So is this some kind of ad hominem ? And is it Abigail or Amanda make up your mind. And besides it doesn’t make her wrong or ignorant. There are plenty of educational theorists, well credentialed who have messed up our education system beyond belief, in fact virtually all education theorists for the last 50 years have proven themselves to be ignorant of what people are and how they can be taught and motivated. Start with Henry Giroux and we can go from there. So credentials do not make one knowledgeable nor intelligent necessarily. So what is your point exactly?
Par for the course, really. Funny that even a typical school admin probably has deeper classroom experience than AS has as a ‘journalist’. Tablet mag. ran a good article quite recently about the quid-pro-quo / mutually reinforced ecosystem of political/MSM advocacy and back-scratching as practiced and updated for Century 21 by the Obama crew. It was interesting and informative and I was psyched to see Matt Taibbi cite it a few days later. But of course it didn’t conclusively prove that incestuous media connections only exist in the Team D universe. So Thanks for streaking Shier’s mascara. She’s not all bad; her most recent book raised some necessary questions re youth mental health treatment. (Though it is evident that she’s primarily a journalistic attack dog.) But scapegoating teachers is essentially a familiar right-wing dog whistle. As you make clear, it reflects thin observation based on shaky pre-conceived notions. Yay for the push-back! There is plenty to do when it comes to clarifying how teaching and education - specifically public education - actually looks and feels from the inside. We can start by reminding John Q Public that the picture differs from place to place; that’s a point I re-appreciated recently when my elderly, right-wing FIL recently allowed as to how he thought public education was a federal responsibility. Shrier may know better but…who cares about bothersome specifics when there’s a hot-take story to be told?
Yeah, I can't say I really disagree with her on transgender nonsense and I'm certainly no fan of unions. But she just says complete blather while making the points that gets her attention.
The bigger question, really, is why it took someone of the “unqualified calibre” of Abigail to open the dialogue on this mess. You are asking the wrong question. We know the answer but apparently this confused you……
Even if you agree with Shirer 100% in principle (I do), there’s a lot of people who could have done a way better job advocating for the cause that for whatever reason didn’t have the access she did.
Par for the course, really. Funny that even a typical school admin probably has deeper experience. Tablet mag. ran a good article quite recently about the quid-pro-quo / mutually reinforced ecosystem of political/MSM advocacy and back-scratching practiced and updated for Century 21 by the Obama crew. It was interesting and informative and I was psyched to see Matt Taibi cite it a few days later. But it didn’t conclusively prove that incestuous media connections only exist in the Team D universe. Thanks for streaking Shier’s mascara.
As a parent actually going through the trans-madness, Shrier's book was the first to speak clearly about what we were going through. Very few other writers on it had broken out of algo-world then. It helped us to breathe. And it has peaked more other parents than any other source that I know of. You'll have to trust me on this, but the book was a life raft of sanity in a raging ocean of crazy gender unicorns and horrifyingly obtuse 23 year old woke school counselors trying to explain to me why my child, whom they had known for only a few weeks, needed a sex change operation.
That's just factually untrue. Shrier's book wasn't the first. There had been lots of discussion about the issues for years before her book came out.
I deeply sympathize with what happened to you but it's also true that school laws in *many* states had changed by 2016, not 2020, and it doesn't matter whether your school counselor was woke or not. You all spend too much time focusing on the opinion of whoever is delivering the bad news. But the truth is a teacher or counselor could adamantly oppose the law and still have to follow it.
Obsessing about the process and the random anecdotes, as Shrier does, is just stupid. Go fight the laws. Which she rarely mentions.
I recommend you do exactly what Shrier did, or what Lisa Littman did before here. Go talk to parents who have been through this. "Go fight the laws" doesn't really mean anything when you can lose your job for even bringing it up. Or worse, lose your own child.
In good faith, I recommend examining your own certainty. If you've read the book, or read Littman's original study at Brown, you might have a chance to understand this. Shrier's book, which I do believe is quite good, was not written from a policy perspective to "go fight the laws." It was to explain and investigate a phenomenon, like Littman's paper, using a qualitative analysis. You clearly have no idea of what "obsessing" means when your child is going through something like this. Those "random anecdotes" are parents' very real lives that came crashing down all around them. Again, examine your certainty. It just makes you sound like an ass.
