reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker is engaged in a conversation with a police officer about their campaign to raise awareness about the issue of giving children puberty blockers and surgeries related to gender ideology. The police officer accuses the speaker of being inside the Disney store, but the speaker denies it. The police officer warns the speaker about potentially offensive signs and the breach of the law. The speaker argues that opinions are allowed and shares positive interactions they have had during their campaign. The police officer instructs the speaker to stay away from the Disney store and warns about potential arrest if they go near it. The conversation becomes heated, with the speaker asserting their rights and expressing their views on gender. The speaker and the police officer continue to argue about the false report and the speaker's presence on the street. The speaker encourages the police officer to arrest them, but the officer declines. The conversation ends with the speaker expressing gratitude for the officer's support and discussing their perspective on gender.

The speaker describes a personal crisis surrounding his daughter’s gender transition. He says his daughter, who is 22, was indoctrinated in Ottawa schools when he was posted there, and recently had her breasts removed. She no longer speaks to him because he does not support the transition. He asserts he has stood on his principles throughout, resisting “the social pressure and Marxist tactics” she allegedly uses against him, and emphasizes that he loves her but the situation is “a pretty heavy price.” He notes he has two children, and this struggle centers on his daughter. He explains that it was Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative Party, who was his member of parliament during the time this occurred in Ottawa. He says he called Poilievre and told him about having to sneak out of Iraq to return to Canada to deal with what he describes as “absolute maniacal monsters” at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) when they began calling his daughter directly. He states his daughter had turned 16, which he notes is the legal age of consent for medical treatment in Canada, and that she could receive a sex change “without your daddy’s permission anymore,” which led him to go to the hospital. He recounts feeling an extraordinary sense of evil at the CHEO, claiming he had “never felt evil like that anywhere in the world” while there. He frames these experiences as part of the broader conflict surrounding his daughter’s transition and the actions of the hospital staff, describing the hospital as a place where they confronted these demands directly.

The speaker took his five-month-old daughter to the doctor for a wellness visit and vaccinations, but he is not comfortable with her getting six vaccines at once, including one with three vaccines in it. He knows people whose babies were healthy before vaccinations but now have permanent disabilities. He wanted to delay or space out the vaccines, but the doctors refused and are no longer willing to see his baby, which has happened with a previous doctor as well. He questions the necessity of vaccines like polio and hepatitis for his daughter. He believes doctors are incentivized by insurance companies to administer vaccines and are prioritizing vaccinations over his daughter's well-being. He asks Donald Trump to investigate vaccination policies and change the requirement that doctors have regarding vaccinations.

Congratulations on the birth of a baby boy or girl. A pediatrician explains that biological sex is determined by DNA and is binary, with differences between men and women. Identity, however, is psychological and not biologically hardwired. The speaker argues against the idea of being born transgender and shares a story of a child who identified as a girl due to perceived family dynamics. The speaker criticizes the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in treating gender-confused children, highlighting potential risks and long-term consequences. They also express concern about the indoctrination of transgender ideology in schools, calling it psychological abuse and child mutilation.

The conversation revolves around the topic of transgender children and the use of medical interventions. Speaker 1 argues that there is no such thing as a transgender child and that they should be accepted as they are. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that some children may benefit from medical interventions if they choose to pursue them. The discussion becomes heated, with Speaker 1 accusing Speaker 0 of promoting child abuse and Speaker 0 accusing Speaker 1 of spreading misinformation. The conversation ends with both parties expressing their differing views and a lack of trust in each other's arguments.

A 12-year-old child assigned female at birth expresses a desire to live as a boy. The speaker believes that the law should not intervene in this matter and that parents should take care of it.

Max, who identifies as a boy, is visiting the doctor to discuss hormone blockers to prevent puberty. He has started experiencing some breast growth and feels uncomfortable. His parent expresses concern about medical interventions and their effects on bone health and psychosocial development. The doctor explains that hormone blockers can halt puberty progression and reassures that if Max changes his mind, he can still go through female puberty later. The procedure involves inserting a small implant in Max's arm, which will last about 14 to 18 months. The entire process is quick, taking only about 10 to 15 minutes.

Billboard Chris meets Adam Vina at Amfest in Phoenix, Arizona, where Adam shares his serious situation. His 5-year-old son has been taken away from him because his ex-partner wants to transition him. Adam explains that the grooming started when his son was 2 years old, and he has been fighting against it ever since. The court system has treated his son as transgender without considering other factors. Adam has faced a restraining order and has been denied the opportunity to ask questions or be involved in his son's assessment. He emphasizes that there has been no abuse or neglect. The system seems biased against him.

Puberty blockers are drugs given to children who wish to transition genders, halting their natural development. This practice can lead to lifelong dependency on hormones and sterilization, raising concerns about child welfare. The conversation touches on whether children can truly understand the implications of such decisions at a young age. One perspective argues that gender identity is a personal choice, while the opposing view emphasizes the importance of biological reality. The discussion highlights the risks of affirming a child's desire to transition without addressing underlying mental health issues. Ultimately, it questions the morality of medical interventions on minors, advocating for a more cautious approach that respects the complexities of gender identity and the well-being of children.

The speaker expresses strong opposition to bills regarding transgender children and accuses those who support them of being part of a cult that promotes genital mutilation. They confront various individuals, including a father and a church representative, asking them to defend their support for transgender kids. The speaker also criticizes the behavior of leftist protesters and accuses them of wanting sexual access to minors. They express frustration with the media's bias and attempt to enter a trans space, claiming to identify as a trans woman.

