Aletho News


A mutilation of young lives: How the radical transgender bandwagon is wrecking girls’ bodies and destroying their mental health

© Abigail Shrier “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters” / Blackstone Publishing, 2020
By Debbie Hayton | RT | July 29, 2020

A new book, Irreversible Damage, reveals how teenage girls are being duped into believing they want to be male, and are pushed into taking puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and undergoing double mastectomies.

Whether it is a statement or a question, the title of this book conveys the necessary urgency of this desperately sad story. Amid the trans debate, seemingly a battle between grown adults, vulnerable children are prey to a malevolent ideology that survivors call a cult.

In a superb piece of investigative journalism, Abigail Shrier focusses on teenage girls – most with no history of gender dysphoria – who become captivated by the belief that they are transgender. Behind the glittery exterior portrayed in the media, she encounters damaged children – many alienated from their families – in poor mental health and facing the prospect of infertility and medication for life.

Shrier, a writer with the Wall Street Journal, pulls no punches when describing phalloplasty, the construction of an artificial penis. The complications can be horrific. She reports the experience of one nineteen-year-old, “whose phalloplasty resulted in gangrene and loss of the appendage.” On the cusp of adulthood, that young person has been left without normal genitalia, for either sex, and tethered to a catheter.

I am a transgender person, but I transitioned as an adult when I could understand the implications on my body and my relationship with society. Besides, by then I’d had my own children. Yet children too young to even give consent for a tattoo are being corralled into making truly life-changing decisions.

Whether you agree or disagree with her, this is a book that needs to be read. Shrier’s informed analysis flows from dozens of interviews, including medical experts and parents. From Dr Kenneth Zucker, who oversaw the writing of the medical definition of “gender dysphoria,” to ordinary families whose children seem to them to have been swept along by this cult, Shrier talks directly to those with first-hand experience.

The facts are clear: there is a contagion spreading among teenage girls who suddenly believe themselves to be boys. While there is documented history of young feminine boys expressing a desire to be girls, never before have girls dominated the work of paediatric gender clinics. The statistics are staggering. In the UK, for example, referrals of teenage girls rose by 4400% in the last decade.

Shrier interviewed Lisa Littman, an American doctor who conducted an observational study and found that nearly 70 percent of the teenagers belonged to a peer group in which at least one friend had also come out as transgender. In some groups, most of the friends had done so. Transgender identification was encouraged and intensified by friends and social media and, astonishingly, appeared to precede the experience of gender dysphoria itself.

Shrier explores possible reasons why these daughters, often from liberal progressive households, want to be sons. First, social media where children are influenced by strangers while their parents are kept in the dark. Second, the educational system where adults who ought to know better have been enthralled, or threatened, by transgender activists. Ignoring both science and basic safeguarding, they have bought into the notion that we all have an immutable gender identity which may or may not match our sex.

With overwhelming folly, children are being transitioned in their schools with new names and pronouns. If their parents might be unsupportive, then they are not told, in case their children might feel “unsafe.” But this is something all parents need to know: this phenomenon is catching, and to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

But nothing could have happened without the cooperation of policy makers, and not only within the education system. Therapists – the very people who should be helping children to challenge their thinking – have been blindly affirming whatever their young patients have picked up from the internet.

Anyone who has stood against this has faced censure and condemnation. But as Jungian analyst Lisa Marchiano explained, “This idea that a kid’s going to come in and tell us that they’re trans and that within a session or two or three or four, that we’re going to say, ‘Yep, you’re trans. Let me write you the letter.’ That’s not therapy.”

Even the medical profession itself has been found wanting. Eminent sexologist Dr Ray Blanchard told Shrier that “I can’t think of any branch of medicine outside of cosmetic surgery where the patient makes the diagnosis and prescribes the treatment.” While the zealots who actually believe that children can change their sex are perhaps in a minority, those professionals who remain silent in education, therapy and medicine are complicit in this unfolding scandal.

