Trans-skeptical U.S. book finds new Japanese publisher

And why is there no equal outcry about men changing their bodies?

I think it’s because the trend largely skews towards young women as the book points out.

Girls cannot:

Drink alcohol

Drive

Get a tattoo or piercing

But doing surgery that is going to permanently mutilate and sterilize them is ok.

The book explains what has been happening in the West, mostly to girls but yes also to some boys.

We are talking about breast removal (aka top surgery) and phalloplasty and metoidioplasty (aka down surgery). Very sad and gruesome, look it up online.

I've spoken to many Japanese people in depth about this and the simple fact is they just don't know what's really happening. The western left likes to paint this picture that most Japanese people just don't have a strong opinion on the matter and they ask them and they don't really respond. But after telling people about what's going on in schools and the medical industry it is very clear they want none of that here.

I agree with protestant I think this issue will sort itself out but it is still worrying. The Japanese have far more in common with western conservatives than liberals.

That is not hateful or intolerant or shortsighted or unpleasant or unsympathetic or anything else that is negative.

If only people stopped their sentences after "I'm not trying to be hurtful" before adding a "but".

Kadokawa pulled the book from its slate in December after concluding the translated title and sales copy announcing its release was hurtful to the transgender community.

”hurtful”? Going through body altering hormone treatment and more horrendous surgery (does anyone think a piece of transplanted muscle attached to the groin area is really a penis?) is lots more hurtful.

I’ve read the book. The author acknowledges that some people are born with anomalies and some people genuinely believe they are the other gender. She is sympathetic and interviewed many such people and parents. Her conclusion that many young women are identifying as transgender due to social hysteria is accurate.

Do you really think a young woman would change her body in this way to follow a trend?! Are there many cases of women regretting the fact that they changed their sex?

I suggest you read up on social psychology. Many teenagers are vulnerable to influence of every sort.

You might want to read up on the 17th century witch trials.

The problem (one of) is that the meaning of gender has changed over time. For second wave feminists reading Judith Butler, it meant a kind of performance in line with social expectations. What was progressive was that men and women could reject those societal stereotypes: a woman could be a truck driver and still be a woman, a man could be an nurse and still be a man. With fourth wave feminism, gender became something innate, like a kind of spirit. It became seen as a spectrum. The problem with this view however, is that each end of the spectrum collapses gender into the very stereotypes that second wave feminism was trying to free men and women from. Not very progressive. And, if gender is a spectrum and you have Barbie for women at one end and GI Joe for men on the other, we’re all non-binary and no one gets to be ‘special’ and cool anymore. Because nobody is literally Barbie or GI Joe. So then, what is a man and what is a woman?

The author acknowledges that some people are born with anomalies and some people genuinely believe they are the other gender.

You seem to subscribe to the notion that gender dysphoria is a "belief", supposedly one that can be corrected, and not an actual condition.

She is sympathetic and interviewed many such people and parents. Her conclusion that many young women are identifying as transgender due to social hysteria is accurate.

It is puzzling that Shrier distinguishes between people she "allows" to be trans and people she doesn't, based purely on their age. Trans adults don't spontaneously form out of nowhere. It is genuinely disturbing to categorically decide that young trans people are merely following a trend, consequently deny them any sort of agency over their own identity, and advocating that they should hide part of their identity in shame and eventually hate themselves for what they are.

Also, can we just note that by calling the supposed trend to sway young girls "contagion", Shrier very consciously likens transness to a sickness. As much as she wants to give it that thin veil of "sympathy", there is really nothing resembling that nuance to her book.

You seem to subscribe to the notion that gender dysphoria is a "belief", supposedly one that can be corrected, and not an actual condition.

It is a condition, but how many really have this?

Time to put a stop to this ridiculous nonsense.

It is a condition, but how many really have this?

Unsurprisingly, it's hard to make a firm statement. Estimates range between 0.01% and 0.5%, i.e. roughly somewhere between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 2,000 people.

That's just numbers though. The way you pose the question begs another one: What's the threshold above which we care about people's conditions, and beneath which we dismiss them as "nonsense"?

If people choose to do whatever when they're an adult that's on them but it's a form of brainwashing to push this stuff towards kids who haven't fully developed their brain yet.

The problem is that so many people these days mistake skepticism for being anti-transgender.

Even those who are sympathetic to transgender people often get slapped with an anti-trans label because they are not extreme enough in their support for the cause.

