Pope Francis recently said that gender ideology is “the ugliest danger” we face today, because it “erases differences”, and “erasing differences erases humanity”. Indeed, gender ideology has rapidly swept into the mainstream in Western societies, after many decades of sporadic, but gradual, growth.
The Detransition Diaries (Ignatius Press, 2024) recounts the stories of five women and two men who felt they were born in the wrong body and believed the lie, told by so many in their lives, that they could alter their bodies to match the opposite sex. These stories are heartbreaking, showcasing the short- and long-term harm and pain that such attempts (often ironically referred to as “gender affirming care”) cause, both mentally and physically. The personal stories are put in the wider context of the history of the “gender affirmation” movement, and how this ideological movement has spread over time.
The authors of The Detransition Diaries are Jennifer Lahl and Kallie Fell. Lahl is the founder and former president of the Center for Bioethics and Culture (CBC), prior to which she spent twenty-five years in pediatric nursing and senior-level hospital management. She has produced several award-winning documentaries on the topic of gender ideology. Fell is executive director of the CBC and a perinatal nurse, who was co-producer of documentaries for the Center.
Lahl and Fell spoke recently with Catholic World Report about their new book, the rise of the “gender” movement, and why it is important to tell the stories of those who regret their attempts to “transition”.
Catholic World Report: How did the book come about?
Jennifer Lahl: Vivian Dudro at Ignatius Press approached us to write this book. She knew we were in production for our film, The Detransition Diaries: Saving Our Sisters, and thought it would be great to write a book digging deeper into this subject matter. We agreed with Vivian and this idea of a book is now a reality.
Kallie Fell: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network was in production with our second documentary on the space “gender medicine”, The Detransition Diaries, when Vivian Dudro from IP approached Jennifer and I about writing a book. It seemed like an obvious and natural next step. The book was able to expand on the film; exploring the rise of the gender-affirmation movement, how medicine has failed to learn from mistakes of the past, why we are seeing so many young girls with gender confusion, and the lasting and irreversible damage of gender medicine.
Importantly, while at the tail end of writing this book, we also started production on the third film in the trilogy, The Lost Boys: Searching for Manhood, a film featuring the voices of five men, two of which were included in the book.
CWR: Why has the “gender” movement has taken off so rapidly in recent years?
Lahl: We write about the shifts in medicine, academia, and in our laws that have laid the ground for the “gender” movement. In academia we find the erosion of language that first had a shared understanding of maleness and femaleness. Women’s studies became gender studies, which paved the way to queer theory. At the same time, medicine was departing from its Do No Harm mandate, and ceding the language of biology, embracing the model of “gender” affirmation only therapy. Our state legislators jumped in, believing that one can be born in the wrong body and a it is our duty as a matter of policy to permit, and even enforce, healthcare providers to “treat” people, as if this type of care will offer relief to those struggling with their bodies.
Fell: The work we do at the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, in part, is to challenge medicine when it loses its connection to the rich tradition of the Hippocratic Oath: the physician’s fiduciary responsibility to “do no harm.” This “gender affirmative model” is a perfect example where the medical field has abandoned this oath over the last decade. In our book, we look at four instances in our past where medicine has lost its way. When you read the book, you’ll see how these four instances compare with gender affirming care in medicine. I think that is a good place to start in understanding how we have gotten here.
CWR: Why is it important to tell these stories of detransition?
Lahl: When we produced our first film, Trans Mission: What’s the Rush to Reassign Gender?, which explored the area of gender dysphoria and the treatment specifically of children, we included the stories of two detransitioners. The audience overwhelmingly reacted to their stories, as they had not heard of people regretting their decision to medically transition.
Shortly after, there was a “60 Minutes” segment which dealt with transgender ideology and healthcare. A small part of this segment included interviews with detransitioners. The backlash from ideologues of the transgender movement was fast and furious. We knew then, that people needed to hear more accounts from those who are called detransitioners.
Fell: Much of the previous work of the Center for Bioethics and Culture focuses on third-party reproduction, so when we learned that children, before they are put on a path to “transition”, are offered so-called fertility preservation technologies we knew we had to weigh in on this debate. So, during the global COVID-19 pandemic we set out to make our first documentary film in the space of “gender medicine” called Trans Mission: What’s the Rush to Reassign Gender. The film was released on YouTube free for viewers in June of 2021.