Shrier credits the sterling work of parental groups such as 4thWaveNow and Transgender Trend who have stood firm against the ideology. They have been condemned as bigots and transphobes for protecting children from themselves, the first duty of parents since the dawn of time.

The book is well-referenced and easy to read, making it suitable for a wide readership. The most obvious audience are parents concerned for the wellbeing of their daughters. But teachers, therapists and doctors, some of whom remain silent out of ignorance or fear, also need to hear these stories. Finally, the wider public would find Shrier’s analysis accessible, clear and educational. Those only vaguely aware of transgender ideology may be tempted to think that it cannot be true: young girls taking powerful cancer drugs to halt puberty, or induce an artificial menopause if started. But it is happening across the world, and Shrier catalogues it.

The time has come for society to take responsibility. Much has happened covertly, and the startled onlooker may need time to catch up, but Shrier’s book fills in the background, identifies the problems, explains the impact, and proposes clear and workable ways forward. This is a must-read for those with children, anyone who works with children and everyone who cares about them.

Debbie Hayton is a teacher and a transgender campaigner, based in the UK. She tweets @DebbieHayton

July 29, 2020 - Posted by | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular


  1. Kids and parents who think they have been railroaded into following
    the wrong agenda should sue for malpractice


    Comment by charles allan | July 30, 2020 | Reply


    The Babylonian Talmud states that Adam Was Androgynous
    Definition of androgynous
    1 : having the characteristics or nature of both male and female

    Judaism teaches that the God of the Jews is a hermaphrodite. Since Adam was created in the image of this god, he was androgynous. This is one of the reasons why there are so many Jews pressing the androgynous agenda into public life, including forcing it upon our children.

    The Creation of Adam and Eve in Peshat and Midrash
    Genesis 2:21-24
    (21) So the LORD God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot. (22) And the LORD God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman; and He brought her to the man. (23) Then the man said, “This one at last Is bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called Woman, For from man was she taken.” (24) Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh.
    רש”י על בראשית א׳:כ״ז:ג׳
    (ג) זכר ונקבה ברא אותם. וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו וגו’ (בראשית ב’)? מִדְרַשׁ אַגָּדָה שֶׁבְּרָאוֹ שְׁנֵי פַרְצוּפִים בִּבְרִיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲלָקוֹ. וּפְשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא, כָּאן הוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בַּשִּׁשִּׁי וְלֹא פֵי’ לְךָ כֵּיצַד בְּרִיָּתָן, וּפֵרֵשׁ לְךָ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר:

    Rashi on Genesis 1:27:3
    3זכר ונקבה ברא אותם MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM — And further on (Genesis 2:21) it is said: “and He took one of his ribs etc.” (The two passages appear to be contradictory.) But according to a Midrashic explanation, He created him at first with two faces, and afterwards He divided him. But the real sense of the verse is: here it tells you that both of them were created on the sixth day, but it does not explain to you how their creation took place; this it explains to you in another place (Genesis Rabbah 8:1 and see Eruvin 18a) .
    רשב”ם בראשית פרשת בראשית פרק א
    זכר ונקבה ברא אותם – כמו שמפרש לפנינו ויקח אחת מצלעותיו כלל ואח”כ פירש.
    רד”ק על בראשית א׳:כ״ז:ג׳
    (ג) זכר ונקבה ברא אתם, זכר עם נקבה, ובפרשה אחרת יפרש איך ברא אתם זכר ונקבה:

    Radak on Genesis 1:27:3
    3 זכר ונקבה ברא אותם, in the following paragraph Moses explains how G’d created man as both male and female.
    בראשית רבה ח׳:א׳
    אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס בְּרָאוֹ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (בראשית ה, ב): זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, דְּיוּ פַּרְצוּפִים בְּרָאוֹ, וְנִסְּרוֹ וַעֲשָׂאוֹ גַּבִּים, גַּב לְכָאן וְגַב לְכָאן. אֲתִיבוּן לֵיהּ וְהָכְתִיב (בראשית ב, כא): וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, אֲמַר לְהוֹן מִתְּרֵין סִטְרוֹהִי, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (שמות כו, כ): וּלְצֶלַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן, דִּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן וְלִסְטַר מַשְׁכְּנָא וגו’.

