigoted Democrats out. Of course, no one is perfect. There are still Democrats who support racial integration in name only, but since Lyndon Johnson we are doing much better than the Republicans are. For example, most Democrats continue to support affirmative action, while most Republicans do not, while affirmative action is still the best tool against racism that we have.
If Democrats have been fooled by transgender ideology, they can be excused to a certain extent. The trans issue is complex, and most Democrats don't fully understand it. By embracing the ideology, they think they are doing the right thing. This is really the only blind spot of the Democratic party. It is the trans activists who are to blame for what's happening, not Democrats.
A good example of what the Republican party is like just happened in the last week. After Tyre Nichols was murdered by three Memphis police, Memphis enacted changes to the policing laws to give some protection to black people, but Tennessee's Republican legislature and governor have just overridden those protections.
Republicans hate everyone: blacks, Hispanics, Asians, women, gays, trans people, immigrants of all types, even American Indians who have more right to be here than white people do. Racism, racism, racism -- it is what the Republican party is all about -- that and wealth. Rich white people are gods to them. Insofar as women are concerned, they may be supporting women against trans incursion these days, but you can be sure they don't want to see any woman in charge of the country. To Republicans, women are still the baby-makers.
Like the Mississippi River, your confusion is wide and deep. You sound like you are about 23, still sucking Mommy's boob. "his is really the only blind spot of the Democratic party."
Seriously?
"Defund the police" "Kill the Jews, from the river to the sea" "Fill all cities with homeless scum" "Open the borders to the scum of the earth" "Drugs for everyone" "Don't prosecute shoplifters" "No bail for murderers" "Allow rapists to go free, no bail" "Let illegals scum who rape and murder in for free and give them all free cellphones".
That's the program of the Democratic Party in 2024.
I am a 73-year-old liberal Democrat. I do not want to defund the police -- indeed, I think they need more training. I am far more supportive of Israelis than I am of Palestinians. I do not believe that narcotics, besides marijuana, should be freely available. I do not think that rapists should not be punished. I do not think we should have open borders.
WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? What you just described is NOT the program of the Democratic party. Those are false Republican talking points. You are completely out of touch with reality. You have accepted all of those Republicans talking points as the truth. YOU ARE A TOTAL FOOL. But then, lying is what Donald Trump does a hundred times a day. Donald Trump has effectively taught you how to be a stupid liar.
I no longer trust any Democrats. I don't know how that will affect my voting going forward, but it's certainly no longer a given that I will vote for Democrats.
Brings to mind that meme (I don't know who made it) of a group of normal people on the ascending side of a roller coaster, labeled something like "newly peaked and still nice," staring in horror at the cars descending the roller coaster, filled with screaming skulls, labeled something like "been fighting gender ideology for years."
Sorry I can't describe it better, but when I first saw it I thought it was weird--today, however, I understand it too well.
What do you say to trans widows, whose ex-husbands claim to be not only female, but also to be us, the mothers of the children they fathered. Where is the beloved "truth" the Dems revere, in that?
I'm not sure. I don't know any "trans widows," but believe I would have to think carefully about what to say to people facing the situation you described. I hope I would speak compassionately and without hatred to both parties. I'm a husband and a father and very happy to be a man. My experience of married life and parenting is such that my sympathy would overwhelming favor the woman in such cases. My wife is an awesome mother and what she has accomplished as a mother should always be honored and never slighted. But this a really a private issue, a matter internal to the family caught up in the situation.
Transgender health care for children, on the other hand, is more properly a public concern. I'm persuaded that the science is not settled at all. I'm also very concerned about questions related to informed consent. These are matters of science and medical ethics. I believe this is the most important arena right now. I expect that if the approach to youth transgender care that emphasizes medical and surgical intervention fares poorly in this debate, if it can be shown to be scientifically and ethically deficient, this will have major implications for the transgender movement as a whole. This is why journalists are so important now and why you would be unwise to write off liberals and Democrats as potential supporters for your side, however much you detest us.
My older son said he wanted to kill himself when he was 9, due to his sense of abandonment from his cross-sex ideating father, who constantly (in front of our 2 sons, they do this) claimed to be me, their mother. Is that a private matter? In my data on the experiences of 57 trans widows, we have a total of 34 children. Some are very young, but those of us with older children have experienced our children's suicidal ideations. Seven of these 34 expressed serious intentions of self-harm. Of those 4 tried to kill themselves. My son only expressed how he'd step in front of a car, find a gun or jump off of the roof. Of the 4 who were hospitalized, none of these crossdressing fathers participated in the therapy after. Do the witnesses, the emergency crew and the doctors cause this to be "public?" You simply never heard of us. We exist. Take a look at Lime Soda Films Yt channel for the trailer of an upcoming documentary on trans widows. Thanks if you do.
