Thanks for reading, everyone. Follow me on Substack or on Twitter for more such information. (https://twitter.com/benryanwriter) Send me tips if you see more such furthering of falsehoods. --Ben
You might be interested in my channel, where I profile 59 trans widows' experiences with exactly the DARVO and gaslighting of the Erin/Anthony Reeds of the world. The mother of the 4 year old son he fathered must be in constant trauma.
I did select my pen name with her in mind. Ute Heggen means something like "out in the hedge" in Norwegian. It seems to fit, as I'm usually weeding under some bush or other. Thanks
It may take a bit more effort, but an article such as this can be written without using any pronouns at all. Use the person's chosen name if you must, but I agree with not using incorrect pronouns- it simply furthers the fantasy.
Reporters are not activists. They must work in a captured profession. That "first hurdle" is also why Andy Ngo uses the pronouns, too. I hate it as much as you do but that's the reality.
People subscribe to Erin Reed to listen to lies. Erin Reed tells lies for profit. The operative quote is from Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Please do not use "she" with Reed. Reed is a male who has assumed to guise of a woman. He is not credible as a woman. Use "he"..
Darn, you beat me to it George. I wrote the comment below - went to post it - and then saw yours. But I'll throw mine in anyway as an addendum to yours:
("To paraphrase Upton Sinclair - Its difficult to get a “queer journalist” writing straight up propaganda about trans-rights issues - “to understand something” - when maintaining his subscriber base depends on him - "NOT understanding it."). : / What a world.
Please do not refer to Erin Reid as "she" and "her." He is a man and always will be. So is Zooey Zephyr. So is Erica Anderson. We need to start calling these people what they are. They do not control reality.
Please don't go along with this insanity by referring to Erin Reed as "she" or "her". That's akin to telling someone with an eating disorder that she or he really is fat.
Imagine setting policy for how to talk about drug addiction and help addicts, but you only considered the opinions of people who are active addicts - former addicts, families of addicts, and others affected by someone’s addiction don’t have their opinions considered. Would the policies they came up with actually be beneficial for addicts? Of course not. And this is how we ended up with gender affirming care.
The drug-use policy people pretty much do listen only to active addicts and their partisan activists. “Safe(r) supply” leads to high-potency Dilaudid tablets being sold to school children and the cash used to buy fentanyl, which the addicts prefer. The authorities condemn people who raise this uncomfortable fact — or they deny it even exists—as having the hateful audacity to value children’s lives over the happiness and satisfaction of “oppressed” drug users, their clientele.. They ignore that safe supply fails in its stated goal of reducing overdose deaths in addicts, because the addicts don’t even take it: they sell it to buy fentanyl. The people who do overdose on Dilaudid are opiate-naive school kids experimenting.
Sigh. I chose that analogy on the assumption that it was so wrong that anyone could see it. I guess I underestimated people’s lack of common sense. I should know better by now.
It appears that the first fusillade of comments is about pronouns. I understand the rationality behind insisting on using the correct sex-based pronouns when referring to individuals like Erin, but I am not an idealist. As a pragmatist, I think I am much more likely to “win over the hearts and minds” of the trans-activist community by using their language. I am more interested in engaging in conversation with those with whom I disagree than alienating them. It is a different but equally valid approach to confronting these issues. Let’s appreciate both styles of discourse and engage in the topic at hand instead of getting distracted by idealism and semantics.
I read the entire article. The offensive pronouns leapt out at me so many times that they overshadowed other impressions. You may regard them as a minor triviality but given that the foremost goal of uh people like Anthony Reed is to promote the "trans women are women" lie, leaving no opportunity to do so untaken, it's incumbent on those of us acquainted with reality to resist every bit as thoroughly.
The reason the gender movement has attained such power is a reluctance to resist it, lest we be called bigots. Well, the gender identity movement has suffered a powerful series of reversals and now it's time to twist the knife.
I think if you were able to post a poll you would find that very few of us are even remotely interested in "win[ning] over the hearts and minds of the trans-activist community."
I will offer my own view: I have no such intention. On the contrary, I want this community crushed, speaking figuratively. I want its activists shunned and shamed, I want the prescribers like Michele Forcier ("does a chicked have a gender identity? (smile)") and the vagino/phalloplasty surgeons behind bars for decades.
