When do you hear conservatives organizing to stop books from being published? When do you hear of them preventing leftists from speaking at events ? When do you hear of them showing up in restaurants demanding people kneel or raise a fist ?
You don’t. The democrat party is now the Socialist non- worker Party of America. Voting for democrats is voting for fascism.
Public education is the opium of the people. Producing drones for the democrat socialists who control half of America’s people and most all of it’s institutions.
The ACLU are the Democrat’s bitches. They haven’t had any credibility in ages. They exist to collect donations from idiots and attack freedom.
Mr. Greenwald—why not follow up with the Southern Poverty LLC 😂😁
Glenn: Progressives have made transgenderism their proverbial Alamo for the simplest of reasons: When reality itself can be defined solely on the basis of self-identification (I say I'm a woman, therefore I am, genitalia and chromosomes be damned), then by the same "logic," one can also assert 2+2=5--and the seamless transition to totalitarian governance is virtually assured.
Please, Glenn, her name is Shrier, not Spier. Please fix.
Regarding the book, you really must read it. It is as far from a screed as can be. Shrier is a seasoned, well educated journalist with degrees from Columbia and Oxford, and a J.D. from Yale. She did her due diligence for this book. It’s thoroughly referenced and she interviewed experts in every relevant field on both sides of the issue. Trans activism has spread on a strategy of suppressing fifty hears of decent research that if you leave a gender-confused child alone, at puberty they will figure themselves out and come out as gay, the overwhelming majority of the time. The small remainder may, in fact, be trans.
Shrier does not deny the existence of transgender people, but she makes the crucial point that the astronomical rise in demand for mastectomies in adolescent girls is not normal. It is entirely socially constructed. Are these girls in distress? Absolutely. Are they trans? Almost always, no. But according to the established standard of care, psychotherapy is not allowed. It’s viewed as a form of conversion therapy. So it’s not until after they’ve lost their breasts, and maybe their uteruses, do their brains mature and they realize they were never trans in the first place.
The title of the book, I agree, is a bit hyperbolic, but on the other hand, there actually is irreversible damage. Buyer’s remorse after mutilating surgeries is a tragedy, and when it happens to children who went to professionals for help, it’s also medical malpractice. The use of the term “craze” in the title refers to any form of social contagion, so it’s not as out there as you might think. (the Satanic Panic was a craze; multiple personality disorder was a craze.)
Glenn, I am thrilled that you’re jumping into the fray on this. We need more voices that are gender critical, in order to balance and counter the extreme assertions of trans ideology. This doesn’t mean transgenderism itself is spurious, just that it’s been politicized and promulgated by canceling anyone with a different view and creating fake narratives to justify it and make it appear more common than it actually is. But with all respect to you, and I have a lot, which is why I’m a subscriber: please educate yourself by talking to the gender critical individuals from around the world who have dug deep into this topic and can give you a lot of perspective. Meghan Murphy, of the Feminist Current newspaper in Canada, who was permanently kicked off Twitter for saying that men aren’t women, is a good one. Endocrinologist William Malone, MD, founder of SEGM (Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine) is another one. Talk to Dr. James Cantor in Canada. Talk to Dr. Lisa Littman, whom Shrier interviews in her book. Go across the pond and look at what’s happening in the U.K., Australia and Sweden. And definitely read Shrier’s book. And talk to her.
Thank you for this platform and the chance to respond.
This is a well reasoned old-fashioned example of real journalism. Not all with agree, of course, but that's not the intension. Keep up the fight, Glenn.
It's always troubling when our belief in free speech comes into conflict with what we perceive to be the expression of dangerous views. But whenever I feel such an internal conflict bubbling up through my consciousness, I still always try to redouble my commitment to freedom of expression and empower it to win the argument. If we ever yield to censorship -- whether government, corporate, religious, or social (e.g., "cancel culture") -- we will risk losing everything. Literally EVERY damned thing.
Glenn: "But why would someone with such censorious attitudes, with a goal of suppressing ideas with which they disagree, choose to go to work for the ACLU of all places?"
Indeed, my thought upon reading that was they should fire him.
In the next paragraph (or so) we then read he deleted the tweet and said one of the reasons was the ACLU was being pressured to fire him - as well they should if he really holds those views. But then we also read he withdrew his support, after saying it was something he would 100% die for.
The guy has lost all credibility with me. Frankly, I don't believe his latter-day change of heart; he's pro-suppression of ideas he disagrees with. ...He's a "the ends justify the means" kind of guy, which they never do.
I STRONGLY support the free-speech rights of everyone, especially the ones I disagree with and the ones that are unpopular with the public; popular opinions don't generally need any support!
In an adult society, full expression of ideas, full expression of dissent, full expression of any critique, is essential. I'd say it is one of the defining characteristics of an adult society. Seems clear to me that we don't have one of those in the US. The "smart" people don't trust the "dumb" people with critical capabilities. The worst kind of elitism. Many thanks, Mr Greenwald, for your clarity and attention. You model adult discourse. (If only I could get my dumb friends to read your stuff.)