That film took a critical look at medically transitioning children. In it we talk to experts, pediatricians, endocrinologists, those in academia, detransitioners and parents about the rush to medicalize children with puberty blockers and cross sex hormone. In the middle of producing that film and listening to each of the interviews, we had an “aha!” moment where we realized that detransitioners—people who had started to medically transition and then have a desire to go back on that decision—were being silenced. People needed to hear that side of the story. At the time there was a real deficit in those stories being told publicly. They were being vilified and silenced simply for sharing their stories.
Now we can see that more and more are starting to speak out about what has happened to them. The numbers of detransitioners is growing and the number exposing their truth on social media is also growing. Books, and films, like ours elevate these voices and give an opportunity for others to speak out about their experience. Hopefully as these stories spread, society will wake up.
CWR: In the book, you track the history of how these issues developed. Is it important to understand how this all happened?
Lahl: We use the George Santayana quote—”Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it”—as our basis for the importance of understanding the history of this movement. We look at four moments in time, where doctors lost their ethical way, which has allowed us to get to the place where healthy breasts are being surgically removed or genitalia are being permanently damaged in the name of proper medicine. We also outline key actors in this medical ethical drama, whose dangerous ideas were embraced and put into practice.
Fell: Absolutely. As I refer to in your previous question, medicine has gone astray in the past. We have to learn from history to help rectify the situation we find ourselves in today.
CWR: Why does the book mostly focus on stories of girls and young women with gender dysphoria?
Lahl: At the time of our writing this book, there was a lot of focus on gender dysphoria as a new “social contagion” that was affecting young girls at a much higher rate than young boys. Young girls tend to be more social creatures, influenced by what other girls are doing, and they also have more history with having a negative view of their body/image, which is why young girls suffer more with eating disorders and self-harm. We are seeing an uptick in young boys now too, so it was great that Vivian asked us to include two stories from male detransitioners.
Fell: We focused first on females because it seemed, in recent years, that most patients in gender clinics are teenage girls. More specifically, girls with no history of childhood gender identity issues. According to author Abigail Shrier, in the New York Post, “Between 2016 and 2017, the number of gender surgeries for natal females in the U.S. quadrupled; in the UK, the rates of gender dysphoria for teenage girls are up 4,400 percent over the previous decade. An ailment that typically began in early childhood, and overwhelmingly afflicted males, suddenly has a new dominant demographic: teenage girls.” It doesn’t mean this doesn’t happen in boys or men, but it was where we decided to start.
CWR: The prevailing moral code (if you can call it that) in our society is essentially “live and let live”. But aren’t there some things, including so-called gender transition, that should not be permitted, let alone encouraged?
Lahl: It’s one thing to have an attitude of “live and let live” but it’s a whole other thing when medicine gets involved with doing things that are medically unnecessary and very harmful to the human body. We allow people to be free agents over many aspects of their life, the clothes they wear, what kind of music they enjoy, and even their political and religious beliefs are of their own choosing. None of these lifestyle choices require medical intervention. The physician is, first, to do no harm.
Fell: Jennifer does a great job answering this question, but when it comes to children, there is a duty to protect them. Once a child or adult starts down this path and are medicalized, they are medicalized for life. There is no going back. Once a female has put herself into early menopause by going on testosterone and removing her uterus, she will always need to take hormones or have other health side-effects that will require care and treatment. The side effects of puberty blockers, hormones, and “sex-reassignment” procedures cause complications.
Most people don’t understand the medical trajectory someone who decides to medically transition is putting themselves on and young people are simply not informed of these risks. Even though it is called “detransitioning” there truly is no going back. Our stance is that one person, or one child, who receives “medical treatment” that they shouldn’t have, thereby becoming infertile or a medical patient for life, is one too many.
CWR: What do you hope readers will take away from the book?
Lahl: First, I hope they can humanize and empathize with those who have fallen prey to this dangerous ideology. When they read the stories of the detransitioners, I wish for the readers to have compassion. Readers might rightly feel anger and sadness for what has been done to the people in these pages. I hope they can see who is to blame for these atrocities, which didn’t happen in a vacuum.
Finally, I hope they will feel hopeful. Hopeful that we can get medicine back to as it should be. Hopeful that many people are speaking up and working to close this dark chapter in medical history. Hopeful that those who have been harmed, are finding their way back to healing.
Fell: More than anything, I want readers to walk away feeling hopeful. Each of the men and women we interviewed for our book and films has a tremendous amount of resilience and hope and I think they too would want others to be encouraged by their stories.
CWR: Do you have anything else you would like to add?