People might also want to research 'trans widows' to understand issues re 'transgender identity' that migrate into the public sphere. For example, a woman who married a man who decides he really 'is a woman inside' and who changes his legal 'identity' to that of a woman has implications for his wife. When the wife divorces him and if he's changed his legal status to that of a woman the wife may (in some states) then be in a same-sex marriage and divorce thereby becoming a 'paper lesbian.'
I'm in the LGB cohort but I don't think it's fair or accurate that a heterosexual woman should be put in that situation. And b/c the state has allowed a heterosexual male, an autogynephile, the right to legally change his sex designation his paraphilia has changed his wife's sexual orientation (at least on paper) w/o her consent. See link re Maryland law and other implications re divorce law and the invented, incoherent 'gender identity' nonsense. https://womensliberationfront.org/news/wolf-testifies-in-support-md-hb1319
These are clearly nightmare situations and you and everyone else affected deserve abundant sympathy. You have mine.
Is there a place for public policy involvement here? Perhaps I'm naive or simply ignorant, but I find it hard to see how. Feel free to enlighten me. Would you criminalize the behavior of these men? Civil liability? Implications for divorce and custody? I'm wiling to listen and learn.
My suggestion to the people putting together DIAG is that they pay attention to how the Labor Party in Britain is responding to the Cass Report.. Wes Streeting, Labor's shadow health minister, made the following statement after the report was published: “Children’s healthcare should always be led by evidence and children’s welfare, free from culture wars. The government must now immediately act, but if they do not, the next Labor government will work to implement the expert recommendations of the Cass review.”
The left is not inherently hostile to science. In fact, far from it. The evolution of Labor's view of the practices of England's National Health Service in regard to "gender-affirming care" is instructive in this regard. I would expect a similar trajectory for the Democratic Party in the U.S. as public awareness of the poor-quality evidence underlying the WPATH approach and the harm it has caused children increases.
That's the message that needs to be carried -- real science, honest investigation, better care for children. Not wild talk about "monsters" and "bad people." And no to a single-issue political effort that fails to acknowledge the justice of the larger Democratic agenda and the urgency of defeating the immediate threat from the authoritarian right.
The tenor and tone of the person from DIAG interviewed by Eliza alarmed me so much that I would not consider supporting the group now. But I will keep an eye on them and will reconsider if they emerge as a reasonable grassroots movement from within the tent.
Is like to join, and if I could also make a humble suggestion, a letter to GLAAD, HRC and the other previously gay and lesbian rights group who have inverted themselves would help your gay and lesbian demographic.
I'm expecting a wild ride when the same smug Democrats who mindlessly went along with this are subject to the same condescending treatment they dole out gratuitously.
I couldn't help but be struck by this line buried among the sampling of comments from people who've joined DIAG:
"And so many more of our gay, bullied, traumatized, and neurodivergent young people will be harmed.”
Bullied and traumatized young people, and some who identify as neurodivergent, ARE by definition harmed, even if they never follow the trans path. To me, it sounds like this person sees youth who've been harmed by others as a fact of life, which unfortunately they are, but also that their pain as a result of those harms is also a fact of life, and that all we can do from them is prevent further harm. This is a huge part of the problem, that we see youth who have been bullied or traumatized or who are suffering due to their particular form of neurodivergence, and we sort of accept their suffering and pain, and just try to prevent further damage. That's a laudable goal of course, but it doesn't go far enough. I've been thinking for some time that if we really want to stop the trans youth trend, we cannot just choke off supply of affirmation. We need to address the demand side, which means we need to find ways to help all people and especially youth, who are hurting. Troubled. Mentally ill. Whatever you want to call it. Unless we do, trans kids will continue to happen because some will buy hormones on the black market, and even those who don't end up trans will end up with other issues: anorexia, drug addiction, cutting and suicide attempts, and so on.
I will join, though I believe the Dems have lost the thread. We will have to provide a thorough, developmentally informed alternative care for cross-sex ideating youth, along with the comprehensive plan for documentation of long term outcomes. The groomers use the shock value of imagining one's own body disconnected from our most intimate parts to gaslight belief in a false and iatrogenic diagnosis. As a triply certified retired NY state educator, I suggest an approach including (1) thorough social history intake (therefore no 1 appt diagnosis), (2) exploration of balance in life for satisfaction/happiness, (3) thorough examination of gaslighting, brainwashing, indoctrination behavior of individuals/groups (4) understandings of habit/routines for mental and physical wellness involving cognitive behavior therapy, anxiety reduction through naturalistic movement/breathing, holistic interventions for post traumatic stress disorder (5) then, when skills are in process, find out whether the patient was sexually/physically abused at an earlier point.
Everything you've said here sounds reasonable to me; I just want to say that. However, insofar as Democrats vs. Republicans are concerned, it's important to keep in mind that most liberal Democrats want maximum inclusiveness in society, and that's not a bad thing. If they are wrong on this issue, it doesn't mean they are wrong on most issues. I've been reading your comments for a couple years now, and it seems to me you are a single-issue person, and that single issue is the trans issue. Overall, the Democrats are have better values, even if they are wrong on the issue you care mostly about.
