I agree, but I think that’s only part of it. At its core, this is a cult built on quasi-religious dogma — and that’s what makes it so dangerous. Hormones and surgery aren’t just treatments to them; they’re sacraments.
It is certainly a factor. Dr Sidhbh Gallagher supposedly 500 gender surgeries a year. M to F, F to M, top, bottom, orchiectomies, mastectomies, etc. all of them. It’s a very lucrative practice. She was trolling for patients on tiktok using “yeet the teets” as her slogan. She’s in cahoots with psychologist Diane Ehrensaft. She’s now a pediatric gender psychologist who gives parents advice including how to tell if your preverbal child is trans. A girl who pulls out her barrettes is a boy and a boy who unsnaps his onesies is a girl. She also ruined lives as a major player in the repressed memory satanic rituals fad. There is a picture of the two of them with a post mastectomy girl who is also covered with fresh and old cut marks. It’s horrific.
I imagine that Lia Thomas peaked a lot of people. But what I don't understand is the religious fervour. What's behind that? How can so many clinicians, who have undergone a scientific education, believe that someone can be born in the wrong body? And be blind to all the harms from puberty blockers and surgeries on healthy bodies?
Someone close to me works in college dive and swimming and sent me pictures when the NCAA’s were in Atlanta that year. I was perplexed and asked a lesbian who was starting to transition what she thought and she called me a terf…so I began to read and educate myself on the topic.
I've always been a feminist and have never supported men winning awards that were for women nor men in females sports or female spaces. However I did have the live and let live attitude outside of that. I realized I was a terf one day when I was reading the comment section under an article about a company removing the female symbol from its feminine hygeine products. You know...pads and tampons. I thought to myself why on Earth would a company feel this is necessary, surely only women get periods. That was an UGLY comment section. I have a child that was caught in this insanity and I have always expressed my beliefs to them. She was an adult that had moved out before beginning transition. I guess the absolute absurdity of the transdender ideaology is what "radicalized" me, though I would not describe anyone who uses basic commen sense around this issue to be radical. I wear terf proudly also but I don't advertise it for fear of alienating my child.
Because they think they’re are kinder and nicer than anyone who rejects the ideology. Because for twenty years the authors of it got us chanting- Trans Rights are Human Rights. Only a monster is against Human Rights. It was brilliant and sinister.
Earlier this month, The Liberal Patriot substack looked into why Dems are so supportive of gender ideology and trans people. The title was "Why Democrats Are Struggling on Trans Issues. Part two in a series examining at how the party got derailed on key issues."
Many conservatives—and even some moderates and liberals—seem mystified by the Democrats’ staunch support for pro-trans policies. A recent exchange with a . . . reader who was curious about this prompted me to think through the best, good-faith argument for the party’s heretofore positions on these issues. As someone with a very socially liberal peer group and whose own values err on the side of protecting the vulnerable, I think the reasons are pretty straightforward.
Most Democrats see transgender people as a vulnerable minority population in need of protection.
After watching the debates over gay marriage play out across the past several decades, many Democrats have become convinced that conservatives—at least a lot of them—always seem to be in need of a group to pick on. For decades, Democrats will argue, it was black people, then it was gay people, then Muslims, and so on. So, they see no reason to think that resistance toward, or even questions about, transgender and gender-nonconforming people are any different, because these actions are also clearly being taken with nefarious intent.
Relatedly, some see intraparty discussions about the need for moderation on these issues as tantamount to throwing a vulnerable group under the bus. Given the party’s historical commitment to protecting these groups, there can be very little appetite for anything even remotely resembling this.
The number of transgender athletes competing at least at the college level is very small, which reinforces the idea for many Democrats that the right is just looking for someone to bully. Why else would they care about such a small number of people?