I want the concept of gender to have no place in psychology, medicine or law.
And yes I feel obligated to make this as plain as I can.
I regret using the term "trans activist" in my post. I agree the odds of winning over ideologues of any kind is a tremendous challenge. I should have said, "our progressive neighbors." My MSNBC and NPR compatriots have not thought about this issues like we have, and (as we all know) tend to be quick to take offense. These run of the mill progressives are persuadable if you can create space for engagement and avoid alienation. My point is really about strategy and respecting those with a different approach to the same goal.
What goal would that? Kindly “affirmation” of “trans” kids?
I’m against that
My goal is the final end of any and all hormonal and surgical treatment, the only treatment recognized as ethical being psychiatric reconciliation with biological sex.
That’s my goal, and it yields nothing to the Anthony Reeds or the Michele Forciers or the Queer Theorists or the Genderbread Man.
I did not think I needed to clarify that. My goal is the exact same as yours. As I said, my comment is about respecting a diversity of strategies towards our common goal.
I mean, yes? There is literally no reasoning with them. They are delusional at best, bad actors at worst, and propping up their delusions by being nice is how we've gone this far from normality in the first place. "Deadnaming" is whatever. I'll call someone any name they want, but we should put our foot down on the "misgendering" which is coercing you to lie about reality by not correctly sexing someone. We don't need to win them over. We need to put an end to this insanity.
Y'all realize they are the ones currently in charge and making the rules, right? Not that we should be sucking up to them, but getting cocky and obnoxious is not a game we can win against the cockiest, most obnoxious people since the "Love It Or Leave It" Dubya-era Christofascists. And I don't just mean the troons themselves, but all the allies that are going to tune out the instant they notice you misgendering and deadnaming.
Use your brains. The little tingle of joy you feel calling Erin "Anthony" or "he/him" accomplishes jack shit for our side, and makes us look like rednecks to the liberal masses who have never even considered how deep the rot-pocket rabbit hole really goes.
Respectfully, you're the only one acting obnoxiously in this convo. You've completed invented this rationale as the driving force behind my suggestion. You have no reason to suspect that. It isn't even a consideration. Assigning hatred or schadenfreude or whatever you want to call it when there is none is something I expect from TRAs who call everything hatred. If arguing against strawmen is "using your brain" to you, we may be at an impasse already.
1. They are not in charge. They are influential to those in charge. As they gain more influence in positions of power, the harder this will be to stop.
2. Part of why they've been able to gain influence is because of the affirmation they've been given that they are something they are not. Most people aren't convinced along with them, but are either unaware of the consequences (so far) or already fear the retaliation. Us collectively rolling out respectful, but firm denials of dancing when they insist is not a bad thing.
3. Nobody suggested "deadnaming." I said I didn't care about names.
4. I did not suggest "misgendering" or correctly sexing anyone. I suggested putting our foot down on the actual misgendering. There's no reason why a TiM can't be called his name or they/them.
5. It makes us look like something negative BECAUSE normal people have been too scared/oblivious to call this out. It's a symptom of our acquiescence and why we need to put an end to this immediately.
6. Again, we have overlap with "rednecks" because we've sat silently while lunatics overtake institutions. More silence and playing along is not good.
7. I don't get anything from calling a TiM their correct sex. It's weird you suggest that as the reason, as if the reasons we're all against this evaporated. Regardless, I disagree. The more we are vocal proponents, the more we can discuss things with our friends who've either rode the pine or hopped in the game. We need more people to do this.
8. No offense, but I think you are part of the problem. I don't think it's ever okay to shame someone for acknowledging an important truth. We don't negotiate with terrorists. You are equating "deadnaming" and "misgendering" with socially/morally unacceptable actions, which plays directly into their game. You should be as livid with us at the forced compliance to live in cuckoo land. And there's nothing obnoxious or immature by calmly, correctly, and unwaveringly stating an obvious truth that shouldn't be debated in the first place. The fact you assume someone getting a "tingle" from "misgendering" is the catalyst for doing this is odd.
Anthony Reed (who goes by Erin and pretends to be a woman) is in a relationship with Zachary Raasch (who goes by the name Zooey Zephyr, is a Montana state legislator, and is also a male). So basically this is a homosexual relationship between 2 deluded perverts.
