He had Abigail Shrier as a guest to promote her book called Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, so that's kind of a bright line?
She brought attention that people put social pressure on underage teens to get trans operation without their parents' consent.
I would be very angry if it would happen to my 13-17 year old daughter, as children in that age are not yet capable of understanding the consequences of the operation for there whole life (includung shortening it and making it painful by injecting hormones).
While on one hand yes, I understand that as a parent you want to guard your children against decisions that you feel might negatively impact them you have to keep in mind that there is a reason why a teenager goes to someone else with their problems. That reason starts with your behaviour as the parent, and not with an environmental factor.
That said, children are not your property. They are your responsibility. If you're doing your job right, they've at that point been educated about what it means when someone transitions and what sort of impact it has on their life. During that talk, I expect you would speak about why you think that shouldn't happen before they're done growing.
Out of respect for the emotional place this post most likely came from, I will refrain from addressing the frankly problematic sentence you put between hypotheses at the end of your post at length.
,,If you're doing your job right, they've at that point been educated about what it means when someone transitions and what sort of impact it has on their life. ,,During that talk, I expect you would speak about why you think that shouldn't happen before they're done growing.''
I have no opinion actually on whether the transition should happen or not, I'm sorry if I came out too strongly about that.
I believe it can be a good decision if a child is clearly behaving and feeling like she is a boy.
What I'm most afraid is that lesbian children thinking that heterosexual girls will like them if they transition.
The parents are responsible for the children as long as they are given the chance to respond, which is taken away by law in a few countries. But I'm right now 38 and I still have lots of secrets about my sexual life that I don't talk about with my parents, and I think that's OK, as none of them can be compared to the consequences of transitioning.
What I see really important is to make sure that people know about the changing laws, make sure that those important changes are talked about.
That you brought that interview up at all guarantees you didn't listen to it.
Abigail Shrier is very supportive of transgendered people, and conveyed in some depth her numerous interviews with medical health professionals who provide aspects of gender reassignment and agreed with their unequivocal experience that it's helping people.
Her book is specifically about statistically aberrant behaviour in small groups of female teens that show atypical behaviour compared to normal transgendered people that are being given hormones and life altering treatments with minimal oversight, often to their lasting detriment.
I do not agree. How is that transphobic? Is the action of inviting an author motivated by irrational fear of trans people? Are the views[1] of the author irrational and based in fear of trans people?
My understanding is the author is skeptical of the rise in reported cases of gender dysphoria over time. She contends that the rise in cases is partly a result of tangential social influences that are ultimately detrimental do development of kids. Rational skepticism is not phobia.
This is a frustrating line of argument. What would make you the authority on what transphobia is?
> Are the views[1] of the author irrational and based in fear of trans people?
To "arrive" does not mean "to cross a river". To be "awesome" does not mean "to be terrifying". Meanings are not constructed by etymology. Transphobia is not "the irrational fear of transgender people".
The author is not a "rational skeptic", as clearly evidenced by her wildly biased choice of analysis presented as solid science. Her work has been widely criticized by the scientific community and is not far off from forming opinions about racial differences in IQ by asking aparthied leaders about their opinions and experiences and taking it as gospel evidence.
I do not presume to be an authority. In fact, that is what my original comment was asking: What is transphobia? You have rejected one definition but failed to provide an alternative. That leads me to the second part of my original comment: is it something subjective that you'll know when you see it?
I'll have to read her work in more depth to form an opinion on the rigor of her work. Suffice to say, I view your evaluation of her work with skepticism as well.
It's not just skepticism though, she strongly staked out the opposing position. I would say it is irrational to have such a strong opinion on such little evidence.
Also, -phobia doesn't only mean fear. It can also mean dislike or hatred.
A strong opinion and skepticism are not exclusive.
Now we come to the core of the issue: what constitutes an acceptable balance between strength of opinion and evidence? Who arbitrates that? I say it is quite subjective.
You say her opinions are irrational and exhibit phobia. I disagree: I'd say putting such a definitive label on her position is irrational.
