Sincerity displaces sarcasm for a few minutes as Corinna offers a rare glimpse into the anguish underlying his advocacy, starting with a profound dream and its possible interpretations. Nina has a list of Gender Bullshit News; the Dorx focus on WPATH’s new “standards of care,” which functionally eliminate patient rights. Corinna rethinks his staunch Libertarian position on legislation, as banning “gender affirming” medical procedures on minors may be the only option left. Nina despairs at the Internet Archive’s removal of Kiwi Farms from its Wayback Machine, formerly the last safeguard against Orwellian online memory-holing. Plus, a tense and worthwhile argument over eunuchs. It all sounds like a bad dream, but it’s only 2022.
Corinna’s Kiwi Farms article: https://corinnacohn.substack.com/p/the-world-should-not-need-kiwi-farms
Velocipe Cycladia: https://blog.ninapaley.com/2020/08/08/exorcise-bike-part-2-velocipe-cycladia/
Church of the Subgenius: http://www.subgenius.com/
The Ink Black Heart: https://robert-galbraith.com/?stories=the-ink-black-heart
The Internet Archive: https://archive.org/
2 thoughts on “Episode 76: Tell Us How You Really Feel, Corinna”
Nina suggests that the change from “gender dysphoria” to “gender incongruence” is change for the sake of change, to keep people on their toes.
I think it’s more sinister than that. It extends the opportunity to medically treat anyone who’s a little nonconforming, whether or not they’re even feeling any distress.
Kind of builds on Colin Wright’s observation that “transgender” has been redefined to include the gender nonconforming:
First time listener. Cohn’s WaPo article caught my attention. I just sent the following comment to HHS on their proposed regulation change:
Agency: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities
Document ID: HHS-OS-2022-0012-0001
“The Department is also proposing to revise its interpretation regarding whether Medicare Part B constitutes Federal financial assistance for purposes of civil rights enforcement and to revise nondiscrimination provisions to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in regulations” There is a fundamental problem with this modification to the health care rules. The science on which Gender Medicine is based is poor quality (see References 1 and 2). What is clear is that the LGB community (an objective measure based on genetics and sexual preference), the TQI+ community (subjective identity most aligned with a religion), and people with Autism, PTSD, and other mental health issues are being used for medical experiments in Gender Medicine (see Reference 2). The “civil rights” issue is not one of acknowledging the religion of TQI+ people, it’s the fact that a number of extremely vulnerable populations are virtually guinea pigs in an unregulated experiment outside of any safety controls (Institutional Review Boards). Finally, there is no indication that HHS has scientifically studied whether or not this rule will actually benefit the TQI+ population that it is intended for (Reference 1). There is also no indication that HHS has scientifically studied which populations this rule change harms; most likely females will be exposed to more safety risks if it is implemented (Reference 1). The one population that clearly benefits from this rule change is the pharmaceutical industry. Reference 1: E.A. Jensen (2022) “Medical Safety: Risk Study of Gender Medicine, Part 2”, 4W.pub. https://4w.pub/medical-safety-risk-study-of-gender-medicine-part-2/ Statements that Gender Medicine is “life-saving” and addresses the suicide rate are unsubstantiated by any data here in the USA; furthermore, no effort is being made to collect this data scientifically. What data is available indicates that Gender Medicine is ineffective at impacting the suicide rate. Based on the material that I have reviewed, my education, training, and experience, I find that Gender Medicine as currently described by WPATH (2022) is hazardous. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) leadership is grossly incompetent. WPATH (2022) is grossly negligent in providing its assessment of suicide in Gender Medicine to practitioners using its “standards”. Reference 2: E.A. Jensen (2022b) “Medical Safety: Risk Study of Gender Medicine, Part 1”, 4W.pub https://4w.pub/medical-safety-risk-study-of-gender-medicine-part-1/ How many Gender Medicine doctors knew or should have known that they were experimenting outside of experimental safeguards and with no intention of collecting results or modifying their hypotheses?
Comments are closed.