Women who are married to perverted deluded men like Anthony are victims of the delusion. They start off in a heterosexual relationship (which apparently produced one child by normal heterosexual penis-vagina action). Then, one day, they wake up and HEY-PRESTO she has become a lesbian. Women who get this nasty trick played become very bitter.
Trans widows are often portrayed as "bitter" when we simply write what happened, how the husband and his therapist tried coercion regarding degrading sex role play. In the data I have from 59 trans widows, I see rational intelligence and the need to protect oneself from the disregard and defamation of the general public in Western society. We tend to think too much about what signs we missed. Thanks for putting out the Erin/Anthony Reed info.
I wonder what the Valley of the Shadow of Gender Insanity that his former partner went thru was like. What was her moment of realization that her former husband was now her lesbian partner (in his own mind)? What kind of a man does that to a former wife? You know these things intimately. I do not.
What also is shocking is that even when a narcissist is a heterosexual man who identifies as such, his version of making love is actually "I love how I see and feel about myself." Partners of male or female narcissists are usually horrified and devastated when they recognize that what they thought was a shared experience never really included them at all.
Horrifying. I wonder what the mother of the child is thinking. This is the "queer" ethos, where normality is completely eliminated. For adults, that's sort of OK (as long as I do not have to agree). For children, it is a complete abuse and perversion.
If you're not a trans person and you think you have a valid opinion about our care and what's best. ....you don't.... you're best to shut up and mind your own god damn business.
I must object to the use of the feminine pronoun for Mr. Reed. Doing so is playing along with what he is promoting. This is a male.
Note the photographs, every one wearing the exact same expression, the same set of the mouth like some Mr. Sardonicus. Every single picture of Reed has the exact same expression and most are from the same angle.
He constantly promotes ways to get hormones without any review, this is what he does. He publishes lists of distributors so teens who can't get their parents' concurrence can get hormones anyway,
Of course he lies about the Cass Review. "Trans" is the basis of his attention stream and if the reversal of the affirmation protocol comes to the USA, he loses his audience. You can count on his readers going no further.
Serendipity! I just posted a video regarding the "outrage response" to the Cass Review. Men like Erin Reed (Mr. Ryan, we prefer accurate pronouns here!) are sociopath narcissists who gaslight everyone (including, apparently, his own 4 year old son) so they can continue the self-delusion and sexual fetish without the hindrance of public disapproval.
This genuinely some of the shittiest “journalism” I’ve ever seen. Wouldn’t it be awesome if we all got to defer to our own opinion on ourselves anytime we’re criticized? This is such a softball piece of crap. You just defer to Cass to give her opinion on herself. Laughably pathetic
The trans lobby ignores ‘unhelpful’ biology, and redefines words & concepts as they like. They have been very successful in using linguistic coercion to drum up support for their political agenda- i.e exploiting victim status to enable men to invade women’s spaces. So far as I can tell no fuss is made of trans men in male spaces.
Dissenters are suppressed, not listened to, as is the way with extremist political groups. In reality their position has little to do with science as we have traditionally understood it, where testing evidence and legitimate debate used to flourish.
In order to legitimise their paradigm of an unverifiable yet ‘immutable gender identity’ that trumps every aspect of life including biology and every other psychological condition a person could possess, the paradigm must also apply to children too. If it doesn’t then their adult position is reduced to meaningless linguistic gobbledygook and a lifestyle choice.
Children have become collateral damage to support this political ideology, which is also intent on compelling the rest of us to validate their delusions and affirm their ‘right’ to invade women’s spaces whenever it suits them. Science is only ‘true’ when it can be manipulated to show support for their cause. The rationality and common sense which Colin supports on this blog have no place in trans political ideology. Nor feminist supporters like JK Rowling.
Cass has exposed, albeit somewhat too politely, the vacuous nature of their claims of legitimacy. She has placed the problems of sexual dysphoria in the context of other childhood and adolescent psychological issues. Hence the problem of evidence- the trans zealots have ignored everything that doesn’t suit their beliefs and have failed to properly take into consideration issues such as autistic spectrum disorder, body dysmorphia, depression, social isolation, social media etc in most of their research. Their lack of cooperation is surely testament to their lack of caution in data interpretation.
