You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Gender Issues’ category.
To argue that Amy Hamm was subjected to a “public struggle session” by her professional association, we can draw on Robert Jay Lifton’s framework from *Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism* and apply it to her situation, based on what is publicly known and inferred about her case. Amy Hamm, a Canadian nurse and columnist, faced disciplinary action from the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) due to her gender-critical views expressed online, particularly her support for J.K. Rowling and her stance against aspects of transgender ideology. Using Lifton’s eight criteria, here’s how the case can be constructed:
1. **Milieu Control**: The BCCNM reportedly initiated an investigation into Hamm’s off-duty social media posts and writings, extending its authority into her private life. By publicizing the complaint process and framing it as a professional misconduct issue, the association controlled the narrative. Hamm’s ability to respond was likely constrained by confidentiality rules or legal pressure, creating an environment where her voice was sidelined while the association’s perspective dominated public perception.
2. **Mystical Manipulation**: The disciplinary action was cloaked in the higher purpose of “protecting the public” or upholding “professional standards,” a common justification in totalistic systems. The BCCNM’s vague allegations of “discrimination” or “harm” (terms often cited in such cases) suggest an orchestrated effort to portray Hamm’s views as inherently dangerous, lending the process an almost ritualistic weight—her punishment serving as a warning to others.
3. **Demand for Purity**: Hamm’s gender-critical stance was treated as a moral failing, incompatible with the nursing profession’s ideological purity. The association’s standards, likely aligned with progressive orthodoxy on gender, positioned her as “impure” for questioning transgender policies or biology-based definitions of sex. This binary framing—conform or be condemned—mirrors the totalistic demand for absolute allegiance.
4. **Cult of Confession**: While no public record shows Hamm being forced to confess verbatim, the disciplinary process inherently pressured her to recant or apologize. The BCCNM’s investigation, dragging on for years (initiated around 2020 and still unresolved by late 2023 per public reports), implies a coercive intent: submit to re-education or face professional ruin. Struggle sessions thrive on this dynamic—publicly breaking the individual through prolonged scrutiny until they yield.
5. **Sacred Science**: The association’s policies on inclusivity and anti-discrimination were treated as infallible truths, beyond critique. Hamm’s dissent—rooted in biological or feminist arguments—was dismissed as unprofessional rather than engaged as a legitimate viewpoint. This reflects Lifton’s notion of an unchallengeable doctrine, where the BCCNM’s interpretation of “safe care” became a sacred, unquestionable standard.
6. **Loading the Language**: Terms like “harmful conduct,” “unprofessional behavior,” or “breach of trust” were likely deployed against Hamm, as seen in similar regulatory cases. These loaded phrases, vague yet damning, stifle debate and cast her as a villain without requiring the association to prove tangible harm. In struggle sessions, such language turns the accused into a symbol of evil, rallying collective condemnation.
7. **Doctrine Over Person**: Hamm’s individual context—her reasoned arguments, her off-duty status, her intent—was subordinated to the BCCNM’s ideological framework. Her personal experience as a nurse and mother advocating for women’s rights was irrelevant; the doctrine of mandatory alignment with transgender affirmation took precedence, erasing her humanity in favor of compliance.
8. **Dispensing of Existence**: By subjecting Hamm to a prolonged, public disciplinary process, the BCCNM effectively marked her as unfit to exist within the profession unless she conformed. The threat of license revocation or public censure (amplified by media coverage and online backlash) mirrors the totalistic expulsion of dissenters. She was symbolically “dispensed with” as a legitimate member of the nursing community.
The “public” element of the struggle session is evident in how the case played out beyond closed doors. The BCCNM’s investigation wasn’t a quiet internal matter; it drew attention from activists, media, and Hamm’s supporters, turning it into a spectacle. Public statements from the college (even if minimal) and the ensuing social media firestorm—where Hamm faced vilification from trans advocates—amplified the humiliation. This aligns with Maoist struggle sessions, where the accused is paraded before a crowd, denounced, and forced to endure collective judgment. The years-long ordeal, coupled with the lack of clear resolution, suggests not just punishment but a deliberate attempt to break her resolve, a hallmark of totalistic control.
In conclusion, the BCCNM’s actions against Amy Hamm can be framed as a modern struggle session: a public, performative exercise in ideological enforcement, leveraging Lifton’s thought-reform tactics to humiliate, isolate, and coerce her into submission. The process wasn’t just about regulating conduct—it was a ideological purge, staged to deter others and uphold a totalistic vision of professional conformity.
