Re: SSRIs. My son had been put on an SSRI about 4 months before “realizing” he was trans during his sophomore year of high school. He commented during family therapy that it was a “relief not to be distracted by that constant buzz.” I think he was referring to testosterone and the effect it has on teen boys. Shortly before being put on the SSRI he had come back from a summer camp and confided to me, “I must not be very masculine. I heard the way the other boys were talking about girls like they were pieces of meat, and I was just disgusted by it.” I told him that doesn’t make him not masculine, that just makes him a decent person. There were numerous things that contributed to his ROGD, but I think discomfort with his male sexuality, not wanting to be an oppressor, and the dampening of his libido caused by the SSRI were major factors. Throw in living in a liberal college town where cis het white males are pariahs, slightly autistic black and white thinking, a breakup with a girlfriend and falling out with a friend group, then hanging out with a group of misfits, then having a major crush on a girl who liked girls and loved dressing him up like a doll and was so happy to give him the attention he wanted, and he was a sitting duck for this cult.
We had an actual experience with the Trevor hotline. This isn't just theoretical for us. They need to be shut down not because they're promoting an agenda. They need to be shut down because they are not responding with best practice when a young person is in crisis and at highest risk. They are putting youth in danger with bad practice and this is true no matter where you stand on the issue of gender affirming care.
Hearing the story of Cori at the school board meeting and thinking back to Sarah's essay about the trans person on Blue Sky who got such a vicious pile on because they said they believed we needed to be telling kids they would be OK even with the supreme court decision, it makes me think there is at least some portion of the people supporting this that are primarily driven by the need to believe they are heroes and saviors. And they can't be heroes and saviors without victims to save, so in some twisted unconscious toxic distortion of their protection instinct, they actually need kids to be in danger and will create those conditions to make sure they are. I don't think these are inherently evil people but people whose good intentions to care for and protect the vulnerable that somehow got distorted into something very unhealthy for themselves and others.
" at least some portion of the people supporting this that are primarily driven by the need to believe they are heroes and saviors. And they can't be heroes and saviors without victims to save"
Cori may have been referencing my complaints about this podcast not addressing Gavin Newsom’s comments to Charlie Kirk.
I’ve tried to only leave positive comments since then because I’m so grateful for these conversations and all of your bravery in speaking out.
I’ll try to be clear about my thoughts here. I think real change in the US will involve getting democrats to change their position. I worry about gender critical positions being so closely linked to such an imperfect messenger as Trump. I’m grateful for what Trump has done-but what if he does get inextricably linked to Epstein? Will any democrats come over then?
I have a similar reaction to Gavin’s looks. I’m not going to vouch for his personal character. I’m a teacher of students with learning disabilities and I’ve been grateful for his openness about his dyslexia-as well as his early support for gay marriage. I don’t know if he’s any slimier looking than Trump. Making fun of Trump’s looks and spelling are my least favorite attacks against him.
I’m not sure any other leading democrats have tried to walk back their position. I was hoping for more from Newsom. He predictably got flailed by democratic supporters and donors. And has since not said much. I think if we don’t encourage Newsom to continue down this road, who will? I heard is stuttering about this and cringed but also encouraged that he’s still engaging somewhat.
I agree with Cori - money talks in politics but so does winning elections. Newsom is looking at the polling and making his calculations.
I hope this comment lands okay. I’m not very good at this art.
"I think real change in the US will involve getting democrats to change their position. I worry about gender critical positions being so closely linked to such an imperfect messenger as Trump."
Completely agree. If this just makes Democrats dig in their heels deeper, as Trump's support for school reopening did in 2020, most of this will be a Pyrrhic victory. Trump is not only an imperfect, but an exceptionally bad messenger for this issue, given his complete lack of credibility when it comes to caring about women and children (or really anybody but himself), and his vindictive, spiteful personality. It's way too easy to describe all this as a hateful assault on "trans people" when it's got his name on it. But I doubt the Epstein stuff is going to turn any Democrats off more. His image cannot possibly get any worse; whatever he may have done with Epstein would surprise no one. Plus, Dems have Epstein people on their own side.
Look Kate, we don't *need* Trump to care about women and children in order to make moves to dismember the gender beast. We just need the gender beast dismembered! Of course he's doing it out of self-interest--when has he done anything out of anything but? But again--who cares about him, in his wretchedness?
We must not take our eyes off the goal. If anything, the gender fight was something so obvious and so clearly a win that it is shameful that Democrats ceded it to the portly slimeball to begin with! And the time is long overdue for would-be liberals to stop swishing around in their feelings and fight the fight!
Of course we don't need him to care. My point was that his lack of any positive principles and his divisive language make it very easy for Democrats to dismiss all his administration's actions as hateful, and him being the standard bearer against the gender insanity is going to make it harder for them to admit they were wrong.
