Take a photo of a barcode or cover
althechaosbisexual 's review for:
Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters
by Abigail Shrier
How? How does this have 3.95 stars, but some of my favorite books of all time have 3.8? How in the name of all heaven did this get published? (update: It now has 4.07)
Since the author doesn't seem to understand shit about anything, here's you're friendly neighborhood Al (and a friendly professional) to explain some things.
"Irreversible Damage is an exploration of a mystery: Why, in the last decade, has the diagnosis "gender dysphoria," transformed from a vanishingly rare affliction, applying almost exclusively to boys and men, to an epidemic among teenage girls?"
I don't know, Shrier. Maybe it's the same reason why the divorce rate launched up when women got rights. It's really amazing when you give somebody the opportunity to express themselves instead of 1. shunning them 2. killing them and 3. harming them, they'll actually... oh, I dunno... present more information about themselves than when it was literally fucking illegal to share that information?
Author Abigail Shrier presents shocking statistics and stories from real families to show that America and the West have become fertile ground for a "transgender craze" that has nothing to do with real gender dysphoria and everything to do with our cultural frailty. Teenage girls are taking courses of testosterone and disfiguring their bodies.
I have not read the book, so I cannot confirm nor deny if she's using 'actual statics.' I can already hear the transphobes screaming 'oh, well, you don't know.' Actually, I do know. Because I read an article by an actual professional (unlike the author) who debunked literally everything the author is spewing.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation?fbclid=IwAR0RFxrLYFO5SZztAQ9ROFqHHYG3TcOZGYP7hCMVKEHhunUTpxhe2Ty6ZL0
Shrier did not interview most of the transgender adolescents she wrote about.
Shrier's book tells the stories of several young people who came out as transgender to their parents. The book claims that these adolescents and young adults were not actually transgender, but actually just confused. The problem is Shrier didn't actually interview any of these people she wrote about.
Hmmm, I wonder why you would feel the need to lie about your statics to prove your point? Is that maybe because your point isn't valid?
'The author’s note points out that she only interviewed their parents, who uniformly did not accept their children’s transgender identities. Many of them were estranged from their kids because the children were so hurt by their parents' rejection. To actually understand the psychology of these young people, one would need to talk to them, not simply rely on stories from parents with whom they do not speak.'
I know you guys cannot see me right now, but I am going red in the face. You're telling me, that this woman admitted to not talking to the people she's writing a book about, but, instead, to people who agree with her opinion, people she knows are going to agree with her opinion. Tell me, does that seem like an unbiased study?
Shrier claims that “in most cases—nearly 70 percent—gender dysphoria resolves," and thus youth should not be provided gender-affirming medical care. That statistic is false.
Shrier incorrectly uses this statistic to claim that trans youth shouldn't be offered gender-affirming medical interventions because most will change their minds and later regret their decision. The studies Shrier refers to used an old diagnosis of “gender identity disorder,” not the DSM-5 diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
You're telling me, that not only is she spreading misinformation, but not even spreading misinformation about the correct diagnoses?
She argues that these kids aren't really transgender but rather just afraid to tell people they are LGB, so they choose to transition. This is complete nonsense. A recent large study by GLSEN found that transgender students experience more hostility at school than LGB students. The same study found that nearly 1 in 4 transgender kids needed to change schools because they were harassed for being transgender. Data from The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that adolescents are far more likely to self-identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (10.5 percent) than transgender (1.8 percent).
So, in this book, she says that children say they are trans because they are afraid to state that they are not straight. I can kind of see where she's coming from with this, but I also can't. As the writer of the article states, transgender kids are bullied a lot more than gay kids. And, yeah, she could make the argument that 'oh, they didn't know trans kids got bullied more', except you see it everywhere. Most of the heat (certainly not all of it) has come off of people who are not straight but cis and has instead shifted to people who not cisgender.
If you see a gay person being discriminated against, you bet your ass you will see trans people getting at least a bucket of discrimination, too.
'First off, it’s inappropriate to suggest that being transgender is a bad outcome. However, Shrier also simply misunderstands the scientific literature. She notes that only 1.9 percent of adolescents who started pubertal suppression in a large study in The Netherlands did not proceed to gender-affirming hormones (i.e., estrogen or testosterone). This is not because pubertal suppression made them identify more strongly as transgender. Rather, it is a result of the strict guidelines followed in the Netherlands before an adolescent is considered eligible for pubertal suppression: six months of attending a specialized gender clinic and undergoing rigorous assessment.
Shrier ignores all of the data showing that gender-affirming medical care results in improved mental health outcomes for transgender youth.'
Ah, yes, ignoring valuable data.