Fell: I want to thank each person that has shared their story with us, detransitioners, medical providers, parents, and those who have been hurt by this ideology. I am so grateful to have met and spoken to each person.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Alas, once again we see people with very good intentions get duped into using faux terminology that has been purposely designed to promote and effectuate an agenda in direct opposition to God’s creative order.
And, despite being rightly critical of the hideous agenda, by using such terminology as desired by those who are anti-God in many respects, these good people inadvertently help advance the malevolent program because, as the late great moral theologian Monsignor William Smith often remarked:
“All social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering.”
Now, anticipating that many CWR readers will praise the book that is the subject of the article, and also inadvertently contribute to the malevolent agenda behind the design and use of certain terms featured in the title and within the book, I will simply set forth a few logical considerations as food for thought, and then invite the good readers of CWR to read a more in-depth article by me recently published at the Catholic365 website that further explains why the use of such terminology, especially without qualification and regardless of one’s intentions, is seriously wrong-headed and should simply not be done.
Note the following:
1. Because of God’s creative order involving human beings, it is absolutely impossible for any person to “transition from one sex (gender) to another sex (gender).”
2. Accordingly, since nobody has ever “transitioned from one sex (gender) to another sex (gender),” it is also absolutely impossible to “detransition from one sex (gender) back to the previous sex (gender).
(As explained in my article, sex and gender have been used since at least the 12th century as synonymous terms. The effort to make them distinct is also part of the language manipulation game employed by those who seek to undermine God’s creative order.)
3. So-called “transitions” involve mutilations of a person’s body, and so a person who claims to be in the process of “transitioning” is actually in the process of mutilating and otherwise altering his or her body in a stupendously foolish and impossible attempt to change one’s given sex (gender). Similarly, a person who claims to be in the process of “detransitioning” is actually in the process of trying to undo the harmful mutilations and other alterations to his or her body. Such a person can be rightly praised for his or her recognition of the errors of first mutilating his or her body, but In No Way should he or she be praised for allegedly “detransitioning” because such is not taking place and never can take place.
Again, more details and pertinent insights are set forth in my article you can find at the Catholic365 website under the title of “Good People: Please, Please, Please Stop Using Terminology that Promotes an Anti-God Agenda.”
In the Ongoing Culture War, giving up any aspect of objective truth is a capitulation to the evil Principalities and Powers.
Etymology notwithstanding, considering the hijacking of terminology, and to counter / minimize its effects, why not simply use the term ‘sex’ ALWAYS, (never interchangeably with ‘gender’), and reserve the term ‘gender’ ONLY for the grammatical sense (i.e., masculine, feminine, neuter)? – see chapter 6 entitled ‘The noun: gender’ in https://archive.org/details/EnglishGrammarCompositionWrenNMartin/page/n27/mode/1up
Two quibbles I have with your article at https://www.catholic365.com/article/36919/good-people-please-please-please-stop-using-terminology-that-promotes-an-anti-god-agenda.html are:
(1) this line: ‘In writing, always use quotation marks with “transgender,” “trans,” “trannie,” LGB”T”, to signify that they are all faux terms since nobody can change their genders.’
Instead of ‘nobody can change their genders’, because of what I noted above, wouldn’t it be better to say ‘…nobody can change their sex’?
A male may seem / act / pretend to be feminine or a female may seem / act / pretend to be masculine but we still consider and point to an individual’s sex which is rooted in biological reality, and not on deceptions / delusions / figments of the imagination.
(2) the use of quotation marks only for the “T” (in ‘LGB”T”‘) seems to leave the door open for considering the other pseudo-‘identities’ / harmful inclinations/tendencies as at least somewhat ‘legitimate’ / valid / acceptable / tolerable.
But then, even if that is not the intent, that too can lead once again to, or reinforce the sort of ‘overly benign interpretation’ warned against in http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html
Hence, I would suggest that EVERY pseudo-terminology of the (pseudo)-‘sexual’ revolution be challenged / ‘quarantined’ through quotation marks.
Thus, don’t just say LGB”T”.
Rather, say, “LGBT”.
Refuse to play along with the attempt to mainstream pseudo/harmful-‘identities’.
Call out, delegitimize, and reject the entire agenda lock, stock and barrel.
For more insight on where I’m coming from, see my nine separate replies below the article at https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/02/08/hypocrisy-and-same-sex-blessings/ (noting especially the words ‘lock’ and ‘locking’ in two of them) and the four separate replies below the article at https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/02/01/living-with-same-sex-attraction-in-the-aftermath-of-fs/
Monsignor William Smith is indeed correct that “All social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering.”