In effect Cass is treating the trans medical position with equality of scrutiny. And they really don’t like this version of equality.
As Thomas Sowell has said, “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination”.
Ooh, this is an essay I'll bookmark for future reference!
The Majority Report is a piece of work, isn't it? I will say, though, that I appreciate how host Emma Vigeland is straight-up on her opinion about trans women in women's sports. She has said she thinks trans women should be able to compete and she doesn't care if it's unfair, full stop. She thinks inclusion trumps fairness. I disagree with Vigeland, to say the least, but I'm glad she's made it clear where she stands. So often, people say, "Oh, once they take hormones, trans women have no advantage", when they really mean they just don't care about fairness. Vigeland, on the other hand, is right out there. I appreciate her honesty.
Thanks for reading, everyone. Follow me on Substack or on Twitter for more such information. (https://twitter.com/benryanwriter) Send me tips if you see more such furthering of falsehoods. --Ben
You might be interested in my channel, where I profile 59 trans widows' experiences with exactly the DARVO and gaslighting of the Erin/Anthony Reeds of the world. The mother of the 4 year old son he fathered must be in constant trauma.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjmFcWf62fY&t=16s
The tulips are lovely, this I can say.
Also, were you named after Uta Hagen?
I did select my pen name with her in mind. Ute Heggen means something like "out in the hedge" in Norwegian. It seems to fit, as I'm usually weeding under some bush or other. Thanks
That is profoundly clever.
Thanks. You rock, man!
Typo, under your first "Conclusions" box, the second bullet point, second sentence:
"This is mean to keep false study results, such as those driven by bias, from influencing medical practices."
Third word should be "meant," not "mean."
I'm sure that Reed would agree more with the way the sentence is worded now! LOL!
Thanks, I fixed it on the version of my substack, sent a note to Colin to fix it on his end.
Erin Reed is a man. If you really want to help, stop falling at the first hurdle.
We both said the same thing at the same time.
jinx!
It may take a bit more effort, but an article such as this can be written without using any pronouns at all. Use the person's chosen name if you must, but I agree with not using incorrect pronouns- it simply furthers the fantasy.
Reporters are not activists. They must work in a captured profession. That "first hurdle" is also why Andy Ngo uses the pronouns, too. I hate it as much as you do but that's the reality.
Using female pronouns for a man IS activism. That's the reality.
Well said.
Andy Ngo writes out of the UK.
I take a different view. I dislike being told what words I must and must not use, so I don't tell others what words THEY must and must not use.
Honesty and accuracy transcend screwy notions of personal freedom.
I was just thinking this. Ben himself is spreading misinformation by calling him a her.
People subscribe to Erin Reed to listen to lies. Erin Reed tells lies for profit. The operative quote is from Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Please do not use "she" with Reed. Reed is a male who has assumed to guise of a woman. He is not credible as a woman. Use "he"..
Darn, you beat me to it George. I wrote the comment below - went to post it - and then saw yours. But I'll throw mine in anyway as an addendum to yours:
("To paraphrase Upton Sinclair - Its difficult to get a “queer journalist” writing straight up propaganda about trans-rights issues - “to understand something” - when maintaining his subscriber base depends on him - "NOT understanding it."). : / What a world.
It's a comfort to realize that I am thinking in the same direction as others.
It's time to stop accommodating the deluded perverts. This man Erin Reed is out to confuse the credulous. He must be held to account.
Please do not refer to Erin Reid as "she" and "her." He is a man and always will be. So is Zooey Zephyr. So is Erica Anderson. We need to start calling these people what they are. They do not control reality.
Please don't go along with this insanity by referring to Erin Reed as "she" or "her". That's akin to telling someone with an eating disorder that she or he really is fat.
Imagine setting policy for how to talk about drug addiction and help addicts, but you only considered the opinions of people who are active addicts - former addicts, families of addicts, and others affected by someone’s addiction don’t have their opinions considered. Would the policies they came up with actually be beneficial for addicts? Of course not. And this is how we ended up with gender affirming care.