Many Democrats prioritize the value of “inclusivity” above most others. They have moral qualms about making anyone feel excluded on the basis of an identity trait that makes them a minority, a sentiment rooted in the historical exclusion of women, black people, gays, and others from public life. This means, in their view, that whether a trans woman (someone born male) participating in women’s sports is “fair” is beside the point because it opens the door to excluding a minority group, which is wrong.
Democrats also believe that the political right has gone overboard on these issues. (Statements supporting the “eradication of transgenderism” surely contribute to this perception, even if those who uttered such statements argue they’re talking about an ideology, not a group of people.) It’s human nature to form solidarity in the face of attacks against a person or group with whom one sympathizes—many Trump supporters likely understand this in the face of years of criticism against him. So, as Democrats perceive attacks against transgender people, their reaction has understandably been to double down on their support for them.
In general, Democrats see the fight for trans rights as an extension of other past civil rights struggles, where they believe they were on the “right side of history” and conservatives were on the wrong side. Most recently, they won the fight over gay rights, and eventually, even many Republicans came around. So, the thinking goes, why would this time be any different?
Aside from positive-oriented moral calculations, there are also negative incentives keeping many Democrats in line on these issues as well. This includes pressure from activist groups who have dangled the threat of primary a challenge over members who deviate from the party line. And it may help explain why Democrats are reticent to even have internal debates about trans issues the way the have with “defund the police” or immigration.
Overall, Democrats sincerely believe their views on these issues are morally good and that their opponents are bad-faith actors. This is undoubtedly a major reason why they have stuck to their guns: a belief that history will ultimately prove them right. But their uncompromising approach on questions of gender identity has caused not just political peril but other problems too.
The rapid rise of gender identity issues in American politics has been a defining feature of recent cultural debates, with stark divisions between progressive and conservative perspectives. Progressives argue that transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals have simply sought to live their lives in peace, only to be targeted by reactionary forces. Conservatives, on the other hand, feel they have been forced to accept radical and unproven ideas about sex and gender, often at the expense of fairness, especially in areas like women’s sports.
Regardless of how these debates began, there has been a noticeable rightward shift in public opinion, leading to political consequences for Democrats. Many voters believe the party has prioritized niche social issues over broader concerns affecting the working and middle classes. This perception contributed to Kamala Harris’s 2024 electoral loss and continues to put pressure on Democrats, particularly regarding their stance on transgender participation in women’s sports, which remains widely unpopular.
While some within the Democratic Party are beginning to acknowledge that their current stance may be unsustainable, they remain largely committed to a pro-trans narrative. This is driven by a belief that they are defending a vulnerable minority, much as they did with past civil rights movements. However, this unwavering support has made them reluctant to engage in nuanced discussions or consider emerging evidence, such as the findings of the Cass Report, which cast doubt on the benefits of gender-affirming medical treatments for youth.
In contrast to much of Europe, where progressive countries have begun to scale back medical interventions for minors, American Democrats have largely doubled down, even in the face of growing skepticism. Their reluctance to reassess their positions has led to policy overreach, such as the promotion of gender-neutral language that alienates many voters and efforts to penalize parents who are deemed insufficiently supportive of their child’s transition.
Ultimately, the Democrats’ rigid stance on gender identity has left them increasingly out of step with public opinion. Their failure to engage in open discussions, acknowledge scientific uncertainties, or address concerns about fairness in sports and other arenas has created a political liability. Without a course correction, they risk further alienating swing voters and cementing their association with unpopular cultural policies.
Thank you for sharing Ollie. I assumed their unwillingness to change was because they are owned by pro trans billionaire lobbyists. Which also may play a role, but its definitely a more cynical position.
I'm still very angry that these people didn't speak up sooner. Now they have helped to convince a large swath of people that transing kids, immediately and without questions, is the humane thing to do. It's going to take a lot to get them to see things differently.
Great article on this whole ideology mess that we are in. It’s heartbreaking as a parent and as a person of faith! It’s time for everyone to put their agendas aside and be truthful about what they are really doing!!our children deserve that!
