It took balls and conviction to do what she did—— Jamie Reed: The Courage to Admit You’re Wrong When I blew the whistle on a transgender clinic, some suggested I had been ‘brainwashed by the right.’ No. I’m a progressive who follows science.
no, don’t remember her, but looking her up, the Missouri SA ordered an investigation into her accusations, which found her whistleblower claims to be unsubstantiated… Glad she can admit she was wrong, though ...
Rather than simply Reed saying she exposed a lot of wrongdoing and posters saying she didn't ... perhaps a few links illustrating each claim would help.
Vindication of transgender whistleblower exposes media bias yet again Reed, a self-described gay woman who is married to a transgender man, for nearly four years managed cases at a gender dysphoria clinic at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. The national media slammed Reed after she bravely came forward in February in a Free Press essay exposing the mistreatment and botched handling of children with gender dysphoria, including children who regretted getting surgeries or hormone injections. Reed told of a child with schizophrenia who stopped their meds while receiving hormonal injections, which is extremely dangerous, according to physicians. Reed also reported a 17-year-old girl’s birth canal allegedly being ripping open during sex, unaware that taking testosterone (as part of a female-to-male transition) would cause her to bleed extensively. Despite Reed’s horrifying report, taken seriously by Missouri lawmakers and resulting in needed legislative changes, the national media turned a blind eye. MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes wrote a lengthy thread on Twitter, now called X, excoriating Reed, claiming “multiple other outlets have conducted dozens and dozens of interviews with parents, employees, and patients and found no corroboration.” New York magazine ran an early March article slamming Reed’s claims and highlighting negative articles from the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the Missouri Independent.
Wait a minute. So a bunch of parents, patients and employees dispute what Reed said. Should the media not report what they said?
Here's the New York magazine article: A Whistleblower’s Claims About a St. Louis Transgender Center Are Under Fire So is the problem here that the mainstream media didn't blindly run with this person's first-hand account? Instead, they actually did their due diligence to corroborate this person's claims by interviewing 20 parents and patients and based on those interviews they were unable to substantiate the claims. Seems like what you'd expect the media to do before they publish something so what's the problem exactly?
Ah yes, Jamie Reed, the woman who got taken to task by the parents of the kids who visited the clinic and the kids themselves for lying and violating the law. Parents of patients at St. Louis transgender center fear privacy breaches, file complaints Family Of Missouri Trans Kid: Jamie Reed Lied About Liver Damage, Caused By COVID Drug And Not HRT A Trans Teen Is Debunking an Article That Attacked Their Gender Clinic Inquiry into the Transgender Center at St. Louis Children's Hospital finds allegations of misconduct "unsubstantiated" Parents push back on allegations against St. Louis transgender center. ‘I’m baffled.’ Families dispute whistleblower’s allegations against St. Louis transgender center And Reed's despicable behavior has led to the Republican hack AG to try and target transgender kids: Wash U alleges Missouri AG illegally sought patient records from transgender center I'm sure the bigots are feeling very vindicated in their culture war to harm kids who are different. ‘It is hurting us’: Trans kids and parents in Missouri speak out, and brace for bans
No. Only the bigots who want to deny healthcare to transgender kids should be allowed to speak. The very fact that Reed is taking a victory lap after the bigoted Republicans in Missouri passed a gender-affirming care ban says it all.
The idea that talking to anyone who disagrees with Reed is supposed to be 'media bias' is pretty ridiculous. But let's avoid throwing the 'bigot' accusation around.
Respectfully, I will not. This is evil to me, and I'm going to be blunt about what I think of it. I have transgender friends, and it sickens me to see the hell Republicans are putting them through simply for being who they are. My friends are adults. Doing it to kids, especially when they know the consequences, is even worse. It's inhuman.
Damned if I can see what the hoopla here is about. In her own words, she said she was for treatment, then realized it's an insane idea for minors and admitted she was wrong. Good for her, which was the point of the OP. I'm a card carrying moderate liberal and believe such treatment for minors is wrong and applaud her, having inside knowledge, for saying so. Am I missing something??
The Trans Fight at the New York Times | National Review For too long, liberal journalists have allowed transgender activists to be the gatekeepers and standard-setters in this debate. The activist strategy depends on the dominance of narrative over fact, soundbite over reasoned argument, quick moral certitude over science and study. Above all, it has depended on the assumption that to challenge activist orthodoxy on transgenderism must be immoral. This assumption is entrenched by invocations of previous, successful rights-based causes. But the strategy collapses under scrutiny. In the contributors’ letter, for instance, the authors refer to the Times’ coverage of the AIDS epidemic. They complain, “The New York Times managing editor and executive editor A. M. Rosenthal neglected to put AIDS on the front page until 1983, by which time the virus had already killed 500 New Yorkers.” But this — namely, the decision not to print crucial health information disproportionately affecting a minority — is precisely what they suggest the Times do now by refusing to publicize negative effects of gender-affirming treatment.
My experience is that those who toss around the word bigot are usually the worst ones. big·ot /ˈbiɡət/ noun a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
I'm so glad we have the "card-carrying moderate liberal" here to tell doctors, parents, and kids that they have no right to healthcare that is supported by basically every major medical association, by numerous peer-reviewed studies, and by the patients themselves. I'm just overjoyed we have you here to step in between the patients and families who want a treatment that saves lives and the doctors who believe it is the correct medical treatment for them. Whatever would we do without the "real experts" in our society. The person you're applauding went to the media to post children's HIPAA-protected information. And to put the cherry on top, she lied about the kids in such a blatant way that they and/or their parents had to out themselves to dispute her false claims. Glad you're applauding her. Here is one of the kids speaking publicly about the lies told by Bari Weiss's Free Press:
Just some of the many articles and studies supporting gender-affirming care: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1054139X23005608 What does the scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being? | What We Know https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667193X23001187 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(22)00254-1/fulltext 2023 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ Young People https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(21)00568-1/fulltext
not sure which contingent but I absolutely agree. “No one does anything right in life, until they realize that they are making a mistake” Albert Einstein
Think through this logically for a minute. If these issues were true, the patients and parents would be the whistleblowers. They may even have malpractice claims in severe cases, if the treatment was not warranted/justified and caused irreparable harm any patient could sue their doctor. So why did those cases not corroborate? Why do we need “whistleblowers” and politicians to ban what is medically accepted practice? Instead, a person supposedly entrusted to be part of their care team and expected to act as a medical professional of sorts decides to act as a “whistleblower”. I had never heard of this case, but I’m sensing an agenda and that agenda obviously isn’t patient care. The problem with stuff like this is it’s all very much case by case. I’m sure if we had access to 100 random patient cases as examples, some would make perfect sense based on clear medical fact and others maybe would be debatable. But who is making these choices? Seems a lot of “conservatives” like for it to be big guv instead of doctors and patients.