And the problem is, many of his actions are reversible. I hope the tide is genuinely turning, but it's also possible that as soon as Democrats win the next election, they will reverse as much as they can. They lost their fucking minds in 2016 in response to Trump, who knows what's going to happen during this term.
That's why it's crucial, in the long run, to change minds and not just use executive power to shut things down, as much as I applaud that and hope it lasts. Trump cannot change minds. Only people like the Informed Dissent crew and the LGB Courage Coalition can do that, slowly. It would be great if the Republican Party hadn't fallen for this divisive cult leader, but actually represented genuine sanity beyond this issue, so people who aren't already on their side would be willing to follow their lead.
Yeah, I'm not really certain that "changing minds" is or ought to be a *prerequisite* for unplugging the gender meat-grinder. For any given values of Persons A and B, the ability of Person A to change Person B's mind approximates zero; turns out that's completely under Person B's umbrella! Even if Person A is Stalin, turns out that Person B's mind-change is usually smoke and mirrors.
The "long run," by the way, has already outlasted the Third Reich. Therefore, instead of waiting, cajoling and playing the enforcer until all our declarations match, we work with who we have in all the ways we have them onside, telling the truth and showing humility. The more curtains we pull aside, the more pieces of the machine we expose, the more we support stricken parents and riven children, the faster we can stop it--alongside Persons B and C and Z, no matter where their minds are or where you think they ought to be. Maybe we could have gender-butchery discussions without even mentioning Democrats or Republicans or Whigs or Know-Nothings or AfD or any of 'em! Let's bite off the foot that got us in the trap of gender as a political thing. It has slowed us down and made *less* room for people to act, *less* space for human sexed reality (and reality-based compassion) to re-infuse anyone's thoughts.
Trump *is* inextricably linked to Epstein, and it changes not a thing about how welcome the administration's moves on "gender" are. It is childish and irresponsible for any self-respecting liberal or conservative to decide that they can't favor anything Trump favors. Look...Trump may favor chocolate cake! Or Christmas presents! Or he may like a singer we do (Sinatra?) or maybe to take in a Yankees game! If he happens to favor something wonderful, something essential to life--I've a sneaking suspicion he's a fan of oxygen--then his odious, appalling, ruined existence should have absolutely *no* effect on whether I favor it too!
Unfortunately, the "Fox News Fallacy" - if Fox says it, the opposite must be true - has become just about the Democrats' favorite rhetorical trope. Sure, it's completely irrational; but it has enormous emotional appeal.
I don't expect Dems will ever publicly admit they were wrong about the gender woo. They're trapped almost as badly as parents who consented to sex change treatments for their children. If those sad people were ever able to overcome the grief of making such a horrible decision and admit it, they'd have to go out and eat worms and die. I'd be satisfied if they would just STFU and then abandon their evil legislative proposal to substitute "gender identity" for "sex" i our laws.
Look, Miki, we all agree with you. The problem is not anyone you are talking to here, but the average Democrat out there, and the average Democratic politician (most of which are pretty low-information on this issue). Many of those, unfortunately, cannot fathom favoring anything Trump favors. That's just political reality. And that's why his wretched character matters, unfortunately.
I agree. Take the wins where you find them. And avoid personal attacks or even observations. Play the long game. And slay the dragons when you can. Live with integrity and face the future (but chronicle the past and don't forget who the real good guys are). Facts should inform beliefs, hard work brought some successes. Certainly every member of this podcast has given up an enormous amount, taken risks and kept going. They deserve to feel the success that they have earned in the battle for sanity on gender issues. And many thousands of us behind the scenes who contributed in large and small ways are a part of why social and political opinion is turning toward sanity and decency. We are seeing society slowly but surely pivot and break away from this medical scandal, cultural creep show and political tsunami.
Jamie, I finally watched the FTC workshop and you were great! You may want to consider putting a clip of your testimony in a podcast episode, or perhaps dedicating a whole episode to breaking down the workshop.
Yes, it was more of a “performance” than a workshop, but so many important things were said, and if normies could hear some of these stories, some minds might get changed.
The workshop gave me hope, and made me even more confident that the deception we experienced at the Duke gender clinic was not unique. Can’t wait til they open the portal for us to tell our stories and name names of doctors who need to be investigated.
Curious if the historical record on more recent medical scandals (the ones Mia Hughes has researched) includes all the testimonies of the patients and their family members in support of the since discredited procedures? Just as there are passionate witnesses swearing up and down that GAC saved their loved one, there were most certainly similarly-deluded individuals paraded in front of reporters and regulatory authorities back then too . . .
