On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar. The basic concept of the Supreme Court ruling was that the state of Colorado was wrong to ban what is called conversion therapy. 
The 2019 Colorado law prohibited licensed mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with patients under 18 years of age. They defined conversion therapy to include any practice or treatment that attempts to change an individual&#8217;s sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as any effort to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions toward individuals of the same sex.
That same law allowed counselors to provide “acceptance, support, and understanding for identity exploration and development,” and to assist persons “undergoing gender transition.”
In other words, the Colorado law said that if a kid comes to you with gender confusion, you are not allowed to say, “Boys are boys and girls are girls. Let&#8217;s help you be more comfortable in your body.”
If a boy says, “I&#8217;m a girl, “you have to affirm him. And if you don&#8217;t affirm him, you&#8217;re engaged in conversion therapy, and you can be prosecuted under the law in the state of Colorado.
If a kid comes to you and says, “Listen, I&#8217;m confused about my feelings of sexual attraction,” you&#8217;re not allowed to talk that through and say, “You know what? You&#8217;re 14 years old. A lot of people are confused about sexual attraction at 14 years old. You&#8217;re being hit by hormones that you&#8217;ve never experienced before, and you really don&#8217;t have any sort of clear line as to how to live your life, so let&#8217;s talk this thing through.”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2400-sub?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
That might be conversion therapy, because that could be construed as an attempt to change behavior, or eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction toward individuals of the same sex.
Instead, you&#8217;re supposed to just give that kid a Pride flag and tell them to get out there and march.
The plaintiff in this case, Kelly Chiles, holds a master&#8217;s degree in clinical mental health and a state counseling license in Colorado.
According to the Supreme Court, Chiles doesn&#8217;t start counseling with any predetermined goals. Instead, she sits down with clients, discusses their goals, and then formulates methods of counseling that will most benefit them, seeking throughout to respect their client&#8217;s fundamental right of self-determination, matters of sexuality and gender. The clients sometimes have different agendas, according to the Supreme Court; some are perfectly happy being gay or lesbian or transgender identifying, and others want to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, or change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with their bodies.
Under Colorado law, those last people are just plumb out of luck. There&#8217;s nothing they can do. Because if you, for example, are a person who has a fetish and you don&#8217;t want to have that fetish anymore, according to Colorado law, you are not allowed as a therapist to try to change an individual&#8217;s behaviors regarding sexual or romantic attraction.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who is not a strict textualist when it comes to these matters, wrote the opinion, and his basic opinion is pretty simple: The First Amendment allows therapists to say what they want to say during therapy. 
The only person who voted in dissent was, of course — wait for it — Ketanji Brown Jackson, the dumbest person on the Supreme Court.
This is saying a lot because Sonia Sotomayor is also on the Supreme Court.
Gorsuch wrote:
<blockquote>Consistent with the First Amendment’s jealous protections for the individual’s right to think and speak freely, this Court has long held that laws regulating speech based on its subject matter or “communicative content” are “presumptively unconstitutional.” &#8230; We have recognized, as well, the even greater dangers associated with regulations that discriminate based on the speaker’s point of view.</blockquote>
In other words, the big problem here is that it&#8217;s not just that Colorado is putting regulations on speech; those regulations on speech are content-dependent. Colorado says you can say these things that we agree with, but you cannot say these things with which we disagree.
Gorsuch continued:
<blockquote>While the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech. And that is exactly the kind of expression in which Ms. Chiles seeks to engage. As a talk therapist, all Ms. Chiles does is speak with clients; she does not prescribe medication, use medical devices, or employ any physical methods. &#8230;
Consider, too, where the State and dissent’s logic leads. Not long ago, many medical experts and organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, considered homosexuality a mental disorder. On the view Colorado and the dissent advance, a law adopted during that era prohibiting counselors from engaging in the “substandard care” of affirming their clients’ homosexuality would have been subject to only rational-basis or intermediate-scrutiny review—and likely upheld. Today, tomorrow, and forever, too, any professional speech that deviates from “current beliefs about the safety and efficacy of various medical treatments” could be silenced with relative ease.</blockquote>
In other words, the court is saying, “If Colorado is suggesting that a state can determine what is the best course of care with regard to opinions on open matters of gender and sexuality, and then mandate that sort of stuff on subject matter basis, that is violation of free speech.”
The court goes out of its way to really slap Jackson. That last statement — “Today, tomorrow, and forever, too, any professional speech that deviates from ‘current beliefs about the safety and efficacy of various medical treatments’ could be silenced with relative ease,” is followed by this: “It is a consequence Colorado freely acknowledges. And one the dissent embraces.”
The opinion then cites Buck v. Bell. That is a scathing rebuttal to Jackson, because Buck v. Bell was the case that suggested that you had the ability under the law to sexually sterilize inmates of institutions, because that was the prevailing science of the time. Jackson has said that she liked that law.
Jackson said in the Chiles case that Colorado was simply “restricting a dangerous therapy modality,” adding that the court&#8217;s opinion was “unprincipled and unworkable.” She followed with a long statement about how wonderful the gender orientation of left-wing philosophy is.
Ketanji Brown Jackson&#8217;s dissent is a reminder that if the Left had complete control over the mechanisms of government, it would simply regulate into law all of the most specious and idiotic views about science.
Without President Trump as president, we were super-close to that world, because President Trump is responsible for several selections on the Supreme Court. In this case, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor ruled with the majority. 
But if there were a bunch of Democratic appointees on the court, is that how this would have gone?

