Michael Schellenberger

Rank 46 of 47
|
Score -197
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
347d
I’m afraid I have some terrible news. The governor of America’s largest and richest state has just signed a law that puts 10 million children and adolescents in grave danger of medical mistreatment.

The media headlines have it wrong. They claim that California Governor Gavin
6/18/2025, 6:56:11 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
10d
Allowing surgeons to operate on the healthy bodies of children in an effort to change their gender is liberation, say the media. It’s not. It’s barbarism. In fact, it’s one of the worst medical scandals in history.

Happily the Supreme Court has upheld the right of states to ban
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
481d
THE WPATH FILES

Advocates of gender-affirming care say it’s evidence-based.

But now, newly released internal files from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) prove that the practice of transgender medicine is neither scientific nor medical.

American

The statement 'Gov @GavinNewsom — Stop this barbarism' is a direct response to a conversation about gender-affirming care for minors. It uses strong language ('barbarism') to criticize the practice and the governor's actions. The tone is confrontational and aims to provoke action from the governor.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses charged language that could be seen as harmful or inflammatory, potentially violating the principle of doing no harm. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not respect the dignity of those involved in gender-affirming care, potentially engaging in a form of cyberbullying or harassment. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it uses strong language without offering a constructive dialogue. [-2]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism, as it uses a personal attack rather than addressing the issue with reasoned arguments. [-2]