I just think people are being too crazy about something that doesn't affect them. If other people's kids want to go trans, then let them. If the kids grow up screwed up, they grow up screwed up. You know, how it's always been.

All this craziness on it just makes more kids want to do it to rebel.

Y'all way to hung up on this.

Kadokawa pulled the book from its slate in December after concluding the translated title and sales copy announcing its release was hurtful to the transgender community.

The actual reason why the book is radioactive is not that it is hurtful, but that is a well known compilation of falsehoods trying to push a deeply antiscientific approach that has been debunked completely already.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/abigail-shriers-irreversible-damage-a-wealth-of-irreversible-misinformation/

In brief, Shrier’s book is a fear-filled screed, full of misinformation, biological and medical inaccuracies, logical fallacies, and propaganda.

This makes as much sense as publishing a book about how antibiotics are just poison and that cancer does not exist.

The book explains what has been happening in the West, mostly to girls but yes also to some boys.

This only applies if by "explains" you mean "openly lies about"

But after telling people about what's going on in schools and the medical industry it is very clear they want none of that here.

Did you "tell" people the current scientific and medical consensus? or as the book does only a biased, unscientific view that do not correspond to reality? why would any population "want none" about people receiving proper medical care for a condition that is well recognized and can be treated?

It is a condition, but how many really have this?

It would be natural to assume the people that know best about the topic would also be the ones that know when the patients suffer from it or not.

Yes, they are vulnerable to influence. All humans are vulnerable to influence.

Yet, the book (and many others) can only make their point by promoting things easily debunked, exactly as if the patients were not just influenced but actually suffering from a condition that improves very importantly with the treatment that is being criticized.

but it's a form of brainwashing to push this stuff towards kids who haven't fully developed their brain yet.

What evidence do you have to contradict the experts in the field that are the ones deciding if it is justified or not? without that evidence the ones "pushing this stuff" are the people that prevent their justified treatment based only on personal beliefs and prejudices.

Having sex assignment surgery is akin to the death penalty-it is not reversible.

Every medical intervention is "not reversible" as anyone that results allergic to even common drugs can attest. As long as the medical intervention is based on the best available science and justifies the risks and downsides with the much bigger benefits that is still perfectly fine.

A book addressing the continuing social contagion of gender confusion is of benefit not only to the West but the East as well.

The actual confusion is about people that systematically try to ignore the consensus of science and like to pretend the experts of the world are wrong without ever showing evidence this is the case.

Why so many here are "discussing" about the content of a book?

Is a book, if that book is good or bad is another thing. That Kadokawa pulled off its publications is regretful, though.

About the theme of the book, if you are interested you read it, if not leave it. The same as to what the personas that decide what to do with their body.

Sankei. No surprise there.

Y'all way to hung up on this

Especially when it gets politicized.

I tend to get very suspicious of politicians and writers/journalists/podcasters who wade into this.

For politicians it’s usually a good topic to deflect attention away from the fact they don’t have any good solutions for chronic problems, and for writers/journalists/podcasters it’s a good and very easy topic to wind up the permanently outraged.

Is a book, if that book is good or bad is another thing. That Kadokawa pulled off its publications is regretful, though.

If someone published about how cancer patients should not be treated at hospitals but instead left at home to be cured by faith it would be a similar situation, it is not that much that the book is "bad" but that it not only contradicts well demonstrated scientific facts, it also puts in risk the health and even life of patients because of mistaken beliefs. Pulling out of print a book that can objectively be proved to lie and have a negative effect in how society treats a vulnerable population is not regretful, it is quite positive.

You can not change your gender any more than you can chance your age or race

What people can do is to receive treatment so their bodies correspond to their gender.

 Pulling out of print a book that can objectively be proved to lie and have a negative effect in how society treats a vulnerable population is not regretful, it is quite positive.

By that stand then there should be a plethora of books that should be unshelfed and taken out of publication.

The thing is, yes desinformaton is bad should be try to eliminated it. But that means to begin censorship, that will eventually end up in some sort of radicalitation or open the way for corruption to dictate what is worng and what is right

It is a disturbing trend. Planned Parenthood does the most transitions in the US and they have said that transgenders are "cash cows." Also, US taxpayers are paying for the vast majority of transgender transitions. Researchers have said that transgenders cost taxpayers from $100,000 to $300,000 USD. I'd bet that money is fueling the bad trend of young people getting transitions.

