The New York Times goes full right-wing transphobic bigot in agreeing that the permanent sterilization of kids who can't give informed consent is, like, totally messed up

Pay attention, as this is just one a slew of casual disclosures by the media that resulted in Internet bans and ruined reputations for anyone who made the very same arguments years ago

On Saturday, The New York Times published an editorial of the sort that anyone sane knew was coming at some point, even in a “liberal” media outlet whose primary task is to obfuscate rather than inform. Given both the number of American teenagers who have medically “transitioned” in recent years and the propensity of humans to come to critical realizations about themselves and the world as they grow older, the momentum favoring radical treatments of kids who could, plausibly or otherwise, be assigned a diagnosis of gender dysphoria was bound to slow and finally reverse, as even mentally ill people dislike having been tricked into suffering both anorgasmia and infertility for the rest of their lives.

The most infuriating part to me is the predictable reason “transitioning” surgical procedures are now popular only in the United States despite Europe being a long-purported hotbed of freewheeling neo-faggotries: money. It’s astonishing how many surgeons and hospital administrators are willing to carve up children for money despite knowing exactly what the results will be. In covering the NYT story over the weekend, the Due Dissidence guys (former Bernie Sanders-supporting Jewish liberals, with no quotes needed around “liberals”) focused heavily on this aspect of the excoriating scandal.

So now, the “newspaper” that sets the editorial agenda for every liberal outlet in the country is belatedly yet firmly agreeing with me and everyone else who's been cast as a transphobe, bigot, right-winger, et cetera for opposing the gender-bending lunacies foisted on society for the past five or so years without that society's own permission. And it's never been about anyone giving any reasonable person a case of the ickies over simply "being trans." Let’s face it—that part, at root level, is sheer entertainment.

No, the resistance to this stuff from pro-same-sex-marriage, abortion-supporting, pro-marijuana, Israel-slamming, Bible-bashing MAGA Republicans like me has been anchored all along in the clear denigration of female-only sports and, worse, the irreversible consequences of the Frankenstein-style surgeries kids who were mostly autistic or otherwise "off," not suffering genuine gender dysphoria, have been forced into. It's been about transparent, undeniable, flagrant harms to others, including the suppression of contrary (i.e., “based”) opinions.

It’s too bad that noted scientist, humanist, and running coach David Roche deleted his tweet-thread about this subject when I challenged him and his crew of warbling fools on their claims almost four years ago; now that the range of permissible “facts” has expanded, Roche would surely happy to update his ideas on direct questioning. After all, what dedicated shitlib would dare contravene the impressively both-sided and shape-shifting wisdom of the NYT?

This is what has really upset me about Nicole/Nicolette/Nicholas/Nikolai "Nikki" (aka “Nikita” or "The Nickster") Hiltz. It's grating enough that the American record holder in the women’s outdoor one-mile run is an incurious narcissist who went looking for more attention and cash after discovering that being a lesbian standout athlete had already become uncontroversial before the William Howard Taft administration, and that such status was therefore unlikely to be enough oppression these days around which a super-scale grift could be built. Hence Hiltz adopting the openly idiotic "nonbinary" schtick that the entire running media has rallied behind and essentially enforced—not that such enforcements are really needed given that the thing called “running” is now a club with a median IQ barely above 70 and still dropping and deeply in the grip of an abusive relationship with lying-on-demand, inertia-in-hysteria, unhealthy body types, and the infusion of victimhood and chronic hopelessness starting at around age 12.

But Hiltz pushing this “nonbinary” fraud, or convincing a legion of easily persuaded shitlibs that the whole broken scheme is not merely valid but sanctified, has never been the most problematic aspect of her idiotic online and other bleating. The worst part of her persona has been her routine bitching about "right wing" lawmakers and other loudmouth troglodytes trying to interfere with the "care" of trans kids. That is, it’s her antagonism toward anyone trying to stop the obvious and permanent mangling of kids' bodies that most upsets me and, I assume, most of her critics (almost none of which are willing to rip this clown openly).

It’s tempting to detest Hiltz and everyone who has supported her sleazeposting for the post four-plus years, almost none of whom are trans-identifying themselves. But it’s best to take the high road and accept that these people are more retarded than malicious, and, rather than accuse them of moral depredations, criticize them instead for being organically insufficient humans with no hope of getting any smarter, sexier, or more personable in an effort to shame them off the Internet entirely and into cobweb-filled corners of America’s smattering of ancient, moldering, thumb-sucker-packed psychiatric institutions built in the 1960s. If people can’t offer constructive criticism in goal-oriented terms like these, then they probably should keep their ideas to themselves.

This same crew of “progressives,” which now makes up 90 to 100 percent of distance-running fans or pundits afforded any in-group visibility, also neglects the rapes of women by "women" with suspiciously functional phalluses occurring in women's prisons (and guess which U.S. state of the fifty-one started this fun). It seems fitting that these institutions are disproportionately laden, by the way, with exactly the kind of people the Wokish say they most want to protect: lesbians, colored people (many “of color”), and other long-struggling and -straggling minorities.

And, although I have expended thousands of words on what watery analysts these people are, anyone who claims that they couldn't see any of the regret of the poor kids profiled in the NYT essay coming has something wrong with them. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be so dodgy about discussing the topic of “transgenderism” with people who disagree with their stances.

Will any of these pliable hammerheads reflect on their support for pathological premises and processes even privately, never mind publicly? Hah. Au contraire, Hiltz et al. are surely already busy grousing about the NYT betraying the deranged cause. If these people were capable of meaningful reflection, they wouldn’t have slid into Wokism in the first place. So, the main question now is, which of the many far-flung health-related lies generated in recent years will the mainstream media next be forced to partly reverse in the same “So anyway” manner?