The drug-use policy people pretty much do listen only to active addicts and their partisan activists. “Safe(r) supply” leads to high-potency Dilaudid tablets being sold to school children and the cash used to buy fentanyl, which the addicts prefer. The authorities condemn people who raise this uncomfortable fact — or they deny it even exists—as having the hateful audacity to value children’s lives over the happiness and satisfaction of “oppressed” drug users, their clientele.. They ignore that safe supply fails in its stated goal of reducing overdose deaths in addicts, because the addicts don’t even take it: they sell it to buy fentanyl. The people who do overdose on Dilaudid are opiate-naive school kids experimenting.
Sigh. I chose that analogy on the assumption that it was so wrong that anyone could see it. I guess I underestimated people’s lack of common sense. I should know better by now.
It appears that the first fusillade of comments is about pronouns. I understand the rationality behind insisting on using the correct sex-based pronouns when referring to individuals like Erin, but I am not an idealist. As a pragmatist, I think I am much more likely to “win over the hearts and minds” of the trans-activist community by using their language. I am more interested in engaging in conversation with those with whom I disagree than alienating them. It is a different but equally valid approach to confronting these issues. Let’s appreciate both styles of discourse and engage in the topic at hand instead of getting distracted by idealism and semantics.
Furthermore, did anyone actually read the article, or do they all just have a single thought to share, about pronouns?
I read the entire article. The offensive pronouns leapt out at me so many times that they overshadowed other impressions. You may regard them as a minor triviality but given that the foremost goal of uh people like Anthony Reed is to promote the "trans women are women" lie, leaving no opportunity to do so untaken, it's incumbent on those of us acquainted with reality to resist every bit as thoroughly.
The reason the gender movement has attained such power is a reluctance to resist it, lest we be called bigots. Well, the gender identity movement has suffered a powerful series of reversals and now it's time to twist the knife.
My pronoun policy is final.
I think if you were able to post a poll you would find that very few of us are even remotely interested in "win[ning] over the hearts and minds of the trans-activist community."
I will offer my own view: I have no such intention. On the contrary, I want this community crushed, speaking figuratively. I want its activists shunned and shamed, I want the prescribers like Michele Forcier ("does a chicked have a gender identity? (smile)") and the vagino/phalloplasty surgeons behind bars for decades.
I want the concept of gender to have no place in psychology, medicine or law.
And yes I feel obligated to make this as plain as I can.
I regret using the term "trans activist" in my post. I agree the odds of winning over ideologues of any kind is a tremendous challenge. I should have said, "our progressive neighbors." My MSNBC and NPR compatriots have not thought about this issues like we have, and (as we all know) tend to be quick to take offense. These run of the mill progressives are persuadable if you can create space for engagement and avoid alienation. My point is really about strategy and respecting those with a different approach to the same goal.
What goal would that? Kindly “affirmation” of “trans” kids?
I’m against that
My goal is the final end of any and all hormonal and surgical treatment, the only treatment recognized as ethical being psychiatric reconciliation with biological sex.
That’s my goal, and it yields nothing to the Anthony Reeds or the Michele Forciers or the Queer Theorists or the Genderbread Man.
I did not think I needed to clarify that. My goal is the exact same as yours. As I said, my comment is about respecting a diversity of strategies towards our common goal.
Using Erin’s desired pronouns will do nothing to win his heart or mind.
Ah, but deadnaming, THAT'S a surefire path to victory. 🙄
"deadnaming"
Do you want an "attaboy" for working in that dumb neologism?
I mean, yes? There is literally no reasoning with them. They are delusional at best, bad actors at worst, and propping up their delusions by being nice is how we've gone this far from normality in the first place. "Deadnaming" is whatever. I'll call someone any name they want, but we should put our foot down on the "misgendering" which is coercing you to lie about reality by not correctly sexing someone. We don't need to win them over. We need to put an end to this insanity.
One like is all I'm allowed but please consider it a thousand
Y'all realize they are the ones currently in charge and making the rules, right? Not that we should be sucking up to them, but getting cocky and obnoxious is not a game we can win against the cockiest, most obnoxious people since the "Love It Or Leave It" Dubya-era Christofascists. And I don't just mean the troons themselves, but all the allies that are going to tune out the instant they notice you misgendering and deadnaming.