Blue Hour, United States Supreme Court Building, Washington DC, America

Supreme Court Ends Colorado’s War On Reality

Ben Shapiro

Colorado

Conversion Therapy

Mental Health

Opinion

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

Teenagers

There is a not-so-secret war being waged for control of your kid&#8217;s mind.
Who owns your child&#8217;s mind? Social media companies? The government?
Or is it you?
A landmark lawsuit that just sent a gigantic shockwave through Silicon Valley. Meta (Facebook) and YouTube (Google) were found negligent in facilitating social media addiction.
Let’s break down the case that could upend Big Tech, reshape AI regulation, and force a national reckoning over parenting power and responsibility.
The legal case found both companies were negligent in facilitating social media addiction. According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html">The New York Times</a>:
<blockquote>The bellwether case, which was brought by a now 20-year-old woman identified as K.G.M., had accused social media companies of creating products as addictive as cigarettes or digital casinos. Citing features like infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations, K.G.M. sued Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, and Google’s YouTube, claiming they led to anxiety and depression. &#8230; 
K.G.M., whose first name is Kaley, filed her lawsuit in 2023 against Meta, Snap, YouTube and TikTok. Kaley, who lives in Chico, Calif., said she had begun using social media at age 6 and claimed the sites caused personal injury, including body dysmorphia and thoughts of self harm. </blockquote>
Variety said that the verdict was rooted in an argument around cigarette addiction. Back in the 1990s, there were settlements with the big tobacco companies where it was found that the tobacco companies fraudulently marketed products they knew were addictive as non-addictive, and that drew millions of people into serious health risks like lung cancer.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2396-sub?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
That doesn&#8217;t seem like a crazy take. We were told originally that social media would be a gigantic benefit for all of us. It would open “new vistas.” We&#8217;d all experience “new worlds.” We&#8217;d have “so many friends.” (Yeah, they&#8217;d be Facebook friends, but they were still friends.) We&#8217;d never have to go outside again. We&#8217;d all live in the metaverse, etc.
All of that was untrue. All of these social media companies are clickbait machines. That is what they are designed to do, in Pavlovian style.
Stanford psychiatrist Anna Lembke, who wrote a book called “Dopamine Nation,” speaks about this. She writes:
<blockquote>We&#8217;re wired to connect. It&#8217;s kept us alive for millions of years in a world of scarcity and ever-present danger. Moving in tribes safeguards against predators optimizes scarce resources and facilitates pair bonding.
Our brains release dopamine when we make human connections, and that incentivizes us to do it again. Social connection has now become drugified by social media apps, making us vulnerable to compulsive overconsumption. These apps can cause the release of large amounts of dopamine into our brains’ reward pathway all at once, like heroin. meth or alcohol. They do that by amplifying the feel-good properties that attract humans to each other in the first place.</blockquote>
It&#8217;s not just the social connection. It&#8217;s also because when you scroll on X, it&#8217;s literally designed to provide a brief dopamine rush. That&#8217;s why there&#8217;s that little sound effect. It&#8217;s almost a literal Pavlovian response. A Pavlovian response was established when you rang a bell in front of a dog and fed it a piece of meat at the same time. Eventually, when you rang the bell, the dog would start to salivate even if the meat wasn&#8217;t there because the brain had now been trained: Bell means meat, so bell causes salivation.
Social media companies do that too. This is why when you scroll, there&#8217;s a little sound effect. You&#8217;re going to get a dopamine hit, even if nothing new appears, just because you hear that little sound effect. 
Social media companies are arguing that they&#8217;re not the ones who are actually causing the addiction to really serious stuff. They say, “Sure, our algorithms are designed to make you click, but it&#8217;s the videos themselves that are responsible for the harm, not the design of the product.” 
In other words, if you were watching lots of cooking videos on social media and it fed you an infinite loop of cooking videos and not skinny influencers, you&#8217;d be totally fine. You&#8217;re the one who decides whether you are clicking on skinny influencers or whether you&#8217;re clicking on cooking videos. And what&#8217;s more, it turns out, these social media companies aren&#8217;t the ones who are actually making the content. The social media companies say, &#8220;We&#8217;re a platform, like a phone line.&#8221;
Yes, they make money by featuring viral content, but the consumer picks which content to actually watch. The person posting the content is actually responsible for the content, unless it&#8217;s an AI or a bot these days.
Until now, social media companies have been avoiding legal culpability by citing Section 230. Section 230 says that if you&#8217;re a platform and your website has a comment section, you&#8217;re not responsible for what&#8217;s in the comments.
If you&#8217;re YouTube, you&#8217;re not responsible for the content of the videos that are on YouTube because you&#8217;re just providing the platform on which others can post.
Section 230 says that all of these platforms ought not be held liable for content produced by others.
But that&#8217;s not on point.
The actual argument here is that these social media sites are, by their very nature, addictive, and that almost no matter what the content is, the medium is damaging to kids.
This raises a broader question for parents. Are you responsible for your children and their social media use?
The answer here should be yes.
My kids aren&#8217;t on social media because they are banned from using social media. Kids who are addicted to TV also don&#8217;t have great lives, but we don&#8217;t actually hold TV companies responsible for that fact. Nobody&#8217;s suing Apple because your kid is watching Apple TV all day.
That&#8217;s a point made yesterday by Meta&#8217;s president, Dina Powell McCormick, who said, “You know, as a mom, this is really important to me and very personal. I see firsthand just how hard the company is trying to ensure that there&#8217;s not harmful content, to ensure that we are empowering parents to the best of our ability. And it&#8217;s something that I watch being focused on every single day. We respectfully disagree with that decision, and we&#8217;re appealing.”
She&#8217;s not totally wrong here. The fact is that as a parent of four kids, going on five, I&#8217;m all over what my kids are consuming. I decide what movies they watch. I decide what TV shows they watch. They&#8217;re not allowed on social media. They do not have interactive capability on social media, anything like that.
This issue is kind of a sticky wicket, as social media companies are responsible for part of the problem because of the dopamine response. And yes, parents are also responsible for the problem.
Here&#8217;s the actual solution: not gigantic lawsuits. The answer is governmental legislation banning social media for kids under 18. Period.
That is what we should be doing. It&#8217;s what a lot of countries are doing right now — and they are correct to do so.
Users should have to register as over 18. Companies that don&#8217;t do it should be held legally accountable.
If we&#8217;re going to actually carry this analogy all the way through, if we&#8217;re going to treat social media like tobacco or alcohol, then the answer historically wasn&#8217;t to sue tobacco companies for kids smoking, it was to ban kids from smoking. The same is true for alcohol.
The reason I&#8217;m a little bit averse to lawsuits like these is because I think it will be extended to adults. I think what&#8217;s going to happen is that this will be used as a broader argument, not just against social media, where I’m relatively indifferent, but to actual useful technologies like AI, because this is a big societal question: Should we blame technology for our own failures as adults?
Kids are a different story. The reason that this particular lawsuit is emotionally appealing is because it&#8217;s about a kid who got addicted. And kids do get addicted. And honestly, I blame the parents as the primary source.
I don&#8217;t let my kids get addicted to things. It&#8217;s my job to prevent that. I don&#8217;t give my kids candy bars even though they want candy bars every single day, all the time. And if I decide to feed that to them, and they get Type 2 diabetes. I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s on the candy company. I think it&#8217;s on me.
My biggest problem here is that we start blaming technologies for our failures as adults.
We have to look to ourselves to solve some of these problems.