Also, early-adopters of any product are psychologically incentivised to exaggerate how pleased they are with what they've sunk a lot of money, time and hope into . . . or sometimes just a little 15 mins of fame is enough to motivate people to lie, lie, lie. I remember an old "reality" TV program long ago, Candid Camera, which would show this behavior all the time. A specific example was when the show set up a food truck serving food made to taste bland and bad on purpose, asked some innocent passers-by to sample it, then pretended they needed spokespersons to be part of their advertising, and filmed these people smilingly promote the food they knew to taste terrible. Perhaps a simple example of some sort of human behavior tendencies most of us slip into under the right conditions . . .
Non-gender rant: PBS years ago did documentary about Boeing 737 Max crashes and it was moronic take with 0 understanding how plane certification works and what was chain of events of Lion Air crash. Srsly it was just template "big corpo is corrupt and we need strong state oversight" without looking at incentives within airlines, without looking at epic scale systemic fairlures of airline industry within Indonesia, without even understanding market situation of airplane producers. It was t e r r i b l e.
Ben is correct, Gavin Newsom hair is an atrocious monstrosity. I was talking to a friend several weeks ago about it and we came to the conclusion that his hair elicits an immediate disgust and distrust reaction. If he does get the nomination, I envision his snake-oil salesman hair will be one of the things that give enough people the “ick” not to pull the lever.
Yes, that was actually who we compared him to in our conversation. He embodies the American Psycho look. We also said he captures the cadence in his speaking voice, but that led us down another rabbit hole of Gen X men wanting to have his life, without the murder.
Yes. I think there’s an argument to be made that a sliver of Late Boomer/Gen X men, particularly the NIMBY/Yuppie/Coastal types, use and dispose of women. Maybe not with Bateman-level violence, but with the same kind of cold detachment. It is ghosting in a Patagonia vest. Plus, wholesale adoption of gender ideology by many of these guys reeks of a different flavor of misogyny one dressed up as progressivism but just as dismissive of the needs of women and children beneath the surface.
In the book (and bits of the movie) Pat presents himself as a progressive. He denounces sexism and racism and consumerism among other things, while secretly being a vicious misogynist, racist, and the ultimate shallow consumer.
My feeling on folks were the are post peak woke out there bc they did live through the worst of it in San Francisco. Even the buskers and passing motorist were mostly on our side.
I know these are female clothes, but concepts translate to male fashion and Best Blog didn’t make visualisations for men. Essences depend on facial features and don’t change through life unless plastic surgery is involved. They’re constituted by elements like materials, contrasts, color scheme, length of lines, amount of details, stiff vs flowing, round vs angular, patterns, symmetry vs asymmetry, fitted vs lose, size of garments and accessories
At the top of the episode, Jamie mentioned the question of whether trans medicine MDs would be facing prison time, as many fervently hope, and also mentioned in passing the question, previously discussed whether any lawsuits against these MDs would be successful. I think we need more clarity about these legal issues.
To begin with the lawsuits, since I started following this issue, I have heard many commentators suggest that trans medicine would be halted when the malpractice lawsuits started rolling in. What I have heard less often is any commentary on the obstacles to the success of these lawsuits. The most obvious of these the narrow window provided by the statute of limitations, though there are others. I think it was always a mistake to just assume that this legal strategy would be successful, though I fervently hope that it will.
One possibility is that the lawsuit, as I understand it, that includes Jason Rafferty works around the statute of limitations problem by alleging fraud. This is also the approach that the FTC is taking, and it seems more promising to me than the malpractice route.
As far as the prosecution of MDs is concerned, I think there is also a lack of clarity about the prospects for criminal prosecution. When I hear some commentators, such as Mia Hughes (whose work I greatly admire), state her fervent hope that there will be prison time for the offenders, I find myself asking, "Based on what laws?" I think we would all agree that moral crimes have been committed, but what actual crime crimes do we suppose have been committed?
I am not saying that there are none. What I am saying is that I don´t know the answer, and I have not heard anyone addressing the question. One distinct possibility, to my mind, is insurance fraud, which returns us to the FTC strategy. But are there others?
Perhaps you could invite a guest onto the podcast with legal expertise. This is definitely an area that offers fresh ground to explore.
Fully agree with Ben about Newsom's hair. Newsom has also disqualified himself during the pandemic, where he shut down California schools for over a year, while sending his own to private. He is never going to be trusted by the sensible middle. I do worry that his high profile will allow him to clinch the Democratic nomination. In that case, we'll get another four years of MAGA.
My non gender thing this week is The Smell of Rain on Dust: Grief and Praise, by Martin Prechtel. Some lovely imagery & prose, particularly in the first sections...
I fully agree with what was said + I'd like to add common perception that it's ok and perfectly normal to be lifelong medical patients for psychiatric reasons. Currently I'm tapering off my psychiatric drugs and well I talk about it openly, very common reaction I get is surprise that I'm not intending to stay on drugs forever - even when I explain it's just depression/anxiety, not schizophrenia or bipolar. This week I suffered from really nasty consequenses of lowering dose of duloxetine* (trade name in USA Cymbalta) and 2 people suggested I should consider asking psychiatrist for different psychiatric drug to mask withdrawal effects. WTF. WTF.
