Doctors at Boston Children’s Hospital Explain How to Detect Children of One Sex who are Really of the Other Sex

Dr. Jeremi Carswell of Boston Children's Hospital explains the warning signs: Your girl might be a boy if that girl tries to stand to urinate or plays with the "opposite gender" toys. In other words, we need to vigorously engaging in the kinds of sexual stereotypes that we, as a country, have spent decades trying to demolish.

Even more jaw dropping, these kids often know they are in the wrong body when they are still babies, from the "minute they were born," Dr. Carswell says. She doesn't say whether these parents (or, when they become teenagers, peer groups of these kids or activist counselors) are encouraging their kids to think these thoughts.

Dr. Carswell tells us these things as the pleasant music plays in the background. She mentions the "treatment" given to these children/teenagers, but doesn't describe it.

These patients can be as young as 2 or 3 years old, according to Kerry McGregor Psyd at Boston Children's Hospital:

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingDoctors at Boston Children’s Hospital Explain How to Detect Children of One Sex who are Really of the Other Sex

When Used Against Trump, Democrats Declare that the Espionage Act is Now a Good Thing

Matt Taibbi:

The Espionage Act is an embarrassment that would make Marcos or Suharto squeamish, but it’s of course not completely impossible there’s an actual espionage offense in Trump’s case somewhere (just as obviously, no evidence of this has been produced). Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were tried under the Act for giving bomb secrets to the Soviets, as Michael Beschloss and Michael Hayden just helpfully reminded us. However, in modern times, the Espionage Act is more associated with talking to the Times, ABC, The Guardian and The Intercept than with actual spying. The defendants are more often conscience-stricken heroes like Hale than villains.

That’s the problem with this law. “Information relating to the national defense” can essentially be anything the government decides, and they can put you in jail a long time for “mishandling” it, which in Assange’s case included merely having it. Trump or no Trump, if you think that’s okay, you’re an asshole. It’s totally un-American, which is why Robert Reich shouldn’t be surprised if Donald Trump acts proud of being investigated for it. This law is more infamous than he is, and everyone but a handful of blue checks can see it.

Continue ReadingWhen Used Against Trump, Democrats Declare that the Espionage Act is Now a Good Thing

NYT Cancel’s Republican Tim Scott’s Op-Ed after Checking with Democrat Chuck Schumer.

Fascinating peek behind the scenes at the New York Times provided by Bari Weiss. This account was published by the National Review:

Weiss, who cited the “illiberal environment” at the Times as reason for her departure from the paper two years ago, first told the story while interviewing Scott on a Wednesday episode of her podcast, Honestly With Bari Weiss. Weiss recalled:

Weiss: Here’s what happened. I was at the New York Times and you or your staff sent in an op-ed about the bill, and why it fell apart. And this is the part I’m not sure if you know — there was a discussion about the piece, and whether or not we should run it, and one colleague, a more senior colleague, said to a more junior colleague who was pushing for the piece, ‘Do you think the Republicans really care about minority rights?’

Scott: Wow.

Weiss: And the more junior colleague said, ‘I think Tim Scott cares about minority rights.’ And then — and here’s the pretty shocking part — the more senior colleague said, ‘Let’s check with Senator Schumer before we run it.’

Scott: Wow.

Weiss: And the colleague, the younger one, refused. Because he said — because that colleague said — it wasn’t an ethical thing to do.

Scott: Wow.

Continue ReadingNYT Cancel’s Republican Tim Scott’s Op-Ed after Checking with Democrat Chuck Schumer.

Rumble’s Antitrust Suit Against Google

Matt Stoller offers an update on this case. Is it really about Google prioritizing certain viewpoints?

Many Republicans believe that progressives are running Google or other big firms, and these executives are making censorship choices about how to elect more Democrats or foist health choices on the public. They do this, so goes the theory, even if it means making less money. While it's certainly the case that plenty of conservatives get knocked off big tech platforms, so do many others with all sorts of viewpoints (like pro-choice advocates marketing abortion pills on Instagram). More importantly, Google executives are heavily motivated by money, and they would vastly prefer not to have to deal with difficult censorship decisions that amount to which politically powerful customers to piss off.

What is really happening is that these firms are trying to monopolize a market, and then exploit their resulting power to generate cash. Only, in speech or cultural markets, fostering a monopoly means not only that you are able to extract profits. It also means, willingly or no, you become a powerful influence over speech. Large publishing houses choose who gets published and who doesn’t, and that confers significant power. The more dominant the publishing house, the more power. Search engines or social networks are vastly more concentrated, but a similar dynamic exists. Once you control society’s single search engine or social network, editorial choices, whichever direction they lead, help determine what is heard in the public square. So what these executives are doing isn’t trying to censor, but trying to ensure that they have market power in targeted advertising, search advertising or book sales. They simply end up as speech police, because that’s what it means when you build a monopoly that can determine who gets to be heard and who doesn’t.

Continue ReadingRumble’s Antitrust Suit Against Google