Meta And Youtube Found Liable In Social Media Addiction Lawsuit

Did Social Media Destroy The Kids?

Big Tech

Facebook

Lawsuit

Social Media

social media addiction

YouTube

America’s age of unaccountability was supposed to free its inhabitants of the shackles of stress, sorrow, and self-loathing. Instead, it has tightened them.
A survey of 2,000 young men between the ages of 18 and 29 conducted by the Institute for Family Studies (ISF) found that 42% of young men say, “All in all, I am inclined to think that I am a failure.” Just 32% outright reject this unflattering characterization of themselves.
Attitudes differ based on age (46% of those between the age of 18 and 23 feel like a failure, while just 38% of those between 24 and 29 do), employment status (33% for full time workers, 43% for part time ones, and 56% for the unemployed), and living situation (26% for those married with kids, 46% for those who are married without kids, 49% for those who are unmarried with kids, and 43% for those who unmarried without kids).
The obvious conclusion here is the right one. Productive men with intact families who are better established in their adult lives have a healthier self-conception than unproductive ones without families at an earlier, uncertain point. This observation, when accounted for alongside declining marriage and fertility rates, as well as women’s ever-increasing share of the job market and outstripping of their male peers in education, bodes dismally for America’s men and their sense of self-worth.
As the Institute for Family Studies&#8217; Joseph E. Davis, Michael Toscano, and Ken Burchfiel <a href="https://ifstudies.org/report-brief/americas-demoralized-men-part-1">note</a>, men now account for only 41% of earned college degrees, and they have proven more susceptible to all manner of pitfalls.
<blockquote>Young men have higher rates of conditions such as ADHD and autism and have more problems with drugs, gambling, pornography, and the law. Many young men today have lower earnings and career prospects compared to earlier cohorts &#8230; They have fewer friends, socialize less, and are less civically engaged. Fewer are making a timely transition to adulthood by meeting such milestones as having a full-time job, being financially independent, living away from their parents’ home, and getting married and having children.</blockquote>
The question is: why?
To be sure, there are structural culprits for these trends. Davis, Toscano, and Burchfiel point the finger at society’s “deemphasis on role transitions.”
<blockquote>After all, from a young age, they have heard a cultural message of emancipation from the old constraints of social roles and forms of life. Now, their future is open, and they can be whatever they want to be and live however they choose. There is seemingly no stigma attached to delaying family formation or choosing to remain unmarried and not have children.</blockquote>
And by all accounts, men crave — and know that they desperately need — the structure of family life and the old benchmarks of adulthood to achieve self-satisfaction. Fifty-nine percent of young men are single, but 74% of that cohort are open to dating. Sixty-eight percent of unmarried men hope to be married, and 62% of those without a child want to be a parent. Eighty-nine percent recognize strength, responsibility, and leadership as qualities associated with manhood, and 85% say it “requires a willingness to sacrifice for others.” They say they want good jobs with which they can live independently and eventually provide for a family.
Young men are not apathetic about their future. Considering all that has been stacked against them – The New York Times and its peer publications’ monthly odes to polygamy, the emergence of the toxic, far-right manosphere, and a whole-of-society effort to convince young people that spouses and children are burdens rather than blessings — that is no small thing. They want that which is meaningful and can make them happy. That is a necessary condition for an improvement of their lot. It is not sufficient.
Keyser Söze observed that “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn&#8217;t exist.” His second greatest trick was convincing those who are aware of him that he works only through others. There is no shortage of boogeymen Americans can choose to blame for their own shortcomings. The Right offers up feminism, the sexual revolution, DEI, affirmative action, and the media. The Left suggests toxic masculinity, religion, big business, white privilege, and a panoply of isms. Both profit off the idea — which of course comes with a grain of truth — that individuals lack agency; that in order for their lives to improve, it’s society, not themselves that must change.
It’s true that men face a current pushing them downriver of the good, true, and beautiful. But many, despite their recognition of the desirability of swimming against it, have let themselves be swept up.
Pornography, gambling, drugs, slothfulness, dependence: these aren’t ills that force themselves upon men, they’re temptations that they give in to. The world may offer them the tools with which to ruin themselves, but still, it’s they that must use them. And use them, they are.
It’s they who waste money on parlays, their own time on idle pursuits, their parents’ on continuing to provide for them, and their brains on narcotics. Nobody else makes the bet, smokes the joint, sleeps in, skips class, or mails-it-in for them.
Men understand this as intuitively as they long for the families they’re not forming. They might publicly join in the popular political blame game, or even convince themselves that they believe in it. Deep down, though, they know they are the authors of their own destiny, and they resent themselves for not making more of it.
As well as the society that’s made an industry out of the lie responsible for their misery.
* * *
Isaac Schorr is a staff writer at Mediaite and a 2023–2024 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow at the Fund for American Studies.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Sad young man looking through the window