Long story short, I will not be reading this. I have lost my faith in humanity for the... let's see, is that the third time this week? And it is only Wednesday.
Since the author doesn't seem to understand shit about anything, here's you're friendly neighborhood Al (and a friendly professional) to explain some things.
"Irreversible Damage is an exploration of a mystery: Why, in the last decade, has the diagnosis "gender dysphoria," transformed from a vanishingly rare affliction, applying almost exclusively to boys and men, to an epidemic among teenage girls?"
I don't know, Shrier. Maybe it's the same reason why the divorce rate launched up when women got rights. It's really amazing when you give somebody the opportunity to express themselves instead of 1. shunning them 2. killing them and 3. harming them, they'll actually... oh, I dunno... present more information about themselves than when it was literally fucking illegal to share that information?
Author Abigail Shrier presents shocking statistics and stories from real families to show that America and the West have become fertile ground for a "transgender craze" that has nothing to do with real gender dysphoria and everything to do with our cultural frailty. Teenage girls are taking courses of testosterone and disfiguring their bodies.
I have not read the book, so I cannot confirm nor deny if she's using 'actual statics.' I can already hear the transphobes screaming 'oh, well, you don't know.' Actually, I do know. Because I read an article by an actual professional (unlike the author) who debunked literally everything the author is spewing.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation?fbclid=IwAR0RFxrLYFO5SZztAQ9ROFqHHYG3TcOZGYP7hCMVKEHhunUTpxhe2Ty6ZL0
Shrier did not interview most of the transgender adolescents she wrote about.
Shrier's book tells the stories of several young people who came out as transgender to their parents. The book claims that these adolescents and young adults were not actually transgender, but actually just confused. The problem is Shrier didn't actually interview any of these people she wrote about.
Hmmm, I wonder why you would feel the need to lie about your statics to prove your point? Is that maybe because your point isn't valid?
'The author’s note points out that she only interviewed their parents, who uniformly did not accept their children’s transgender identities. Many of them were estranged from their kids because the children were so hurt by their parents' rejection. To actually understand the psychology of these young people, one would need to talk to them, not simply rely on stories from parents with whom they do not speak.'
I know you guys cannot see me right now, but I am going red in the face. You're telling me, that this woman admitted to not talking to the people she's writing a book about, but, instead, to people who agree with her opinion, people she knows are going to agree with her opinion. Tell me, does that seem like an unbiased study?
Shrier claims that “in most cases—nearly 70 percent—gender dysphoria resolves," and thus youth should not be provided gender-affirming medical care. That statistic is false.
Shrier incorrectly uses this statistic to claim that trans youth shouldn't be offered gender-affirming medical interventions because most will change their minds and later regret their decision. The studies Shrier refers to used an old diagnosis of “gender identity disorder,” not the DSM-5 diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
You're telling me, that not only is she spreading misinformation, but not even spreading misinformation about the correct diagnoses?
She argues that these kids aren't really transgender but rather just afraid to tell people they are LGB, so they choose to transition. This is complete nonsense. A recent large study by GLSEN found that transgender students experience more hostility at school than LGB students. The same study found that nearly 1 in 4 transgender kids needed to change schools because they were harassed for being transgender. Data from The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that adolescents are far more likely to self-identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (10.5 percent) than transgender (1.8 percent).
So, in this book, she says that children say they are trans because they are afraid to state that they are not straight. I can kind of see where she's coming from with this, but I also can't. As the writer of the article states, transgender kids are bullied a lot more than gay kids. And, yeah, she could make the argument that 'oh, they didn't know trans kids got bullied more', except you see it everywhere. Most of the heat (certainly not all of it) has come off of people who are not straight but cis and has instead shifted to people who not cisgender.
If you see a gay person being discriminated against, you bet your ass you will see trans people getting at least a bucket of discrimination, too.
'First off, it’s inappropriate to suggest that being transgender is a bad outcome. However, Shrier also simply misunderstands the scientific literature. She notes that only 1.9 percent of adolescents who started pubertal suppression in a large study in The Netherlands did not proceed to gender-affirming hormones (i.e., estrogen or testosterone). This is not because pubertal suppression made them identify more strongly as transgender. Rather, it is a result of the strict guidelines followed in the Netherlands before an adolescent is considered eligible for pubertal suppression: six months of attending a specialized gender clinic and undergoing rigorous assessment.
Shrier ignores all of the data showing that gender-affirming medical care results in improved mental health outcomes for transgender youth.'
Ah, yes, ignoring valuable data.
Long story short, I will not be reading this. I have lost my faith in humanity for the... let's see, is that the third time this week? And it is only Wednesday.