Alas, JN, you do not recognize the urgency of why I set forth the reality of the history that demonstrates the equivalence of the terms ‘gender’ and ‘sex’. Give up on this legitimate connection and you open the door for redefining ‘gender’ or unnecessarily limiting it to how it is used in grammar, which is also a mistake. I choose not to so surrender to the Woke language Gestapo because I understand the game behind redefining ‘gender’ as “a more fluid concept.” Sadly, you have capitulated to the demands of those behind this bogus severing of the terms by saying “okay, I’ll just use the word ‘sex’,” and you also carry some water for these misguided ideologues by advising others to also capitulate to their demands and meekly do their bidding in this regard. Moreover, you turn a blind eye to what is really going on with the manipulation of ‘gender’ that always adversely impacts issues involving ‘sex’ since they are indeed equivalent.
Now, ask yourself why those who promote “transgenderism” began pushing and continue to insist on the separation between ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ that has been recognized as equivalent terms since at least the 12th century. When you honestly do this, perhaps you will then see why going along with the revised terminology and language manipulation demand as part of their agenda is playing right into their hands to help them further their malevolent goals that you may otherwise find fault with.
Respice Finem
There is no ‘surrender’ or ‘capitulation’ – if there were, why would I agree with the use of quotation marks for (not only) “transgender”?
In using the term ‘sex’, I am simply in line with what biologists like https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/how-many-biological-sexes-are-there-in-human-beings say. Biologists (at least the non-‘woke’ ones) do not speak in terms of ‘gender’ but ‘sex’.
Far from “carrying some water for misguided ideologues” or “advising others to capitulate to their demands and meekly do their bidding” or “turning a blind eye to the manipulation of ‘gender’”, or “going along with the revised terminology and language manipulation”, by restricting ‘gender’ to the grammatical sense (masculine, feminine, neuter and common gender), I am implicitly avoiding/rejecting not only the term “transgender” but also any of the other cooked up nonsense / delusions / figments of the ideologue’s imagination, such as the “72 other genders” mentioned at https://www.medicinenet.com/what_are_the_72_other_genders/article.htm
Of course, whether one insists on the etymology (as you do) or restricts ‘gender’ to the grammatical sense (as I do), the ideologues are going to steam-roll ahead.
Sorry, JN. For reasons already stated, you and your cited biologist friends (by the bye, please do not suggest that all or even most biologists are in your camp as that would simply be disingenuous; moreover, many wrong-headed biologists, doctors, and others have also capitulated to the propaganda of accepting ‘gender’ as a more fluid concept involving personal feelings, etc.) have indeed capitulated to giving up what has been legitimate ever since the 12th century, and despite your protest to the contrary, by refusing to use a legitimate synonym for biological sex, you agree to what those in the “transgender” movement desire so they can continue to play their games and laugh at you and others who refuse to defend the objective reality of ‘gender’ as another term for biological sex.
Once again I ask you in a slightly different way the following question:
Why did those individuals who promote “transgenderism” start the propaganda campaign of insisting that ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ be considered as separate things, and why do they continue to insist on this separation despite the reality that the two terms have been considered as equivalent terms since at least the 12th century?
And now another related question that exposes the problem with your position:
Why do people in the “transgender” movement and fellow travelers, when questioned about so-called sex changes, reply that such people are not changing their sex; only their gender?
Honest answers to these two questions demonstrate why surrendering the legitimate meaning of ‘gender’ as synonymous with biological sex helps further the malevolent agenda of the “transgender” movement.
Sorry, JN. For reasons already stated, you and your cited biologist friends (by the bye, please do not suggest that all or even most biologists are in your camp as that would simply be disingenuous; moreover, many wrong-headed biologists, doctors, and others have also capitulated to the propaganda of accepting ‘gender’ as a more fluid concept involving personal feelings, etc.) have indeed capitulated to giving up what has been legitimate ever since the 12th century, and despite your protest to the contrary, by refusing to use a legitimate synonym for biological sex, you agree to what those in the “transgender” movement desire so they can continue to play their games and laugh at you and others who refuse to defend the objective reality of ‘gender’ as another term for biological sex.
Once again I ask you in a slightly different way the following question:
Why did those individuals who promote “transgenderism” start the propaganda campaign of insisting that ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ be considered as separate things, and why do they continue to insist on this separation despite the reality that the two terms have been considered as equivalent terms since at least the 12th century?