And I believe I did say that there were other writers covering it, but mostly within narrow spaces and not in the mainstream quite like Shrier's. That's obviously why it was banned at first.
And many of us are out there fighting for legislation while at the same time trying to help other parents who are going through this, and explaining the phenomenon to others who may not quite understand it. That's how you build momentum for new legislation. We walk and chew gum at the same time, too. Why assume you can explain others' experiences like that? It's kind of sad, even if your goal is in the right place.
Yeah, I can only assume grief has clouded your reading skills.
Your post is utterly irrelevant to anything I'm saying. For example, you say I'm "certain". Of what? Nothing other than the fact that Shrier is allowing Wikipedia to lie about her experiences, and that she has been completely inept in two of her stories. The word "transgender" appears only to describe a book she wrote.
Stop your sad tales. They aren't relevant. Your experiences and her journalistic integrity are not in any way linked. And if she turns out to be a fraud, or someone who stretches the truth to get attention, it doesn't change the status of your stories one bit.
This article is on the fact that she has no experience, that her wikipedia page is incomplete and dishonest, that she almost certainly got published not because of her great skill but because she's got a lot of good contacts. The article is also about how, once you start looking, it's clear that a lot of people who just appear out of nowhere didn't do so because of talent or ability, but contacts.
Please note the utter absence of transgender issues, and stop making it about yourself.
You want a "filtering process" based on... what criteria exactly? Credentials? "Expertise"? Getting a good ACT score while coloring within the lines on progressive issues doesn't actually mean you are entitled to an audience. For that you have to write something someone wants to read or finds helpful. This sounds overwhelmingly like sour grapes.
So is this some kind of ad hominem ? And is it Abigail or Amanda make up your mind. And besides it doesn’t make her wrong or ignorant. There are plenty of educational theorists, well credentialed who have messed up our education system beyond belief, in fact virtually all education theorists for the last 50 years have proven themselves to be ignorant of what people are and how they can be taught and motivated. Start with Henry Giroux and we can go from there. So credentials do not make one knowledgeable nor intelligent necessarily. So what is your point exactly?
If you can't understand what's written, not much point in wasting more time on you.
I'm wondering if you understand what you've written.
I'm not.
It’s not an ad hominem because she points to the flaws in her work.
Par for the course, really. Funny that even a typical school admin probably has deeper classroom experience than AS has as a ‘journalist’. Tablet mag. ran a good article quite recently about the quid-pro-quo / mutually reinforced ecosystem of political/MSM advocacy and back-scratching as practiced and updated for Century 21 by the Obama crew. It was interesting and informative and I was psyched to see Matt Taibbi cite it a few days later. But of course it didn’t conclusively prove that incestuous media connections only exist in the Team D universe. So Thanks for streaking Shier’s mascara. She’s not all bad; her most recent book raised some necessary questions re youth mental health treatment. (Though it is evident that she’s primarily a journalistic attack dog.) But scapegoating teachers is essentially a familiar right-wing dog whistle. As you make clear, it reflects thin observation based on shaky pre-conceived notions. Yay for the push-back! There is plenty to do when it comes to clarifying how teaching and education - specifically public education - actually looks and feels from the inside. We can start by reminding John Q Public that the picture differs from place to place; that’s a point I re-appreciated recently when my elderly, right-wing FIL recently allowed as to how he thought public education was a federal responsibility. Shrier may know better but…who cares about bothersome specifics when there’s a hot-take story to be told?
Yeah, I can't say I really disagree with her on transgender nonsense and I'm certainly no fan of unions. But she just says complete blather while making the points that gets her attention.
The bigger question, really, is why it took someone of the “unqualified calibre” of Abigail to open the dialogue on this mess. You are asking the wrong question. We know the answer but apparently this confused you……
She didn't open the dialogue. She didn't even accelerate the dialogue and she sure as shit didn't add anything new to the discussion.
And no, that's not the bigger question.
Why are you so threatened by her? Your handle is a good laugh by the way.
Even if you agree with Shirer 100% in principle (I do), there’s a lot of people who could have done a way better job advocating for the cause that for whatever reason didn’t have the access she did.