*I had 2 main withdrawal symptoms: severe brain fog (persisting for few days) and catatonic state (I fell into this 4 times for few hours each time; my coworkers thought I had a stroke)
I know way too many people on SSRIs (mostly all female, acquaintances/relatives), so I have been surprised lately finding out (mainly on YouTube) about people now tapering off on their own, finding out that their may be other solutions (one person changed her diet for example, also sleep, exercise, etc). Dr. Josef is one I was watching a bit: https://www.youtube.com/@taperclinic
I'm fully stable for over a year, so finally my psychiatrist agreed to me coming off drugs. I follow orders of my psychiatrist, but I'm going to talk with him about Dr Josef's method, because just lowering dose of duloxetine was nightmare.
Actually, Adults are adversely affected, sexual response is very often significantly blunted even after discontinuing SSRI. It is particularly damaging to youth as they very likely will never experience complete sexual pleasure.
Yes, but adults have the right to make that call. Though if the blunting of sexual function wasn't/isn't listed as a possible side effect I guess one day there might be grounds for a class action lawsuit of some kind...
Gender recommendation: music, Sopor Aeternus & The Ensemble of Shadows. It’s one-of-a-kind gothic music project by mtf transsexual Anna Varney Cantodea. Generally it’s good music, but as i revisiting Sopor I was struck by popularity of the song „In der Palästra” (2008), which ALWAYS had popularity far exceeding market for songs about decay, gothic tales and Edgar Allan Poe. It was very visible in last.fm times, it’s still visible on Spotify.
My partially non-gender recommendation is other music by Sopor Aeternus, that about decay, gothic tales and Edgar Allan Poe. His opus magnum are two albums „Dead Lovers’ Sarabande”.
My fav song, recitation of poem „The Sleeper” by Edgar Allan Poe. Interestingly gender of the lover in poem is switched to male
„In der Palästra” is very in topic of trans and relations to other men and to the mtf body: self-hatred with admiration for manly man and desire to be desired as woman
To do with SSRIs: I was put on them at age 17, during Covid lockdowns, for what I now consider to be a normal teen response to being banned from seeing my friends for 9 months. I took a severe turn for the worse mentally and got massively sedated by my doctors as a result. I was kept on both SSRIs and mood stabilisers for 2.5 years, meeting once every 3 months with a psychiatrist for about 5 minutes over Zoom. I had zero sexual interest in anyone from the time I started on them until about the age of 20, months after coming off them. I don't tell people my age that I used to be on them because they are SO insistent that I go back on. They're genuinely seen as miracle drugs by so many people my age, despite a very shaky evidence base. My generation is constantly searching for a magic pill that will fix all our problems. For some, it's SSRIs. For others, it's cross sex hormones. Either way, I'm one of the only people I know in their early 20s who knows how to handle distress in a non-medical way. I'm grateful that I've taken the steps to figure myself out and realise that, actually, it's perfectly normal to be upset from time to time as a young adult, but I'm extremely concerned about other people my age who are CONSTANTLY discouraged from reaching that conclusion by every adult around them (college administrators, therapists, doctors, the internet). Apologies for this super ramble-y comment but I'm very passionate about this issue and I've never heard anyone bring it up before. I'm so glad to hear that teachers are concerned about it, too.
Re: SSRIs. My son had been put on an SSRI about 4 months before “realizing” he was trans during his sophomore year of high school. He commented during family therapy that it was a “relief not to be distracted by that constant buzz.” I think he was referring to testosterone and the effect it has on teen boys. Shortly before being put on the SSRI he had come back from a summer camp and confided to me, “I must not be very masculine. I heard the way the other boys were talking about girls like they were pieces of meat, and I was just disgusted by it.” I told him that doesn’t make him not masculine, that just makes him a decent person. There were numerous things that contributed to his ROGD, but I think discomfort with his male sexuality, not wanting to be an oppressor, and the dampening of his libido caused by the SSRI were major factors. Throw in living in a liberal college town where cis het white males are pariahs, slightly autistic black and white thinking, a breakup with a girlfriend and falling out with a friend group, then hanging out with a group of misfits, then having a major crush on a girl who liked girls and loved dressing him up like a doll and was so happy to give him the attention he wanted, and he was a sitting duck for this cult.
We had an actual experience with the Trevor hotline. This isn't just theoretical for us. They need to be shut down not because they're promoting an agenda. They need to be shut down because they are not responding with best practice when a young person is in crisis and at highest risk. They are putting youth in danger with bad practice and this is true no matter where you stand on the issue of gender affirming care.