The speaker explains how their child's case ended up in court after a meeting with BC Children's Hospital. The hospital planned to administer cross-sex hormones to the child, but the speaker objected and halted the process. The hospital then sent a letter stating that they would proceed with the hormone injections unless the speaker took legal action within two weeks. The speaker ended up in court because they did not respond with legal action. The speaker also mentions that using the wrong pronouns for their child is considered criminal violence, and they were jailed for it. The speaker confirms that their child is now on hormone pills, as ordered by the court.

Some individuals are pushing for a bill in Illinois that could lead to children being removed from their homes if parents object to certain medical treatments. A mother who lost custody of her child due to this issue believes the bill is extreme and hopes for a change in perspective. She has not seen her daughter in over two years but remains resilient. The bill is facing opposition in Illinois, with many citizens against the concept of gender identity and the potential harm caused by certain medical procedures. The mother believes accountability should lie with the doctors and hospitals involved in such treatments.

The speaker, a Soviet defector and father, opposes HB 251312, stating it mirrors authoritarian tactics by inserting government between parents and children. He claims such regimes historically use this approach under the guise of protection, leading to tyranny. He states that he is currently experiencing this, as the courts stripped him of his rights for objecting to his 13-year-old son being placed on puberty blockers. He says he is now forbidden from discussing critical issues with his child and advocating for his care, despite not being abusive or negligent. He says he simply refused to affirm a path that could sterilize and harm his son. He argues HB 251312 will create battlegrounds within families, tearing children from loving parents who are only trying to protect them. He urges a "no" vote to protect parental rights, families, children, and freedom.

Swiss authorities took a 16-year-old girl from her parents, who disagreed with her being treated as a boy. The school, hospital, and child protection agency supported her transition. The parents feel powerless and want their daughter back. They believe no one should tell a child they were born in the wrong body. The parents miss their daughter and are speaking out to prevent other families from going through the same ordeal.

Speaker 0 challenges the doctor, asking if they are being forced to put their child on ADHD medicine or risk CPS involvement. Speaker 1 asserts that the medication is recommended for the child and that following the doctor’s instructions is in the child’s best interest. The doctor states they will be forced to call CPS if the guidance isn’t followed and emphasizes doing what’s best for the child, framing it as not a favor but a necessity. Speaker 0 contends the child has not shown ADHD symptoms and asks for a second opinion, to which Speaker 1 responds that they are the doctor. Speaker 0 reiterates that they are being told either to put the child on medication or CPS will be called, calling this forcing. The doctor clarifies that they asked about a second opinion, maintains they are the doctor, and says if the patient doesn’t trust their doctor, they shouldn’t be coming there, which Speaker 0 finds unreasonable. Speaker 1 repeats that they are not threatening, but are trying to do what’s best for the patient and their child, and adds that if you love your child enough you will listen to their words. Speaker 0 pushes back, stating you cannot tell them how to feel about loving their child, and reiterates that the doctor is still the doctor, with Speaker 1 acknowledging the child’s importance but underscoring their medical role.

The speaker discusses the standards applied to children and the potential benefits of going on blockers. They mention that blockers can prevent the development of a deep voice, Adam's apple, and facial hair. The speaker shares their personal experience of spending $5,000 on facial hair removal and $25,000 on facial feminization surgery. They believe that blockers can prevent the need for such procedures and alleviate stress.

I have a trans kid, my seven-year-old son is in the middle of unmedically transitioning. Thankfully, we live in New York, which is very accepting and a sanctuary state for trans kids. However, with Donald Trump and JD Vance gaining influence, I'm worried they'll prevent my child from getting the hormones she needs for her medical transition. My child has been exposed to a progressive learning environment, and the media she consumes emphasizes inclusion and acceptance. This has helped my son, Carl, realize that she's a girl named Carla. Now, I fear Trump and Vance will block her access to the hormones she needs to become the woman she wants to be. This is fascism and a human rights violation.

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.

They've lost custody of their 16-year-old daughter due to her belief that she was born in the wrong body. The parents disagreed with the school and hospital's decision to socially transition her. The child protection agency got involved, leading to a legal battle. The parents feel helpless and miss their daughter, who now lives in a government facility. They speak out to prevent other families from experiencing the same pain and emphasize the importance of parental love and support in a child's life.

The speaker took his five-month-old daughter to the doctor for a wellness visit and vaccinations, but he is not comfortable with giving his daughter six vaccines at once, especially since one of them contains three vaccines. He knows people whose babies were healthy and then had adverse reactions to vaccines, resulting in disabilities. He wanted to delay or space out the vaccinations, but the doctors refused. This is the second doctor who won't see his baby due to his refusal to get the second round of vaccinations. He questions the necessity of polio and hepatitis vaccines for his daughter. He believes it's insane that doctors would stop seeing his child over vaccinations and thinks this policy needs to change. He asks Donald Trump to investigate vaccinations, claiming doctors are incentivized by insurance companies to administer them and are more concerned with vaccinations than his daughter's well-being.

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.

Children making permanent decisions at a young age can lead to regret. The speaker's son was pressured into transitioning without full understanding, resulting in loss. They believe therapists promoting this should face consequences. The speaker plans to fight against the "woke mind virus" that led to their son's demise.

We're here to support our child, Violet, and her right to access necessary medical care. It's important for her to be herself, and we won't let anyone silence her. We're from Arizona and are concerned about how this case might impact our state. We've even discussed the possibility of moving, but Violet's needs come first. Violet has known she is trans since she was one and a half years old; she has expressed this since she could speak.