The tidal wave of gender dysphoria has shaken me to my roots, as a mother and as a former tom boy. I questioned my body shape from the age of 12. When other girls were filling out and becoming curvy, my body stubbornly stayed flat in the chest and straight in the hips. I had dreams about being curvaceous only to wake up to my athletic build. My body was good for sprinting and sports but looked very boyish all of the way through high school. Once my breasts appeared I simply became a boy with breasts.
Though my life, I preferred more male oriented toys: legos and racetracks over dolls and tea sets- Santa Claus never got that message. My friends were mostly boys, I had brothers and I was so different than my few girl friends, I hated makeup and didn't really bother with a distinct hair style. My boyfriends were just friends... all of the way to my senior year.
It terrifies me to think of some well meaning teacher affirming that I was, indeed, in the wrong body. That would have made such sense to me! I would likely have jumped at that as I felt so alien compared to the girls around me and the ones gracing Seventeen magazine. What would have happened to me? I know in my heart I'd be in a much different place now.
The advent of gender affirming care in children has terrified me from the start. As a clinician, over 10 years ago, I had an 8 year old patient who had been placed on puberty blockers. She came to see me for severe foot and ankle pain following a 7 hour stint on a trampoline. She clearly had mental health issues unrelated to her gender dysphoria- likely on the spectrum with striking OCD. Prior to her gender dysphoria she had identified as a dog and her parents let her wear a collar and eat from a dog bowl. Her later claim to be a boy did not make them sit back and ponder what may really have been going on for even a second. They jumped right to medical transition. I tried to explain the negative effects of puberty blockers on the musculoskeletal system of a female child, not to mention the rest of her system- it's like being thrown into menopause before menses even start.
I feared, at that time, what I saw as a very slippery and dangerous slope.
Thank you so much for speaking out in the face of such anger and rhetoric. I know that it can't be an easy place to live.
I was your Doppelganger in reverse. I was a sissy as a little boy. One of the reasons I am so strongly opposed to gender ideology and trans activism is the realization that if I had been a pansy today instead of 60 years ago, someone might have talked me into thinking I was a little girl. I would have been robbed of a wonderful gay adulthood.
I have heard that same theme from my friends in the gay and lesbian community. It is such a sad fact that so many of these children are simply gay or lesbian and, when left alone, grow up to express that. My heart breaks for them.
I was acutely aware that the boys were stronger. I’m still mad about that. I loathed my body and breasts. Also they had way more freedom but that’s a different issue. There’s no doubt that I would have gone for it had it been available. Becoming a mother was a turning point.
Thanks for those links...it's a sign of changing times that folks like Barnes and Anderson are getting media attention. The tide, I think, has turned.
Speaking of Barnes, her book Time to Think is a must-read for anyone interested in this area. She's a solid researcher, and properly skeptical without being a cynic.
Eloquent, as always with you. I have restacked. Barnes was tremendous, as she always is—and in the event anyone here has not read Time to Think, I highly recommend it. I share your hesitations about Anderson and appreciated all the more your fairness in reporting what he said in his interview. Journalists and pundits everywhere should follow your excellent example.
Yes, those were good interviews, and from WBUR, who interviewed Barnes when her book came out and also Dr Hillary Cass. I wrote to Scott Tong to thank him. That said, I share your wariness of Erica Anderson, who was still at UCSF in 2018-2019 lying to kids and their families.
I am unsure if there *is* a way to overreact or over correct when children are being sterilized and mutilated. People should be in prison for this experimentation and child sterilization.