The Lie Making Young Men Miserable

adolescents

Gen Z

young men

Large American Family Group Gathering

Why Kicking Your Kids Out At 18 Is Actually Insane

Children

family

Family Values

Marriage

Matt Walsh

Parenting

A novel in the Young Adult (YA) genre, which was a &#8220;Good Morning America&#8221; YA Book Club selection, apparently includes graphic sex scenes of necrophilia, threesomes, and rape. 
“Sibylline,” written by Melissa de la Cruz, is advertised as “a heart-stopping dark academia romantasy series” in the YA genre. Typically, these books are aimed at middle and high school children, with characters around that same age range. “Sibylline” was published on February 3.
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/DUomiwOjkb6/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DUomiwOjkb6/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Penguin Teen (@penguinteen)</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
Writer Lauren Uribe for Evie Magazine <a href="https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/theres-a-book-with-necrophilia-and-rape-being-recommended-to-tweens-and-gma-calle">described</a> some of the graphic content in the novel, which included scenes that seemed to depict the rape of a person believed to be deceased.
Uribe noted that in chapter 40, a character named Atticus dies, which is clearly indicated over the course of the chapter by characters Raven and Dorian. Some lines include, “He’s not breathing, he’s not moving,” “He’s dead–Atticus is dead,” “Atticus isn’t breathing,” “But he doesn’t move. Doesn’t wake,” “He’s dead,” and “he’s gone.”
In chapter 41, told from Atticus’s perspective, those two characters attempt to bring Atticus back to life by engaging in sexual acts with him.
This narrative includes the lines, “Someone is undressing me,” “they are undressing themselves as well,” “Now Raven’s breast is against my mouth,” “Dorian presses his erection against my back,” “Raven’s hands are on my shaft, guiding me, and as I plunge into her, Dorian’s thrusting into me. And the three of us are making love with each other.”
The book has been earning mostly one-star reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, with many readers noting that the themes are inappropriate for children and mentioning that there are no warnings on the book.
“[The book’s] audience is children and there are graphic descriptions of sexual acts between characters. Yes, the characters are older. No, they&#8217;re not always consenting,” one reviewer notes.
“The main three characters participate in a threesome that is graphic, and this book is listed as appropriate for 9th through 12th graders, which is completely insane… If we think that it’s appropriate to market sex let alone a threesome to 12-year-olds there’s a serious problem in this industry,” another person said.
“What a piece of filth. Please stop selling this book targeting pre-teen adolescents,” another reviewer shared. “I&#8217;m appalled at the gruesome, disgusting material that no child should read. What happens to these characters is beyond horrific and made me want to vomit. Glad I&#8217;m able to preview books before giving them to my child. This one ended up in the trash. I hope the author is investigated, because I just can&#8217;t understand the perverted imagination it would take to conjure up some of the scenes in this book.”
Author de la Cruz is also the author of “The Isle of the Lost” (Descendants) book series, which was later adapted into the popular “Descendants” movies on Disney.
Disney/ABC did not immediately respond to The Daily Wire’s request for comment.

teen reads book

‘Good Morning America’ Book Pick For Teens Features Rape, Threesomes, Necrophilia

Books

Good Morning America

Media

Pornography

U.S.