This has affected even me. I live in Rhode Island. It was MY REPRESENTATIVE in Congress -- David Cicilline -- who wrote the Equality Act, which would make transgender ideology the law of the land. Rhode Island's two senators then jumped on board. I stopped voting for all three of them. They are all Democrats, but I haven't abandoned the Democrats just on this issue. Having former President Grabby Hands back in power would be vastly worse. Indeed, ANY Republican who became president would try to destroy the social safety net. In some ways, that social safety net is too generous, and it is bankrupting the government. But scrapping it entirely, which is what Republicans would like to do, would be worse.
I've noticed that there are a lot of small anti-trans organizations popping up, but I wonder how much impact they will have. Somehow all these small organizations need to be hammered into one great organization which, because of its size, will have some clout. But then, that would mean letting Republicans into our midst, and they have their own craziness.
I've written about this before, but it still confounds me HOW and WHY transgender ideology has so much appeal to liberals. Perhaps liberals watch too many science fiction shows in which people get transformed into this or that, and the star ship's doctor (with his 25th century medicine) can turn a human being into anything at all -- a Klingon into a Romulan into a Vulcan, like turning a pig's ear into a silk purse. There has been too much talk about how a person can be anything he or she wants to be -- but it just isn't true. Human beings are physical creatures, and our bodies tell us who and what we are.
I still remember that argument I had (via email) with a poetry editor who was worried sick about how torturous it was to be a child living in the wrong body. He was completely convinced that such children must be allowed to transition IMMEDIATELY if not sooner, lest they commit suicide. So many of the talking points of trans activists have been accepted as fact by too many people. Most people assume that the activists know what they are talking about and are being honest, but they aren't. They are pushing false ideas meant to fool people, meant to give their little gender revolution a chance. And all those talking points seem to make perfect sense to liberals. Liberals see their acceptance of transgender ideology as a mark of their development as progressives.
I do think part of it is, "This is too complicated for me to understand, so I'll just accept whatever they are saying. Besides, there is now a new minority for me to feel sorry for."
What is the problem with "letting Republicans into our midst"? This kind of blind bias is so annoying.
DEMOCRATS ARE PROMOTING AND PUSHING THE DESTRUCTION OF CHILDREN. REPUBLICANS OPPOSE THE DESTRUCTION OF CHILDREN.
When one group is doing something evil, an intelligent person would oppose that group. What can be done to shake the faith of "dead-dog Democrats" about this party which is doing so much evil?
Republicans are also promoting the destruction of the country itself by following a bigoted, capricious and narcissistic pied piper who would destroy our democracy just so that he can feel the love his father never gave him.
Uh huh, and how exactly are they doing that? The only democracy destruction is coming from Dems who, as this post is about, would rather destroy kids to achieve ideological purity, and who, per Senile Joe et al, use law enforcement as a weapon against political enemies.
Listen, because Republicans are right on the trans issue, doesn't mean they are suddenly wonderful people. You don't think that Trump is more dangerous to Democracy than Biden is? If so, you are a fool. Trump would be happy to scrap all of America's democratic institutions in order to feel loved.
Biden is not senile. Yes, he has embraced transgender ideology, but only because he doesn't fully understand it. Like a lot of Democrats, it sounds like a good thing to him; it sounds like inclusiveness to him. Overall, it's good to be inclusive. Even I feel that trans people have a right to exist. What they DON'T have a right to do is to change society in unscientific ways to suit themselves.
You know, if you Republicans really think that you can brand yourselves the party of civil rights simply on the trans issue alone, you are totally crazy.
Actually, I see it differently. I think politicians generally have political or ideological motivations, but I think the general Democratic public is more motivated by the feeling that each of us is best suited to make decisions for ourselves, particularly when it comes to what will make us happy, or what we cannot live with. That may be misplaced in the case of young children making decisions about fertility, for example, but I don't see too many average citizens thinking about this issue in terms of ideological purity. I think it's more a tendency to try to see things from others' perspective and to defer to other people about their own personal experiences.
Have you ever considered that your liberal media lies to you about EVERYTHING, not just trans stuff? This is an ignorant statement and one reason I am not willing to associate with democrats. Speaking as a former life long democrat btw.
And here we go, George. This "blind bias" you speak of is alive and well from both sides.