Amy Hamm, a registered nurse with 13 years of experience, was recently fired by Vancouver Coastal Health following a ruling by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) that deemed her guilty of “professional misconduct.” Her termination stemmed from her public advocacy for sex-based rights, including her co-sponsorship of a 2020 billboard stating “I love JK Rowling” and her statements asserting that biological sex distinctions matter, particularly in contexts like women’s private spaces. This decision has sparked widespread debate, with critics arguing that her firing represents a severe overreach by her professional organization, punishing her for exercising free speech rather than any failure in her nursing duties.
The BCCNM’s investigation, which spanned over four years, focused on Hamm’s off-duty comments made in articles and a podcast where she identified as a nurse. The disciplinary panel labeled her statements about transgender issues as “discriminatory and derogatory,” claiming they undermined trust in the nursing profession. However, Hamm and her supporters contend that her views—rooted in the belief that biological sex is immutable—were not only unrelated to her professional conduct but also reflect a scientifically grounded perspective. The panel’s ruling, followed by her immediate dismissal without severance, raises questions about whether the BCCNM prioritized ideological conformity over fairness and evidence.
Hamm’s mistreatment highlights a broader issue of professional organizations stifling dissent under the guise of maintaining public trust. Her case suggests that nurses and other regulated professionals in Canada may face severe repercussions for expressing personal opinions, even outside their workplace, if those views clash with prevailing social narratives. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which supported Hamm legally, decried the ruling as a blow to free expression, arguing that it sets a chilling precedent for others in similar positions. This punitive approach effectively silences debate on contentious issues, forcing professionals to self-censor or risk their livelihoods.
The decision to fire Hamm also appears disproportionate when considering her exemplary record as a nurse. No evidence was presented that her views impacted her patient care or professional performance; instead, the BCCNM focused solely on the perceived social implications of her statements. This disconnect between her job performance and the punishment meted out underscores a troubling trend: professional bodies acting as arbiters of personal belief rather than guardians of competence. Hamm’s termination without severance after 13 years of service further amplifies the perception of vindictiveness, suggesting an intent to make an example of her rather than address any tangible harm.
In the aftermath, Hamm has vowed to continue speaking out, supported by figures like JK Rowling and a growing chorus of advocates for free speech and women’s rights. Her case exposes the fragility of individual rights within Canada’s regulatory frameworks and the potential for professional organizations to wield unchecked power against those who challenge orthodoxy. As Hamm faces a possible appeal, her ordeal serves as a stark warning: the mistreatment she endured—being fired for her convictions—may foreshadow a future where intellectual freedom is sacrificed for institutional control, leaving professionals vulnerable to ideological purges.
Read the full text at the APA and think to yourself, when did the APA lose it’s mind?
—
Let’s breakdown the claims and look at the evidence. I think they are hitting the the gender-crackpipe and abandoning science and medical evidence shredding their credibility in the process.
### Claim 1: “APA’s organizational assessment and position are grounded in the best available science.”
**Refutation:**
– **Lack of Specificity:** The statement is vague and does not define what constitutes “the best available science.” Scientific consensus requires replication, rigorous methodology, and falsifiability, yet the APA often relies on studies with small sample sizes, self-reported data, or observational designs that lack controls (e.g., many transgender health studies cited later). These do not meet the gold standard of randomized controlled trials or longitudinal data with clear causal inference.
– **Ideological Influence:** The APA’s guidelines, such as the 2015 “Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People,” emphasize affirming gender identity without equally exploring alternative psychological explanations (e.g., co-occurring mental health conditions like body dysmorphia or autism spectrum traits, which are overrepresented in gender dysphoria cases—see Littman, 2018). This selective focus suggests a predetermined narrative rather than an impartial synthesis of evidence.
– **Counterpoint:** A truly scientific approach would weigh all hypotheses equally, including those questioning the affirmation-only model, rather than aligning with activist-driven frameworks like “gender-affirming care” without robust long-term outcome data.
—
### Claim 2: “Sex is a biological characteristic determined by chromosome and reproductive anatomy (American Medical Association, 2021), and the assertion that only two sexes exist is not scientifically accurate. Approximately 1.7% of the world population is born with genital variations, known as differences in sex development (DSD) or variations in sex characteristics (VSC) (Esteban et al., 2023).”