The family of a beloved teacher killed during a high school prank gone wrong is speaking out, saying they want to see charges against the teens dropped following the tragic accident.
Jason Hughes, 40, was a math teacher at North Hall High School in Georgia. He died last Friday night after accidentally being run over by a teen driver who was there with other students putting toilet paper in his trees. Hughes slipped near the car and was then accidentally hit by the vehicle, according to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-georgia-teacher-killed-prank-gone-wrong-want-charges-teens-drop-rcna262482">NBC News</a>. 
The teen driver was accompanied by four other students in two separate cars. The teens immediately stopped and tried to administer first aid, but Hughes, who is a father of two, succumbed to his injuries.
The family <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/08/us/georgia-teacher-killed-prank.html">told</a> The New York Times in a statement that they don’t wish to ruin the students’ lives for what amounts to a tragic mistake. 
“This is a terrible tragedy, and our family is determined to prevent a separate tragedy from occurring, ruining the lives of these students,&#8221; they said in the statement. “This would be counter to Jason’s lifelong dedication of investing in the lives of these children.&#8221;
Hughes&#8217; family <a href="https://abcnews.com/video/130894885/">told</a> ABC News that he knew about the prank and was excited about it, which is why he went outside to see the teens. 
“The family wants to make clear that they knew these kids and they loved them and these kids loved the Hugheses. This was not a malicious act,” they told the outlet in a statement. 
“We are thankful for the outpouring of prayers and support as we grieve the loss of Jason. We ask that you continue to pray for our family and also for the students involved in the accident along with their families. Please join us in extending grace and mercy to them as Christ has done for us.” 
The 18-year-old driver was charged with first-degree vehicular homicide, reckless driving, criminal trespass, and littering, NBC reported. The other four teens involved were each charged with criminal trespass and littering.
District Attorney Lee Darragh said of dropping the charges, &#8220;It is much too early in this process. I’ll not be commenting until the closure of the case.&#8221;
A <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/in-memory-of-jason-hughes-support-his-family-4zzkn">GoFundMe</a> for the Hughes family has raised over $400,000 as of Tuesday morning. 
“Jason’s life was a blessing to so many, and his untimely passing will be indescribably difficult for his wife and two young boys for years to come. Please use this opportunity to come alongside them in their time of immediate need and future planning for his children,” the description said.

High School

Teacher Killed In High School Prank — Why His Family Doesn’t Want Students Charged

Family Of Teacher Killed During Prank Gone Wrong Wants Charges Against Teens Dropped

Death

Georgia

Teacher

High school student filling out test answers with pen

San Francisco Banned ‘Racist’ Algebra A Decade Ago. The Results Are Now In.

San Francisco Banned 'Racist' Algebra A Decade Ago. The Results Are Now In.

Blacks

College

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Education

Mathematics

Public Schools

Violence

Whites

Societies that tend to mainstream delusions and treat them as though they are normal, especially mental illnesses that have an extraordinarily high crossover with suicidality and depression, are not doing anybody any favors.
It is very difficult to deny that we are now seeing an emerging trend in mass shootings from trans shooters. This was not an issue 15 years ago. Derangement took other forms.
That has obviously changed, and the media and governmental policy have a lot to do with it.
It is now being reported that the Canada school shooter in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, is a person who identified as trans. This has become an alarming pattern: people identifying as trans and engaging in acts of violence. It is not totally surprising, given that people who identify as trans have a very, very high rate of suicidality and depression.
The media continue to treat this as though it’s of no consequence. They&#8217;re referring to the prospective shooter in Tumbler Ridge as a “she,” even though it’s pretty clear it’s a biological “he.” This goes to our entire society&#8217;s willingness to say things that are biologically false, supposedly in pursuit of sympathy for people who are suffering from a mental disorder.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2366-tape-emerges-in-nancy-guthrie-kidnapping?elementPosition=6&amp;row=6&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Over the course of the last couple of weeks, major medical groups have now come out and completely reversed themselves regarding “gender-affirming” care. For years, it was de rigueur in the medical community to proclaim that hormone treatments, social transition, or actual surgery were the solutions for people suffering from gender dysphoria, particularly minors. The idea was that if you didn&#8217;t arrest puberty when a kid was 11 years old, that person would look more like their biological sex than they otherwise would.
Now, after a few lawsuits, it turns out that the science doesn&#8217;t reflect any of this.
“I would say that when gender clinicians and their allies are speaking to the public, in particular to the skeptical public, lawmakers and legislative hearings, to news reporters and mainstream media outlets, and even to parents who kind of have concerns about their kids and want to know what to do, then, yes, they frame these interventions as a mental health intervention,” Leor Sapir of the Manhattan Institute told me. “They make claims about reduction in depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and so forth. When they talk amongst themselves, and you can see this when you look at their videos from conferences, when you watch video calls that were somehow leaked to the public, you see that they actually offer different rationales. They say that this is about helping kids or helping people in general who are otherwise healthy achieve their embodiment goals, achieve their cosmetic goals for how they want their body to look in light of their internal sense of gender.”
We are not doing anyone any favors when we ignore the mainstreaming of mental illness.