Also, in the US the leftists are not pushing traditional family values anymore and there is a lot of gay/transgender grooming propaganda that is fueling these bad trends. 38% of Ivy league college students now say they are either gay and/or transgender. The general population is 7%. I'd would also bet money that the percentage of gay/transgender people in other countries that are pushing more traditional family values is much much lower percentage than 7%.

By that stand then there should be a plethora of books that should be unshelfed and taken out of publication

There is a huge difference between saying a book not being published is positive and saying that a book should be taken out of circulation. This is about the first case, a deeply negative book was not published, which is objectively speaking something good. Forbidding its publication would require for it to break the law.

That would be censorship, which is not what happened when someone realized the huge disaster of lies and deception the book was and freely choose not to get behind it.

It is a disturbing trend. Planned Parenthood does the most transitions in the US and they have said that transgenders are "cash cows." 

Any actual source for this? because hearsay is not exactly as strong evidence as you think it is, anybody can claim an employee said something, but it is not a realistic claim at all, specially with zero evidence of this actually happening.

Researchers have said that transgenders cost taxpayers from $100,000 to $300,000 USD. I'd

How about a source? Also, cancer patients cost around 200 billion USD a year, do you think this justifies refusing to treat them? there are much more cancer patients than transgender kids, so you can save a lot more money by letting them suffer, right?

Also, in the US the leftists are not pushing traditional family values anymore and there is a lot of gay/transgender grooming propaganda that is fueling these bad trends

The medical consensus is not propaganda, so it does not matter at all who is the one repeating what the doctors and experts on the field say, it would still be what is supported by science.

I'd would also bet money that the percentage of gay/transgender people in other countries that are pushing more traditional family values is much much lower percentage than 7%.

You mean you think that discriminating people may make those being discriminated against hide so it would appear there are less than what they actually are?

The surprise is not that this would happen, but that you consider this something positive.

@virusrex

mmm, well as I must say I disagree with you. Censorship is none the less, before publishing or not. Kadokawa's decision may have been based on public opinon or otherwise but still it is a form of censorship.

The only way to fight miss information is pubilshing the correct information, not censoring it.

@virusrex

It is a disturbing trend. Planned Parenthood does the most transitions in the US and they have said that transgenders are "cash cows." 

Any actual source for this? because hearsay is not exactly as strong evidence as you think it is, anybody can claim an employee said something, but it is not a realistic claim at all, specially with zero evidence of this actually happening.

"The Planned Parenthood clinic where she worked was located in a small town of roughly 30,000. Abortions were the clinic’s “bread and butter,” something this employee fully supports. But, she noted, “trans identifying kids are cash cows, and they are kept on the hook for the foreseeable future in terms of follow-up appointments, bloodwork, meetings, etc., whereas abortions are (hopefully) a one-and-done situation.”

https://www.liveaction.org/news/transgender-identifying-individuals-planned-parenthood-cash-cows/https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/11/employee-trans-identifying-kids-are-cash-cows-for-planned-parenthood/

Researchers have said that transgenders cost taxpayers from $100,000 to $300,000 USD. I'd

How about a source? Also, cancer patients cost around 200 billion USD a year, do you think this justifies refusing to treat them? there are much more cancer patients than transgender kids, so you can save a lot more money by letting them suffer, right?

Washington Examiner article posted on MSN. "In the United States, costs for UTx range between $100,000 and $300,000." Long term revenue stream with all the lifelong transgender hormones, steroids, medications, blood tests, etc. that need to be done for life.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/ama-plots-move-on-taxpayer-funded-uterus-transplants-for-biological-men/ar-AA1fhKKD

Also, in the US the leftists are not pushing traditional family values anymore and there is a lot of gay/transgender grooming propaganda that is fueling these bad trends

The medical consensus is not propaganda, so it does not matter at all who is the one repeating what the doctors and experts on the field say, it would still be what is supported by science.

The medical consensus can be propaganda if there is lots of money to be made. Look at the vaccines. Trillions made by the vaccine companies for vaccines that don't really work. Smoking was propagated for decades for being safe by the medical consensus. Zantac was considered safe by the medical consensus for decades and has been recalled due to cancer risk.

I'd would also bet money that the percentage of gay/transgender people in other countries that are pushing more traditional family values is much much lower percentage than 7%.

You mean you think that discriminating people may make those being discriminated against hide so it would appear there are less than what they actually are?