And, as an aside, Donald Trump himself accepted and bragged about getting Caitlyn Jenner's endorsement in 2016 and said while campaigning that "she can use whatever bathroom she wants in Trump Tower." If you think for a second that he, or any Republican (with the possible exception of those who are either genuinely evangelical Christians or who rely on them to stay in office) will not flip on this issue the very second it becomes politically advantageous for them, you might want to look at how he's gone from calling himself the most pro-Israel president ever, to freaking out right-wing Jews because he said in a recent interview that Netanyahu needs to wind down his war because he's losing pubic support. And btw, the only reason Trump gives a flying fig about Netanyahu's level of support, is that Trump is afraid that Bibi's political problems will become an albatross around his own orange neck.
I'm not trying to get into a debate over the Israel issue at all, just using a current issue to exemplify the way that Donald Trump is out to protect Donald Trump. The only reason he ever cares about protecting anyone else, is if there is something in it for him. Period. Currently, there is something in it for him to speak our against trans-ing kids, but as crazy as the political winds have been of late, who knows what next year will bring? And if or when this stance is no longer to his own benefit, he will abandon it.
A blanket statement like yours, that the liberal media is lying to everyone on every issue, is stupid and unsupportable. As for being a lifelong Democrat who is now a Republican, the likelihood is that you are simply becoming more conservative in your old age -- that happens to most people. As I say below, the Republicans are against all civil rights except for the civil rights of rich white men -- oh, and white men who love guns.
And btw, no one need listen to any media source to be able to see that Trump is mentally ill and dangerous. It's patently obvious if you read and listen to his own words. All of them, not just the ones that Fox highlights because they make him look good.
Precisely!
"I do think part of it is,' This is too complicated for me to understand, so I'll just accept whatever they are saying.'"
I think this is the main problem with getting people to care about this issue. It is also the main problem in trying to influence physicians to take another look at it. Physicians are so highly specialized these days that they know little about what their colleagues in other specialties are doing or why. And the people who sought "sexual reassignment" during the Nineties were a small group with a rare condition that most physicians haven't studied much, so they just referred these patients on to colleagues. They are still doing that.
People have too much information to deal with these days, and our country has too many problems to manage. Americans generally appear to be in a kind of coma, from which they do not awaken unless a problem directly affects them personally. The recent reaction of American Jews to the anti-Israel demonstrations by Democrats is a case in point. There was shock, outrage and and feelings of betrayal. I, on the other hand, have known about the anti-Israel sentiments of woke Democrats for years. Even if I had not known about this, I would have predicted that leftist activists would support Hamas rather than Israel after the terrorists attacked that country.
This is one Democrat who is on Israel's side, but Netanyahu is in a league with Putin when it comes to caring about humanity as a whole. He is committing genocide in Gaza.
I am not a fan of Netanyahu either. And I have no knowledge of military strategy. Israel is famous for being able to track down Nazis; I was hoping they would adopt a similar strategy this time.
That is a separate issue from pro-Hamas rhetoric and demonstrations by Democrats and woke radicals in this country. This rhetoric has been pushed by radical Democrats for at least several years, including by some Democrats in the House. So it has not been at all surprising to see Democrats demonizing the victims of Hamas terrorists, and alternating between denying and celebrating the atrocities Hamas perpetrated on Oct 7.
Do you really believe that ANYONE approves of what Hamas did on October 7th? I don't think so. They may find reasons to excuse it (Gazans are oppressed, etc.), but I don't think anyone approves of that kind of terrorism.
Well, *this* liberal doesn't think like this.
Thank you for introducing your readers to DIAG.
I just recently signed up for their email list. I have also signed up for an organization in my state that leans right wing because they were the only ones fighting a specific bill to criminalize parents for not supporting medicalization. DIAG is probably a better fit for me, and I hope they can make headway. But the temptation to leave the Democratic Party increases as the insanity continues.
To defeat any aspect of the woke cult and its insane ideology, whether it's "gender," "race," or any other of its obsessions, Democrats, Republicans and independent voters who understand the dangers of this cult will need to form a coalition against it. If Democrats continue to be unwilling to work with Republicans and vice-versa, the United States is headed for the scrap heap.
Really inspiring and I hope this organisation grows to become huge. It helps that this person has a background in public health communications - they express the issues very well. (It's a pity they can't yet reach their own child. I hope that changes soon).
This is how gender ideology will end - when a critical mass of the liberal Left sees through the madness.
I am so glad that you did an interview with DIAG, Eliza.
I joined this organization because I am a lifelong Democrat who lost a daughter to the trans cult.
Why do the medical organizations support GAC?
I think the number one reason is that they are a physician lobbying group. Sure, many believe in true trans, they believe in that narrative. But, money. On the recent DIAG X space on legal challenges, an attorney brought up the money trajectory. In 2007 (in the US), zero profits for Big Pharma and gender clinics. This is Year One. Today, it is a billion dollar industry. In a few years, five billion.
The other reason is social--the parents that go along, the mothers that insist it is perfectly normal that their daughters cut off their breasts and are now happy "sons". And this is so widespread that everyone knows a trans or non-binary person in their wider circle of acquaintances. They often feel that they mustn't say anything that will cause offense. Maybe they are thinking it, but they won't say what could be interpreted as "unsupportive".