Hearing the story of Cori at the school board meeting and thinking back to Sarah's essay about the trans person on Blue Sky who got such a vicious pile on because they said they believed we needed to be telling kids they would be OK even with the supreme court decision, it makes me think there is at least some portion of the people supporting this that are primarily driven by the need to believe they are heroes and saviors. And they can't be heroes and saviors without victims to save, so in some twisted unconscious toxic distortion of their protection instinct, they actually need kids to be in danger and will create those conditions to make sure they are. I don't think these are inherently evil people but people whose good intentions to care for and protect the vulnerable that somehow got distorted into something very unhealthy for themselves and others.
" at least some portion of the people supporting this that are primarily driven by the need to believe they are heroes and saviors. And they can't be heroes and saviors without victims to save"
100% one of the dynamics in play here.
Cori may have been referencing my complaints about this podcast not addressing Gavin Newsom’s comments to Charlie Kirk.
I’ve tried to only leave positive comments since then because I’m so grateful for these conversations and all of your bravery in speaking out.
I’ll try to be clear about my thoughts here. I think real change in the US will involve getting democrats to change their position. I worry about gender critical positions being so closely linked to such an imperfect messenger as Trump. I’m grateful for what Trump has done-but what if he does get inextricably linked to Epstein? Will any democrats come over then?
I have a similar reaction to Gavin’s looks. I’m not going to vouch for his personal character. I’m a teacher of students with learning disabilities and I’ve been grateful for his openness about his dyslexia-as well as his early support for gay marriage. I don’t know if he’s any slimier looking than Trump. Making fun of Trump’s looks and spelling are my least favorite attacks against him.
I’m not sure any other leading democrats have tried to walk back their position. I was hoping for more from Newsom. He predictably got flailed by democratic supporters and donors. And has since not said much. I think if we don’t encourage Newsom to continue down this road, who will? I heard is stuttering about this and cringed but also encouraged that he’s still engaging somewhat.
I agree with Cori - money talks in politics but so does winning elections. Newsom is looking at the polling and making his calculations.
I hope this comment lands okay. I’m not very good at this art.
"I think real change in the US will involve getting democrats to change their position. I worry about gender critical positions being so closely linked to such an imperfect messenger as Trump."
Completely agree. If this just makes Democrats dig in their heels deeper, as Trump's support for school reopening did in 2020, most of this will be a Pyrrhic victory. Trump is not only an imperfect, but an exceptionally bad messenger for this issue, given his complete lack of credibility when it comes to caring about women and children (or really anybody but himself), and his vindictive, spiteful personality. It's way too easy to describe all this as a hateful assault on "trans people" when it's got his name on it. But I doubt the Epstein stuff is going to turn any Democrats off more. His image cannot possibly get any worse; whatever he may have done with Epstein would surprise no one. Plus, Dems have Epstein people on their own side.
Look Kate, we don't *need* Trump to care about women and children in order to make moves to dismember the gender beast. We just need the gender beast dismembered! Of course he's doing it out of self-interest--when has he done anything out of anything but? But again--who cares about him, in his wretchedness?
We must not take our eyes off the goal. If anything, the gender fight was something so obvious and so clearly a win that it is shameful that Democrats ceded it to the portly slimeball to begin with! And the time is long overdue for would-be liberals to stop swishing around in their feelings and fight the fight!
Of course we don't need him to care. My point was that his lack of any positive principles and his divisive language make it very easy for Democrats to dismiss all his administration's actions as hateful, and him being the standard bearer against the gender insanity is going to make it harder for them to admit they were wrong.
And the problem is, many of his actions are reversible. I hope the tide is genuinely turning, but it's also possible that as soon as Democrats win the next election, they will reverse as much as they can. They lost their fucking minds in 2016 in response to Trump, who knows what's going to happen during this term.
That's why it's crucial, in the long run, to change minds and not just use executive power to shut things down, as much as I applaud that and hope it lasts. Trump cannot change minds. Only people like the Informed Dissent crew and the LGB Courage Coalition can do that, slowly. It would be great if the Republican Party hadn't fallen for this divisive cult leader, but actually represented genuine sanity beyond this issue, so people who aren't already on their side would be willing to follow their lead.
Yeah, I'm not really certain that "changing minds" is or ought to be a *prerequisite* for unplugging the gender meat-grinder. For any given values of Persons A and B, the ability of Person A to change Person B's mind approximates zero; turns out that's completely under Person B's umbrella! Even if Person A is Stalin, turns out that Person B's mind-change is usually smoke and mirrors.
