66 Comments

Basically we are being told that if we don't do what the trans activists tell us to do, a child will be murdered (self murdered it is true, but murdered all the same).

Death treats are terrorism, not argument. They should be rejected out of hand.

Expand full comment

Thanks to everyone who liked this post. I grant you the right to copy and use it without attribution. I hope that some one with artistic talent can turn it into a meme.

Expand full comment

Sometimes I honestly wonder if TRA's actually want more suicides, because then they can say "See, this is what happens if you don't affirm!"

Expand full comment

This is an excellent piece and should be widely disseminated.

Expand full comment
Jul 20, 2022Liked by Colin Wright

The negative consequences of gender surgery are deliberately being ignored even though detransitioners are speaking up. This agenda takes no responsibility, it's just a blame game that can't be proven.

Expand full comment

Why wont children listening to all these people, including sick Government officials, not fixate on suicide if they don't get their delusion affirmed?

Fear of what is to come to our most vulnerable.

Expand full comment
Jul 20, 2022Liked by Colin Wright

Thank you for the article. The sad part is that it's being read by people who never swallowed the trans or suicide mantra.

Expand full comment

Green's paper for Heritage is dross, we need to pound a stake through its chest before it gives quacks like Turban any more opportunities to claim methodological superiority. Please for the love of science check Singal's dissection of the data. https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1540436327774175233?t=CBY-vDZjvGIF52fUCxYDrA&s=19

Expand full comment

You know, I'd love to be able to take your article seriously but being published in a zine run by people who target these minors, stalk them, insert themselves into their lives and then write slanderous and defamatory "case studies" as if they're truth. Here's to hoping you get out before the ship sinks and find somewhere reputable.

Expand full comment

This is an issue that goes back to Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

1) She tried to find somewhere leftish to centrist

2) Every door got slammed in her face

3) She ended up at a conservative institution (AEI)

4) The door-slammers held it against her that she was affiliated with a "problematic" institution.

Expand full comment

Did she commit borderline hate crimes too?

Expand full comment

She was accused of it for saying "Islam has many intolerant doctrines", yes. Something something Islamophobia.

Expand full comment

The plaintiff's bar is salivating. Malpractice suits against doctors, with 3rd parties added accordingly (schools, AMA, etc.).

Once these kids get older, and they start to suffer broken bones and infertility, and regret, the lawsuits will be hot and heavy. Fun times for the lawyers.

And, given that these practices will be barred in Scandinavia, Great Britain, France -- Just imagine a lawyer presenting this to a jury! "Despite all the evidence mounting in Europe, with countries prohibiting this, the defendants continued to carelessly, even recklessly disregard the well-being of my client. Perhaps the defendants had a hidden social or political agenda (objection your honor!)...Let me rephrase that -- the defendants failed to meet their profession's standard of care. The simple standard of care that doctors all over Europe have! It is common sense, ladies and gentlemen, just common sense, you don't need a medical license to understand that stopping the natural patterns of human adolescence would bring immense, irreversible and horrible harm to my client."...blah, blah blah -- it will be fun to watch. But, how very tragic for these children.

Billions will be made, and the malpractice insurance for these "trans care" doctors will go through the roof. Until it is outlawed -- we tend to follow Scandinavia in all these trends, except we love lawsuits and our juries give huge money verdicts. Heck, I would even argue for punitive damages and ask for treble.

Expand full comment

Your scrutiny of Turban's findings is actual water trash. One, the study was conducted to specify a data set and compare it to an older study, meaning Turban was scrutinizing and examining his own findings for factual basis. Two, this is a relatively new topic with low study because it is new; we were just able to have the amount of data needed for 5-year study of transgender youth.

Expand full comment

If you only have 5 years worth of data for a trend that's increased by ~3000% in the past 15-20 years based on European data, there isn't much reason to publish sweeping conclusions based on data you already know is shit.

Except, of course, for woke virtue-signaling.

Expand full comment

Firstly, data scientists do not need to "vet" people who respond to their surveys when they respond "yes" to attempted suicide. The arrogance you write with counters all journalistic integrity. Secondly, you're obviously not a scientist -- you read data then review it with language that manipulates the original collection purposes to validate what you already believe, not to explore the potential lack of your understanding. For example, you do cite the Cass Review which is widely accepted as a non-biased guide for healthcare professionals who work with young individuals experiencing gender dysphoria, however, you use the bit about autism and how 1/3 of adolescences referred to GIDS have been diagnosed with it and how it's a "convenient explanation" for whatever.

It's actually that last bit that seals how much of a scientist you are not, Leor Sapir. It's like you didn't read the Cass Review at all.

Expand full comment

Amazing how grumpy people get when confronted with good-faith skepticism about their pet cause, or mere questions and doubts that threaten prestige, viewpoint, or revenue stream. Well that's not quite true; it isn't the least bit amazing.

Expand full comment

Yes, this is so true. I can’t believe there are people here in this thread right now peddling fear against the experts in this field.

Oh wait, you are doing that. Not amazing at all. Very human thing to do.

Expand full comment

“…you read data then review it with language that manipulates the original collection purposes to validate what you already believe…”

Have a very long look in the mirror.

Expand full comment

That’s the only place I’ll find sanity; anywhere but this thread.