And now another related question that exposes the problem with your position:
Why do people in the “transgender” movement and fellow travelers, when questioned about so-called sex changes, reply that such people are not changing their sex; only their gender?
Honest answers to these two questions demonstrate why surrendering the legitimate meaning of ‘gender’ as synonymous with biological sex helps further the malevolent agenda of the “transgender” movement.
“…please do not suggest that all or even most biologists are in your camp as that would simply be disingenuous…”
Feel free to provide evidence that all or even most biologists are in “your camp”. Actually, I wonder if there are any biologists in “your camp” who use the term ‘gender’ as “a legitimate synonym” for ‘sex’.
Not using ‘gender’ as a synonym for ‘sex’ does not necessarily imply that one has “capitulated to the propaganda of accepting ‘gender’ as a more fluid concept involving personal feelings.” Such a conclusion is a non sequitur. Among other things, the non-use simply recognizes that there are people who claim to “feel”/experience “gender identity disorder”. (Of course, the propagandists have airbrushed that to “gender identity dysphoria”.)
While such “feelings” may actually be ‘experienced’ by some people, that does NOT mean:
(1) the “feelings” can be studied/verified through a scientific process which is as objective and rigorous as is available when inquiring into the sex of an individual;
(2) the “feelings” must be approbated. [While (say) a mental health professional may be able to assist the individual in sorting out any underlying issues which led to the development of such warped “feelings”, that does not mean there should be an endorsement of any move toward mutilating oneself to resolve the problem.]
Regarding your questions: ‘Why did those individuals who promote “transgenderism” start the propaganda campaign of insisting that ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ be considered as separate things, and why do they continue to insist on this separation despite the reality that the two terms have been considered as equivalent terms since at least the 12th century?’
it can be speculated that their intent in starting the propaganda campaign is to push through their agenda. But despite that, their agenda can be opposed through…
(1) a refusal to accept their expansion of the concept of ‘gender’ to include things like “transgenderism” or any of the “72 other genders”,
(2) restricting the concept of ‘gender’ to the grammatical sense,
(3) a refusal to endorse mutilations as the way to solve any warped “feelings” experienced by an individual with regard to ‘gender’.
As for the question: “Why do people in the “transgender” movement and fellow travelers, when questioned about so-called sex changes, reply that such people are not changing their sex; only their gender?”,
I’m not sure if that is the ‘general consensus’ considering the use of the word ‘transsexual’ in (for example): [Note: This is NOT an endorsement of any of those terms / ‘concepts’ / ideologies]
a) https://exploringyourmind.com/the-difference-between-transsexuality-and-transgenderism/
b) https://www.diffen.com/difference/Transgender_vs_Transsexual
c) https://archive.is/1m8Rd
d) https://www.transadvocate.com/a-transsexual-versus-transgender-intervention_n_4383.htm
e) https://youtu.be/bj7_fpw-kAA
f) https://youtu.be/aPPiNjX1dAI
g) https://youtu.be/8QScpDGqwsQ
PS: Re ‘gender’ not being synonymous with ‘sex’, some clarification is in order:
By ‘gender’, what is usually understood is one’s ‘innate sense/identification’ with one’s ‘sex’. Thus, ordinarily, a male ‘experiences’ his ‘maleness’/’masculinity’, and ‘knows’/’feels’ he is male, while a female ‘experiences’ her ‘femaleness’/’femininity’, and ‘knows’/’feels’ she is female. While natural biological/hormonal processes contribute to this ‘innate sense’, since that ‘sense’ ‘rests’ in the psyche, there are a lot of ‘unknowns’ associated with the precise ‘mechanism’ and all the complex factors influencing its ‘normal development’. The “interface”/”interplay” between the various “ingredients”, if you will, that constitute the ‘innate sense’ is not fully understood/’measurable’/’verifiable’.
Further, other complicating factors can enter the picture, for eg., the unknowing/surreptitious/deliberate injection/insertion into / exposure of an individual to whatever can cause (say) hormonal or other imbalances, not to speak of psychological factors and environmental ‘toxins’. Those can interfere with normal development either in or outside the womb. The ‘interference’ can be one-time or intermittent/periodic or ongoing. And if any such thing did/does indeed affect a person’s development and ‘innate “gender” sense/identity’, it is very difficult to figure out / pinpoint what exactly went/is going wrong, because we don’t really have access to all relevant information/data.
