Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Hillsdale College" channel.

@robmoore8393 Did you notice where, in the Q & A, she said she was opposed to criminalizing all treatments for the youth? That is because she does acknowledge that transgender people exist, and that they feel that something is fundamentally wrong from their very earliest memories. She explained how it is never something that just pops up during puberty, nor is it something that is common, especially among biological girls. In fact, it is very rare, and almost always affects boys when it does happen. The Frontline documentary on the subject was fascinating. Not one transgender child was ever in harmony with their biological sex. Some even looked to be the opposite sex as toddlers, and people spontaneously thought they were. Dysphoria is a key symptom, but something else is definitely going on. Having this disorder suddenly become "trendy" is deeply sinister, and harms actual trans youth, without a doubt.
13
@robmoore8393 I never said that biological sex does not correlate with gender. Of course it make no sense whatsoever to pretend that biological sex isn't binary, then to engage in very risky treatments to change one's body to conform more closely to the morphology of the opposite sex. What are transitioners transitioning to? The incoherence of claiming sex isn't real and isn't binary is obvious. I'll tell you something else: most of this is a grift. Follow the money. It is mind-boggling how much money is changing hands over this issue, and ending up in pro and con pockets. Something is very wrong with this picture on many, many levels. Something that once affected a tiny fraction of a percent of people is suddenly proliferating. I know that is not possible, absent some really bad environmental or psycho-socio-political change. It is cult-like -- and it will harm the tiny minority who are born this way. It already has.
10
@lauramcclain8651 How one feels at a given moment is a fact, but it is not something that negates or overrides other facts, however much the person may desire it based on the intensity of their emotions.
7
@lazydaisy2292 Well, for that one in 2.5 million who actually needs medical intervention, I don't want new criminal laws to stand in the way. I don't agree with the medicalization of the lives of young people, starting with ADHD drugs and anti-depressants, but I would not make them illegal. It seems to me that medical ethics across the board are wanting, and that affects everyone. An ethical doctor should be reluctant to do anything more than suggest talk therapy, and share information on how likely it is that the child will grow out of their dysphoria while not dismissing the pain.
5
This thread has lots of great comments in it. Great discussion.
4
@@joaniebar I said absolutely nothing that sigmatized anyone whatsoever. If you only knew how little I think about what is in anyone's underwear. No one in their right mind would question medical procedures for an adult who clearly has a lived experience and knows who they are, what they need, and what the risks and benefits of various treatments are likely to be, for them. There is no point in being rude to clearly thoughtful people. This was a respectful discussion.
3
scottmoore37 I'm sorry, but you're late to the party. Our discussion went far beyond this already. It's like barging into a discussion about the latest German study concerning rare heart damage from some recently deployed vaccines and piping in with, "but measles can be dangerous" when no one is disputing that. No, what this is about is suggesting a radical medical treatment that has the grave risk of sterilizing a person and limiting other major life activities, as well as having unknown risks to their cognition and their ability to enjoy intimacy some day, while they are still a minor and cannot know what they might be missing. Is how "society perceives you" more important than that? How perverse is that? I'm still against making such treatments a crime, as is Abigail, but the case for making them a crime turns out to be stronger than I realized. I only hope it never comes to that. We have far too many criminal laws already. On a related note, however, when a teenager, especially an adolescent girl, suddenly displays severe gender dysphoria when she never had the slightest indication of experiencing that before, maybe we need to find out whether she was bullied, molested, or sexually assaulted. Maybe that needs to be the first question. Considering what is happening to kids in our society, it would come as no surprise that to treat some of these kids effectively means to treat the trauma stemming from what what done to them. The backlash against "me too" has not been lost on them; I think a lot of them are more reluctant to tell what happened to them now than they were before -- and they'll be "affirmed" if they just say they don't want to be the gender they were born to be.
2
scottmoore37 Abigail is not talking about people who have actual gender dysphoria, either, but is very rightly concerned about overdiagnosis and radical treatments that are irreversible applied too quickly. Not her fault you didn't understand her position. When gender dysphoria only emerges at puberty, we need to ask some questions before we bring in the big drugs and surgery. We need to ask the questions at any age, actually, even for an adult, considering how common molestation is and how much harm it can do.
2
@junevandermark952 I agree.
2
My experience, too.
2
@moniquesmaak7613 There are a handful of very good vaccines. It is best to do very careful research, look to see what other countries give their children (Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, Japan), and see what the outcomes in those places are. It is best to check peer-reviewed research from BEFORE 2019.
2
8:10 OH MY GOD
1
@@joaniebar Why don't you just shut up? That might be good. Blocked.
1
@@joaniebar And you're not a majority. (Go see what you wrote.) How is "behavior" an issue? Since when can't girls wear combat boots and play sports, and boys dress up in feather boas? Who the h*** cares? I kind of think it's cute, actually, but my opinion should not matter one whit. It shouldn't be up to me. Or you, even less.
1
scottmoore37 Just out of curiosity, why do you think Abigail is opposed to criminalizing these treatments, as am I? I acknowledge that gender dysphoria exists and is real. I don't want to deprive the literal 2 or 3 per million (or possibly fewer) who need the radical medical treatment at an early age from receiving it by placing any roadblocks in their way. Everyone should be treated as an individual. Finding out what sudden onset of severe dysphoria at 13 or 14 is about may be prudent, don't you agree? Or no, we should just "affirm?"