The "long run," by the way, has already outlasted the Third Reich. Therefore, instead of waiting, cajoling and playing the enforcer until all our declarations match, we work with who we have in all the ways we have them onside, telling the truth and showing humility. The more curtains we pull aside, the more pieces of the machine we expose, the more we support stricken parents and riven children, the faster we can stop it--alongside Persons B and C and Z, no matter where their minds are or where you think they ought to be. Maybe we could have gender-butchery discussions without even mentioning Democrats or Republicans or Whigs or Know-Nothings or AfD or any of 'em! Let's bite off the foot that got us in the trap of gender as a political thing. It has slowed us down and made *less* room for people to act, *less* space for human sexed reality (and reality-based compassion) to re-infuse anyone's thoughts.
Trump *is* inextricably linked to Epstein, and it changes not a thing about how welcome the administration's moves on "gender" are. It is childish and irresponsible for any self-respecting liberal or conservative to decide that they can't favor anything Trump favors. Look...Trump may favor chocolate cake! Or Christmas presents! Or he may like a singer we do (Sinatra?) or maybe to take in a Yankees game! If he happens to favor something wonderful, something essential to life--I've a sneaking suspicion he's a fan of oxygen--then his odious, appalling, ruined existence should have absolutely *no* effect on whether I favor it too!
Unfortunately, the "Fox News Fallacy" - if Fox says it, the opposite must be true - has become just about the Democrats' favorite rhetorical trope. Sure, it's completely irrational; but it has enormous emotional appeal.
I don't expect Dems will ever publicly admit they were wrong about the gender woo. They're trapped almost as badly as parents who consented to sex change treatments for their children. If those sad people were ever able to overcome the grief of making such a horrible decision and admit it, they'd have to go out and eat worms and die. I'd be satisfied if they would just STFU and then abandon their evil legislative proposal to substitute "gender identity" for "sex" i our laws.
Look, Miki, we all agree with you. The problem is not anyone you are talking to here, but the average Democrat out there, and the average Democratic politician (most of which are pretty low-information on this issue). Many of those, unfortunately, cannot fathom favoring anything Trump favors. That's just political reality. And that's why his wretched character matters, unfortunately.
I agree. Take the wins where you find them. And avoid personal attacks or even observations. Play the long game. And slay the dragons when you can. Live with integrity and face the future (but chronicle the past and don't forget who the real good guys are). Facts should inform beliefs, hard work brought some successes. Certainly every member of this podcast has given up an enormous amount, taken risks and kept going. They deserve to feel the success that they have earned in the battle for sanity on gender issues. And many thousands of us behind the scenes who contributed in large and small ways are a part of why social and political opinion is turning toward sanity and decency. We are seeing society slowly but surely pivot and break away from this medical scandal, cultural creep show and political tsunami.
Jamie, I finally watched the FTC workshop and you were great! You may want to consider putting a clip of your testimony in a podcast episode, or perhaps dedicating a whole episode to breaking down the workshop.
Yes, it was more of a “performance” than a workshop, but so many important things were said, and if normies could hear some of these stories, some minds might get changed.
The workshop gave me hope, and made me even more confident that the deception we experienced at the Duke gender clinic was not unique. Can’t wait til they open the portal for us to tell our stories and name names of doctors who need to be investigated.
Curious if the historical record on more recent medical scandals (the ones Mia Hughes has researched) includes all the testimonies of the patients and their family members in support of the since discredited procedures? Just as there are passionate witnesses swearing up and down that GAC saved their loved one, there were most certainly similarly-deluded individuals paraded in front of reporters and regulatory authorities back then too . . .
Also, early-adopters of any product are psychologically incentivised to exaggerate how pleased they are with what they've sunk a lot of money, time and hope into . . . or sometimes just a little 15 mins of fame is enough to motivate people to lie, lie, lie. I remember an old "reality" TV program long ago, Candid Camera, which would show this behavior all the time. A specific example was when the show set up a food truck serving food made to taste bland and bad on purpose, asked some innocent passers-by to sample it, then pretended they needed spokespersons to be part of their advertising, and filmed these people smilingly promote the food they knew to taste terrible. Perhaps a simple example of some sort of human behavior tendencies most of us slip into under the right conditions . . .
Non-gender rant: PBS years ago did documentary about Boeing 737 Max crashes and it was moronic take with 0 understanding how plane certification works and what was chain of events of Lion Air crash. Srsly it was just template "big corpo is corrupt and we need strong state oversight" without looking at incentives within airlines, without looking at epic scale systemic fairlures of airline industry within Indonesia, without even understanding market situation of airplane producers. It was t e r r i b l e.
Ben is correct, Gavin Newsom hair is an atrocious monstrosity. I was talking to a friend several weeks ago about it and we came to the conclusion that his hair elicits an immediate disgust and distrust reaction. If he does get the nomination, I envision his snake-oil salesman hair will be one of the things that give enough people the “ick” not to pull the lever.
I mean he basically looks like a real life Patrick Bateman right?
Yes, that was actually who we compared him to in our conversation. He embodies the American Psycho look. We also said he captures the cadence in his speaking voice, but that led us down another rabbit hole of Gen X men wanting to have his life, without the murder.