Meanwhile, we have an even larger group of invisible parents. Raising a hand, here. We are on PITT, we may have joined DIAG, we support Genspect. But we cannot speak publicly--due to trying to maintain or restore a relationship with our child. We are not being paraded by the HRC to see members of congress. When we do contact our Democratic legislators, we are often met with incredulity, as in, what is wrong with us--so many of those other parents have become loud mouthpieces for the trans movement.
The medical organizations support GAC because the TRAs are organized, single-minded, and bully others into support.
One thing non-professionals do not understand is that the medical professional organizations are not research organizations. They are professional support organizations. They are lobbying groups. They support the BUSINESS of medicine, not the SCIENCE of medicine.
It's also important to understand that 90% of physicians are not scientists. They are technicians of body function. Most experience "science" for 1 year, at the start of med school. After that, they are not scientifically oriented, do not follow science, and do not practice science.
The discussion in "Lost in trans nation" by Murial Grossman discusses the process of the capture of the psychiatry organization by the TRAs. It was not science that did it. It was the matter of "normalization" of trannies.
Yes. Her name is Dr. Miriam Grossman. Good points.
Sorry, but just because 90% of physicians don't practice research full time does not mean they don't know about science. In other to be admitted to medical school, 2-4 years of upper-level college courses in biology, math including statistics, chemistry, organic chemistry, and physics are all required. And actually, it's the first 2 years of medical school that are completely devoted to the basic sciences as well as advanced anatomy, physiology, and pharmacology. Medical students don't begin clinical rotations until their 3rd out of 4 years, and even then, they are required to continue to complete assignments relating clinical issues to science.
I work with physicians. I know what the students are like. I know the med school curriculum inside and out.
Science is not reading journals. Science is performing studies that result in publications. Few (15-20%) of physicians do that. Most are technicians. Not unclever, but not scientists.
As to the length of their exposure to basic science, it differs from school to school. There are many med schools. Some do more basic science, some do less.
Well, if they spent their time performing research, they wouldn't have sufficient experience actually treating patients. Particularly in today's publish or perish world where, in order to have any job security, one must not only devote themselves to research full time, but approach it almost like a competitive sport. But I disagree-someone with years of training in science (med schools do vary, but pre-med curriculum requirements are quite standard and there are basic requirements all med schools must teach in order for their graduates to be eligible for residency and eventually licensure) and statistics, who knows how to read research studies and keeps up with them, is perfectly well-suited to treat patients. You can quibble over the definition of the term "scientist," but the point is that they understand the science as well as the data. You aren't the only one who works with physicians. I've spent over three decades working in teaching hospitals across 5 different states. I've never met a medical student doing clinical rotations before their 3rd year, and I've had numerous in-depth conversations with physicians from residency to fellowship to attending to department head. They know their stuff. They also know what the science actually looks like when it shows up in a real person.
Most of the parents I have spoken with come across like angry tigers "protecting" their kids. I hear a lot of Democrats talking now (to me personally) about how "gay kids and trans kids" are being assaulted in increasing numbers and need more protection. Does anyone here have confirmation of that allegation? In my city, I see the opposite picture. Kids who are not pretending to be members of some bizarre sexual category are the ones who are "less than." Most of the Gen Z females I know are viciously aggressive towards people who question their gender ideology, so I wonder if the allegations of bullying are just projections of their own intolerance and anger.
Parents that promote "gender transitions" in their younger children, or go along with a social contagion trans identity in their adolescent/YA child, are on the defensive. They don't want the facts.
In some cases, I think they're on the defensive because they carefully considered their options, made the choice that they felt was best for their child, and are seeing benefits to their child. I'm aware that many children do poorly after beginning medical transition, but I'm also aware of some who, at least so far, improve dramatically. And I do think that if we're going to allow space and respect for parents who continue to oppose a path their child desires for themselves, even after the child is in their 20s and 30s and has stuck to their trans identity for decades, we also need to respect parents who have done their research and who felt and continue to feel that transition is the better choice for their child. Parents in the US have traditionally had wide latitude in raising children, even if their practices are completely contraindicated by decades of research, unless and until there is an actual (as opposed to theoretical) risk to the child's life. I do have serious doubts about the idea that a politician or legislature can make the best decision for every single child under their jurisdiction with regard to how to address mental problems. I would really love to see politicians stay out of medical treatment, AND see doctors able to make treatment decisions with their patients, based on research, without politicians stepping in the middle. But I have no idea how to get there.
There will be many of these parents.
And our adult children take many paths in life.
Here is what I never see mentioned, the obvious elephant in the room--they would all have been perfectly fine in their own natural bodies. No, they wouldn't be dead. They would be fine--if medical transition wasn't a possibility. And it has only recently been a possibility.
