THREAD. The American Academy of Pediatrics is the largest association of pediatricians in the country. It is also ideologically captured. An activist group masquerading as a medical organization. Do a little digging and this fact becomes clear.
On the AAP website you can find their policy statement on “Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents.” The whole thing reads like a trans activism manifesto, not a medical guide.
In fact the statement cites something called “The Gender Book” as an objective resource for “core terms and concepts.” But the Gender Book is an activist pamphlet, not an objective resource. We know this because its authors say so.
In 2014, the authors of the Gender Book performed a (really terrible) song thanking their donors for enabling them to “do gender activism.” Four years later the AAP incorporated this gender activism into their “comprehensive care” guide.
A few years later the AAP published its own gender book promoting radical gender theory to kids. The author of the book appeared on an AAP podcast and claimed that it’s impossible to know a child’s gender in the womb.
Again: the AAP is a radical activist group. That’s why they shut down and silence their own members who criticize them for pushing drugs and surgery on kids.
Your child’s pediatrician might be good. But even the good ones are hostage to this madness. It has kidnapped the entire medical field. And so far we’ve only scratched the surface.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Wow @EliErlick is sending drugs to children across the country without prescriptions, parental consent, or any legal authority whatsoever. This is a crime on several different levels.
Maj, your response is absolutely ridiculous and totally indistinguishable from Leftist bullshit. Slavery existed in many forms for millennia and it’s not racist to acknowledge that. Actually it’s racist to demand that we don’t acknowledge it. Extremely disappointing stuff man.
The school system, media, and the Left all demand that the only form of slavery we ever acknowledge is the enslavement of black people in the West by whites, which is a tiny sliver of the whole story. Maj is a defender of this historical rewrite which makes him a tool of the Left
And if you’re accusing someone of “justifying” the slave trade you’re either dishonest or an idiot. No middle ground. There’s no way an intelligent, honest person can read what I just said as a justification of slavery.
Well over one million whites were enslaved in North Africa between the 16th and 19th centuries, most of them abducted and sold by Muslim pirates. Africans were raiding Europe for slaves for hundreds of years. The school system has totally erased this fact from history.
Of course white people were enslaved in other parts of Africa too, and across the world for centuries. Including in North America where white “servants” were shipped to the colonies by the thousands.
Slavery in America didn’t begin in 1619. White children were being kidnapped and sold into servitude in the colonies before that. And of course slavery existed in the Americas for hundreds of years prior to Europeans ever setting foot here. Indian tribes all practiced slavery.
A brief thread on how Leftist misinformation spreads. The media has been claiming for months that there is a rise in "anti-LGBT" violence. They use this to justify banning terms like "groomer," claiming that such labels fuel attacks. But where is the evidence of this epidemic?
The evidence doesn't exist because the epidemic is a total fabrication. Let's follow along to see how it works. This article in the @dailydot is typical. It calls for a "groomer" ban, connecting it to an "escalation" in "hateful attacks on LGBT people."
But where is the evidence? They link to a Washington Post article that claims a "surge" in anti-LGBT "threats and violence." But where do they get this from? WaPo cites "extremism trackers," linking to something called the The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project
This @NYmag hit piece on What Is A Woman is fantastic. The author laments that I didn’t frame the movie in religious terms and then proceeds to assume that I’m making a religious case because that’s easiest for him to rebut. Except he never does get around to rebutting anything.
He also chides me for using common sense. Not joking. He says that explicitly, attacking me for “leaning hardest on common sense.”
He tries to suggest that the film and my approach aren’t effective but he admits right in the title that my tactic is working. He also calls it dangerous and suggests that it’s so powerful it might inspire violence.
Today @RollingStone ran a hit piece about What Is A Woman, calling it transphobic propaganda. The funny thing is that we sent screeners to the writer of the piece, @MoisesFenty, and we can see that he watched zero percent of the film before arriving at this conclusion.
The editor of the piece, @elisabethgp, did a little better by watching a whole entire 11 percent before approving and publishing an article labeling the film “hateful” and “dehumanizing.”
I’d like Rolling Stone to explain how they arrived at these damning conclusions despite not watching the movie. Do they make a habit of reviewing movies without watching them? How many other reviews were written this way? Or is mine the first? If so, why?