Without the murder? Do they keep the misogyny?
Yes. I think there’s an argument to be made that a sliver of Late Boomer/Gen X men, particularly the NIMBY/Yuppie/Coastal types, use and dispose of women. Maybe not with Bateman-level violence, but with the same kind of cold detachment. It is ghosting in a Patagonia vest. Plus, wholesale adoption of gender ideology by many of these guys reeks of a different flavor of misogyny one dressed up as progressivism but just as dismissive of the needs of women and children beneath the surface.
I just googled Newsom's birthdate after you first said Gen Z, but this post makes it clear you mean Gen X. I just felt really old for a moment!
Thanks for catching that. I did mean Gen X. And have corrected this oversight. Gen Z is its own thing.
In the book (and bits of the movie) Pat presents himself as a progressive. He denounces sexism and racism and consumerism among other things, while secretly being a vicious misogynist, racist, and the ultimate shallow consumer.
Gavin Newsom has essences romantic/dramatic/gamine, which is PERFECT combination for politician. All 2WW leaders had essences romantic or dramatic and either gamine or ingenue and combo of all 3 is hallmark of charisma. https://www.truth-is-beauty.com/9794-9794-9792-romantic-dramatic-gamine.html
My feeling on folks were the are post peak woke out there bc they did live through the worst of it in San Francisco. Even the buskers and passing motorist were mostly on our side.
Essence studies
CORI these are your essences https://www.truth-is-beauty.com/9792-9794-dramatic-ingenue----the-childlike-czarina.html
I know these are female clothes, but concepts translate to male fashion and Best Blog didn’t make visualisations for men. Essences depend on facial features and don’t change through life unless plastic surgery is involved. They’re constituted by elements like materials, contrasts, color scheme, length of lines, amount of details, stiff vs flowing, round vs angular, patterns, symmetry vs asymmetry, fitted vs lose, size of garments and accessories
“Childlike Czarina” and “Cori Cohn” have similar alliteration! It was the part I was scientifically modified to play!
At the top of the episode, Jamie mentioned the question of whether trans medicine MDs would be facing prison time, as many fervently hope, and also mentioned in passing the question, previously discussed whether any lawsuits against these MDs would be successful. I think we need more clarity about these legal issues.
To begin with the lawsuits, since I started following this issue, I have heard many commentators suggest that trans medicine would be halted when the malpractice lawsuits started rolling in. What I have heard less often is any commentary on the obstacles to the success of these lawsuits. The most obvious of these the narrow window provided by the statute of limitations, though there are others. I think it was always a mistake to just assume that this legal strategy would be successful, though I fervently hope that it will.
One possibility is that the lawsuit, as I understand it, that includes Jason Rafferty works around the statute of limitations problem by alleging fraud. This is also the approach that the FTC is taking, and it seems more promising to me than the malpractice route.
As far as the prosecution of MDs is concerned, I think there is also a lack of clarity about the prospects for criminal prosecution. When I hear some commentators, such as Mia Hughes (whose work I greatly admire), state her fervent hope that there will be prison time for the offenders, I find myself asking, "Based on what laws?" I think we would all agree that moral crimes have been committed, but what actual crime crimes do we suppose have been committed?
I am not saying that there are none. What I am saying is that I don´t know the answer, and I have not heard anyone addressing the question. One distinct possibility, to my mind, is insurance fraud, which returns us to the FTC strategy. But are there others?
Perhaps you could invite a guest onto the podcast with legal expertise. This is definitely an area that offers fresh ground to explore.
Fully agree with Ben about Newsom's hair. Newsom has also disqualified himself during the pandemic, where he shut down California schools for over a year, while sending his own to private. He is never going to be trusted by the sensible middle. I do worry that his high profile will allow him to clinch the Democratic nomination. In that case, we'll get another four years of MAGA.
My non gender thing this week is The Smell of Rain on Dust: Grief and Praise, by Martin Prechtel. Some lovely imagery & prose, particularly in the first sections...
RE: SSRI
I fully agree with what was said + I'd like to add common perception that it's ok and perfectly normal to be lifelong medical patients for psychiatric reasons. Currently I'm tapering off my psychiatric drugs and well I talk about it openly, very common reaction I get is surprise that I'm not intending to stay on drugs forever - even when I explain it's just depression/anxiety, not schizophrenia or bipolar. This week I suffered from really nasty consequenses of lowering dose of duloxetine* (trade name in USA Cymbalta) and 2 people suggested I should consider asking psychiatrist for different psychiatric drug to mask withdrawal effects. WTF. WTF.