As for happiness, people are often happier when they have a cheering squad.
No, no, no.
Making the Democratic Party the locus of evil here is foolish and wrongheaded and I find it hard to believe that any genuine liberal would endorse such an approach. My politics are based on two things -- a commitment to civil liberties and a social-democratic policy orientation. I can take a heterodox position on a number of particular issues (as I tend to do with several components of the transgender agenda) without losing sight of the main fight -- a more economically just society, with stronger unions, measures that decrease the gap between rich and poor, a robust social safety net, and investments that reduce poverty and increase social mobility. This has been the heart of the Democratic agenda since FDR and it still commands my loyalty.
This is all the more true in 2024, a time when we have to choose between liberalism and authoritarianism. I know the choice I will make -- I will vote Democratic, as I always have. I reject single-issue politics, and I vociferously reject Donald Trump and the Republican party.
My view of transgender issues is shaped by my commitment to civil liberties, above all freedom of thought and speech. Everything is open to debate. Cancel culture must be resisted. Women's voices must be heard and the interests of women and children protected. We need to follow the science and health care must be evidence-based. Our goal should be to bring public opinion (particularly elite opinion) back to these points. Accomplish that, and the politicians will follow. Making the Democratic Party the primary target of our efforts is like taking the wrong off-ramp -- it will make our destination harder to reach.
The Democratic Party that was committed to civil liberties has gone away, and is now an authoritarian organization that opposes free speech and a free press. The problem goes a lot farther than the so-called "gender" controversy. I have been a radical leftist my entire adult life, and the Democratic Party has become that which I have always opposed.
No, that isn't true. ONLY ON THE TRANS ISSUE are Democrats in the wrong. Republicans are wrong on every other issue. What you are describing is the Republican party, not the Democrats. If this one issue, the gender issue, can turn you against the Democrats on all other issues, then you were never a Democrat to begin with.
You are completely confused about the Democratic Party of 2024. The alphabet groups have huge impact. The trannie madness has infected the Dems top to bottom. ANY state which is a blue state has enacted laws which make the state a "trannie refuge" which allow children who trannie-identify to seek treatment without parental approval - this is true of MN, CA, OR, WA.
I am a Republican. I do not support Trump. I support abortion. I oppose trannie insanity.
And your ridiculous notion that "Democrats support civil liberties" is amazing. Democrats oppose civil liberties. Only the Republican party support "classic liberal views" which involve the free exchange of ideas and free discussion.
Well, I've been a Democrat since the age of 16, energized by Bobby Kennedy's campaign for president in 1968. And I became a fervent civil libertarian after reading J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" in a college philosophy class just a few years later. I know a lot of Democrats like me (particularly of my vintage). Perhaps you should get out more.
Any chance for a truce? We might find common cause in support for free speech and skepticism toward trans activist ideology. And I'm glad to hear you don't support Trump. He's the biggest threat to American democracy I've seen in my lifetime.
Yes.
I'm sorry, but Republicans are the Party of Hate. They hate everyone, blacks, Hispanics, gays, and trans people too -- everyone except for white men. I am a Democrat who is against transgender ideology -- the ideology, not the people. Democratic support of trans ideology is misguided, but it is a natural outgrowth of their support for human rights.
Of course, we can't forget that things used to be the other way around. Republicans (the "party of Lincoln") were once the party of civil rights, but Nixon's and Reagan's "southern strategy" welcomed the Democratic bigots into their party, and now the transformation is complete. At the same time that the Republicans were embracing the worst Democrats, Democrats were renouncing their racism, which drove those bigoted Democrats out. Of course, no one is perfect. There are still Democrats who support racial integration in name only, but since Lyndon Johnson we are doing much better than the Republicans are. For example, most Democrats continue to support affirmative action, while most Republicans do not, while affirmative action is still the best tool against racism that we have.
If Democrats have been fooled by transgender ideology, they can be excused to a certain extent. The trans issue is complex, and most Democrats don't fully understand it. By embracing the ideology, they think they are doing the right thing. This is really the only blind spot of the Democratic party. It is the trans activists who are to blame for what's happening, not Democrats.
A good example of what the Republican party is like just happened in the last week. After Tyre Nichols was murdered by three Memphis police, Memphis enacted changes to the policing laws to give some protection to black people, but Tennessee's Republican legislature and governor have just overridden those protections.
Republicans hate everyone: blacks, Hispanics, Asians, women, gays, trans people, immigrants of all types, even American Indians who have more right to be here than white people do. Racism, racism, racism -- it is what the Republican party is all about -- that and wealth. Rich white people are gods to them. Insofar as women are concerned, they may be supporting women against trans incursion these days, but you can be sure they don't want to see any woman in charge of the country. To Republicans, women are still the baby-makers.
Like the Mississippi River, your confusion is wide and deep. You sound like you are about 23, still sucking Mommy's boob. "his is really the only blind spot of the Democratic party."
Seriously?
"Defund the police" "Kill the Jews, from the river to the sea" "Fill all cities with homeless scum" "Open the borders to the scum of the earth" "Drugs for everyone" "Don't prosecute shoplifters" "No bail for murderers" "Allow rapists to go free, no bail" "Let illegals scum who rape and murder in for free and give them all free cellphones".
That's the program of the Democratic Party in 2024.
I am a 73-year-old liberal Democrat. I do not want to defund the police -- indeed, I think they need more training. I am far more supportive of Israelis than I am of Palestinians. I do not believe that narcotics, besides marijuana, should be freely available. I do not think that rapists should not be punished. I do not think we should have open borders.
WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? What you just described is NOT the program of the Democratic party. Those are false Republican talking points. You are completely out of touch with reality. You have accepted all of those Republicans talking points as the truth. YOU ARE A TOTAL FOOL. But then, lying is what Donald Trump does a hundred times a day. Donald Trump has effectively taught you how to be a stupid liar.
Yes, that's where I was, maybe a year ago.
I no longer trust any Democrats. I don't know how that will affect my voting going forward, but it's certainly no longer a given that I will vote for Democrats.
Brings to mind that meme (I don't know who made it) of a group of normal people on the ascending side of a roller coaster, labeled something like "newly peaked and still nice," staring in horror at the cars descending the roller coaster, filled with screaming skulls, labeled something like "been fighting gender ideology for years."
Sorry I can't describe it better, but when I first saw it I thought it was weird--today, however, I understand it too well.
What do you say to trans widows, whose ex-husbands claim to be not only female, but also to be us, the mothers of the children they fathered. Where is the beloved "truth" the Dems revere, in that?
I'm not sure. I don't know any "trans widows," but believe I would have to think carefully about what to say to people facing the situation you described. I hope I would speak compassionately and without hatred to both parties. I'm a husband and a father and very happy to be a man. My experience of married life and parenting is such that my sympathy would overwhelming favor the woman in such cases. My wife is an awesome mother and what she has accomplished as a mother should always be honored and never slighted. But this a really a private issue, a matter internal to the family caught up in the situation.
Transgender health care for children, on the other hand, is more properly a public concern. I'm persuaded that the science is not settled at all. I'm also very concerned about questions related to informed consent. These are matters of science and medical ethics. I believe this is the most important arena right now. I expect that if the approach to youth transgender care that emphasizes medical and surgical intervention fares poorly in this debate, if it can be shown to be scientifically and ethically deficient, this will have major implications for the transgender movement as a whole. This is why journalists are so important now and why you would be unwise to write off liberals and Democrats as potential supporters for your side, however much you detest us.
My older son said he wanted to kill himself when he was 9, due to his sense of abandonment from his cross-sex ideating father, who constantly (in front of our 2 sons, they do this) claimed to be me, their mother. Is that a private matter? In my data on the experiences of 57 trans widows, we have a total of 34 children. Some are very young, but those of us with older children have experienced our children's suicidal ideations. Seven of these 34 expressed serious intentions of self-harm. Of those 4 tried to kill themselves. My son only expressed how he'd step in front of a car, find a gun or jump off of the roof. Of the 4 who were hospitalized, none of these crossdressing fathers participated in the therapy after. Do the witnesses, the emergency crew and the doctors cause this to be "public?" You simply never heard of us. We exist. Take a look at Lime Soda Films Yt channel for the trailer of an upcoming documentary on trans widows. Thanks if you do.
People might also want to research 'trans widows' to understand issues re 'transgender identity' that migrate into the public sphere. For example, a woman who married a man who decides he really 'is a woman inside' and who changes his legal 'identity' to that of a woman has implications for his wife. When the wife divorces him and if he's changed his legal status to that of a woman the wife may (in some states) then be in a same-sex marriage and divorce thereby becoming a 'paper lesbian.'
I'm in the LGB cohort but I don't think it's fair or accurate that a heterosexual woman should be put in that situation. And b/c the state has allowed a heterosexual male, an autogynephile, the right to legally change his sex designation his paraphilia has changed his wife's sexual orientation (at least on paper) w/o her consent. See link re Maryland law and other implications re divorce law and the invented, incoherent 'gender identity' nonsense. https://womensliberationfront.org/news/wolf-testifies-in-support-md-hb1319
Ute, respond if you have anything to add.
These are clearly nightmare situations and you and everyone else affected deserve abundant sympathy. You have mine.
Is there a place for public policy involvement here? Perhaps I'm naive or simply ignorant, but I find it hard to see how. Feel free to enlighten me. Would you criminalize the behavior of these men? Civil liability? Implications for divorce and custody? I'm wiling to listen and learn.
My suggestion to the people putting together DIAG is that they pay attention to how the Labor Party in Britain is responding to the Cass Report.. Wes Streeting, Labor's shadow health minister, made the following statement after the report was published: “Children’s healthcare should always be led by evidence and children’s welfare, free from culture wars. The government must now immediately act, but if they do not, the next Labor government will work to implement the expert recommendations of the Cass review.”
The left is not inherently hostile to science. In fact, far from it. The evolution of Labor's view of the practices of England's National Health Service in regard to "gender-affirming care" is instructive in this regard. I would expect a similar trajectory for the Democratic Party in the U.S. as public awareness of the poor-quality evidence underlying the WPATH approach and the harm it has caused children increases.
That's the message that needs to be carried -- real science, honest investigation, better care for children. Not wild talk about "monsters" and "bad people." And no to a single-issue political effort that fails to acknowledge the justice of the larger Democratic agenda and the urgency of defeating the immediate threat from the authoritarian right.
The tenor and tone of the person from DIAG interviewed by Eliza alarmed me so much that I would not consider supporting the group now. But I will keep an eye on them and will reconsider if they emerge as a reasonable grassroots movement from within the tent.
Is like to join, and if I could also make a humble suggestion, a letter to GLAAD, HRC and the other previously gay and lesbian rights group who have inverted themselves would help your gay and lesbian demographic.
I'm expecting a wild ride when the same smug Democrats who mindlessly went along with this are subject to the same condescending treatment they dole out gratuitously.
Great conversation. Thank you!
Thank you! Very interesting interview.
I couldn't help but be struck by this line buried among the sampling of comments from people who've joined DIAG:
"And so many more of our gay, bullied, traumatized, and neurodivergent young people will be harmed.”
Bullied and traumatized young people, and some who identify as neurodivergent, ARE by definition harmed, even if they never follow the trans path. To me, it sounds like this person sees youth who've been harmed by others as a fact of life, which unfortunately they are, but also that their pain as a result of those harms is also a fact of life, and that all we can do from them is prevent further harm. This is a huge part of the problem, that we see youth who have been bullied or traumatized or who are suffering due to their particular form of neurodivergence, and we sort of accept their suffering and pain, and just try to prevent further damage. That's a laudable goal of course, but it doesn't go far enough. I've been thinking for some time that if we really want to stop the trans youth trend, we cannot just choke off supply of affirmation. We need to address the demand side, which means we need to find ways to help all people and especially youth, who are hurting. Troubled. Mentally ill. Whatever you want to call it. Unless we do, trans kids will continue to happen because some will buy hormones on the black market, and even those who don't end up trans will end up with other issues: anorexia, drug addiction, cutting and suicide attempts, and so on.
Love this! I’ll gladly join this organization but I will not likely ever support democrat politicians again.
same. But given the Maga takeover of the R party, that is clearly not an option either. It feels like my vote has been stolen.
I will join, though I believe the Dems have lost the thread. We will have to provide a thorough, developmentally informed alternative care for cross-sex ideating youth, along with the comprehensive plan for documentation of long term outcomes. The groomers use the shock value of imagining one's own body disconnected from our most intimate parts to gaslight belief in a false and iatrogenic diagnosis. As a triply certified retired NY state educator, I suggest an approach including (1) thorough social history intake (therefore no 1 appt diagnosis), (2) exploration of balance in life for satisfaction/happiness, (3) thorough examination of gaslighting, brainwashing, indoctrination behavior of individuals/groups (4) understandings of habit/routines for mental and physical wellness involving cognitive behavior therapy, anxiety reduction through naturalistic movement/breathing, holistic interventions for post traumatic stress disorder (5) then, when skills are in process, find out whether the patient was sexually/physically abused at an earlier point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRaVv70Gxr4&t=155s
Everything you've said here sounds reasonable to me; I just want to say that. However, insofar as Democrats vs. Republicans are concerned, it's important to keep in mind that most liberal Democrats want maximum inclusiveness in society, and that's not a bad thing. If they are wrong on this issue, it doesn't mean they are wrong on most issues. I've been reading your comments for a couple years now, and it seems to me you are a single-issue person, and that single issue is the trans issue. Overall, the Democrats are have better values, even if they are wrong on the issue you care mostly about.
This has affected even me. I live in Rhode Island. It was MY REPRESENTATIVE in Congress -- David Cicilline -- who wrote the Equality Act, which would make transgender ideology the law of the land. Rhode Island's two senators then jumped on board. I stopped voting for all three of them. They are all Democrats, but I haven't abandoned the Democrats just on this issue. Having former President Grabby Hands back in power would be vastly worse. Indeed, ANY Republican who became president would try to destroy the social safety net. In some ways, that social safety net is too generous, and it is bankrupting the government. But scrapping it entirely, which is what Republicans would like to do, would be worse.
Great piece! Thank you!
It sounds like most of the people who were quoted in the above article may be moms. Is that the case? Are there many dads involved in DIAG?