The red states held and are holding the line of morality on this one. The retaliatory response by the blue states is inevitable no matter how Small or large the action by red states is. Just as there is no way to explain something to a narcissist in a way that won’t cause their extreme disagreement and digging their heels in…most of those who have convinced themselves that Mengele level child abuse is life saving care are only going to double down beater admitting they were party to this demonic behavior would be devastating
Liberals and progressives have only themselves to blame if red states' efforts to curb the worst excesses of trans activism appear "clumsy." It is a fig leaf to profess discomfort over laws banning pediatric gender medicine on the ground that, well, really, every gender-distressed youngster and adult should receive individualized treatment and bans prevent that. The left could have offered constructive testimony at state legislative committee hearings, but they did not because their ideology does not permit them to. They are not allowed to admit that there are any flaws in today's models of pediatric gender medicine.
Looking at the situation realistically, isn't a ban precisely what the gender critical movement wants at this moment in time? After all, aren't we always saying that the jury is still out on pediatric gender medicine, and that what is known about adverse side effects is highly alarming? This piece acknowledges that the American health care establishment is pretending the Cass Review does not exist. As for the notion that minors should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis instead of being bound by a state-wide ban, is there any reason to think that health professionals have abandoned their total-affimation-for-all approach while Trump's executive orders are on hold pending the outcome of challenges?
The current discourse is provisional anyway. That's because one side or the other in the trans cold war may find that the Supreme Court's ruling in the Skrmetti case upsets their world view and agenda. Let is hope that Justice Amy Coney Barrett's maternal instincts (she has seven children, one with Down syndrome, two adopted) don't cloud her judgment or cause her to disregard the Catholic Church's non-affirming teachings on gender identity when it comes to deciding whether laws that single out so-called trans kids for different treatment are constitutional.
Follow the money.... a transexual child is very likely a lifetime patient.
I agree, but I think that’s only part of it. At its core, this is a cult built on quasi-religious dogma — and that’s what makes it so dangerous. Hormones and surgery aren’t just treatments to them; they’re sacraments.
It is certainly a factor. Dr Sidhbh Gallagher supposedly 500 gender surgeries a year. M to F, F to M, top, bottom, orchiectomies, mastectomies, etc. all of them. It’s a very lucrative practice. She was trolling for patients on tiktok using “yeet the teets” as her slogan. She’s in cahoots with psychologist Diane Ehrensaft. She’s now a pediatric gender psychologist who gives parents advice including how to tell if your preverbal child is trans. A girl who pulls out her barrettes is a boy and a boy who unsnaps his onesies is a girl. She also ruined lives as a major player in the repressed memory satanic rituals fad. There is a picture of the two of them with a post mastectomy girl who is also covered with fresh and old cut marks. It’s horrific.
I imagine that Lia Thomas peaked a lot of people. But what I don't understand is the religious fervour. What's behind that? How can so many clinicians, who have undergone a scientific education, believe that someone can be born in the wrong body? And be blind to all the harms from puberty blockers and surgeries on healthy bodies?
Someone close to me works in college dive and swimming and sent me pictures when the NCAA’s were in Atlanta that year. I was perplexed and asked a lesbian who was starting to transition what she thought and she called me a terf…so I began to read and educate myself on the topic.
I've always been a feminist and have never supported men winning awards that were for women nor men in females sports or female spaces. However I did have the live and let live attitude outside of that. I realized I was a terf one day when I was reading the comment section under an article about a company removing the female symbol from its feminine hygeine products. You know...pads and tampons. I thought to myself why on Earth would a company feel this is necessary, surely only women get periods. That was an UGLY comment section. I have a child that was caught in this insanity and I have always expressed my beliefs to them. She was an adult that had moved out before beginning transition. I guess the absolute absurdity of the transdender ideaology is what "radicalized" me, though I would not describe anyone who uses basic commen sense around this issue to be radical. I wear terf proudly also but I don't advertise it for fear of alienating my child.
Wear the name with pride, I say!
Because they think they’re are kinder and nicer than anyone who rejects the ideology. Because for twenty years the authors of it got us chanting- Trans Rights are Human Rights. Only a monster is against Human Rights. It was brilliant and sinister.
Earlier this month, The Liberal Patriot substack looked into why Dems are so supportive of gender ideology and trans people. The title was "Why Democrats Are Struggling on Trans Issues. Part two in a series examining at how the party got derailed on key issues."
Here are the author's key points. The entire piece can be found here. https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/why-democrats-are-struggling-on-trans
In case it is paywalled, a summary appears after this list of the main points.
================================================================
Many conservatives—and even some moderates and liberals—seem mystified by the Democrats’ staunch support for pro-trans policies. A recent exchange with a . . . reader who was curious about this prompted me to think through the best, good-faith argument for the party’s heretofore positions on these issues. As someone with a very socially liberal peer group and whose own values err on the side of protecting the vulnerable, I think the reasons are pretty straightforward.
Most Democrats see transgender people as a vulnerable minority population in need of protection.
After watching the debates over gay marriage play out across the past several decades, many Democrats have become convinced that conservatives—at least a lot of them—always seem to be in need of a group to pick on. For decades, Democrats will argue, it was black people, then it was gay people, then Muslims, and so on. So, they see no reason to think that resistance toward, or even questions about, transgender and gender-nonconforming people are any different, because these actions are also clearly being taken with nefarious intent.
Relatedly, some see intraparty discussions about the need for moderation on these issues as tantamount to throwing a vulnerable group under the bus. Given the party’s historical commitment to protecting these groups, there can be very little appetite for anything even remotely resembling this.
The number of transgender athletes competing at least at the college level is very small, which reinforces the idea for many Democrats that the right is just looking for someone to bully. Why else would they care about such a small number of people?
Many Democrats prioritize the value of “inclusivity” above most others. They have moral qualms about making anyone feel excluded on the basis of an identity trait that makes them a minority, a sentiment rooted in the historical exclusion of women, black people, gays, and others from public life. This means, in their view, that whether a trans woman (someone born male) participating in women’s sports is “fair” is beside the point because it opens the door to excluding a minority group, which is wrong.
Democrats also believe that the political right has gone overboard on these issues. (Statements supporting the “eradication of transgenderism” surely contribute to this perception, even if those who uttered such statements argue they’re talking about an ideology, not a group of people.) It’s human nature to form solidarity in the face of attacks against a person or group with whom one sympathizes—many Trump supporters likely understand this in the face of years of criticism against him. So, as Democrats perceive attacks against transgender people, their reaction has understandably been to double down on their support for them.
In general, Democrats see the fight for trans rights as an extension of other past civil rights struggles, where they believe they were on the “right side of history” and conservatives were on the wrong side. Most recently, they won the fight over gay rights, and eventually, even many Republicans came around. So, the thinking goes, why would this time be any different?
Aside from positive-oriented moral calculations, there are also negative incentives keeping many Democrats in line on these issues as well. This includes pressure from activist groups who have dangled the threat of primary a challenge over members who deviate from the party line. And it may help explain why Democrats are reticent to even have internal debates about trans issues the way the have with “defund the police” or immigration.
Overall, Democrats sincerely believe their views on these issues are morally good and that their opponents are bad-faith actors. This is undoubtedly a major reason why they have stuck to their guns: a belief that history will ultimately prove them right. But their uncompromising approach on questions of gender identity has caused not just political peril but other problems too.
================================================================
Here is a Chat GPT summary of the article:
The rapid rise of gender identity issues in American politics has been a defining feature of recent cultural debates, with stark divisions between progressive and conservative perspectives. Progressives argue that transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals have simply sought to live their lives in peace, only to be targeted by reactionary forces. Conservatives, on the other hand, feel they have been forced to accept radical and unproven ideas about sex and gender, often at the expense of fairness, especially in areas like women’s sports.
Regardless of how these debates began, there has been a noticeable rightward shift in public opinion, leading to political consequences for Democrats. Many voters believe the party has prioritized niche social issues over broader concerns affecting the working and middle classes. This perception contributed to Kamala Harris’s 2024 electoral loss and continues to put pressure on Democrats, particularly regarding their stance on transgender participation in women’s sports, which remains widely unpopular.
While some within the Democratic Party are beginning to acknowledge that their current stance may be unsustainable, they remain largely committed to a pro-trans narrative. This is driven by a belief that they are defending a vulnerable minority, much as they did with past civil rights movements. However, this unwavering support has made them reluctant to engage in nuanced discussions or consider emerging evidence, such as the findings of the Cass Report, which cast doubt on the benefits of gender-affirming medical treatments for youth.
In contrast to much of Europe, where progressive countries have begun to scale back medical interventions for minors, American Democrats have largely doubled down, even in the face of growing skepticism. Their reluctance to reassess their positions has led to policy overreach, such as the promotion of gender-neutral language that alienates many voters and efforts to penalize parents who are deemed insufficiently supportive of their child’s transition.
Ultimately, the Democrats’ rigid stance on gender identity has left them increasingly out of step with public opinion. Their failure to engage in open discussions, acknowledge scientific uncertainties, or address concerns about fairness in sports and other arenas has created a political liability. Without a course correction, they risk further alienating swing voters and cementing their association with unpopular cultural policies.
Thank you for sharing Ollie. I assumed their unwillingness to change was because they are owned by pro trans billionaire lobbyists. Which also may play a role, but its definitely a more cynical position.
I'm still very angry that these people didn't speak up sooner. Now they have helped to convince a large swath of people that transing kids, immediately and without questions, is the humane thing to do. It's going to take a lot to get them to see things differently.
I have been speaking up since 2019, it’s slow rowing.
Perfectly said! It’s time for progressives to admit that this ideology is not showing kindness to kids but is actually harmful!
Exactly- it is why the doctors and allies who enable this are such a big part of the problem.
When in doubt, protect children always. It really is that simple.
Great article on this whole ideology mess that we are in. It’s heartbreaking as a parent and as a person of faith! It’s time for everyone to put their agendas aside and be truthful about what they are really doing!!our children deserve that!
Absolutely
The tidal wave of gender dysphoria has shaken me to my roots, as a mother and as a former tom boy. I questioned my body shape from the age of 12. When other girls were filling out and becoming curvy, my body stubbornly stayed flat in the chest and straight in the hips. I had dreams about being curvaceous only to wake up to my athletic build. My body was good for sprinting and sports but looked very boyish all of the way through high school. Once my breasts appeared I simply became a boy with breasts.
Though my life, I preferred more male oriented toys: legos and racetracks over dolls and tea sets- Santa Claus never got that message. My friends were mostly boys, I had brothers and I was so different than my few girl friends, I hated makeup and didn't really bother with a distinct hair style. My boyfriends were just friends... all of the way to my senior year.
It terrifies me to think of some well meaning teacher affirming that I was, indeed, in the wrong body. That would have made such sense to me! I would likely have jumped at that as I felt so alien compared to the girls around me and the ones gracing Seventeen magazine. What would have happened to me? I know in my heart I'd be in a much different place now.
The advent of gender affirming care in children has terrified me from the start. As a clinician, over 10 years ago, I had an 8 year old patient who had been placed on puberty blockers. She came to see me for severe foot and ankle pain following a 7 hour stint on a trampoline. She clearly had mental health issues unrelated to her gender dysphoria- likely on the spectrum with striking OCD. Prior to her gender dysphoria she had identified as a dog and her parents let her wear a collar and eat from a dog bowl. Her later claim to be a boy did not make them sit back and ponder what may really have been going on for even a second. They jumped right to medical transition. I tried to explain the negative effects of puberty blockers on the musculoskeletal system of a female child, not to mention the rest of her system- it's like being thrown into menopause before menses even start.
I feared, at that time, what I saw as a very slippery and dangerous slope.
Thank you so much for speaking out in the face of such anger and rhetoric. I know that it can't be an easy place to live.