1
scottmoore37 THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW HER MESSAGE IS DECEPTIVE? Of COURSE parents should take more than SIX MONTHS to allow any such radical medical (as opposed to psychiatric) treatment to be performed on a minor child. How is a child supposed to know whether they will want to be a birth parent someday? Or whether sexual pleasure is something they are willing to forego? They are not supposed to know what that feels like. We don't even know whether these treatments harm cognitive functioning or can raise the risk of cancer later in life. I've seen the legitimate documentaries, such as the one on Frontline, which show that the consent forms state exactly that -- whether some of these treatments may raise the risk of cancer is not presently known. The honest doctors and therapists are not the problem.
1
@@joaniebar I can top you, sweetie. My family was bombed with depleted uranium, for nothing. For show.
1
@@joaniebar So, you married, had children, and only around retirement age (which is also close to Medicare age) decided to transition. Who would think to restrain you? No one. That's not a topic up for discussion. No one could possibly think you didn't have the requisite information, or worse yet, that you needed protection, the way a minor child does.
1
@k.hendrickson8735 Excuse me? I've been saying exactly the same thing -- and I do mean exactly. I simply do not believe that at this point, criminal laws should be passed. I could be persuaded that they have to be, but if they have to be, that is one more tragedy. I mean that, too, wholeheartedly. Are we at the point where we have to criminalize everything that is likely unethical in the vast, vast majority of cases in order to control it? Maybe we are. I find that sad.
1
@k.hendrickson8735 Nothing to do with Marxism. Marxists in France just passed the law against vaccine mandates and passports for minors. Dr. Gabor Mate, who advocates for strong families and says that allowing children to be raised by their peers is literally dangerous to their well being, has Marxist sympathies. Don't be so generous with your assent to this propaganda about "the Marxists;" the people pushing it are looking to monetize this gender phenomenon, too. (That's what most people are looking for in most cases anyway, and that's called rabid capitali$m. They don't care about any kids but their own.)
1
@amandavieira2543 How are the questions raised "wrong and prejudiced?" Assuming they must have only one answer is prejudiced, by definition, when we know that in some people, gender dysphoria resolves during puberty, and in others it does not, but becomes more acute.
1
@amandavieira2543 You didn't know at 11 that you would still have it at 21; if you had it from your earliest sense of self until well into full-fledged adulthood, then it makes sense to believe you would have it all your life. At 11, that would not make sense, because we know that people change a great deal between 11 and 21. Human development imposes that on everyone, cis or trans. But when it comes to trans, I have to wonder how much of social presentation is imposed anyway, just as it is on cis people, and how much is more fundamental and may require invasive medical treatment, beyond what an individual can simply adopt as a mode of presentation and lifestyle on their own, and to h*ll with what anyone else thinks about it. Do girls really like pink? All of them? (Do they all want to be cheerleaders?) Seriously, that's weird. No one would come up with that rot on their own.
1
Look, she has politicized this as well, which is the mirror image of what the activist/cultists are doing. What we need to ask is whether there are endocrine disruptors involved. I am more and more concerned that there is some underlying biological cause we know nothing about that is harming these children. Something is very wrong with this picture, and social contagion can't be the whole explanation. The issue was surfacing long before the current craze. But yes, the craze is making everything worse.
1
@suesamagalski3945 The Bible doesn't change? You must have never compared various translations of the same Bible, much less considered that not all Christians recognize the same Books. Or didn't you know that, either? Biblical Studies, even among the most devout, is a life-long pursuit, involving at least three ancient languages and is fraught with error.
1
@June VanDerMark I don't disagree in the least. Abigail Shrier acknowledged the reality of transgender youth very explicitly during the Q & A session, when she probably surprised a lot of people by saying she was opposed to making medical treatment of these youth a criminal offense. But there is something going on, and she has described a new cult-like contagion very well. This will cause a backlash that harms transgender kids, and already has. People need to keep a sober head on their shoulders and take a hard look at this phenomenon. The Frontline documentary on growing up transgender was fascinating. Not one of these children was ever, EVER comfortable with their biological sex. As toddlers, many gave the appearance of being the opposite gender than the one that conforms with their biological sex. People would spontaneously react to them as trans before they even expressed any preference at all, while their parents were still dressing them. I don't want to see these kids deprived of the help they need because of a new and spurious gender ideology that has no basis in good social practice or medicine. We need to ask more questions. This reminds me too much of the propaganda around the vaccines. The Precautionary Principle and First Do No Harm, and respect for the individual and for personal autonomy are supposed to guide all medical decisions. FAT CHANCE, huh?
1
@June VanDerMark Except that there sometimes is that one exception, that one out of ten million. I can believe it is literally that rare. The issue for kids that young in any event is medication. And if a gender reassignment is wrong at 17, I don't think it necessarily becomes right at 18, "do what you want, your own business." It may be right at 25, or 35, or never. If one day we regard this as more akin to a lobotomy than it is to sound treatment, then it should not be done to anyone. But I doubt that; I think it is time to treat everyone as an individual, using the basic principles of first do no harm, doing less is generally better, fully informed consent, including being informed about what we don't know, and the precautionary principle: the burden of proof for the benefit of any intervention is always on the proponent.
1
@June VanDerMark Shrier clearly does not agree with Peterson. But concerning the treatments for adults, we have banned a lot of things that we used to do. Certain types of restraints, the harshest electroconvulsive treatments, and gay conversion therapies are illegal, even if someone begs for them. Most of the world makes selling a kidney or part of the liver illegal. No one allows elective abortion at every stage of pregnancy.
1
@June VanDerMark Wrong person. I'm agnostic.
1
@June VanDerMark Yes, okay. And what if the billions who believe in reincarnation are correct? Better stop eating fellow mammals, at a minimum.
1