    Bereishit Rabbah 8:1
    (1) … Said R’ Yirmiyah ben Elazar: In the hour when the Holy One created the first human, He created him [as] an androgyne/androginos, as it is said, “male and female He created them”. Said R’ Shmuel bar Nachmani: In the hour when the Holy One created the first human, He created [for] him a double-face/di-prosopon/ du-par’tsufin, and sawed him and made him backs, a back here and a back [t]here, as it is said, “Back/achor and before/qedem You formed me” [Ps 139:5]. They objected to him: But it says, “He took one of his ribs/ts’la`ot . . . ” [Gn 2:21]! He said to them: [It means] “[one] of his sides/sit’rohi”, just as you would say, “And for the side/tsela` of the Tabernacle/ mishkan” [Ex 26:20], which they translate [in Aramaic] “for the side/seter”.
    ברכות ס״א א:ו׳-ז׳
    ויבן ה׳ אלקים את הצלע רב ושמואל חד אמר פרצוף וחד אמר זנב
    Berakhot 61a:6-7
    It is stated: “And the tzela which the Lord, God, had taken from the man, He made a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:22). Rav and Shmuel disagree over the meaning of the word tzela: One said: It means face. Eve was originally one face or side of Adam. And one said: It means tail, which he explains to mean that the tzela was an appendage, i.e., one of the ribs in Adam’s chest.
    Malka Simkovich

    The fact that a careful and literal reading of Genesis can be made to support the surprising interpretations of R. Samuel ben Nahman and Resh Lakish that the first human was an androgynous being does not explain what motivated them to advance this interpretation. How did they think of this idea and why did it appeal to them? There are other, simpler ways to solve the contradiction. For example, Rashi, Rashbam and Radak all assume that Gen. 1:26-27 was meant as a general statement and that Gen. 2 fills the reader in with the details—a case of klal ufrat—a generality followed by a specific.

    Plato’s Symposium clarifies the Rabbis’ exegetical motivation. The very same Greek word used in the Midrash by Samuel ben Nahman, androgynos, appears in Plato’s Symposium (ca. 4th cent. BCE) and is spoken by Aristophanes, who is theorizing to his colleagues regarding the origin of humankind.

    Many of you have probably wondered why the Jews so heavily promote homosexuality and changing the definition of marriage to incorporate homosexual unions. There are many reasons why ranging from the fact that a disproportionate number of Jews are homosexual to the Jews’ desire to ruin Gentile Peoples. But there is another reason with which you are almost certainly unfamiliar.

    The Jews’ created their genocidal god in their own destructive image.
    Jews tended toward sexual deviancy. They were heavily homosexual and used their Temple as a homosexual whore house.
    Their god is a hermaphrodite.
    The Jewish god’s fruitfulness comes from its hermaphroditic personhood and this monster commands the Jews to multiply themselves as men and women both created its hermaphroditic image, which they created in their image (Genesis 1:27, 28).
    The Jews even fed their god with sacrifices both human and animal, just as they fed themselves. And so they feed their god your bodies and souls.

    They have you whoring after their god, which spells the death not only of your gods, whom the Jews believe to be real, but also you and your tribe with those gods.

    Jews rule the Earth and their god rules the heavens and is jealous and will exterminate your gods as the Jews exterminate you. And you oblige the Jews and bow to the god created in their image and kill off your own gods created in your image, as you kill off your natural image of yourself. But you cannot be Jews and must die to feed the Jews and their god.

    The Jews’ god is very much a Jewish person.

