Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Transgender Child Receiving PUBERTY BLOCKERS Without Mom’s Consent? Robby and Brie Debate" video.

Why does Brie think that a journalist should follow up and find out what the person this story is about actually believes? Hm, maybe because that's what journalists are supposed to do. Brie never said the journalist was obliged to believe the child. She was obliged not to pretend that the child had not expressed a viewpoint. If a story were about you, should the journalist contact you and ask you your view on it? Even a criminal would get this courtesy.
12
@Smiley_McPants That made precious little sense. OP has a point.
8
Keep listening. You must have missed that Robby believes "an authoritarian state" should not intervene in parental decisionmaking. That's contrary to his "libertarian" "principles." Well, I believe that an authoritarian state most certainly should intervene on the side of preventing the sterilization of minors, or anyone incapable of consenting.
7
No. She is saying that if the child contacts the journalist concerning a story that is about them, that should not be buried. She is not saying that the journalist has any obligation whatsoever to credit the child's views. She does have an obligation to report them.
6
She was right about journalistic integrity.
4
She has got tons of it.
4
Amen to that!
4
@davidwinston338 It's authoritarian to impose fundamental life choices on a minor who is in principle unable to consent. Children are not their parents' property. Where the ability to procreate and the right to try, or not, is concerned, I support choice.
4
I really wish that more people would understand hypothetical argumentation and arguments by analogy. Does a person actually have to go to law school to get it? You must have missed that Robby believes "an authoritarian state" should not intervene in parental decisionmaking. Well, I believe that an authoritarian state most certainly should intervene on the side of preventing the sterilization of minors, or anyone incapable of consenting to sterilization.
3
I do think that an authoritarian state should generally prevent the sterilization of minor children.
3
@Gingerblaze I have heard of that happening in custody disputes, yes.
2
False. If a story were about you, and you had something pertinent to say about it, would you or would you not want the journalist to contact you? What complicates this story is the fact that we are dealing with a minor child, but in any case, the child is old enough to have a viewpoint. The journalist is then free to discount it, or treat it however she likes. Pretending it doesn't exist is not an option.
2
I agree with that. Reality. We should try it.
2
@jakeroper1096 Which jury? The Court of YouTube? At least monetize it. Brie did.
2
@hollyprice4351 And I am saying that is wrong. That very practice was addressed in another segment just today.
2
@hollyprice4351 Oh. Wait. You mean bad things happen? And these days, they happen all the time? Wow. /s
2
This is the subject of the story contacting the journalist disputing material facts. The journalist should report that. She does not have to agree with what the child says, she just has an obligation not to pretend the child doesn't have a viewpoint.
2
Not what happened here. BTW, I don't agree with Gray on the substance of this issue at all. I basically agree with you. If a story were about you, and you had something pertinent to say about it, would you or would you not want the journalist to contact you? What complicates this story is the fact that we are dealing with a minor child, but in any case, the child is old enough to have a viewpoint. The journalist is then free to discount it, or treat it however she likes. Pretending it doesn't exist is not an option.
2
@davidwinston338 What is your position on lobotomies?
2
@Critical-Thinker895 Please give us the scientific reference that states that once a puberty blocker is stopped, the child will proceed with a normal puberty -- even at, say, 22. Or at any point. Please do educate us. That would be welcome news.
2
@elenabob4953 That's why journalists do the research. Well, they used to. I've been reading Janet Malcolm lately, and cannot begin to imagine her doing such a poor job.
1
@oasean Yes, this was my point.
1
@RarebitFiends The teen's alleged position was never presented at all, so how could it be questioned?
1
@RarebitFiends BTW, I am generally against medical transitioning for most minors because of the issue of informed consent and the risks of treatment -- and I am generally against aggressive medical procedures where probable disability or death are not at issue. That's not the point. The point is about silencing "inconvenient" voices. The journalist does not have to credit the teen's perspective. The journalist has an ethical obligation not to pretend the teen's perspective does not exist, just to push her preferred politics and play to her crowd. The latter bothers me a LOT. It is everywhere, too. People just take sides instead of standing up against it.
1
@RarebitFiends I was just making sure you didn't stereotype me . . . as well?
