site banner
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hospitals and doctors around the country are facing harassment and even death threats over the medical care they offer to transgender kids. In many cases, they have been the subject of posts by a Twitter account called Libs of TikTok, as well as stories in conservative media outlets casting gender-affirming care as child abuse and mutilation.

Which raises the question: where should social networks draw the line with accounts promoting narratives that spark harassment campaigns on their platforms and beyond?

They're doing elective pediatric double mastectomies on minors, and that's not a problem. The problem here is that Libs of Tiktok is shining a light on it and letting the world know. Fucked up, eh?

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/26/1119634878/childrens-hospitals-are-the-latest-target-of-anti-lgbtq-harassment

Your own source says that LoTT was inaccurately claiming they performed surgeries on young kids.

"The information in the recording is not accurate. We do not and have never performed gender-affirming hysterectomies for anyone under the age of 18," Children's National said in a statement to NPR. "The operator speaking provided wrong information."

Also, they're apparently receiving harassment.

Childrens' hospitals in Boston, Seattle, Chicago, and Portland, Oregon, have also been targeted. Last week, Boston Children's Hospital warned it was receiving "a large volume of hostile internet activity, phone calls, and harassing emails including threats of violence toward our clinicians and staff" after false claims it performs genital surgeries on minors.

I'd say harassing people is a problem regardless of what you think about transgenderism and gender-affirming surgeries.

I think they're using that old rhetorical device to avoid responsibility: lying.

Moreover NPR is hardly a neutral source. http://imgur.com/myGuSjy

I'm not some kid. I grew up on NPR. I'm disgusted to see what they've become. I feel like I lost a friend.

Is there any proof, or does it just come down to whether one trusts the source or not?

Does one trust a known deceiver? Especially when they have something to gain by their actions?

What you're talking about is just a heuristic in the absence of evidence. A liar can tell the truth, and we cannot claim they are wrong simply by pointing to their background.

Is there any actual proof that NPR or the people who are quoted are incorrect?

Can we trust a mainstream media outlet deeply invested in the pro-pediatric cosmetic surgery agenda to report accurately on what their opposition thinks or believes? Track record says no.

Track records are, as I said, heuristics. You can say you're suspicious, but we ultimately can only say that we have no idea if they're accurate or not.