*I had 2 main withdrawal symptoms: severe brain fog (persisting for few days) and catatonic state (I fell into this 4 times for few hours each time; my coworkers thought I had a stroke)
I know way too many people on SSRIs (mostly all female, acquaintances/relatives), so I have been surprised lately finding out (mainly on YouTube) about people now tapering off on their own, finding out that their may be other solutions (one person changed her diet for example, also sleep, exercise, etc). Dr. Josef is one I was watching a bit: https://www.youtube.com/@taperclinic
I'm fully stable for over a year, so finally my psychiatrist agreed to me coming off drugs. I follow orders of my psychiatrist, but I'm going to talk with him about Dr Josef's method, because just lowering dose of duloxetine was nightmare.
SSRI's are toxic to sexuality and make sexual climax impossible. In Teens, it can lead to a lifetime of never experiencing sexual pleasure.
I don't think they're quite as damaging for adults (25+) but we probably shouldn't be giving them to teenagers.
Actually, Adults are adversely affected, sexual response is very often significantly blunted even after discontinuing SSRI. It is particularly damaging to youth as they very likely will never experience complete sexual pleasure.
Yes, but adults have the right to make that call. Though if the blunting of sexual function wasn't/isn't listed as a possible side effect I guess one day there might be grounds for a class action lawsuit of some kind...
Gender recommendation: music, Sopor Aeternus & The Ensemble of Shadows. It’s one-of-a-kind gothic music project by mtf transsexual Anna Varney Cantodea. Generally it’s good music, but as i revisiting Sopor I was struck by popularity of the song „In der Palästra” (2008), which ALWAYS had popularity far exceeding market for songs about decay, gothic tales and Edgar Allan Poe. It was very visible in last.fm times, it’s still visible on Spotify.
Look at the lyrics.
https://open.spotify.com/track/6Ys2QHWm57xwZZsVB4BlDV?si=FwZZTskiRJmtKwEy0pTOTg&context=spotify%3Asearch%3Ain%2Bder%2Bp
My partially non-gender recommendation is other music by Sopor Aeternus, that about decay, gothic tales and Edgar Allan Poe. His opus magnum are two albums „Dead Lovers’ Sarabande”.
My fav song, recitation of poem „The Sleeper” by Edgar Allan Poe. Interestingly gender of the lover in poem is switched to male
https://open.spotify.com/track/6pFhOvUUUez5LaflkFlH85?si=z3y2ImVWQ5edt9qyg419jw&context=spotify%3Aalbum%3A0gn2BzFoQJNZqbxaZykQ2G
„Dead Souls”, peak Sopor Aesternus and his most popular song among goths
https://open.spotify.com/track/7C6kj88zHVpe4ynPuJvGHy?si=zMABbj82TBaHxlNY0IsXQw&context=spotify%3Aalbum%3A09x8DbANXJ10plvif8gvg7
„Eldorado” more poems by Edgar Allan Poe
https://open.spotify.com/track/0X7lvxVWol32tQR4WToUO4?si=8i1TK9jER-GaT-37DDh6dw&context=spotify%3Aalbum%3A02hlHn1ISrXU3AquVefQN0
and envy of other man (sorry for thought scattered among many comments, I’m writing this through the rain)
For explicit message about gender about time when Anna transitioned look at „Drama der Geschlechtlosigkeit“ (It’s in german, so google translation) from first album „Todeswunsch” (Deathwish) from 1995. https://open.spotify.com/track/0r44nlPapwTvMPALTgD92g?si=BQqulH79TpKhO3ADCa-Lew&context=spotify%3Aalbum%3A1vd6IFHzRTR2e9sjtsCI4g
„In der Palästra” is very in topic of trans and relations to other men and to the mtf body: self-hatred with admiration for manly man and desire to be desired as woman
To do with SSRIs: I was put on them at age 17, during Covid lockdowns, for what I now consider to be a normal teen response to being banned from seeing my friends for 9 months. I took a severe turn for the worse mentally and got massively sedated by my doctors as a result. I was kept on both SSRIs and mood stabilisers for 2.5 years, meeting once every 3 months with a psychiatrist for about 5 minutes over Zoom. I had zero sexual interest in anyone from the time I started on them until about the age of 20, months after coming off them. I don't tell people my age that I used to be on them because they are SO insistent that I go back on. They're genuinely seen as miracle drugs by so many people my age, despite a very shaky evidence base. My generation is constantly searching for a magic pill that will fix all our problems. For some, it's SSRIs. For others, it's cross sex hormones. Either way, I'm one of the only people I know in their early 20s who knows how to handle distress in a non-medical way. I'm grateful that I've taken the steps to figure myself out and realise that, actually, it's perfectly normal to be upset from time to time as a young adult, but I'm extremely concerned about other people my age who are CONSTANTLY discouraged from reaching that conclusion by every adult around them (college administrators, therapists, doctors, the internet). Apologies for this super ramble-y comment but I'm very passionate about this issue and I've never heard anyone bring it up before. I'm so glad to hear that teachers are concerned about it, too.