GLAAD pushes Big Tech to censor trans ‘disinformation’
There’s also an interesting definition of “disinformation” at work here. “Disinformation”, in this case, refers to information that is accurate but which may lead readers to the “wrong” conclusions. In other words, information that leads readers to question the “safety and necessity” of “gender-affirming healthcare” for youth, such as clear descriptions of what that neat little euphemism actually entails — specifically, experimental suppression of normal human development and double mastectomies for troubled 14-year-olds.
Thus, Twitter accounts that share unedited promotional videos from children’s gender clinics describing the hormonal and surgical interventions they provide to underage patients become purveyors of “inflammatory disinformation falsely asserting that this healthcare is dangerous”.
This inconsistency is most evident in the contradictory statements issued by defenders of pharmaceutical and surgical interventions for gender-questioning youth. On the one hand, activists celebrate “top surgery” for “transmasculine boys”, or “TGNB AYA DFAB” (transgender and gender non-binary adolescents and young adults designated female at birth). But on the other hand, breast amputations for adolescent females with psychiatric comorbidities is plain “disinformation”.
Never mind that these are two ways of describing the same surgical interventions on the same patient population. But the first is ideologically compliant (the reader may or may not understand what “top surgery” for TGNB AYA DFABs means, but they’re likely to conclude it’s safe and necessary), while the second formulation risks leading readers to the “wrong” conclusions.
GLAAD is more honest about its mission than it is about the controversy over “gender-affirming healthcare” for minors. The organisation describes itself as “changing the culture”, as well as “tackling issues to shape the narrative and provoke dialogue that leads to cultural change”. Sometimes, though, “shaping the narrative” means intervening to remove inconvenient facts from the picture.
My response to anyone who uses the above doublespeak is "So you're making money from amputating body parts off at-risk minors and attacking and messing up their endocrine systems."
Thank you, Eliza. Great article with a very important conclusion:
"Every movement must decide what will best serve the cause: sunlight or censorship? Does free and open dialogue help the cause or hinder it? Does informing the public about an issue build support or demolish it? It’s telling that GLAAD has opted for censorship."
Thank you for continuing to shine a light on the madness and the upside-downness of "gender affirming care". I read your conclusion as a call to action. I encourage everyone to keep sharing, do the opposite of GLAAD's "no debate" campaign, keep talking, keep asking questions.