1
@RarebitFiends I agree that you have good points, but what is important in this case is that the teen's view appears to have been ignored, as though she didn't attempt to make it known. Well, we actually do not know what the teen's view is, or whether her purported tweet was in fact made by her; she was not contacted by the journalist for comment. It appears that she wanted to participate and was shut down. It appears. Good journalists follow up. May I recommend Janet Malcolm's books? A master class in how it's done.
1
@RarebitFiends I didn't say you did. I wanted to be sure you knew that my observations have nothing to do with unequivocal support, or even special sympathy, for "gender affirming care," since one's position on that hot-button issue seems to be influencing views on the separate question of journalistic practices raised here. Although the overarching question of ETHICS, in all sorts of fields, is at the forefront again. What a surprise. /s
1
@RarebitFiends I didn't say you did. I just wanted to be sure that you did not assume that I unequivocally support, or even have special sympathy for, "gender-affirming care," because that is an entirely separate question from the question of journalistic practices in this case. Although come to think of it, both are part of the overarching question of professional ethics (in law, medicine, journalism, etc., etc.), which seems to be coming to the forefront these days more often than I can ever remember before. It's exhausting.
1
@RarebitFiends Sorry for the double reply. I live near an airport and my Internet connection does weird stuff when the flights are right over my house. Evidence I'm not AI . . . ? 🤨
1
@RarebitFiends However you like. I made no knowledge claims. I have no evidence that you are not an AI -- the fact that you brought it up could be a ploy, no? On the other hand, petulance seems to be human, all too human.
1
@RarebitFiends We can come to a fact-based conclusion with ease. Your OP stated: "Why does Brie think a teenager is unquestionably trustworthy?" Please time stamp where Brie showed any sign of thinking that a teenager is unquestionably trustworthy. See. Easy.
1
How do you know?
1
@mrg0th1er83 How do you know that the mother had not noticed the child was doing no better, and was concerned that she was doing worse? Is a person allowed to read up on possible side effects of a serious medication and to decide that it is not worth the risk, relative to its purported benefits? Or, once on drugs, always on drugs? You are very light on facts.
1
@mrg0th1er83 You don't know all that. Brie herself doesn't claim that was the real story. She supports hearing from the minor child, as do I. Of course.
1
@mrg0th1er83 Oh. Twitter. Well that settles it. We should definitely make medical judgments and legal judgments based on (purported) tweets. What could go wrong?
1
Liar.
1
Katie and Brie discussed this on Katie's show.
1
Well I do care that "nonconforming" youth are being medicalized, and their issues are being treated in ways that could impair their right to try to become birth parents of a normal baby one day.
1
"Making up quotations is the same as making up your face." - Jake Roper
1
Keep listening.
1
So does Robby. Listen harder.
1
If a story were about you, should the journalist contact you and ask you your view on it? Even a criminal would get this courtesy.
1
The journalist should.
1
That strikes me as not obvious. Everyone has a right of access to courts.
1
@stevestevens8749 Well DUH. If two parents divorce and cannot come to an agreement concerning the medical care of their minor child, how do you think a decision will be reached? Either one may file suit, if they so desire. It is their constitutional right. Granted, it is mostly multimillionaires and billionaires -- and corporate entities -- who avail themselves of the court system, in contract disputes, securities disputes, antitrust, etc., but little people have a right to go to court, too, at least in principle.
1
@stevestevens8749 I noticed that, on the part of both. And I don't agree.
1
@Bleepbloopblappp Robby agreed that he supports parents and doctors making decisions about health care without the interference of an authoritarian state. How did you miss that?
1
@Bleepbloopblappp It seemed to me that in this case, where the parents were in disagreement, Robby took the side of the parent who wanted to preserve the child's future ability to have birth children. But that makes it dependent on at least one parent agreeing that that is important. I think it should be important no matter what the parents think. Robby also said that state interference, when everyone fully agrees on treatment, is authoritarian. I disagree. If the medical profession cannot police itself, then the state has got to.
1
@blackjackjester How do you read what I said as being in disagreement with that? It's obviously true, but I don't see what you are inferring from that, or how it contrasts with what I said.
1