Use your brains. The little tingle of joy you feel calling Erin "Anthony" or "he/him" accomplishes jack shit for our side, and makes us look like rednecks to the liberal masses who have never even considered how deep the rot-pocket rabbit hole really goes.
Respectfully, you're the only one acting obnoxiously in this convo. You've completed invented this rationale as the driving force behind my suggestion. You have no reason to suspect that. It isn't even a consideration. Assigning hatred or schadenfreude or whatever you want to call it when there is none is something I expect from TRAs who call everything hatred. If arguing against strawmen is "using your brain" to you, we may be at an impasse already.
1. They are not in charge. They are influential to those in charge. As they gain more influence in positions of power, the harder this will be to stop.
2. Part of why they've been able to gain influence is because of the affirmation they've been given that they are something they are not. Most people aren't convinced along with them, but are either unaware of the consequences (so far) or already fear the retaliation. Us collectively rolling out respectful, but firm denials of dancing when they insist is not a bad thing.
3. Nobody suggested "deadnaming." I said I didn't care about names.
4. I did not suggest "misgendering" or correctly sexing anyone. I suggested putting our foot down on the actual misgendering. There's no reason why a TiM can't be called his name or they/them.
5. It makes us look like something negative BECAUSE normal people have been too scared/oblivious to call this out. It's a symptom of our acquiescence and why we need to put an end to this immediately.
6. Again, we have overlap with "rednecks" because we've sat silently while lunatics overtake institutions. More silence and playing along is not good.
7. I don't get anything from calling a TiM their correct sex. It's weird you suggest that as the reason, as if the reasons we're all against this evaporated. Regardless, I disagree. The more we are vocal proponents, the more we can discuss things with our friends who've either rode the pine or hopped in the game. We need more people to do this.
8. No offense, but I think you are part of the problem. I don't think it's ever okay to shame someone for acknowledging an important truth. We don't negotiate with terrorists. You are equating "deadnaming" and "misgendering" with socially/morally unacceptable actions, which plays directly into their game. You should be as livid with us at the forced compliance to live in cuckoo land. And there's nothing obnoxious or immature by calmly, correctly, and unwaveringly stating an obvious truth that shouldn't be debated in the first place. The fact you assume someone getting a "tingle" from "misgendering" is the catalyst for doing this is odd.
That we incidentally have some overlap with conservatives is a separate issue I’d be happy to discuss using a real keyboard.
I am not participating in their lies. Reed is a man and gets male pronouns. His name is Anthony.
It starts with language.
Were readers aware of this aspect of Erin Reed prior to the transition? Thoughts?
https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1781909847551725648
Anthony Reed (who goes by Erin and pretends to be a woman) is in a relationship with Zachary Raasch (who goes by the name Zooey Zephyr, is a Montana state legislator, and is also a male). So basically this is a homosexual relationship between 2 deluded perverts.
His actual name is Anthony Reed.
Women who are married to perverted deluded men like Anthony are victims of the delusion. They start off in a heterosexual relationship (which apparently produced one child by normal heterosexual penis-vagina action). Then, one day, they wake up and HEY-PRESTO she has become a lesbian. Women who get this nasty trick played become very bitter.
Trans widows are often portrayed as "bitter" when we simply write what happened, how the husband and his therapist tried coercion regarding degrading sex role play. In the data I have from 59 trans widows, I see rational intelligence and the need to protect oneself from the disregard and defamation of the general public in Western society. We tend to think too much about what signs we missed. Thanks for putting out the Erin/Anthony Reed info.
I wonder what the Valley of the Shadow of Gender Insanity that his former partner went thru was like. What was her moment of realization that her former husband was now her lesbian partner (in his own mind)? What kind of a man does that to a former wife? You know these things intimately. I do not.
What also is shocking is that even when a narcissist is a heterosexual man who identifies as such, his version of making love is actually "I love how I see and feel about myself." Partners of male or female narcissists are usually horrified and devastated when they recognize that what they thought was a shared experience never really included them at all.
I always wondered who wants those mirrors on the ceiling.
LOL!!! I was trying to work the word "mirror" into one of my sentences! You did it perfectly!