While sex (which is comparatively easier to determine) can be ascertained with a fair degree of certainty, with reference to the concept of ‘gender’, because of the unknowns such as those listed above, it is a murkier/not as easily ‘measurable’/’verifiable’ area.
JN: This is my final response to your latest response (CWR is closing down specific comments down here by not allowing replies under the recent comments), because you are compromised in ways you just cannot see as problematic.
All of your further would-be explanations of your position demonstrates precisely my point. You accept definitions of ‘gender’ advocated by Woke ideologues and fellow travelers (even those opposed to the ideology; this reality completely eludes you), and you repeat their rationale as if that means it’s the proper way to look at such things. This is what I will continue to protest and write against instead of capitulating as you have done that helps further the “transgender” agenda.
The honest answers to the questions I set forth are obvious, but all you could offer was some weak speculation, and that illustrates more capitulation. Exercise more honesty by simply admitting the rationale behind the movement and why it insists on the separation of the terms that you also agree should be separated.
Good luck, and thanks for helping me realize why the fight continues to be more difficult to win because of the willingness of way too many people to give up on legitimate terminology to express an objective reality, and to then completely surrender by still proposing the wimp out of “let’s just use ‘gender’ for grammar.”
Okay, you fight the fight you want to fight with one arm tied behind your back by agreeing to the terminology favored by the “transgender” movement, and I and others more alert to underlying dangers will continue to fight on behalf of objective reality without surrendering terminology to those who continue to attack and offend God’s creative order by their actions and the terminology insisted upon by them to defend their actions.
“CWR is closing down specific comments down here by not allowing replies under the recent comments.”
Not the case at all. Not sure what you are referring to. Thanks.
@B. Michael Addison, it looks as though you misunderstand my position. In any case, CWR readers can make up their own minds regarding this topic after ‘chewing’ on the ‘food’ for thought which has been presented.
Sorry, but using the language and terminology to discuss and evaluate a topic does not advance it. Your “logic” leaves much to be desired.
@Athanasius, unsure if you were replying to B. Michael Addison or me.
If your comment was directed at (say) these lines in my reply:
‘don’t just say LGB”T”.
Rather, say, “LGBT”’,
and if you were observing that discussion and evaluation of the phenomenon/ideology cannot advance by using/repeating the questionable language/acronym/terminology of the (pseudo)-‘sexual’ revolution, my response would be:
1) the use of quotation marks in writing is intended as a step in signaling that there is no endorsement of dubious lingo; (such use can of course be looked upon as a red flag by bullish ideologues, but that is at least one way to draw a line in the sand if one is constrained to refer to such lingo); (perhaps this in turn may spark disagreements on what lingo ought to be used, – and in that way, at least some discussion may proceed apace)
2) from my replies below the aforementioned CWR article (‘Hypocrisy and same sex blessings’), it can be seen that beyond the use of quotation marks, as far as possible, there is an attempt to advance discussion and evaluation of the topic by rephrasing and shifting the focus in language.
Thereby, there is a signaling that people ought to be “decoupled” from dubious ‘identities’, as part of the effort to remind them of their true dignity while at the same time calling out / ‘quarantining’ stuff that is harmful to that dignity.
Message to Carl:
An intriguing irony. I am replying here to you because a Reply Button under your specific comment is not provided, thereby closing down or preventing a direct response under your comment. Capisce? When the Reply Button does not appear, then one cannot respond or Reply directly to/under the comments. CWR may decide to end an ongoing exchange, or close down a combox, or something else, but whatever the reason, the lack of a Reply Button automatically shuts down the option to directly reply as set forth above.
Onward and Upward.
It is, unfortunately, a weakness in WordPress. And it’s frustrating. Not sure why you’re being so snarky about it, as if we have some personal vendetta against you. I can assure you that’s not the case, if only for lack of interest. Comboxes on specific pages automatically close after a year or so (I forget the exact amount of time). I think that we have only shut down one discussion in the past several years. CWR is one of the few Catholic news journals that both accepts comments and moderates them. I tend to think that is laudable, even if WordPress isn’t as flexible as we are.
No snark at all. You are reading into what is not present. Note how I simply surmise a possible reason without suggesting or hinting a personal vendetta against moi, but now I do have to wonder why you jumped to a false conclusion of me “being snarky.”
All this stems from me not being able to respond directly to another person’s post a short time ago, and so I piggy-backed onto another comment to reply (others do the same in similar circumstances), and in explaining why I did the piggy-backing, I merely suggested what might have been the reason for not providing the Reply Button, etc. You decided to jump in and claim CWR did not do the shutting down, but you did not include the WordPress explanation in that comment. Hence my follow-up that, again, contains absolutely no snark whatsoever. Not even close.