Par for the course, really. Funny that even a typical school admin probably has deeper experience. Tablet mag. ran a good article quite recently about the quid-pro-quo / mutually reinforced ecosystem of political/MSM advocacy and back-scratching practiced and updated for Century 21 by the Obama crew. It was interesting and informative and I was psyched to see Matt Taibi cite it a few days later. But it didn’t conclusively prove that incestuous media connections only exist in the Team D universe. Thanks for streaking Shier’s mascara.
As a parent actually going through the trans-madness, Shrier's book was the first to speak clearly about what we were going through. Very few other writers on it had broken out of algo-world then. It helped us to breathe. And it has peaked more other parents than any other source that I know of. You'll have to trust me on this, but the book was a life raft of sanity in a raging ocean of crazy gender unicorns and horrifyingly obtuse 23 year old woke school counselors trying to explain to me why my child, whom they had known for only a few weeks, needed a sex change operation.
That's just factually untrue. Shrier's book wasn't the first. There had been lots of discussion about the issues for years before her book came out.
I deeply sympathize with what happened to you but it's also true that school laws in *many* states had changed by 2016, not 2020, and it doesn't matter whether your school counselor was woke or not. You all spend too much time focusing on the opinion of whoever is delivering the bad news. But the truth is a teacher or counselor could adamantly oppose the law and still have to follow it.
Obsessing about the process and the random anecdotes, as Shrier does, is just stupid. Go fight the laws. Which she rarely mentions.
I recommend you do exactly what Shrier did, or what Lisa Littman did before here. Go talk to parents who have been through this. "Go fight the laws" doesn't really mean anything when you can lose your job for even bringing it up. Or worse, lose your own child.
In good faith, I recommend examining your own certainty. If you've read the book, or read Littman's original study at Brown, you might have a chance to understand this. Shrier's book, which I do believe is quite good, was not written from a policy perspective to "go fight the laws." It was to explain and investigate a phenomenon, like Littman's paper, using a qualitative analysis. You clearly have no idea of what "obsessing" means when your child is going through something like this. Those "random anecdotes" are parents' very real lives that came crashing down all around them. Again, examine your certainty. It just makes you sound like an ass.
And I believe I did say that there were other writers covering it, but mostly within narrow spaces and not in the mainstream quite like Shrier's. That's obviously why it was banned at first.
And many of us are out there fighting for legislation while at the same time trying to help other parents who are going through this, and explaining the phenomenon to others who may not quite understand it. That's how you build momentum for new legislation. We walk and chew gum at the same time, too. Why assume you can explain others' experiences like that? It's kind of sad, even if your goal is in the right place.
Yeah, I can only assume grief has clouded your reading skills.
Your post is utterly irrelevant to anything I'm saying. For example, you say I'm "certain". Of what? Nothing other than the fact that Shrier is allowing Wikipedia to lie about her experiences, and that she has been completely inept in two of her stories. The word "transgender" appears only to describe a book she wrote.
Stop your sad tales. They aren't relevant. Your experiences and her journalistic integrity are not in any way linked. And if she turns out to be a fraud, or someone who stretches the truth to get attention, it doesn't change the status of your stories one bit.
This article is on the fact that she has no experience, that her wikipedia page is incomplete and dishonest, that she almost certainly got published not because of her great skill but because she's got a lot of good contacts. The article is also about how, once you start looking, it's clear that a lot of people who just appear out of nowhere didn't do so because of talent or ability, but contacts.
Please note the utter absence of transgender issues, and stop making it about yourself.
You want a "filtering process" based on... what criteria exactly? Credentials? "Expertise"? Getting a good ACT score while coloring within the lines on progressive issues doesn't actually mean you are entitled to an audience. For that you have to write something someone wants to read or finds helpful. This sounds overwhelmingly like sour grapes.
For me to give a shit about your opinion you'd have to know what the fuck you're talking about. protip, dipshit: I'm not progressive.
Sure. Still sour grapes.
Probably filtering based on the work being high quality and accurate.
How come you no longer comment over at Steve Sailer's blogs?
I can't subscribe to his substack as Ed, and the unz one got too weird for me.