**Refutation:**
– **Misrepresentation of Biology:** Sex is defined by gamete production (sperm or ova), a binary system in humans and all mammals (Lehtonen & Parker, 2014). Chromosomes (XX or XY) and reproductive anatomy align with this binary in over 99.98% of cases, per rigorous estimates (Sax, 2002). DSDs (e.g., Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome) are medical conditions, not a third sex; individuals with DSDs still produce either sperm or ova (or neither), not a unique gamete type.
– **Inflated Statistics:** The 1.7% figure originates from Fausto-Sterling (1993), a sociologist, not a biologist, and includes conditions like mild hypospadias or late-onset adrenal hyperplasia, which do not ambiguity in sex determination. More accurate estimates from clinical data (e.g., Blackless et al., 2000, revised by Sax, 2002) place true DSD prevalence at 0.05% to 0.1%, a tiny fraction. This exaggeration serves an activist narrative, not scientific precision.
– **Conflation with Gender:** The APA conflates biological sex (a measurable trait) with gender identity (a subjective experience), undermining its claim to scientific grounding. DSDs are irrelevant to gender identity debates, as most transgender individuals do not have DSDs (APA itself acknowledges this elsewhere).
—
### Claim 3: “Everyone has a gender identity, defined as a person’s deeply felt, inherent sense of being a girl, woman, or female; a boy, man, or male; a blend of male or female; or an alternative gender (Institute of Medicine, 2011).”
**Refutation:**
– **Unfalsifiable Assertion:** The claim that “everyone has a gender identity” is a philosophical stance, not a scientific fact. It assumes a universal internal experience without empirical evidence that all individuals possess this “deeply felt” sense. Studies of gender identity rely on self-reports, which are subjective and cannot be independently verified or measured biologically (Zucker, 2017).
– **Cultural Bias:** The concept of gender identity as an inherent trait is a modern Western construct, not a universal truth. Anthropological evidence shows that many cultures historically recognized roles based on sex, not an internal “identity” (e.g., Nanda, 1990, on hijras in India). The APA’s framing ignores this variability, prioritizing a contemporary activist lens over cross-cultural data.
– **Lack of Evidence:** No biological marker (e.g., genetic, hormonal, neurological) consistently predicts gender identity across populations. The APA’s reliance on the Institute of Medicine (a policy body, not a primary research source) highlights the absence of direct scientific evidence for this sweeping claim.
—
### Claim 4: “Gender as a non-binary construct has been described and studied for decades across cultures and has been present throughout history (Gill-Peterson, 2018).”
**Refutation:**
– **Historical Overreach:** Gill-Peterson, a historian and transgender studies scholar, interprets historical figures through a modern non-binary lens, often without primary evidence that these individuals identified as such. For example, “third gender” roles (e.g., Two-Spirit in Native American cultures) were often tied to social function or spiritual status, not an internal non-binary identity (Lang, 1998). This is retrospective activism, not scientific history.
– **Scientific Weakness:** Studies of non-binary gender are largely qualitative or anecdotal, lacking the quantitative rigor to establish it as a universal human trait. The APA’s endorsement skips over the fact that most research in this area comes from gender studies, a field criticized for ideological bias (see critique by Bailey & Hsu, 2022).
– **Selective Citation:** The APA ignores counterevidence, such as evolutionary psychology and anthropology, which emphasize sex-based roles as adaptive traits across human history (Buss, 2019). This cherry-picking suggests alignment with activist goals over balanced science.
—
### Claim 5: “Physiologically, neuroimaging research has suggested that cortical brain volume in transgender individuals appear to be more like their preferred gender (see Mueller et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2019).”
**Refutation:**
– **Overstated Findings:** Mueller et al. (2021) and Nguyen et al. (2019) report small, inconsistent differences in brain volume, often overlapping with cisgender controls. These studies have small sample sizes (e.g., Mueller: n=40 per group; Nguyen: n=29 transgender participants), limiting generalizability. Brain structure varies widely within sexes, and no unique “transgender brain” pattern has been established (Joel et al., 2015).
– **Causality Problem:** Even if differences exist, correlation does not imply causation. Brain plasticity suggests that behavior or hormone use (common in transgender samples) could shape brain structure, not that it reflects an innate gender identity (Bao & Swaab, 2011). The APA ignores this alternative explanation.
– **Scientific Consensus Absent:** Larger meta-analyses (e.g., Guillamon et al., 2016) find no consistent brain signature for transgender identity, contradicting the APA’s confident tone. This selective citation reflects a narrative-driven approach, not a scientific one.
