Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.44 AVERAGE
3.44 AVERAGE
informative
All the online outrage with this book made me want to read it more. I'm glad I did. I found it be thoughtful, open-minded and well researched. I think Shrier did a good job of covering all angles of the issue. She also did a good job providing references to points she was trying to make.
As a parent I found it both enlightening and a little disturbing regarding the outside influences on our children. I'm glad I read this book.
As a parent I found it both enlightening and a little disturbing regarding the outside influences on our children. I'm glad I read this book.
medium-paced
informative
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Irreversible Damage is the most important book written about the LBTQ craze that has ever been written, period. There's simply no other way of putting it. Abigail Shreir is an extremely brave journalist who dives deep into the world of woke gender identity and comes back out with some of the most disturbing but important insights about the topic. And she does so without ever being condescending or disrespectful.
Very solidly based on hardcore science and evidence, this book provides an overview on how this social contagiosum has risen amongst teenage girls and follows a group of young women along their transformations.
If you actually care about future generations, then you should read this book.
Very solidly based on hardcore science and evidence, this book provides an overview on how this social contagiosum has risen amongst teenage girls and follows a group of young women along their transformations.
If you actually care about future generations, then you should read this book.
Right wing backlash isn't really my thing. I only read this because I came across a free copy.
I was startled by the level of factual inaccuracies and disingenuous representation of research and "researchers" by this book. The PLOS one study she talks about, for example, surveyed parents whose teens had "suddenly" come out as trans (i.e. without a long period of gender dysphoria) and found that almost all the teens had suddenly come out as trans. Like, sample bias couldn't be a factor here? Another finding was that most had come out after an increase in internet use, so the author of this book (not the study's author) attributes coming out to internet contagion - "too much" trans content on the YouTubes or whatever (which the author refers to as "propoganda"). It reminds me a lot of parents attributing autism to vaccinations just because the ages of some vaccines and the age of onset of signs of autism tend to coincide. There's a whole big section on skeletal sexual dimorphism as though sex estimation of the skeleton is an exact science and not... an estimation. In fact skeletal differentiation is hard out of specific cultural contexts (certain activities have a masculinising effect on the skeleton) and age (being younger is feminising). The pelvis is most reliably dimorphic but not perfectly so - skeletons get graded on a continuum where "male" and "female" traits often overlap. The author also makes out the existence of intersex people as statistically negligible but that's 1-2% of the population.
I can't go through the factual issues one by one and others would be more qualified to do it, but my goodness! The stuff on "autogynophilia" is menorably problematic, and I'd refer those interested to a YouTube video by Contrapoints on the topic.
I think this is a moral panic. Points the author makes about the role of contagion when it comes to teens understanding themselves as trans could be fair I guess. There's not enough information to know. Especially when it comes off the bat of spurious associations and weird assumptions about biology. As well as the unquestioned feeling that transition is itself a bad thing.
The author has to contend with the fact that transition is demonstably good for some proportion of people (she thinks it's a small proportion). In order to accommodate this, she divides trans people into two groups, good trans (people who have had gender dysphoria their whole life, people who aren't proud of their identity and just want to pass) and bad trans (people who suddenly claim to be dysphoric despite no obvious signs in childhood or never were, people who don't seem to mind if they pass, people who transition because of social contagion). This is a very common strategy when arguing to take away rights. Think of the good abortion (because you'd die without one) versus the bad abortion (because you had sex). This is exactly how you go about making individuals jump through hoops to establish legitimacy before they assert any rights or get treated with respect.
The biggest problem for me was the lack of curiosity and empathy about what the teens the author talks about are going through. She interviews parents, and detransitioners, but not the teens themselves. Instead, the author just puts weird speculations about Tumblr in there. This lack of empathy seems sort of the author's point, one of her theories (based on nothing) is that teens become trans because their parents are too understanding so don't have anything to rebel against. Yikes.
I was startled by the level of factual inaccuracies and disingenuous representation of research and "researchers" by this book. The PLOS one study she talks about, for example, surveyed parents whose teens had "suddenly" come out as trans (i.e. without a long period of gender dysphoria) and found that almost all the teens had suddenly come out as trans. Like, sample bias couldn't be a factor here? Another finding was that most had come out after an increase in internet use, so the author of this book (not the study's author) attributes coming out to internet contagion - "too much" trans content on the YouTubes or whatever (which the author refers to as "propoganda"). It reminds me a lot of parents attributing autism to vaccinations just because the ages of some vaccines and the age of onset of signs of autism tend to coincide. There's a whole big section on skeletal sexual dimorphism as though sex estimation of the skeleton is an exact science and not... an estimation. In fact skeletal differentiation is hard out of specific cultural contexts (certain activities have a masculinising effect on the skeleton) and age (being younger is feminising). The pelvis is most reliably dimorphic but not perfectly so - skeletons get graded on a continuum where "male" and "female" traits often overlap. The author also makes out the existence of intersex people as statistically negligible but that's 1-2% of the population.
I can't go through the factual issues one by one and others would be more qualified to do it, but my goodness! The stuff on "autogynophilia" is menorably problematic, and I'd refer those interested to a YouTube video by Contrapoints on the topic.
I think this is a moral panic. Points the author makes about the role of contagion when it comes to teens understanding themselves as trans could be fair I guess. There's not enough information to know. Especially when it comes off the bat of spurious associations and weird assumptions about biology. As well as the unquestioned feeling that transition is itself a bad thing.
