Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
The download link isn’t working.
Very informative podcast – thanks to your guest and her courage. She presented rational arguments for and against the transgender agenda – leaning for, when the person is in distress and it is viewed as a medical issue. Yet she used common sense in speaking how transgender-ism has become a fad, and there are statistics to prove that, just in the dramatic rise of it occurring among youth. The protection of children is at the forefront of the discussion, and I hope more is discussed in social media on this issue. Thank you for bringing this important discussion to Ricochet.
Ask her out.
Hill to die on – a morally superior position to defend that may be a losing issue.
Comes from traditional/old war tactics that high ground / hills are a better defensive position.
Morphs into the high ground of debate and argument (a better moral position).
Even if your position is morally defensible, it may be a losing battle. Ergo, hill to die on ;)
This was the first time listening to Young Americans, and if all previous episodes are this interesting and informative then I’ve really been missing out. If only all 25-year olds were this knowledgeable and sensible.
It’s a sad state of affairs when this topic of transgenderism is considered practically untouchable and addressing it fully requires “bravery.”
Like the previous poster, I have not listened to the podcast before. This was an excellent start. Madileine Kernes is a brilliant young woman, articulate, knowledgeable, and erudite. The topic was one that I was not as informed about as I thought I was. I now have a much greater understanding, and am certainly on Ms. Kearns side of the argument. I am also 74 years old, so, perhaps, there are grounds upon which those of us of different generations can interact and agree. In my years of teaching I worked with kids who were very likely going to be homosexual in their orientation, but I never worked with a child who expressed the feeling that they were either a different gender than that which they outwardly displayed, or who said that they wished that they were the other gender. This is, pretty obviously, a movement driven by people with a questionable agenda, and reinforced by those who seem more than willing to sacrifice the lives and wellbeing of children for political goals. We are, indeed, living in interesting times.
I’ve been listening to all the podcasts and enjoy them (although I’m a generation and a half older than Jack and his guests). This was an excellent conversation with so much vital information for me as I am trying to understand the transgender mania and waiting to see what outcomes it will bring. I am very impressed with Madeleine Kearns.
Too bad there’s no Show Notes with a link to the mentioned Jay Nordlinger podcast.
Regarding trans-gender suicides, the last I heard, the suicide rate for those who go through “transition” – including drugs and/or surgery – is at least as high or even higher than those who don’t. So the evidence is that transition surgery etc doesn’t really help the underlying psychological problem. It would seem more reasonable to treat the actual problem, rather than one of the symptoms.
I also didn’t notice any significant mention of the high percentage of those who have gone through “transition” who later decide it was a mistake.
And “consent to sex change” versus “consent to sex” isn’t quite relevant. The laws are only against an adult having sex with a non-adult – i.e., under 18. (I don’t use “child” because that’s not the point.) At least, in the Western World. Two non-adults having sex is not covered by law. So “consent to sex with another non-adult” is not the same issue. The law, at least, seems to presume that non-adults can give consent to having sex with other non-adults. Or at least that neither non-adult is taking advantage of the other.