Canada Lowers Flags To Half Staff After Mass Shooting In British Columbia

Crisis Of Reality: Mental Health, Media, And The Transgender Movement

Canada

Gender

Mental Illness

School Shooting

Suicide

Transgender

We are now witnessing a massive cultural retreat from the most controversial elements of activist-driven gender ideology aimed at children. And corporate America is a major part of that shift.
For years, the gender ideology narrative captured our society’s most prominent institutions. The notion that the provision of hormone regimens, puberty blockers, and gender transition surgeries was the only compassionate response to young people facing confusion about their gender morphed from a fringe theory into a near-unquestionable dictate during the last decade. In 2019, a doctor who believed in the Biblical and scientific notion of differences between the sexes was<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997"> told</a> that his views were “incompatible with human dignity.” Parents of children struggling with gender dysphoria were often <a href="https://www.centerforbiblicalunity.com/post/would-you-rather-have-a-dead-daughter-or-a-live-son">presented</a> with a ghoulish, faux-paternalistic ultimatum by therapists and psychologists: “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a live son?”
Perhaps the most impactful driver of this narrative was the boardroom. The dictates of gender ideology were not only pushed forward by activists but also supported by some of the most recognizable brands on Earth. One of the most high-profile examples was Amazon: scholar Ryan T. Anderson, whose 2018 book When Harry Became Sally offered a thoughtful Christian response to gender ideology, had to fight through a <a href="https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-statement-on-when-harry-became-sally">book ban</a> and <a href="https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-statement-on-when-harry-became-sally">smears</a> of “hate speech,” before it could be sold in the world’s largest online market. Countless companies, from Apple to Target, were <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-left-wing-activists-are-trying-to-save-corporate-wokeness">participating</a> with corporate activist organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, one of the major promoters of gender ideology in corporate America.
In the 2010s and early 2020s, it was perfectly reasonable to believe that the way major companies handled gender ideology was less about science and more about <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/corporations-that-pushed-gender-ideology-owe-america-an-explanation?author=Isaac+Willour&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=8&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Corporations+That+Pushed+Gender+Ideology+Owe+America+An+Explanation">placating</a> goalpost-shifting activists. And then, as so often happens with activist movements, the goalposts got shifted too far. It wasn’t just adult choice that was the focus of gender ideology. It was about the attempted normalization of surgical interventions for children. That was when the momentum shifted.
Three recent occurrences illustrate just how quickly the tide is turning.
First, a 22-year-old ‘detransitioner’ — someone who regrets their gender transition — just <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/this-court-case-has-gotten-little-attention-but-just-changed-everything">won</a> a $2 million lawsuit against the New York doctors who approved her surgery. Fox Varian, who had a double mastectomy (surgical removal of both breasts) when she was just 16 years old, is the first detransitioner to take a medical malpractice case to trial and win.
That ruling came on January 30. On February 3, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons <a href="https://www.plasticsurgery.org/for-medical-professionals/health-policy/position-statements">released</a> a statement asserting that “there is insufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio for … gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions in children and adolescents.” 
Days later, the American Medical Association <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/04/health/gender-surgery-minors-ama.html">announced</a> its agreement: “The AMA agrees… surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.”
Let’s be clear about what that means: in the span of approximately a week, two absolutely critical points have been proven about gender ideology: (1) performing gender transition surgeries on children is a source of major legal liability, and (2) the medical consensus does not neatly support the necessity of such treatments.
These are precisely the arguments we have made to companies for years about their healthcare coverage. For companies that spent the early 2020s placating activists pushing gender ideology, the mid 2020s may be a painful reckoning with how out-of-touch with reality those activists truly were.
Activist groups like the Human Rights Campaign <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-radical-intolerance-behind-woke-corporate-activism?author=Isaac+Willour&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=11&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=The+Radical+Intolerance+Behind+Woke+Corporate+Activism">told</a> companies that covering hormone regimens and transition care were prudent ways to minimize risk. It’s incredibly apparent that this was a wild guess at best, and a cleverly worded activist ploy at worst. As the era of corporate wokeness comes to an end, companies seeking to stay politically neutral and avoid becoming entrenched in culture war issues (remember, companies have a fiduciary duty to do this) are taking a serious look at their healthcare coverage.
For companies that cover gender transition care for adults, do they also cover detransition care? If not, that hardly reads as politically neutral. Do companies have clear stances on not covering gender transition care for children? These are the questions that we, as corporate engagement professionals, are asking hundreds of companies.
Some companies are setting the standard. Walmart, the world’s largest company, <a href="https://me.walmart.com/content/dam/themepage/pdfs/AssociateBenefitsBook-2026.pdf">publishes</a> its full Associate Benefits Guide, which includes a clear carve-out prohibiting health plan administrators from providing transgender medical interventions to minors. The company has also been incredibly constructive in engaging with its shareholders on this issue. Other companies should follow Walmart’s example. You’d be amazed by how many haven’t. But the winds are blowing in our favor.
One major example of the large-scale retreat is the widespread drop in support for the Human Rights Campaign, whose ‘Corporate Equality Index’ grades companies in part by their adherence to activist criteria surrounding hormone regimens, transition surgery, and the like. In 2025, almost 380 Fortune 500 companies participated in the Index. In 2026? Fewer than 150. Many of the major names that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-radical-intolerance-behind-woke-corporate-activism?author=Isaac+Willour&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=11&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=The+Radical+Intolerance+Behind+Woke+Corporate+Activism">ceased participation</a>, including Capital One, Goldman Sachs, and Google (Alphabet), are companies we’ve engaged with surrounding these issues.
If these signs are any indication, there’s much more to come. As the consequences of such treatments become more widely understood, by major companies, providers, and especially insurers, we may well see the forming of a new consensus, the one that always should have been: the dictates of gender ideology, that promoted and supported major and often irreversible medical interventions for children, are being rejected by the brands that make up our capital markets. For the sake of America’s children, that rejection can’t come fast enough.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Wall Street Sign