The surprise is not that this would happen, but that you consider this something positive.

There hasn't been much discrimination for the gay/transgender community since the 90s in the US. Gay/transgender grooming on kids is not good. There are so many kids that are saying they are gay/transgender when they haven't even gone through puberty or even know what sex is. How many young kids have you seen that still believe in Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc and think they are Superman, Superwoman, Spiderman, Spongebob Squarepants, etc and you think it is ok to let them authorize their own transition surgeries? Now the push is trying to allow minors to authorize their own transitions without parental authorization or knowledge. There has been a large increase of the number of transgenders that transitioned as kids and years later are regretting their decisions and are altered for life. The adults around them failed them.

Picking just one of the gish-gallop arguments:

"In the United States, costs for UTx range between $100,000 and $300,000."

That's for a uterus transplant, of which only a handful have been done -- on non-trans women. It is currently not even feasible or considered for trans women. Applying the very much theoretical price tag for the still experimental uterus transplant procedure to trans people in general is the worst-faith argument one can possibly make.

Tei Uka

Picking just one of the gish-gallop arguments:

"In the United States, costs for UTx range between $100,000 and $300,000."

That's for a uterus transplant, of which only a handful have been done -- on non-trans women. It is currently not even feasible or considered for trans women. Applying the very much theoretical price tag for the still experimental uterus transplant procedure to trans people in general is the worst-faith argument one can possibly make.

The UTx was just one example of the major costs for transgender surgeries. Most are having expensive surgeries and procedures, not to mention the cost of the lifetime medications, blood tests, and other medical and psychological support. Taxpayers should not be funding elective transgender transitions which many are and they are pushing for more in the US.

"In the first five years, the researchers found, providing health care for transgender people cost between $34,000 and $43,000 per year of quality of life; after 10 years, the cost dropped to between $7,000 and $10,000 per year of quality of life."

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2015/study-paying-for-transgender-health-care-cost-effective

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2876834/the-biden-administration-wants-taxpayers-to-fund-gender-transitions-for-children/

The UTx was just one example of the major costs for transgender surgeries.

Then it's an extraordinarily bad example since it is not a transgender surgery.

"In the first five years, the researchers found, providing health care for transgender people cost between $34,000 and $43,000 per year of quality of life

The same article also says, "Most health insurance plans do not cover care associated with transitioning to the opposite sex". And, "U.S., policymakers consider something cost-effective if the price is below $100,000 per year of quality of life"

As for articles in the "Washington Examiner", sorry, they really are not worth wasting any energy on.

Also, in the US the leftists are not pushing traditional family values anymore

Let's be real, extremist right-wing parents are the worst parents of all.

@Tei Uka

The same article also says, "Most health insurance plans do not cover care associated with transitioning to the opposite sex". And, "U.S., policymakers consider something cost-effective if the price is below $100,000 per year of quality of life"

I live in the US (California) and am a US citizen. Obamacare created lots of subsidized transition in government subsidized healthcare. So, yes, taxpayers are paying for transitions for transgenders. You don't think $34,000 to $43,000 per year is not a lot of money for taxpayers? That is likely millions over their life span.

"Almost all Medi-Cal plans in California have an HMO model. Most gender affirming care is covered under Medi-Cal."

https://transcare.ucsf.edu/insurance-information#:~:text=Almost%20all%20Medi-Cal%20plans,Cal%20at%2C%20or%20our%20office..

Censorship is none the less, before publishing or not.

You make no argument, a company choosing not to publish a book that openly lies and puts in danger the health or even lives of a marginalized population is not censoring, if anything you trying to force that company to publish that book would be the real transgression of rights.

 But, she noted...

That is still only hearsay, there is no evidence whatsoever that this conversation even took place, much less that it is reported accurately, if that is your source anybody can rebuke it with something of the same (non-) quality by saying he was there and this was not said.

Washington Examiner article posted on MSN

Again, according to you this also justifies not treating people for cancer, or any other condition whatsoever. When your only argument is to save money by letting people suffer even when something can be done about it you are arguing for deeply immoral and unethical conditions for a society. People that push for progress in the other hand see the huge value for society that is treating the conditions of the people so everybody can be as healthy as possible.

The medical consensus can be propaganda if there is lots of money to be made

To make that argument you need first evidence, else this is worthless, someone saying microbes don't exist or that cancer happens because people don't pay enough money to their churches could be using that argument to explain why the scientific consensus contradicts what they say.