I was your Doppelganger in reverse. I was a sissy as a little boy. One of the reasons I am so strongly opposed to gender ideology and trans activism is the realization that if I had been a pansy today instead of 60 years ago, someone might have talked me into thinking I was a little girl. I would have been robbed of a wonderful gay adulthood.
We need more sissies to stand up!
I have heard that same theme from my friends in the gay and lesbian community. It is such a sad fact that so many of these children are simply gay or lesbian and, when left alone, grow up to express that. My heart breaks for them.
I was acutely aware that the boys were stronger. I’m still mad about that. I loathed my body and breasts. Also they had way more freedom but that’s a different issue. There’s no doubt that I would have gone for it had it been available. Becoming a mother was a turning point.
Thanks for those links...it's a sign of changing times that folks like Barnes and Anderson are getting media attention. The tide, I think, has turned.
Speaking of Barnes, her book Time to Think is a must-read for anyone interested in this area. She's a solid researcher, and properly skeptical without being a cynic.
Eloquent, as always with you. I have restacked. Barnes was tremendous, as she always is—and in the event anyone here has not read Time to Think, I highly recommend it. I share your hesitations about Anderson and appreciated all the more your fairness in reporting what he said in his interview. Journalists and pundits everywhere should follow your excellent example.
Yes, those were good interviews, and from WBUR, who interviewed Barnes when her book came out and also Dr Hillary Cass. I wrote to Scott Tong to thank him. That said, I share your wariness of Erica Anderson, who was still at UCSF in 2018-2019 lying to kids and their families.
Great writing! Glad to read it.
I am unsure if there *is* a way to overreact or over correct when children are being sterilized and mutilated. People should be in prison for this experimentation and child sterilization.
The red states held and are holding the line of morality on this one. The retaliatory response by the blue states is inevitable no matter how Small or large the action by red states is. Just as there is no way to explain something to a narcissist in a way that won’t cause their extreme disagreement and digging their heels in…most of those who have convinced themselves that Mengele level child abuse is life saving care are only going to double down beater admitting they were party to this demonic behavior would be devastating
Well written. Completely relate
Liberals and progressives have only themselves to blame if red states' efforts to curb the worst excesses of trans activism appear "clumsy." It is a fig leaf to profess discomfort over laws banning pediatric gender medicine on the ground that, well, really, every gender-distressed youngster and adult should receive individualized treatment and bans prevent that. The left could have offered constructive testimony at state legislative committee hearings, but they did not because their ideology does not permit them to. They are not allowed to admit that there are any flaws in today's models of pediatric gender medicine.
Looking at the situation realistically, isn't a ban precisely what the gender critical movement wants at this moment in time? After all, aren't we always saying that the jury is still out on pediatric gender medicine, and that what is known about adverse side effects is highly alarming? This piece acknowledges that the American health care establishment is pretending the Cass Review does not exist. As for the notion that minors should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis instead of being bound by a state-wide ban, is there any reason to think that health professionals have abandoned their total-affimation-for-all approach while Trump's executive orders are on hold pending the outcome of challenges?
The current discourse is provisional anyway. That's because one side or the other in the trans cold war may find that the Supreme Court's ruling in the Skrmetti case upsets their world view and agenda. Let is hope that Justice Amy Coney Barrett's maternal instincts (she has seven children, one with Down syndrome, two adopted) don't cloud her judgment or cause her to disregard the Catholic Church's non-affirming teachings on gender identity when it comes to deciding whether laws that single out so-called trans kids for different treatment are constitutional.
I heard the WBUR interview of Dr Cass and wondered whether it would be excommunicated by NPR. Here's a link for the audio in case you are interested.
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/05/08/nhs-hilary-cass-review-gender-transgender-care
(Just checked. Still works.)
WBUR saved their good standing with the enlightened ones by also running some materials from AAP and the Endocrine Society.
I'm surprised they didn't flood the airwaves with the usual Planned Parenthood propaganda.
Satanic panic reborn