"prioritize its civil liberties principles over liberal politics and liberal political causes"
How can you have free speech when speech itself has become so tortured?
How can liberals be opposed to liberties?
Only if (at least) one of these words no longer means what once did.
Has the word "liberty" lost its classical meaning? Certainly some of the attendant responsibilities are absent from most modern uses to the term but nonetheless they universally include the core concept of being unbound, free to act in any manner not harmful to others.
Has the word "liberal" lost its classical meaning? Huh! The question answers itself. Modern liberals are ideological authoritarians whose only distinction from other tyrants and thugs is that their laundry list of mandatory shibboleths is slightly different, while their rhetoric pretends to oppose all manner of totalitarian ideologies.
The very name ACLU is now merely a marketing slogan concealing a political agenda wholly inimical to any and every kind of freedom.
The adoption of liberal as a political position rather than an adjective has so polluted the term that it now represents what its adoptees set out to oppose. The letters ACLU are treading the same path.
I know people who believe that "free speech" was only ever a weapon to get rid of religious blasphemy laws and that, now these are gone, to replace them with political blasphemy laws (like the gender pronoun wars now raging). Given the "evolution" of the ACLU it gets harder to dissuade of them of this view every day.
Take the entire premise of this article regarding the ACLU's current embrace of corporate censorship and consider it against the backdrop of their full-throated defense of the Citizen's United ruling. You'll find that it has become clear that the ACLU has no idea what a fire in a crowded theatre looks like.
I was a freshman at Niles North HS in 1978 when the march happened. Being one of the few gentiles in an overwhelmingly Jewish school, the entire period of time gave me a far better appreciation and deeper insight of the Jewish experience than I would have, had Ira Glasser not had the courage of his convictions.
At the time, I thought Ira was the anti-Christ. But now that I’ve become a man, I’ve put away those childish things.
Fast forward to today, and I never cease to be as flabbergasted by the sheer willful obtuseness of those in control of the Megaphone as I am horrified by it all.
Free speech is not a cultural norm or societal value. It just is. Or it should be. The ACLU lost its balls and credibility when it failed to speak out in the post 9-11 era. There is much that’s disturbing about your piece, but the most is that you fail to hammer down the twisted thinking of an aberrant human being. Anyone who advocates banning of any book is an aberrant human being, and just one thought away from a final solution.
You guys whining about typos—you are getting good journalism got off the press—ON A SUNDAY !!!!
Greenwald is probably trying to have some time with the dogs and his family. Some dang slack—please!!! 😂
When do you hear conservatives organizing to stop books from being published? When do you hear of them preventing leftists from speaking at events ? When do you hear of them showing up in restaurants demanding people kneel or raise a fist ?
You don’t. The democrat party is now the Socialist non- worker Party of America. Voting for democrats is voting for fascism.
Public education is the opium of the people. Producing drones for the democrat socialists who control half of America’s people and most all of it’s institutions.
The ACLU are the Democrat’s bitches. They haven’t had any credibility in ages. They exist to collect donations from idiots and attack freedom.
Mr. Greenwald—why not follow up with the Southern Poverty LLC 😂😁
Glenn: Progressives have made transgenderism their proverbial Alamo for the simplest of reasons: When reality itself can be defined solely on the basis of self-identification (I say I'm a woman, therefore I am, genitalia and chromosomes be damned), then by the same "logic," one can also assert 2+2=5--and the seamless transition to totalitarian governance is virtually assured.
Please, Glenn, her name is Shrier, not Spier. Please fix.
Regarding the book, you really must read it. It is as far from a screed as can be. Shrier is a seasoned, well educated journalist with degrees from Columbia and Oxford, and a J.D. from Yale. She did her due diligence for this book. It’s thoroughly referenced and she interviewed experts in every relevant field on both sides of the issue. Trans activism has spread on a strategy of suppressing fifty hears of decent research that if you leave a gender-confused child alone, at puberty they will figure themselves out and come out as gay, the overwhelming majority of the time. The small remainder may, in fact, be trans.
Shrier does not deny the existence of transgender people, but she makes the crucial point that the astronomical rise in demand for mastectomies in adolescent girls is not normal. It is entirely socially constructed. Are these girls in distress? Absolutely. Are they trans? Almost always, no. But according to the established standard of care, psychotherapy is not allowed. It’s viewed as a form of conversion therapy. So it’s not until after they’ve lost their breasts, and maybe their uteruses, do their brains mature and they realize they were never trans in the first place.
The title of the book, I agree, is a bit hyperbolic, but on the other hand, there actually is irreversible damage. Buyer’s remorse after mutilating surgeries is a tragedy, and when it happens to children who went to professionals for help, it’s also medical malpractice. The use of the term “craze” in the title refers to any form of social contagion, so it’s not as out there as you might think. (the Satanic Panic was a craze; multiple personality disorder was a craze.)