—
### Claim 6: “Those whose gender identity differs from their biological sex at birth may face discrimination, stigma, prejudice, and violence that negatively affect their health and well-being (Bradford et al., 2013).”
**Refutation:**
– **Undisputed but Limited:** No one contests that discrimination harms mental health, but the APA frames this as uniquely tied to gender identity without comparing it to other stigmatized groups (e.g., racial minorities, obese individuals). This lacks scientific context—mental health risks from stigma are not specific to transgender status (Meyer, 2003).
– **Overemphasis on External Factors:** The APA downplays internal factors like pre-existing mental health conditions (e.g., depression, anxiety), which are prevalent in transgender populations independent of discrimination (Dhejne et al., 2011). This selective focus aligns with activist calls to blame society rather than explore all variables.
– **Weak Citation:** Bradford et al. (2013) is a survey-based study, not a controlled experiment, and relies on self-reported experiences, which are prone to bias. The APA’s reliance on such data over longitudinal or clinical studies suggests a preference for narrative over rigor.
—
### Claim 7: “Research demonstrates that gender-related discrimination appears to be the most documented risk factor for poor mental health among transgender individuals.”
**Refutation:**
– **Misleading Claim:** While discrimination is a factor, studies like Dhejne et al. (2011) show that transgender individuals have elevated rates of psychiatric morbidity (e.g., suicide attempts) even after transitioning and in supportive environments, suggesting intrinsic or co-occurring issues beyond discrimination. The APA’s focus on external blame ignores this complexity.
– **Cherry-Picking:** The APA overlooks research on rapid-onset gender dysphoria (Littman, 2018) or desistance rates in youth (Steensma et al., 2013), which suggest social influence or temporary identity exploration in some cases. This omission reflects an activist-driven avoidance of inconvenient data.
– **Lack of Causality:** “Most documented” does not mean “most causative.” Observational studies cannot disentangle discrimination from other variables (e.g., personality traits, trauma), yet the APA presents it as settled science.
—
### Claim 8: “Conversely, self-esteem, pride, transitioning, respecting and supporting transgender people in authentically articulating their gender identity can promote resilience, improve their health, well-being, and quality of life (Mezza et al, 2024; Witten, 2003).”
**Refutation:**
– **Weak Evidence Base:** Mezza et al. (2024) and Witten (2003) are cited, but Witten is a theoretical piece, not an empirical study, and Mezza (hypothetical, as it’s 2024) lacks accessible methodology for scrutiny as of March 15, 2025. Claims about transitioning improving outcomes rely on short-term studies with high dropout rates (e.g., Bränström & Pachankis, 2019, retracted conclusions after reanalysis).
– **Long-Term Data Gaps:** Large-scale studies (e.g., Dhejne et al., 2011) show persistent elevated suicide rates post-transition, contradicting the APA’s optimistic framing. The APA ignores this, favoring affirmation-centric narratives over neutral analysis.
– **Activist Language:** Terms like “authentically articulating” are subjective and activist-derived, not scientific. The APA’s emphasis on “pride” and “respect” as variables reflects a therapeutic ideology, not a testable hypothesis.
—
### Conclusion:
The APA’s positions often rely on selectively cited, low-quality studies, conflate subjective experiences with objective facts, and ignore counterevidence or alternative explanations. This pattern suggests capture by gender activism, which prioritizes affirmation and social justice over rigorous, falsifiable science. True scientific inquiry would demand larger samples, longitudinal data, and exploration of all hypotheses—not a preordained alignment with ideological goals.
The British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) Discipline Committee’s ruling against Amy Hamm on March 13, 2025, represents a significant setback for women and their freedom of speech in Canada. By disciplining Hamm—a nurse and vocal advocate for sex-based rights—for her gender-critical statements, the decision effectively punishes women who challenge prevailing transgender ideology, particularly when it encroaches on female-only spaces and identities. This ruling not only silences a woman defending biological reality and women’s rights but also signals to others that expressing such views, even off-duty, risks professional ruin, disproportionately chilling female voices in a debate where they have a unique stake.
The 115 page document is a bit of a read, so here are the main points, and a refutation right after.
5-Point Summary of Evidence Supporting the BCCNM Decision
- Discriminatory Statements Linked to Professional Identity: The panel found that Hamm made “discriminatory and derogatory” statements about transgender people across online platforms (e.g., articles, podcasts) between July 2018 and March 2021, while explicitly identifying herself as a nurse or nurse educator. This nexus to her profession was key, as it was seen to undermine the nursing profession’s reputation.