So if you will now be so kind, please advise if it can be assumed in the future that a likely explanation behind the lack of a Reply button stems from some call made by WordPress to not allow a direct reply.
Thanks.
I don’t want to believe you have a personal vendetta against me, so prove it by printing my respectful and clarifying response to your bogus charge. A failure to do so does not prove a vendetta, but it will prove a lack of justice by allowing your false charge to be published while denying my rightful response (a violation of Catholic moral principles), thereby keeping the false impression that casts me in an unfavorable light. The ball is in your court. Man up and do the right thing.
Seriously, you’re not helping yourself here. As it turns out, the comment you apparently referred to had not yet been moderated. It should now be accessible. And no one has a right to have their comments posted at CWR.
Pope Francis talks about ‘gender ideology”. But he has not defined what that is. He has NEVER defined it as including transgenderism. In fact, he wholeheartedly accepts transgender people and celebrates them. So once again, he deviously talks about something (in this case “gender ideology”) and we suckers jump to the natural conclusion – that he is talking about the harmful transgender craze. But I doubt he is talking about that.
Every cell of our body has 46 chromosomes. We have with XX or female vs XY or male. Nothing can change this. Surgery which results in mutilation of genitals does not change the chromosomes in every one of your cells.
I do not hate “Trans” people as they must be desperate to undergo having surgical mutilations of their bodies. Perhaps with decent Psychiatric care, their gender identity problems might have been resolved? Desperate people do desperate things. Good therapy at an early age might help.
Will:
Proper psychiatric care would absolutely help, but unfortunately, many psychiatrists and psychologists are part of the problem because they also advocate the nonsense to the detriment of many people that includes way too many young children.
If you have not done so already, check out Matt Walsh’s excellent documentary “What is a Woman?” As part of the documentary, Walsh interviews a few seemingly sound psychiatrists and/or psychologists that point out the problems with the bogus “trans” nonsense, but he also interviews and exposes absolute horror show psychiatrists and/or psychologists who promote mutilation for people based on their feelings, and this includes accepting the feelings of young children way below the age of reason opining on their gender. For instance, if a young boy of age 5 claims he’s a girl, these yahoo psychiatrists assert that such should be taken as a definitive truth claim, and the mutilations can begin in one form or another despite the reality that if gone too far, such mutilations are either irreversible or cause other forms of permanent and significant damage both physically and mentally.
Bottom line: We cannot even trust a significant portion of the professional psychiatry and psychology world when it comes to the malignance of the “transgender” movement.
That’s a good point. “Decent ” mental health care is one thing but increasingly taking a gender confused child to a mental health counselor may lead to tragic consequences.
Protocols have changed for the worse.
A documentary isn’t peer reviewed research. Neither is a book by a known anti-trans activist like Lahl.
Even worse, mrscracker, is when some parents panic because a very young child merely imitates what others do and say and pretends to be another gender that does not suggest real gender confusion. Obviously, some persistence in expressing such a belief and acting in ways that underscore the belief would be the red flag to take a child to hopefully a solid psychiatrist, but jumping the gun and taking such a child to a screwed up psychiatrist can and does result in making things worse for the child who would probably give up on the pretending in short order if not treated as if the child’s imagination expresses a real internal belief.
And it also doesn’t help matters to have public grade schools also promoting the harmful ideology of “children pretending is an expression of a real internal belief,” which triggers more harmful interference with the children in accordance with the hideous “transgender” movement that continues to insist that people can change their God-given gender (aka biological sex) by thought alone.
Speaking about panic, I am reminded of an acquaintance who shudders every time ahead of the diabetes test pin prick, imagining that this is the time he’ll bleed out and die. Mind gets all in a frazzle and he can’t think laterally or make sense of anything until it’s all over and he can see he’s not bleeding out and dying.
What is that poor sod going to be behaving like on his death bed.
Meanwhile back at the CWR comboxes, I was learning that there are only so many Reply buttons for each post. I count 3 max., that is, 3 Reply buttons. With the fourth entry there is no appended Reply button. Maybe you have a thing with buttons? Just open up a new combox and reference the one above you are continuing. There’s no point eating up on Carl Olson; it’s quite simply HIS STUFF and he has it down pat.
For crying out loud, Carl:
You write: “Seriously, you’re not helping yourself here. As it turns out, the comment you apparently referred to had not yet been moderated. It should now be accessible. And no one has a right to have their comments posted at CWR.”
