Okay, technically I suppose it is an article.
“The New York Times admits that kids are being mutilated”
Note the use of the word “kids” rather than the less emotionally charged but still accurate “minors”. Plus, the use of the word “mutilated”. These are not surgeries. They are ‘mutilations’. Yeah, if the words The American Conservative didn’t convince readers that the article was biased, that should.
" the Times confirmed that “top surgery”—removing the breasts of otherwise-healthy female patients confused about their sex—is performed on children across the United States."
They are not really trans men! They are just “confused about their sex”! Thanks for clearing that up! They are not just minors! They are “children”! This article is one revelation after another!
“Ghorayshi and Walsh were observing the same fact pattern. But Walsh, noticing and condemning the same development that progressives welcome and celebrate, was called a terrorist.”
As has already been said, he was actually called that for doxxing people. Would he have been called a terrorist if he had just shouted a lot? I somehow doubt it.
"some hospitals do, in fact, perform “gender-affirming” hysterectomies on children as young as 16. "
Why the quotes around gender-affirming? If the writer has evidence to argue against the decision to add gender dysphoria to the DSM, why doesn’t he present it? If he has any credentials that qualify him to disagree with the DSM, why doesn’t he present them?
He also uses the word “children” again.
" It is worth considering why the Times, which is politically and philosophically wedded to the claims of transgenderism, would run a piece admitting that top surgeries are being performed on minors across the United States. Perhaps they did so to get out in front of what they suspect is a coming deluge of regret and recriminations from young people sold a bill of goods by the trans lobby. More likely, I think, is that they want to frame the coming debate in terms favorable to their side: should we start carving up “trans people” at 17 or 18?"
Here at least, he admits he is just speculating about the Times’ motives without any evidence. “Perhaps they . . .” and “More likely, I think . . .” I really love his description of surgeries performed in a hospital by licensed professionals as “carving up”.
“That framing is not favorable to our side. Neither is it grounded in truth. There is no such thing as a “trans kid,” who needs to be “protected” from puberty.”
That is a statement of fact. It contradicts not only scientific opinion but evidence. What credentials does he have to make such a statement? What evidence does he base that statement on? Can somebody kindly show me that in the linked article?
" In fact, there is no such thing as a “trans person”; there are people who identify as “trans,” and people who have gender dysphoria. There are people with chromosomal abnormalities, people with psychological scars, and people swept up in a social contagion. But there is no essential category of being denoted by the word “trans.” There are men, and there are women, real people, children and adults, with gender dysphoria who deserve better than lies and mutilation."
Again, what are his credentials? What is his evidence? Again, he calls surgery “mutilation”.
" One girl who underwent top surgery told the Times that the surgery took from her “something about myself that I could have loved, I could have enjoyed, I could have used to feed children." She exists, even if the critics say she does not."
Wow! The existence of an out of context quote from an individual we have no details about proves that all the other patients who underwent top surgery and had positive outcomes are wrong! Why didn’t I think of that? I now realize that ‘The mean height of full grown men is higher than the mean height of full grown women’ is completely disproven by the existence of Danny DeVito, Vern Troyer and The WNBA!
On a more serious note, I have had chronic depression (among other problems) for a long time now. I have tried many many different medications to treat this over the decades. I distinctly remember when Prozac hit the market. My pschiatrist prescribed it and we were very excited. Even without the internet, Prozac was all over the media. It was hailed as a miracle of modern science and had very positive reviews. It did not do a single thing for me. As I had said, I have been on many different medications. I asked what side effects I should watch for. I asked what time of day I should take it. Should it be taken with food? etc I also knew that most antidepressants take time to work- usually two weeks at the bare minimum. After a month, I reported that I had no side effects and no improvement. My psychiatrist said to keep taking the same dosage and just give it more time to work. He repeated this on the next few visits. I explained to my parents what was happening and insisted I get a new psychiatrist. Prozac is a miracle of modern science. It has done a great deal of good for a whole ot of people. My experience only proves that it did not help me. The same is true of top surgery, puberty blockers, and the rest.