- Violation of Professional Standards: The BCCNM argued that Hamm’s statements breached the College’s Code of Ethics and Professional Standards, which require nurses to provide care without discrimination and uphold public trust. The panel agreed that her public comments contradicted these obligations.
- Intent to Harm Reputation of Transgender Community: The ruling highlighted that Hamm’s statements were designed to “elicit fear, contempt, and outrage” against transgender individuals, particularly by denying their existence (e.g., rejecting gender identity as a concept). This was deemed unprofessional and harmful.
- Specific Instances of Misconduct: The panel pinpointed four instances (Tabs 4, 24, 28, and S3 from the evidence extract) where Hamm’s comments—tied to her nursing identity—were ruled as crossing the line into professional misconduct. These included writings and a podcast appearance explicitly linked to her role as a nurse.
- Public Role and Accountability: By leveraging her professional credentials in public discourse, Hamm was held to a higher standard. The panel concluded that her actions damaged the integrity of the nursing profession, justifying regulatory intervention despite her off-duty status.
Refutation of the Evidence
- Freedom of Expression Overreach: Hamm and her legal team, supported by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), argued that her statements were protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 2(b)). The panel’s ruling infringes on her right to express personal views—especially on a contested public issue like gender ideology—without evidence of direct harm to patients or professional practice.
- No Nexus to Professional Conduct: The defense contended that Hamm’s statements lacked a sufficient connection to her nursing duties. Most of her online activity (e.g., Twitter posts) did not explicitly tie her nurse identity to the comments, and the panel itself declined to find misconduct in those cases. Penalizing her for a handful of instances where she mentioned her profession stretches regulatory authority too far.
- Scientific and Reasonable Basis: Hamm’s rejection of gender identity as a “mystical belief” aligns with biological reality (sex as immutable) and is a defensible stance in scientific debate. The panel’s characterization of this as “discriminatory erasure” imposes an ideological litmus test, punishing her for not conforming to transgender advocacy rather than for any professional failing.
- Lack of Demonstrable Harm: There was no evidence presented that Hamm’s statements caused tangible harm to transgender individuals or compromised her nursing practice. The BCCNM’s case relied on hypothetical reputational damage to the profession, which the defense argued is too vague to justify discipline—especially given the public’s varied views on gender issues.
- Regulatory Overreach and Precedent: The ruling sets a dangerous precedent for all regulated professionals, chilling free speech by suggesting that any controversial opinion expressed publicly, if tied to one’s job title, can trigger discipline. Hamm’s advocacy for women’s sex-based rights (e.g., supporting J.K. Rowling) is a legitimate political stance, not a professional lapse, and the BCCNM’s intervention risks turning regulators into arbiters of acceptable thought.
This ruling underscores a tension between professional regulation and personal expression, with particular implications for women like Hamm who advocate for sex-based rights.
The recent ruling against Amy Hamm by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) is nothing short of a travesty, a glaring assault on free speech and common sense that should leave any reasonable person fuming. Hamm, a nurse and vocal advocate for women’s sex-based rights, was found guilty of “professional misconduct” in March 2025 for stating biological facts and expressing opinions critical of gender identity ideology. Specifically, the disciplinary panel zeroed in on a handful of her online statements—made while identifying as a nurse—deeming them “discriminatory and derogatory” toward transgender individuals. This isn’t just a punishment for Hamm; it’s a warning shot to every professional in Canada: step out of line with the prevailing ideology, and your career could be next. How dare a regulatory body, meant to ensure competence in healthcare, stretch its tentacles into policing personal beliefs expressed off-duty?
What’s particularly infuriating is the absurdity of the tribunal’s reasoning—or lack thereof. One so-called expert reportedly argued that being a woman is a “social identity category rather than a biological reality,” a statement so detached from science it’s laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. Hamm’s crime? Asserting that biological sex is real and matters, especially when it comes to women’s spaces and rights—a position grounded in observable fact, not hate. Yet, the panel chose to side with ideological fantasy over evidence, slapping Hamm with a guilty verdict for daring to speak her mind. This isn’t about protecting anyone; it’s about control, about silencing dissent under the guise of professionalism. The fact that her extensive Twitter posts, where she didn’t explicitly tie her nurse status, were spared only highlights the flimsy, cherry-picked nature of this witch hunt.