Do you have that evidence? if not then the scientific consensus (in a global scale) is simply much more likely to be correct than baseless accusations of the opposite.

There hasn't been much discrimination for the gay/transgender community since the 90s in the US.

The organizations that represent that community clearly contradict you, the same for those that protect human rights and equality. What evidence do you have they are wrong? obviously a personal opinion about something you are clearly not interested about is not enough, you would need objective data that refutes what they present.

I live in the US (California) and am a US citizen.

That's fine, noone will hold that against you.

So, yes, taxpayers are paying for transitions for transgenders.

Not according to the article you yourself referenced, all the while the article actually advocates for that. "For this small investment for a small number of people, we could improve their lives significantly and make them more productive members of society.”

You don't think $34,000 to $43,000 per year is not a lot of money for taxpayers?

According to, again, the article you referenced: "The new analysis calculated that the cost to cover transgender people would be fewer than two pennies per month for every person with health insurance coverage in the United States."

I get where you're coming from, literally and figuratively. But if you want to argue against public health paying for the cost, maybe don't underpin it with an article that literally argues the opposite.

@Tei Uka

I live in the US (California) and am a US citizen.

That's fine, noone will hold that against you.

So, yes, taxpayers are paying for transitions for transgenders.

Not according to the article you yourself referenced, all the while the article actually advocates for that. "For this small investment for a small number of people, we could improve their lives significantly and make them more productive members of society.”

You don't think $34,000 to $43,000 per year is not a lot of money for taxpayers?

According to, again, the article you referenced: "The new analysis calculated that the cost to cover transgender people would be fewer than two pennies per month for every person with health insurance coverage in the United States."

But being a US citizen and living in California, gives me experience and knowledge to what goes in the US that many of in Japan are not knowledgeable about.

The first article was to show the exorbinant costs of transgender care per year. If you notice, the article was in 2015. That is a long time ago, costs have gone up dramatically, and the healthcare industry has dramatically changed. At the time of that article in 2015, transgenders were not covered under private insurance. However, once Obamacare kicked in after, the healthcare landscape changed greatly with much more government involvement. Thus, transgenders were put on the coverage and subsidized in many states and by the US military.

Now, Democrats are pushing for all transgenders to be covered by taxpayers. Coverage varies by state, but in my state of California, transgenders are subsidized greatly by taxpayers. I don't think taxpayers should be paying for elective transgender transitions of any age and especially on minors.

Again: "Almost all Medi-Cal plans in California have an HMO model. Most gender affirming care is covered under Medi-Cal. "

The first article was to show the exorbinant costs of transgender care per year.

It failed then. Your mileage may vary, but "two pennies per month per insured person" does not seem "exorbitant" in my book. But I hear your argument that the prices have changed significantly? You have any substantiation for that?

the healthcare landscape changed greatly with much more government involvement. Thus, transgenders were put on the coverage and subsidized in many states and by the US military.

I accept that and happily stand corrected. I would like to add, though, that this is not an exclusively US-American issue, and viewing it through that particular lens may one leave quite a bit myopic.

Democrats are pushing for all transgenders to be covered by taxpayers. (...) I don't think taxpayers should be paying for elective transgender transitions

You keep saying "taxpayers", but talk about health insurance. I am not completely steadfast on the US health insurance system, but correct me if I'm wrong when I say it is not a national health insurance like here in Japan. So what does it have to do with "taxpayers" then?

I note your usage of "elective". As far as I know, nobody can "elect" to have such surgery without documentation of the necessary psychological condition, previous hormone therapy, and a thorough consultation with an estimate of readiness. Noone can willy-nilly walk into a hospital and yell "cut off my penis please". Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

of any age and especially on minors.

That is an entirely different discussion to have.

But being a US citizen and living in California, gives me experience and knowledge to what goes in the US that many of in Japan are not knowledgeable about

Whithout a valid appeal to an authority in the field that still is hearsay.

You still have not answered what is your position about the money "wasted" on improving the health and lives of people that have a wide variety of conditions. According to your argument no money should be spend on this either.

Having a personal opinion about how people should be left untreated for your convenience is one thing (not a very positive one) but trying to make the argument about this self-centered approach should be adopted requires more than just saying this is what you would like to be done, for that you would need someone with actual authority on public health related matters saying this claim is correct.

If you are unable to find this reference, that by itself would indicate how wrong it is.

But it's still an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy.