reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Gender dysphoria, especially in kids, is viewed as a mental health condition that should be treated. Affirming a child's confusion is seen as cruel, and allowing them to undergo genital mutilation and chemical castration is considered barbaric. The speaker believes that in the future, we will judge these practices similarly to how we judge Iran for doing the same. They mention meeting two young women who regretted their decisions to undergo surgeries and chemical intervention. The speaker argues that we should not allow kids to undergo these procedures, comparing it to not allowing them to get tattoos before the age of 18. They also discuss the spread of gender dysphoria and the importance of parents knowing if their child identifies differently from their biological sex.

Chris Elston, a father of two girls, discusses what he believes is a child abuse scandal in modern medicine. He argues that children are being psychologically and physically harmed by an ideology that suggests they were born in the wrong body just because they defy gender stereotypes. Elston emphasizes that there is no right way to be a boy or a girl and that children should be allowed to express themselves freely. He criticizes the lack of a clear definition of being transgender and highlights the high prevalence of autism among children seeking gender clinics. Elston also raises concerns about the use of drugs to medically transition children and questions the evidence supporting this practice. He concludes by stating that there is no such thing as a transgender child and that they should be accepted and celebrated as they are.

I have two daughters and can’t imagine telling them they were born wrong. That idea is harmful and misguided. Medical interventions like halting puberty, administering opposite-sex hormones, and performing surgeries on children are alarming. In the U.S., insurance data shows that up to 179 girls under 12 and a half have undergone double mastectomies. This means young girls are having their breasts removed because they’ve been led to believe they are boys inside.

A politician introduces a video clip of a surgeon who identifies as the "queer surgeon" and performs gender affirming surgeries. The politician expresses concern over experimental and irreversible procedures being performed on children. In the clip, the surgeon states that 80% of their practice is gender affirming surgery, with a focus on genital surgeries like vaginoplasty and phalloplasty. They acknowledge an increase in adolescents seeking surgical intervention, which presents unique challenges, especially for those who have undergone puberty suppression. The surgeon admits that there is a lack of published research on genital surgeries for pubertally suppressed adolescents and that they are "just kind of learning and figuring out what works." They explain that puberty suppression affects the amount of tissue available for vaginoplasty, requiring alternative techniques like using peritoneum to line the vaginal canal. The surgeon notes that they will know more about the outcomes in 5-10 years and that it will be fascinating to see how these kids turn out. The politician then condemns these procedures as "barbarism" and "mutilation of children" that should be illegal. They claim that children lack the capacity to make such life-altering decisions and that sex is an immutable characteristic.

In this video, the speaker discusses gender dysphoria and the different perspectives on its treatment. They argue that the aspiration to become a complete man or woman is not biologically attainable, even in the trans person's subjective self. They explain that gender dysphoria is a psychiatric illness, not a medical disease, and there is no physical abnormality associated with it. The speaker presents two ways of looking at gender dysphoria: a developmental model and a watchful waiting approach. They emphasize the importance of considering the long-term consequences of affirming a transgender identity in children and highlight the potential risks and harms associated with transitioning. The speaker questions the lack of scientific evidence supporting immediate affirmation and raises concerns about the ethical implications of intervening when children would naturally desist from their gender dysphoria.

We are harming children with the current approach to gender identity. Young kids, facing bullying or discomfort during puberty, may express confusion about their gender. They are often sent to mental health professionals who are instructed to affirm their feelings, leading to irreversible medical interventions like puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. This process can sterilize children and deprive them of future sexual pleasure. Many affected are as young as 9 or 10, unable to give informed consent. When they later wish to detransition, they often face abandonment and depression, having permanently altered their bodies. This issue is critical for both children and women's rights.

This video explores the topic of gender and identity, covering various perspectives and experiences. The speakers discuss the differences between male and female, the challenges of understanding gender, and the impact of societal messages on children. They delve into the medical and psychological aspects of gender dysphoria and transitioning, as well as the controversy surrounding transgender athletes in sports. The conversation also addresses the Equality Act and the debate over public accommodations, particularly in relation to bathrooms. The video concludes with a confrontation between the interviewer and a congressman, highlighting the differing opinions and emotions surrounding the topic. Throughout the video, concerns are raised about the lack of long-term studies, potential harm caused by affirming transgender identities in children, and the blurring of lines between gender and sex. The speakers express worries about the lack of clarity in defining what it means to be a woman and the potential consequences of progressive education. The video also touches on the debate surrounding gender identity and pronouns, with criticism of the idea of individuals choosing their own pronouns and concerns about allowing biological men to compete against biological women in sports.

We are concerned about harmful protocols for children struggling with their biological sex. We urge US medical organizations to stop promoting social affirmation, puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries for these children. Sex is biologically determined and should guide medical decisions. We reject the claim that our concerns are a minority opinion and demand a change in approach.

"Transgendered ideology, it's based in fraud." "We are born or we are conceived either a girl or a boy from eternity." "We are not plethora of unending gender choices." "So the whole concept that this is free choice is absolutely a lie." "Right? It isn't medical based. It isn't scientifically based." "And then we to further add insult to injury, we wanna recommend immediately that they go into a pipeline of drugs." "Children are being preyed upon, and they're being preyed upon by those who want to make them a part or a symbol of this movement, this religious cult."

We gather today to affirm three truths: biology is real and immutable; society's fundamental duty is to protect children; and gender ideology poses a significant threat to them. Children are innocent and rely on adults for guidance. The radical belief that gender can be changed through irreversible procedures exploits their confusion and is deeply harmful. The Tennessee law does not ban children from being who they are; it protects them from harmful medical practices. Children have the right to grow and explore their identities without being subjected to irreversible harm. This case is about safeguarding children from those who would exploit and damage them. We will continue this fight until every child is protected and gender ideology is eradicated. Thank you.

The speakers discuss the harmful effects of gender experiments on children in the name of gender ideology. They criticize the use of drugs and surgeries on confused kids to prove an ideological point. They highlight the absurdity of adults pushing children into this narrative. The conversation also touches on a lawsuit in Canada where a person wants both male and female genitalia, raising questions about practicality. The speakers express hope that people will eventually realize the harm caused by these practices.

Children's bodies are not properly developed, but people argue that denying transition will lead to suicide. Data indicates the opposite: transitioning correlates with increased suicide rates, suicidal ideation, depression, and anxiety. Individuals may regret transitioning, feeling manipulated and exploited. The speaker criticizes the use of "puberty blockers" and "gender affirming care" for minors, comparing it to barbaric practices like lobotomies. Children go through phases, and boys who want to transition may simply be gay. Some gay individuals feel that the concept of transition erases gay identity by implying they are in the wrong gender.

There are 2 genders, male and female. A psychologist's experiment of raising a boy as a girl failed tragically, leading to both subjects committing suicide. Despite the failure, radical gender ideology adopted the experiment into mainstream culture.

The speaker discusses a surgeon who performs experimental and irreversible procedures on children to modify their genitals. The surgeon admits that there are no published studies on these procedures and they are still learning about the outcomes. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of knowledge and the potential harm being done to children. They argue that this kind of gender affirming care is actually mutilation and should be prohibited by law. The speaker believes that children should not be subjected to life-altering decisions made by adults.

Beauty blockers have been used by doctors for kids experiencing precocious puberty. The conversation then shifts to transgender children, with one speaker arguing that gender affirming care is life-saving and reduces suicide rates. The other speaker questions the lack of studies on suicide rates among transgender children and argues against medical interventions like hormone therapy and surgeries. The conversation becomes heated, with one speaker claiming that transgender children don't exist and that they should be accepted as they are, while the other argues that they need medical interventions. The debate centers around the belief that transgender children are either born in the wrong body or that they should be accepted without medical interventions.

The speaker criticizes the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, arguing that it is grounded in sexism and perpetuates sexist stereotypes. They also claim that the diagnosis depoliticizes individuals and perpetuates self-harm. The speaker questions the definitions of gender and gender identity, stating that they are not limited by their body and can have any role they want. They argue that the diagnosis implies incongruence between assigned and expressed gender, but since they can have any identity, there is no incongruence. The speaker believes the diagnosis prevents individuals from critiquing societal norms and instead encourages self-attack. They also argue that the diagnosis creates an empathy trap and hides the brutal reality of medical interventions. The speaker urges mental health professionals, parents, and educators to help children critique the diagnosis and break societal confines.

The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests using more gender-inclusive terms for genitalia, such as "innies" and "outies" instead of feminine or masculine names. They also propose renaming body parts like the clitoris to "dicklet" and breasts to "chesticles." Additionally, they recommend considering hormonal contraception for children who menstruate and suggest minimal-risk procedures like chest binding and tucking for gender dysphoria. The speaker finds these recommendations absurd and criticizes the medical professionals treating children.

Beauty blockers have been used by doctors for children experiencing precocious puberty. The conversation then shifts to transgender children, with one speaker arguing that gender affirming care is life-saving and reduces suicide rates. The other speaker questions the lack of studies on suicide rates among transgender children and challenges the necessity of medical interventions such as hormone therapy and surgeries. The conversation becomes heated as they discuss the cutting off of body parts and the speaker's belief that there is no such thing as a transgender child. The debate centers around the message being sent to children and the potential harm or benefit of gender affirming care.

The speakers engage in a heated debate about transgender children and medical interventions. Speaker 1 argues that there is no such thing as a transgender child and that they should be encouraged to embrace their biological gender. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that children should have the option to pursue medical interventions if they choose to do so. The conversation becomes increasingly confrontational, with Speaker 1 accusing Speaker 0 of promoting child abuse and Speaker 0 accusing Speaker 1 of spreading misinformation. The debate touches on topics such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and detransitioning. The conversation ends with both speakers expressing their frustration and disagreement.

The speaker expresses concern about what they perceive as harmful gender-related practices being imposed on children. They outline a plan to address this issue, including revoking certain policies, ceasing programs promoting gender transition, and prohibiting federal funding for related procedures. They also propose consequences for healthcare providers involved in such practices and suggest investigating potential cover-ups of long-term effects. The speaker emphasizes promoting positive education about the nuclear family and traditional gender roles. They advocate for legislation recognizing only male and female genders assigned at birth, prohibiting men from participating in women's sports, and protecting parental consent regarding a child's gender identity. The speaker concludes by stating their intention to put an end to what they consider to be a recent invention of the radical left.

The speaker expresses concern about what they perceive as harmful gender-related practices being imposed on children. They outline a plan to address this issue, including revoking certain policies, ceasing programs promoting gender transition, and prohibiting federal funding for related procedures. They propose consequences for healthcare providers involved in such practices and suggest investigating potential cover-ups of long-term side effects. The speaker also emphasizes promoting education about the nuclear family, gender roles, and the recognition of only male and female genders assigned at birth. They advocate for protecting parental consent and criticize the concept of being born with the wrong gender as a recent invention. The speaker concludes by asserting that they will put an end to these practices.

I've got two daughters and can't imagine telling them they were born wrong. The idea that kids are being sterilized and undergoing surgeries is abusive. Transgender identity is not the same as being gay; many kids with gender dysphoria grow up to be gay. The rise in trans identification among girls is alarming, and many are being pushed into medical transitions without proper mental health evaluations. This ideology is being promoted in schools, leading to parental rights being undermined. The narrative that transitioning is necessary to prevent suicide is manipulative and lacks scientific backing. Ultimately, there are two sexes, and the concept of gender as a separate identity is a fabrication. Conversations about these issues are crucial, and many young people are starting to question the prevailing ideology.

The speaker claims that gender identity is a made-up term and criticizes the foundation of transgenderism. They discuss the history of gender identity, mentioning doctors and psychologists who they label as perverts. They also mention the tragic story of two twins who underwent a controversial therapy. The speaker argues that biological sex is important and that gender is a social construct. They criticize the use of hormones and surgery to change one's gender, and suggest that environmental factors and social engineering are influencing people's natural state and sexuality. They also express concern about the grooming of children for transsexualism and pedophilia.

There is concern about the push to introduce transgender topics to children, as it is believed to have no benefits for anyone involved. The speaker questions why this is happening and suggests that a small percentage of the population may genuinely want to switch genders, but the current trend seems forced. The speaker argues that telling kids there are more than two sexes is not based on organic conclusions, but rather a deliberate effort to hurt people. This is seen as evil done for the sake of causing harm.