    He walks and talks to the Jews’ ancestors in the Old Testament. He has sons, Jesus among them. We need not wonder what the Jews’ god was thinking when he ejaculated the seed for these horrible sons, many of whom raped the noble daughters of normal humans. He wrestled with Jacob, father of the Jews. Etc. For more on the Jews’ god as a terrible stereotypical genocidal perverse Jew, see:


    Now, it is the Jews who are commanded to go forth and multiply, not you Gentiles.
    Yours is to slave and die off and worship their god in the form of hermaphroditic rock stars, homosexual marriages, masculine women, and effeminate men. It is heaven on Earth for the Jews to watch you rob yourselves of your genetics, your sexuality, and your human dignity.
    It brings you down to their level, where you cannot compete, for you will no longer be an image of yourself. It makes it easier for them to kill you off, which wets their diseased beaks. Most of all, they enjoy turning you into twisted living idols of their god, mirrors of their unnatural selves, having lost all that birth gave you to make life.

    And what is the noblest act you as a perverse slave can perform for your new father, the stereotypical genocidal Jew in heaven whom you call god?

    You can feed him your soul and your body, preferably as an act of self-sacrifice.
    You martyr your spirit by worshiping the vile Jew in the sky and you feed it your body by dying as a sacrifice to it so that you can live on as its slave. You delight in sending others to hell and believe that they have sold themselves to Satan and given their flesh to evil, not letting yourself know that the Jewish god is Satan and all evil and good come from it, according to the Jews who crafted the cunning fiend in their own image.

    The Jewish god loves sinners and the worst scum in the world are Jews.
    Sorry, but they are first in line with their self-made god and by whoring after it, you die, body and soul.

    The mind of the ancient Jew was comparatively simple and unartistic. It looked in the mirror and saw hate and murder in its dull eyes, and so saw its god stupidly staring back at it. It lived by murdering indigenous peoples and stealing their wealth, raping their women, and burning their fields, so its god did the same. It lived by eating animals and so gave its god their flesh and their souls to quench its appetite and sustain its murderous existence.

    You are just another sacrifice to the Jews and their god and so you must sacrifice that which gives you life, birth. You must undo the divide and enter the tomb. You must become a living idol for your ill-fated people, an idol which produces no life, an idol of the hermaphrodite in the sky, the Jewish god, a man/woman or woman/man. You must martyr your life, your soul, and your sex, so the Jews and their god can triumph over you and your gods. And, most amazingly, you do.



    Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64a

    Soncino 1961 Edition, page 437

    Following the Mishnah is a discussion among the sages. One of the Talmud Sages, Rabbi Ashi, comments as follows:

    R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through, (3) or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death … And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given of his seed unto Molech. Why is this stated? — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son’s son or daughter’s son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him off.]

    — Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64b

    Soncino 1961 Edition, page 439

    Rabbi Dr. Freedman, one of the translators of the Soncino Tractate Sanhedrin, clarifies the passage. In a footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman confirms that the Talmud Sages use “seed” to denote living children, in the same sense as the Biblical translators understand the term in the above Biblical quotes. In this footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman paraphrases the question from Rabbi Ashi:

    3. Is ‘thou shalt not cause to pass’ applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself, but not to a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it apply to all?

    Rabbi Dr. Freedman

    Other footnotes within the same context clarify the fine point of distinction being drawn in the Mishnah and subsequent debates among the sages:

    5. Lev. XVIII, 21. This proves that the offense consists of two parts; (I) formal delivery to the priests, and (2) causing the seed to pass through the fire.

    Rabbi Dr. Freedman (2)

    5. As two separate offenses, proving that giving one’s seed to Molech is not idolatry. The differences [sic] is, that if one sacrificed to Molech, or caused his son to pass through the fire to some other deity, he is not punished.

    Rabbi Dr. Freedman (3)

    Following the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 64a and 64b contain a rousing debate between the Sages concerning:

    * the circumstances under which worshipping an idol is idolatry,

    * which idols may be worshipped without indulging in idolatry,

    * which parts of child sacrifice in what combination are punishable, and

    * how children may be sacrificed without violating Leviticus.

    READ 1 KINGS 11:1-11; AMOS 5:22-27! ACTS 7:42-43.


    Comment by Dave Rubin | July 30, 2020 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.