The author has to contend with the fact that transition is demonstably good for some proportion of people (she thinks it's a small proportion). In order to accommodate this, she divides trans people into two groups, good trans (people who have had gender dysphoria their whole life, people who aren't proud of their identity and just want to pass) and bad trans (people who suddenly claim to be dysphoric despite no obvious signs in childhood or never were, people who don't seem to mind if they pass, people who transition because of social contagion). This is a very common strategy when arguing to take away rights. Think of the good abortion (because you'd die without one) versus the bad abortion (because you had sex). This is exactly how you go about making individuals jump through hoops to establish legitimacy before they assert any rights or get treated with respect.
The biggest problem for me was the lack of curiosity and empathy about what the teens the author talks about are going through. She interviews parents, and detransitioners, but not the teens themselves. Instead, the author just puts weird speculations about Tumblr in there. This lack of empathy seems sort of the author's point, one of her theories (based on nothing) is that teens become trans because their parents are too understanding so don't have anything to rebel against. Yikes.
Finished it after all.
I was trying to read this just to see what anti-trans people think but it's so stupid I don't think I going to be able to finish lmao. The author said "I'm not an investigative journalist, I'm an opinion writer" and man it's showing. I'm gonna spend my time reading something I'll enjoy instead of being mad she got a whole book published about "what if phones but too much". I'm so mad because this could have been a book about desisters without being so awful and no one would have been as mad.
Includes such gems as "her pronouns are they/them" and "nonbinary ... does not and has not ever existed". Just because her WASP upbringing didn't introduce her to nonbinary people doesn't mean there isn't thousands of years of history behind being nonbinary around the planet. Also discredited asexuals.
Seems like this author's only real counterpoint is "what if you have to get a hysterectomy or can't breastfeed?" which is? Mysterious because plenty of ciswomen get hysterectomies and/or don't breastfeed, even before considering intersex people. All of her supporting evidence seems to be about her own puberty and how idyllic and sheltered it was while talking about kids these days are too sheltered.
In almost all of the "case studies" she mentions, she says the parents push the kids to excel in all things academic and extracirricular and then is confused when the kids want space from smothering parents in college hahaha.
It's just not very well supported at all, ignoring all the other weird comments about Bill Cosby being cancelled and holocaust survivors?? She says "women with a flat chest and big hips look weird" like I'm not a ciswoman with that same body shape. She is upset that "not all transmen get phalloplasty" and how could you ~pass~ in public without a dck in your pants. It's just nonsense. She mentions that she might benefit from therapy but that's just new age victimization and LADY.... please consider meditating on your issues lol.
I was trying to read this just to see what anti-trans people think but it's so stupid I don't think I going to be able to finish lmao. The author said "I'm not an investigative journalist, I'm an opinion writer" and man it's showing. I'm gonna spend my time reading something I'll enjoy instead of being mad she got a whole book published about "what if phones but too much". I'm so mad because this could have been a book about desisters without being so awful and no one would have been as mad.
Includes such gems as "her pronouns are they/them" and "nonbinary ... does not and has not ever existed". Just because her WASP upbringing didn't introduce her to nonbinary people doesn't mean there isn't thousands of years of history behind being nonbinary around the planet. Also discredited asexuals.
Seems like this author's only real counterpoint is "what if you have to get a hysterectomy or can't breastfeed?" which is? Mysterious because plenty of ciswomen get hysterectomies and/or don't breastfeed, even before considering intersex people. All of her supporting evidence seems to be about her own puberty and how idyllic and sheltered it was while talking about kids these days are too sheltered.
In almost all of the "case studies" she mentions, she says the parents push the kids to excel in all things academic and extracirricular and then is confused when the kids want space from smothering parents in college hahaha.
It's just not very well supported at all, ignoring all the other weird comments about Bill Cosby being cancelled and holocaust survivors?? She says "women with a flat chest and big hips look weird" like I'm not a ciswoman with that same body shape. She is upset that "not all transmen get phalloplasty" and how could you ~pass~ in public without a dck in your pants. It's just nonsense. She mentions that she might benefit from therapy but that's just new age victimization and LADY.... please consider meditating on your issues lol.
challenging
informative
sad
medium-paced
There is a lot of disinformation when it comes to this book. To be clear there are interviews from
- Doctors
- Therapists
- Trans people
- Ex-trans people
- Parents
The author is not "transphobic", she says many times throughout the book that people with gender disporia are real and in some cases transitioning is the best option for them. Her argument is that the dramatic rise of women transitioning is due to untreated mental health issues, social pressures, and affirmation care being provided to girls that would otherwise out grow it.
If you don't like the book that's fine but don't go around calling people transphobs, TERFS, or flat out lying. Give actual facts and substantial arguments against the content.
- Doctors
- Therapists
- Trans people
- Ex-trans people
- Parents
The author is not "transphobic", she says many times throughout the book that people with gender disporia are real and in some cases transitioning is the best option for them. Her argument is that the dramatic rise of women transitioning is due to untreated mental health issues, social pressures, and affirmation care being provided to girls that would otherwise out grow it.
If you don't like the book that's fine but don't go around calling people transphobs, TERFS, or flat out lying. Give actual facts and substantial arguments against the content.
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
medium-paced
An important book for everyone who cares about adolescents today, which I hope is everyone.