Glenn, I am thrilled that you’re jumping into the fray on this. We need more voices that are gender critical, in order to balance and counter the extreme assertions of trans ideology. This doesn’t mean transgenderism itself is spurious, just that it’s been politicized and promulgated by canceling anyone with a different view and creating fake narratives to justify it and make it appear more common than it actually is. But with all respect to you, and I have a lot, which is why I’m a subscriber: please educate yourself by talking to the gender critical individuals from around the world who have dug deep into this topic and can give you a lot of perspective. Meghan Murphy, of the Feminist Current newspaper in Canada, who was permanently kicked off Twitter for saying that men aren’t women, is a good one. Endocrinologist William Malone, MD, founder of SEGM (Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine) is another one. Talk to Dr. James Cantor in Canada. Talk to Dr. Lisa Littman, whom Shrier interviews in her book. Go across the pond and look at what’s happening in the U.K., Australia and Sweden. And definitely read Shrier’s book. And talk to her.
Thank you for this platform and the chance to respond.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
by Martin Niemoller
This is a well reasoned old-fashioned example of real journalism. Not all with agree, of course, but that's not the intension. Keep up the fight, Glenn.
It's always troubling when our belief in free speech comes into conflict with what we perceive to be the expression of dangerous views. But whenever I feel such an internal conflict bubbling up through my consciousness, I still always try to redouble my commitment to freedom of expression and empower it to win the argument. If we ever yield to censorship -- whether government, corporate, religious, or social (e.g., "cancel culture") -- we will risk losing everything. Literally EVERY damned thing.
Glenn: "But why would someone with such censorious attitudes, with a goal of suppressing ideas with which they disagree, choose to go to work for the ACLU of all places?"
Indeed, my thought upon reading that was they should fire him.
In the next paragraph (or so) we then read he deleted the tweet and said one of the reasons was the ACLU was being pressured to fire him - as well they should if he really holds those views. But then we also read he withdrew his support, after saying it was something he would 100% die for.
The guy has lost all credibility with me. Frankly, I don't believe his latter-day change of heart; he's pro-suppression of ideas he disagrees with. ...He's a "the ends justify the means" kind of guy, which they never do.
I STRONGLY support the free-speech rights of everyone, especially the ones I disagree with and the ones that are unpopular with the public; popular opinions don't generally need any support!
In an adult society, full expression of ideas, full expression of dissent, full expression of any critique, is essential. I'd say it is one of the defining characteristics of an adult society. Seems clear to me that we don't have one of those in the US. The "smart" people don't trust the "dumb" people with critical capabilities. The worst kind of elitism. Many thanks, Mr Greenwald, for your clarity and attention. You model adult discourse. (If only I could get my dumb friends to read your stuff.)
Can folks please just note typos (FYI Glenn...) and not shame, whine or guilt trip the writer about them?
"prioritize its civil liberties principles over liberal politics and liberal political causes"
How can you have free speech when speech itself has become so tortured?
How can liberals be opposed to liberties?
Only if (at least) one of these words no longer means what once did.
Has the word "liberty" lost its classical meaning? Certainly some of the attendant responsibilities are absent from most modern uses to the term but nonetheless they universally include the core concept of being unbound, free to act in any manner not harmful to others.
Has the word "liberal" lost its classical meaning? Huh! The question answers itself. Modern liberals are ideological authoritarians whose only distinction from other tyrants and thugs is that their laundry list of mandatory shibboleths is slightly different, while their rhetoric pretends to oppose all manner of totalitarian ideologies.
The very name ACLU is now merely a marketing slogan concealing a political agenda wholly inimical to any and every kind of freedom.
The adoption of liberal as a political position rather than an adjective has so polluted the term that it now represents what its adoptees set out to oppose. The letters ACLU are treading the same path.
I know people who believe that "free speech" was only ever a weapon to get rid of religious blasphemy laws and that, now these are gone, to replace them with political blasphemy laws (like the gender pronoun wars now raging). Given the "evolution" of the ACLU it gets harder to dissuade of them of this view every day.
Take the entire premise of this article regarding the ACLU's current embrace of corporate censorship and consider it against the backdrop of their full-throated defense of the Citizen's United ruling. You'll find that it has become clear that the ACLU has no idea what a fire in a crowded theatre looks like.
I was a freshman at Niles North HS in 1978 when the march happened. Being one of the few gentiles in an overwhelmingly Jewish school, the entire period of time gave me a far better appreciation and deeper insight of the Jewish experience than I would have, had Ira Glasser not had the courage of his convictions.
At the time, I thought Ira was the anti-Christ. But now that I’ve become a man, I’ve put away those childish things.
Fast forward to today, and I never cease to be as flabbergasted by the sheer willful obtuseness of those in control of the Megaphone as I am horrified by it all.
I don’t agree with “White Fragility.” I would never think to ban it.
Free speech is not a cultural norm or societal value. It just is. Or it should be. The ACLU lost its balls and credibility when it failed to speak out in the post 9-11 era. There is much that’s disturbing about your piece, but the most is that you fail to hammer down the twisted thinking of an aberrant human being. Anyone who advocates banning of any book is an aberrant human being, and just one thought away from a final solution.
Glenn, with all due respect — someone needs to proofread the articles you put out here. This one is great content but is full of typos…