Expand full comment

Then in this instance your moral certainty is depriving you of reality.

Expand full comment

Sure, Ben, and pigs can fly.

Expand full comment

Been a couple of years since I read it but the methodology of the 2019 Turban et al paper intentionally excluded desisters and detransitioners from the +20,000 cohort because they were not "trans".

Expand full comment

You know why, right? You know they excluded these people who had transitioned from their sex and gender of choice to that that had been assigned at birth because they, because of “detransitioning,” are now just like you: cisgender or in agreement of the sex and gender assigned at birth. So they can’t be included because they are not transexual or transitioning, ya cracker brain; these 20,000+ individuals are just like you now, DaveOMe.

Expand full comment

See my earlier response regarding the translation of newspeak.

Edit: And a pro tip. When one descends to ad hom, it ain't a slam dunk.

"Crackerbrain". That's a first.

Expand full comment

This entire thread is ad hom, from the author to whatever you believe your comments add to this thread. Y’all love to sit around and smell each other’s farts.

Expand full comment

If you are talking about this article titled "Pubertal Suppression for Transgender Youth and Risk of Suicidal Ideation" it was published in 2020. [https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/145/2/e20191725/68259/Pubertal-Suppression-for-Transgender-Youth-and?autologincheck=redirected]

Also, you fall in line with all the others in this thread who do not know how to read the abstract, the methods, and the conclusions of the study. The method intentionally did not include those who previously identified as transgender because the study wanted to examine the tendency of suicide amongst those who wanted full-transition and completed it.

Expand full comment

"The study wanted to examine a population group most likely to say the things we wanted to hear, which is why it excluded any detransitioners" is not exactly the slam-dunk case for objectivity you seem to think it is.

It would be very easy to come up with a study that proves "100% of people who transition go on to regret it", by simply limiting the studied population to exclusively detransitioners.

Expand full comment

Yeah, large corporations do it all the time. I understand the skepticism.

However, with your demolition and disbelief of the expert in this field of research, you have exemplified the death of the expert that is happening all across the world, in a microcosm in this thread; where, even though you are confronted with researched facts by those who have historically been trusted to do this research, you still choose to stay in the dark.

You are in the dark, and you choose willingly to stay there because you think you “know better.”

Expand full comment

The death of the expert is self-inflicted by said experts. As Warren Buffett once put it "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently."

Experts once upon a time understood that in order to be trusted, they had to be trustworthy, which meant among other things checking their personal politics at the door. Now there's a new generation of progressives who think they not only can, but should, use their credentials and their research to "advance social justice causes". The result is neutrality has been thrown out the window; objectivity itself is frequently written off as a form of "white supremacy".

Experts nowadays have no credibility because they've done nothing to earn said credibility, while actively going out of their way to be *untrustworthy* due to rampant political bias. They just think they can have the best of both worlds; use their status as "experts" to push a political agenda while still being trusted as though they had a track record of objectivity.

Aside from massively woke-biased trans research (looking at you Jack Turban), COVID policies were another major redpill moment when it comes to the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of the people self-identifying as "experts". As Ron DeSantis put it "When public health experts said you can't protest against lockdowns, but George Floyd riots are OK, that's when I knew these people are a bunch of frauds.”

Nobody made the experts ruin their reputations; they did that voluntarily.

Expand full comment

Also, the more you say “woke” the more I know you actually cannot think for yourself; you’re regurgitating sound bites fed to you by your daddy Ron DeSantis.

Expand full comment

Yada yada yada, TLDR: people can believe whatever they want now because we have our own brains as experts and Ron DeSantis is the only government Miles needs.

I know you don’t like the government. However, protesting wearing a medical mask (a hygiene practice that dates back to before your grandpappy told you the government was evil) is not the same as protesting the unjustified death of someone by the police, who are not here to “protect and serve.”

Expand full comment

Also, have you thought about why they would exclude persons who had transitioned, then transitioned back, other than for your anxiety of creating a study to yield desired results?

It is because those who had formerly transitioned had transitioned again to their sex of birth, for whatever reason. Ultimately, their data was not used because those persons identified with their assigned gender; this study was specifically for those who did not identify with their assigned sex and gender.

You can read, but you can’t discern. Just judge and scrutinize, that’s all you do.

Expand full comment

"this study was specifically for those who did not identify with their assigned sex and gender."

Which makes it worthless because it's just a tautology at that point.

"Did you know that 100% of people who made X decision *and* don't regret it, say they have no regrets?"

Expand full comment

Oh, I get it now!

You’re upset that *you* weren’t a part of the study? Is that right?

Expand full comment

Thus rendering it useless for anything other than political purpose.

What is “full transition”? Indeed, what is “transition?”.

How is “full transition” achieved?

Appreciate the ad hom, BTW.

EDIT: "it" not "is"

Expand full comment

If you read the article, you would know how these scientists defined those terms for you.

Expand full comment

Oh yes, many of us can translate from newspeak to english.

Complete transition is either: A dynamic progression from one sex to another that can never be achieved. Or,

A collective metaphysical belief being imposed on heretics.

Expand full comment

Wait, haha, are you a heretic in this scenario? That's hilarious. So, then, these threads must be where lonely people go to feel more lonely about their very small and limited world perspectives. Heretics, amiright? lolololololol

Expand full comment