‘What The F*ck Are We Doing Here?’: NYT Reporter Secretly Recorded Saying Indoctrinated ‘Woke’ Colleagues Are Ruining The Paper

The Moral Atrocity of “Top Surgery”: Do surgeons obtain truly informed consents for life-altering procedures on minors?

Increasingly, confused girls with mental-health issues are lining up to have their breasts removed, erroneously believing my colleagues who tell them the operation will alleviate their emotional pain and allow them to emerge as their authentic selves. Girls as young as 13 are having “top surgery,” a euphemism for a bilateral mastectomy—the removal of both breasts—in order to create, as gender surgeons put it, a “masculinized” chest. “Bilateral mastectomy” sounds jarring and clinical; it’s a treatment for cancer, after all—one that women agonize over.

Mind you, these are the same people who insist that five-year-olds use anatomically accurate terms, not childish nicknames, for their genitals. They soberly instruct us to teach the words “scrotum” and “vulva” to kindergarteners. But the vague, trivial-sounding terms “top” and “bottom” surgeries—that language is fine. As if the consequences of those major operations—infertility, sexual dysfunction, infection, and chronic pelvic pain, to name a few—aren’t permanent and debilitating.

As an intern in pediatrics, when one of my patients needed a medical procedure, I was required to obtain informed consent from the parents or guardian of the minor. I was obligated to explain, accurately and comprehensively, the risks—both immediate and long-term—of the procedure. I wonder how accurate and comprehensive are the consents obtained by surgeons who perform double mastectomies on minors. Mia’s mother was almost certainly told that mastectomies for minors with gender dysphoria are evidence-based treatment, supported by well-documented standards of care. But did the surgeon mention that this deceptive reassurance is being challenged in court by the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine?

SEGM’s arguments against mastectomies for girls like Mia are compelling. They point out that long-term outcomes are highly uncertain and that many girls have untreated mental-health issues. They explain why the evidence supporting mastectomies in minors is low-quality and unreliable. According to SEGM, mastectomies on minors are an “experimental procedure on vulnerable youth” whose brains and identities are still developing. Leading gender clinics and psychiatric associations worldwide are rejecting these procedures. They’re saying that girls who want their breasts removed need in-depth psychotherapy, not a surgeon’s scalpel.

I know many girls like Mia, and I’m well aware that she can’t tolerate talking about her periods, let alone pregnancy, because she’s fleeing womanhood. But her identity is still evolving; if she’s like other gender-confused girls, she wore lace push-up bras less than a year ago. In the next decade, she will go through many more changes—and one of them, I hope, will be re-acceptance of her female biology. She may follow the same path as Daisy Chadra, a young woman who lived as a man for five years and had her breasts “amputated” (her word). What she lost is irreplaceable, but Daisy’s back at peace with her female biology. There appear to be thousands like her, who regret the medical and surgical interventions they believed would solve their emotional problems. Transgender activists claim regret is rare, but this de-transitioners’ site alone has 26,000 members. If Mia someday joins their growing ranks, she may experience her flat, scarred chest as a loss.

Alabama Man’s ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ License Plate Recalled Over ‘Objectionable’ Language

How the American Bar Association Just Radicalized Law School: Law students now required to learn about their duty to 'eliminate racism'

The American Bar Association voted on Monday to require that all law schools educate students on their duty to "work to eliminate racism," a move top law professors say will "institutionalize dogma" throughout legal academia.

The association, which accredits almost every law school in the United States, voted 348 to 17 to adopt the standard. Law schools will now have to "provide education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism," both at the start of law school and "at least once again before graduation."

Additionally, law students will have to complete a course on "professional responsibility" that introduces them "to the values and responsibilities of the legal profession"—including "the obligation of lawyers to promote a justice system that provides equal access and eliminates bias, discrimination, and racism in the law."

The standard has stirred controversy among law professors, many of whom assailed it as an assault on academic freedom when it was first proposed last year. Brian Leiter, a legal theorist at the University of Chicago Law School, said the proposed requirements would "almost certainly violate the academic freedom rights of faculty at many (probably most) schools." And in an open letter to the American Bar Association, 10 Yale Law School professors called the change a "disturbing" attempt to "institutionalize dogma" through the accreditation process and an "overreach by the ABA."

These objections prompted the American Bar Association to add a disclaimer to the final standard, saying it "does not prescribe the form or content of the education on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism."

Trudeau’s Prohibition on Protests Exempts Refugees, Immigrants and Ethnic Minorities

Law students still work to cancel retired professor who cited Supreme Court case with n-word

The Black Law Student Association at Wake Forest University School of Law had lodged a complaint over a renown professor emeritus taking part in a recent campus law symposium because when he actively taught at the school he cited a Supreme Court case with the n-word.

The complaint comes as Wake Forest Law is roiled by racial tensions, with the Black Law Student Association calling for “culturally sensitive and inclusive” classrooms.

[...]

As for the law symposium controversy, it centers on Michael Curtis, a highly respected constitutional historian who taught at the school since 1994. He retired in December 2020, but took part late last month in the “Preserving American Democracy” symposium.

Prior to his retirement, in March 2020, Curtis was rebuked by Wake Forest University Law Dean Jane Aiken for reading aloud some footnotes, which include the n-word, from the seminal free speech Supreme Court case of Brandenburg v. Ohio during his constitutional law class.

“Confronting America’s discriminatory past through case law can be challenging enough without hearing your professor read that word aloud in a class,” Aiken said at the time. “… I want to reaffirm my commitment to your learning in a diverse, inclusive, and equitable learning environment.”