Corporate America Quietly Backs Away From Gender Ideology For Children

American Medical Association

Business

Corporations

gender ideology

kids

transgender surgery

When hundreds of students across the country walked out of class last week to protest ICE, the scene felt uncomfortably familiar. The chants, the certainty, and the urgency to declare a side reflected a pattern my generation repeats during nearly every political moment: strong emotion paired with limited understanding. Watching it unfold as a high school student, the issue appeared larger than a single protest. The walkouts exposed an education system that failed to teach students how the government functions — or how federal law enforcement actually operates.
From Georgia to California, students are walking out of class demanding that ICE be “removed” from their communities. In practice, for many of my peers, these walkouts function less as political statements and more as an excuse to miss class. At Lakeside High School in Georgia — where many of the protest videos originated — approximately 1,500 of the school’s roughly 2,200 students participated in an organized walkout protesting ICE. That would suggest that more than half the student body is so politically engaged that they are willing to sacrifice instructional time for a policy cause — an assumption undermined by the fact that fewer than 40% of Americans ages 18-19 vote.
For the small minority of students who genuinely care, the protests offer an opportunity to join a cause they assume is morally righteous. For all participants, however, these walkouts rest on an incomplete — and often incorrect — understanding of what ICE actually does and who holds authority over immigration policy.
The collapse of civic education in K–12 schools has produced widespread confusion about how the federal government functions. Many students believe ICE writes immigration law rather than enforces statutes passed by Congress. Others assume a president can simply suspend laws at will, or that public outrage alone can override the legislative process and reshape federal policy.
What no one has taught my peers is that Congress — not ICE, and not the White House — writes immigration law. Every administration, including President Trump’s, is obligated to enforce the laws Congress passes.
This confusion among students is not a failure of intelligence. It reflects an education system that avoids political controversy at all costs. Teachers are warned not to “take sides,” administrators steer clear of any topic that might provoke backlash, and students grow up believing that discussing the law or governance is dangerous. Instead of learning how the government functions, students learn how to talk around it.
This silence shapes how my generation engages with politics. Only a few miles from my Long Island high school, Generation Z played a decisive role in electing a socialist mayor in America’s most capitalist city. Many of those voters were never taught about the historical consequences of socialism — the collapse of economies, the erosion of democratic institutions, and the human suffering that follows. Those lessons are treated as too political for classrooms. The result is a generation making political choices without understanding the ideas being supported.
Students are not avoiding dialogue because of apathy. They avoid it because schools have trained them to fear disagreement. When issues such as immigration, abortion, or Israel arise, classrooms go quiet — not from a lack of opinion, but from concern over social and academic consequences.
Before becoming a nationally syndicated columnist, I hesitated to speak openly in classrooms. I rewrote comments, withheld arguments, and waited for safer moments to share my views. Now, I voice those perspectives in front of millions of readers, fully aware of the consequences. But even with all the pushback, my openness has not only sharpened my passion for politics but produced an impact far greater than I ever anticipated.
The danger of silence becomes clear during moments like these walkouts. When students protest without understanding what they want to change or how change occurs, it reveals how unprepared they are for civic participation. Informed activism cannot exist without civic knowledge.
Restoring serious civic education remains the only path forward. Students should learn not only which policies exist, but why they exist. They should understand how Congress, the courts, and federal agencies interact. Schools should encourage substantive debate rather than discourage it. Avoiding discomfort leaves students unprepared for the responsibilities of citizenship — and for the world they are about to enter.
* * *
Gregory Lyakhov is a nationally syndicated columnist and podcast host, regularly appearing on national television to discuss education policy, U.S. politics, and public affairs.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