Horrifying. I wonder what the mother of the child is thinking. This is the "queer" ethos, where normality is completely eliminated. For adults, that's sort of OK (as long as I do not have to agree). For children, it is a complete abuse and perversion.
Please use correct pronouns. It’s a male. A he.
If you're not a trans person and you think you have a valid opinion about our care and what's best. ....you don't.... you're best to shut up and mind your own god damn business.
I must object to the use of the feminine pronoun for Mr. Reed. Doing so is playing along with what he is promoting. This is a male.
Note the photographs, every one wearing the exact same expression, the same set of the mouth like some Mr. Sardonicus. Every single picture of Reed has the exact same expression and most are from the same angle.
He constantly promotes ways to get hormones without any review, this is what he does. He publishes lists of distributors so teens who can't get their parents' concurrence can get hormones anyway,
Of course he lies about the Cass Review. "Trans" is the basis of his attention stream and if the reversal of the affirmation protocol comes to the USA, he loses his audience. You can count on his readers going no further.
This is an utterly vile man.
They have suffered severe recent reversals. Now is the time to twist the knife.
We need to put our efforts into dismantling the suicide (“genocide”) lie. That’s their moral foundation and it’s false.
Serendipity! I just posted a video regarding the "outrage response" to the Cass Review. Men like Erin Reed (Mr. Ryan, we prefer accurate pronouns here!) are sociopath narcissists who gaslight everyone (including, apparently, his own 4 year old son) so they can continue the self-delusion and sexual fetish without the hindrance of public disapproval.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjmFcWf62fY&t=16s
This genuinely some of the shittiest “journalism” I’ve ever seen. Wouldn’t it be awesome if we all got to defer to our own opinion on ourselves anytime we’re criticized? This is such a softball piece of crap. You just defer to Cass to give her opinion on herself. Laughably pathetic
The trans lobby ignores ‘unhelpful’ biology, and redefines words & concepts as they like. They have been very successful in using linguistic coercion to drum up support for their political agenda- i.e exploiting victim status to enable men to invade women’s spaces. So far as I can tell no fuss is made of trans men in male spaces.
Dissenters are suppressed, not listened to, as is the way with extremist political groups. In reality their position has little to do with science as we have traditionally understood it, where testing evidence and legitimate debate used to flourish.
In order to legitimise their paradigm of an unverifiable yet ‘immutable gender identity’ that trumps every aspect of life including biology and every other psychological condition a person could possess, the paradigm must also apply to children too. If it doesn’t then their adult position is reduced to meaningless linguistic gobbledygook and a lifestyle choice.
Children have become collateral damage to support this political ideology, which is also intent on compelling the rest of us to validate their delusions and affirm their ‘right’ to invade women’s spaces whenever it suits them. Science is only ‘true’ when it can be manipulated to show support for their cause. The rationality and common sense which Colin supports on this blog have no place in trans political ideology. Nor feminist supporters like JK Rowling.
Cass has exposed, albeit somewhat too politely, the vacuous nature of their claims of legitimacy. She has placed the problems of sexual dysphoria in the context of other childhood and adolescent psychological issues. Hence the problem of evidence- the trans zealots have ignored everything that doesn’t suit their beliefs and have failed to properly take into consideration issues such as autistic spectrum disorder, body dysmorphia, depression, social isolation, social media etc in most of their research. Their lack of cooperation is surely testament to their lack of caution in data interpretation.
In effect Cass is treating the trans medical position with equality of scrutiny. And they really don’t like this version of equality.
As Thomas Sowell has said, “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination”.
Ooh, this is an essay I'll bookmark for future reference!
The Majority Report is a piece of work, isn't it? I will say, though, that I appreciate how host Emma Vigeland is straight-up on her opinion about trans women in women's sports. She has said she thinks trans women should be able to compete and she doesn't care if it's unfair, full stop. She thinks inclusion trumps fairness. I disagree with Vigeland, to say the least, but I'm glad she's made it clear where she stands. So often, people say, "Oh, once they take hormones, trans women have no advantage", when they really mean they just don't care about fairness. Vigeland, on the other hand, is right out there. I appreciate her honesty.
So, you’re telling me, that yet another transwoman is evangelizing, insisting that their faith is the Truth, without substantial empirical evidence?
Inconceivable!