The implications of this ruling are chilling, and that’s putting it mildly. If a nurse can be professionally crucified for advocating for women’s rights and biological truth, what hope is there for free discourse in Canada? The BCCNM’s decision doesn’t just harm Hamm—it erodes the freedom of every regulated professional, from doctors to teachers, who now must tiptoe around controversial issues or risk their livelihoods. This is the kind of dystopian overreach that should spark outrage, not apathy. Hamm’s fight isn’t over—she’s hinted at appeals, potentially up to the Supreme Court—and thank goodness, because someone needs to stand up to this madness. We should all be rooting for her, not because we agree with every word she says, but because the principle at stake is too precious to let slip away without a fight.
Activists realize that they cannot argue on the basis of fact, therefore they must always derail the conversation with hyperbole and emotive rhetoric. Let’s see what you can do to nullify their framing and keep the conversation going.
The phrase “You just don’t want trans people to exist” is often used as a rhetorical jab in debates about transgender issues, implying that opposition to specific policies or ideas equates to denying trans individuals’ right to exist. Here are three counterarguments that challenge this framing without negating the humanity or rights of trans people:
1. **Disagreement Isn’t Denial**: Opposing certain transgender-related policies—like sports participation rules, bathroom access, or medical interventions for minors—doesn’t mean someone wants trans people erased. It’s possible to support trans individuals’ right to exist while questioning specific implementations based on fairness, safety, or biological considerations. For example, some argue that in sports, physical differences tied to biological sex can impact competition, citing cases like Lia Thomas in NCAA swimming, where debates centered on fairness, not existence.
2. **Framing Oversimplifies Complex Issues**: The phrase flattens nuanced discussions into a moral absolute, shutting down debate. Issues like gender dysphoria treatment, especially for kids, involve competing views—some push for affirmation-only approaches, while others advocate caution, pointing to studies like the Cass Review in the UK, which found weak evidence for puberty blockers’ long-term benefits. Disagreeing on medical protocols doesn’t mean rejecting trans people’s existence; it’s about differing on what’s best for well-being.
3. **Intent Matters**: Accusing someone of wanting trans people gone assumes malicious intent that might not be there. Many people, even conservatives or traditionalists, don’t wish harm but hold views rooted in their understanding of biology, culture, or religion. A 2023 Gallup poll showed 69% of Americans believe trans athletes should compete based on birth sex, yet most don’t advocate for banning trans people from society. Conflating policy disagreement with existential denial misrepresents motives.
These counterarguments aim to refocus on substantive issues rather than emotional gotchas, though they don’t dismiss the real fears or experiences of trans individuals in heated debates.
Oh, bless the hearts of the gender-affirming care activists, still out there waving their rainbow flags like it’s 2015, undeterred by the pesky little detail that the evidence for this stuff is about as solid as a house of cards in a windstorm. You’d think a growing pile of studies—like the Cass Review out of the UK, which basically said, “Uh, guys, we’ve got no clue if this actually works long-term”—might slow them down. But no, they’re still preaching the gospel of hormones and surgeries for kids with the zeal of a late-night infomercial host, insisting it’s all about “saving lives.” Never mind that the data’s a mess—small samples, short follow-ups, and a whole lot of “trust us, it feels right.” It’s activism as performance art, and the show must go on, evidence be damned.
Meanwhile, the science keeps whispering inconvenient truths, like how many kids with gender dysphoria naturally sort themselves out by puberty if you just leave them alone—up to 80% or more, according to some studies. But why let a little thing like biology get in the way of a good narrative? Activists are too busy clutching their pearls over “transphobia” to notice that the American Academy of Pediatrics got caught with its pants down, basing its full-throated endorsement on vibes rather than rigorous trials. The systematic reviews—those boring, gold-standard things—keep coming up empty on proof that this care does more good than harm long-term, yet the megaphones stay on full blast. It’s almost admirable, this dedication to vibes over victory.
So here we are, with clinics still doling out blockers and binders like candy at a parade, while the activists insist anyone questioning the efficacy is just a bigot who hates happiness. Sweden, Finland, and even parts of the UK are pumping the brakes, shifting to therapy-first approaches because the evidence isn’t there—but not our intrepid North American crusaders! They’ve got anecdotes, TikTok testimonials, and a moral superiority complex to keep the train chugging along. Who needs peer-reviewed proof when you’ve got a cause this shiny? It’s not about whether it works—it’s about signaling you’re on the right side of history, even if history ends up laughing at the whole charade. Curtain’s up, folks—don’t expect a plot twist anytime soon.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…