11 Comments

Dr. Mason's realism and rationality define a kind of off-hand radicalism - a casual, practical commitment to truthfulness as if it were unexceptional, and an utterly non-hysteric sensibility. I felt reassured, simply listening to the interview.

We are learning that what we might once have judged "normal" is in-fact a real accomplishment of civilization - of real culture (and not its fake ideological substitute). Without a culture to assure a minimum level, and everyone thrown onto themselves in everything that really matters, we discover who can maintain rationality against nearly comprehensive encouragement to abandon it. Watching this can be unnerving - irrationalism can lead anywhere...and has.

Expand full comment

The Goebbels propagandist slow introduction of fearful silence. The Jew, Gypsy or outlawed Christian in final retreat inside their homes and apartments. Waiting. Praying. Believing human reason and dignity would bring salvation. Thus, the small Hell siege that carried them to the conflagration of Auschwitz.

No one saw the moment the political crossed the line of demarcation into the pathological, but everyone was witness. Human life was worth nothing. The madness butchered parent and child alike. Only profit and preservation of the ideological utopian state mattered. In the end the bullet, the bulldozer, the mass grave and the cold marble of the monument. Then, endless opinion and the question: WHY?

Will a new national dialogue, human reason and dignity save Little Nell?

Marxist "woke" is the lipstick on a pig named Totalitarian Finance.

Got Constitution?

Expand full comment

It is simply not true that underlying mental health issues are not explored before starting a patient on pubertal blockers or cross-hormones. And I think we can all agree that the data on transgender youth is sparse and that more research is needed.

Expand full comment

She is describing patients she sent to the clinic who were immediately given puberty blockers or hormones at the first visit. "It is simply not true" has zero bearing on this personal testimony.

Expand full comment

I am referring to the WPATH Standards of Care v8 (see the chapter on Children)

Expand full comment

WPATH? You can't be serious, right?

Policy developed by activists? What could go wrong? (In case You *still* can't see it, see M. Clay Hopper's reply.)

Expand full comment

Most doctors are advocates for their patients, as they should be.

Expand full comment

Depends what the doctors are saying, doesn't it? Or You just take whatever a doctor says, regardless. If so, I pity You. Actually, I pity You for Your insensible comments.

Expand full comment

Paul , also check out the chapter on eunuchs being a viable “identity”. I believe Wes covered this as well.

Expand full comment

The standards of care are just suggestions, and if you’d read the latest Reuters coverage of this topic, you’d see in their survey of clinics, zero described an assessment process anything like what the Dutch protocol advises--and the Dutch provided the “best” evidence for gender affirming care in existence.

Expand full comment

Yeah. At least if I understand You correctly. I didn't see that in Reuters, but here in the U.S. anyway, they followed the Dutch protocol in name only.

They said "Assessment? Who needs that? Kids would never change their minds after they say they're 'born in the wrong body'."

Along those lines, it's mathematically *impossible* for gender to be "assigned at birth." Gender is "assigned" by genes. It doesn't change. Morphology can change, or course. But the person's body is the person's body.

Expand full comment