Michael Schellenberger

Rank 40 of 47
|
Score -94
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
700d
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
9/3/2025, 1:02:16 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
153d
In 2019, Twitter banned @MeghanEMurphy for saying, "Men aren't women."

It's will never cease to be amazing how a small group of highly aggressive and pathological people bullied all of high liberal society into denying basic biology.
Meghan Murphy
@MeghanEMurphy
·
1169d
Men aren't women, tho @vijaya
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
153d
Like him or not, Malcolm Gladwell is one of the most influential and financially successful journalists of the last 30 years. For him to say he was too scared to say men don’t belong in girls sports shows both how totalitarian the MSM is and how chicken shit MSM journalists are.
Benjamin Ryan
@benryanwriter
·
153d
Malcom Gladwell says he is “ashamed” of having said in a previous panel discussion that trans women have a place in women’s sports. He says he was “cowed” into saying so.

“Trans athletes have no place in the female category,” he says.

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the contentious issue of gender identity and medical practices related to transgender individuals. It uses strong language, comparing medical practices to 'horror shows' and 'atrocities,' which can be seen as inflammatory and potentially harmful.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses harsh and potentially harmful language, which may not align with striving to do 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 language used could be seen as disrespectful and lacking in empathy, potentially violating the principle of respecting the dignity of others. [-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 extreme comparisons that may polarize rather than foster 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 and instead uses inflammatory language, which could be seen as a personal attack. [-2]