College Students Walkout In Protest Against ICE In Texas

The ICE Walkouts Prove My Generation Wasn’t Taught How Government Works

anti-ICE protests

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Leftists

Protests

Students

A new $2 million verdict indicates that the “transitioning” of children in America is dying or dead.
If you go back just a few years, it was de rigueur for every major commentator and every major politician to say that boys or girls could become one another.
Major medical establishment organizations claimed that it was the purest form of science to say that boys could become girls, and in fact, the best treatment for people suffering from gender dysphoria was for them to have hormone treatment and surgery.
In 2021, the American Medical Association was <a href="https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/ama-press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-care-transgender-children">telling governors</a> to oppose state legislation that would prohibit “medically necessary” gender transition-related care for minor patients, calling such efforts “a dangerous intrusion into the practice of medicine.”
That, of course, was not relegated only to psychological care or social transition, or even to hormones. It also included, on many occasions, surgery. 
In fact, the AMA specifically <a href="https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/ama-press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-care-transgender-children">put out a letter</a> stating:
<blockquote>Empirical evidence has demonstrated that trans and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression for gender diverse individuals. Standards of care and accepted medically necessary services that affirm gender or treat gender dysphoria may include mental health counseling, non-medical social transition, gender affirming hormone therapy, and or gender affirming surgeries. 
</blockquote>
This was the standard of care, according to the American Medical Association.
It was a load of horsesh*t.
If you ever wonder about the signal moments in the last 30 years of American history in which people fell out of love with institutions and decided that institutions had betrayed their trust — this was a big one.
There have been many, including the coverage of Biden&#8217;s mental health issues, education, Critical Race Theory, scientific organizations, and COVID.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2361-transing-of-children-in-america-is-dead"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-981859 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
But the biggest one was likely this — a lie that everyone above the age of one and a half knew was a lie — which was to deny that boys and girls aren&#8217;t the same. The medical establishment said that boys could become girls, girls could become boys, and the best treatment for someone who was struggling with body dysmorphia was not to work on their mental health, but to surgically alter their body by cutting off healthy body parts, by creating fake new body parts.
This was insanity. It was pathological. It was nuts.
But it became de rigueur.
The fact that Democrats are still struggling with this shows how out of touch they remain with reality.
So what finally broke the system? As always in America, trial lawyers.
The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/health/gender-surgery-malpractice-varian.html">reported:</a> “In the first malpractice verdict against providers of gender-affirming care for minors —&#8221;
Stop right there. That well-known language is insane. “Gender-affirming” is sex-rejecting. That’s what “gender-affirming” means in this context.
We are not talking about a woman who had a double mastectomy because she had breast cancer or the BRCA gene, and decided to have that double mastectomy, and now wants to reconstruct her breasts. That would be gender-affirming.
Gender affirming in this context means sex-denying. A boy believes he&#8217;s a girl, so they cut off his penis and testicles. That is what they mean.
Back to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/health/gender-surgery-malpractice-varian.html">the piece</a>:
<blockquote>In the first malpractice verdict against providers of gender-affirming care for minors, a jury in New York State has awarded a woman $2 million in damages for a double mastectomy she received as a teenager that she said had left her disfigured.</blockquote>
Obviously, it left her disfigured. That’s a reality when you have your breasts cut off, not because you&#8217;re worried that you&#8217;re going to get breast cancer or for any other real medical reason, but because you say you want to look more like a boy.
<blockquote>The plaintiff, Fox Varian, 22, of Yorktown Heights, had accused her psychologist and the plastic surgeon who performed the operation of failing to obtain adequate consent about the risks before she agreed to undergo the procedure in 2019. She also claimed that the providers had deviated from standard practices governing gender-related medical care. Ms. Varian, who was 16 at the time of the surgery, was assigned female at birth but as a teenager identified as a man.</blockquote>
Legacy media verbiage that is totally psychotic. “Assigned female at birth?”
You are not assigned anything. A doctor looks at you and knows you are female by looking at you when you are a baby.
This woman later came to regret the decision to transition and returned to being a woman in accordance with her actual biology, an example of a process known as detransitioning, or what some people might call “recognition of reality.”
Very often, when people cite studies suggesting that people don&#8217;t really detransition, that is because the studies do not include people who don&#8217;t follow up with the doctor. The vast majority of people who decide that they don&#8217;t want to carry forward with their “gender transition” never get back in touch with the people who were trying to transition them in the first place.
Thus, the continued pressure tactics are used by people in this industry.
The Times continued:
<blockquote>According to Kinnon MacKinnon, who studies transgender care at York University in Toronto, a vast majority of young people who opt for a medical transition say the procedure resolves their gender dysphoria and improves the quality of their lives.</blockquote>
Do you think they&#8217;re coming back to Kinnon MacKinnon to explain that things went badly? That’s not the way that this works. 
So why do I say this verdict means that the transition of children in America is dying or dead? Because plastic surgeons now find themselves at risk of medical liability for doing something that is clearly non-medical, such as cutting off healthy body parts, doctors are going to stop doing it.
On Tuesday, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons <a href="https://www.plasticsurgery.org/for-medical-professionals/health-policy/position-statements">put out a statement</a> saying:
<blockquote>Consistent with ASPS’s August 2024 statement that the overall evidence base for gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions is low certainty, and in light of recent publications reporting very low/low certainty of evidence regarding mental health outcomes, along with emerging concerns about potential long-term harms and the irreversible nature of surgical interventions in a developmentally vulnerable population, ASPS concludes there is insufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio for the pathway of gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions in children and adolescents. ASPS recommends that surgeons delay gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old.</blockquote>
What’s hilarious about this statement is that they are not making the case that they picked the age of 19 because the brain is developed enough for a teen to make a good decision. That is not the case they&#8217;re making. They&#8217;re not saying there&#8217;s a difference in kind between these sorts of surgeries performed on a 21-year-old and those performed on a 17-year-old.
The reason they are putting out “19 years old” is very obvious: At 18, you can legally consent, and once you can legally consent, the doctors can&#8217;t be sued.
That&#8217;s all that&#8217;s happening here. Liability came to the plastic surgeons, and now they&#8217;re saying, “We still want to do these surgeries because we get paid for them even though they&#8217;re really bad. We&#8217;re going to continue to do them, but we&#8217;ll do it for people above the age of 18.’
That is still bad medical practice. It does not solve the problem politically for people who claim that men can become women and women can become men.
This is a barrier for Democrats. When I was on Gavin Newsom&#8217;s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrDpBwpSqSc">show</a> in California, this issue came up, and he really struggled with it. The reason he struggled with it is because he knows it is not only a political loser, but in his heart, he knows it is not true.
The vast majority of people in the United States also know it is untrue that a man can become a woman.
But there are social demands to mirror that nonsense. And if Democrats decide to follow this issue all the way down the political rabbit hole, they will not be able to get out. It is legitimately a barrier to entry for voters.
The bottom line is that if Democrats keep running up against both the science and legal liability, they are in for a continued world of hurt.

Transgender person from behind, wearing pink and white striped sweatshirt, holds transgender flag

Menu