Your hypocrisy is amazing at times. Moreover, I wrote the comment in direct response to your false charge of snark, and you responded directly to it, so don’t pull the “it wasn’t moderated yet.” Again, man up.
And for your own sake, please simply be honest and fair-minded, and stop making false charges or suggestions.
Of course you don’t have to publish any comments, BUT if you use comboxes to levy a charge against anyone, then in justice you should allow a response, especially since the charge is challenged substantively as being erroneous. Fail to do so, and you simply act unjustly according to Catholic moral principles regarding the virtue of justice.
To be sure, I may not be helping myself in your eyes, but when it comes to applying principles of Catholic morality, even though we all fall short, you can learn a lot more from me than I can from you, and you are much better than most, but hypocrisy and the aforementioned lack of justice is exhibited by you from time-to-time. For instance, note how often you respond to somebody with your own brand of snark or just pure sarcasm, then complain when you suspect others of doing the same to you.
Lastly, also man up and accept the fact that you brought all of this into the comboxes because you decided to jump in where you were not needed nor were your comments warranted in any way to unjustly conclude that an innocent speculation I shared with another party was a criticism of CWR policy, and you have yet to apologize for making the false accusation. Instead, you have doubled down on your effort to take the moral high ground by suggesting more inappropriate behavior by me. Now who is really at fault here: the person who merely speculated on the lack of a button and defended himself against false charges, or the person who jumped to a false conclusion to unjustly criticize that person, and who continues to unjustly criticize that person because he dares to rightly defend himself?
Omnia Vincit Veritas
Get help please.
Sometimes posting delays are due to internet traffic. I have had instances where the original comment appeared a week later after I had successfully reposted it a second time.
You can’t take over being editor, being moderator and expressing Carl Olson’s own perspective he could conceivably have at the time.
Accept your knocks. Broken Irish is better than clever English.
I entered comments that didn’t survive moderating so what. The same points come up again at a later time and I succeed then and say it better too.
You have missed the reality here that pertains to what Carl actually posted (see my previous post). The would-be delays have nothing to do with what was actually posted by Carl that was unjust as clearly demonstrated. Perhaps you don’t mind being falsely accused of things in a public forum, but I am not a fan of libel or slander.
Accept this knock, Elias, and learn to read more carefully. Moreover, defend what is objectively true, and don’t add more disingenuous spin to try to defend the indefensible. That way, you will be able to “say it better too.”
Thanks for the opportunity to disabuse you of your faulty notions in the hopes that you will improve as a defender of objective truth. Onward and Upward!
“The would-be delays have nothing to do with what was actually posted by Carl that was unjust as clearly demonstrated.”
If you’re suggesting (again) that you were treated “unjustly” by those moderating your comments, you are incorrect.
But, if you wish to keep up with that particular claim, your comments will not be approved. And we’ll be completely justified in taking such measures.
No, Carl. You are specifically wrong BY Making False charges, and you know it, but you are simply NOT MAN enough to admit when you are wrong. Now go ahead and exercise your Bidenesque cancellation practices; I don’t care because I am done with your hypocrisy anyway, and I will help others much more than you do via other forums. Pray that I don’t use such other forums to expose your hypocrisy, including a column I can write whenever I decide to do so without having to contend from time-to-time with you ignorantly butting in with false claims (ask yourself why you stupidly do this and then cry when others rightly protest), and then claim innocence. I have collected a series of your snark and sarcastic comments toward me and others over the past few years, so we shall see if they appear elsewhere if I choose to do so, and oh yes, I’ll be completely justified in taking such measures though I don’t favor acting like you in this regard even though I would be much more justified than you exercising your arbitrary holier-than-thou pretense.
Good bye and good luck. I shall pray that you give up your hypocrisy and stop crying foul like a baby when exposed.
One last time, at least try to Man Up and act with more intelligence.
Passive-aggressive much?
“I have collected a series of your snark and sarcastic comments toward me and others over the past few years, so we shall see if they appear elsewhere…”
Okay. Not like I’m hiding anything. But I do request royalties.
“I shall pray that you give up your hypocrisy and stop crying foul like a baby when exposed.”
If I knew that I was living in your head this much, I would have moved out a long time ago.
“we realized that detransitioners—people who had started to medically transition and then have a desire to go back on that decision—were being silenced.” – none of the people in that book have been silenced. Their stories have been told a million times elsewhere.