Adventist Today editor libels Abigail Shrier but likely has never read her

 By Ron Corson

Once again Adventist Today has published an article with an abundance of opinions and little facts. Loren Seibold the editor at Adventist Today wrote an article entitled: On Complete LGBTQ+ Acceptance in the Church. I am not going to respond to the full article I think it would be good for the Adventist denomination to examine these new issues in culture and religion. What I have a problem with is when ignorance pretends to be knowledge. Here is what Loren Seibold wrote:

“Recently the youth director of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists recommended on social media the book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. The author, Abigail Shrier, revives the old arguments that were once leveled at lesbian and gay people: that there is an “agenda,” a “movement,” in this case to induce young women into becoming male. This excreta is being pushed from the very top of our denomination. (Abigail will make a great deal of money on this book from the many people who love simple answers that blame others for problems they don’t understand.)”

 When a person reads that paragraph it somewhat sounds like the author of the article has some knowledge of the work of Abigail Shrier, unless, of course, anyone has read the book or listened to an interview with Abigail Shrier. Perhaps just as bad as someone who clearly has not read the book or even listened to an interview with Abigail Shrier, Loren Seibold seems to imply that the youth director of the General Conference has done something horrible by directing people to an important book on social media.

But how can it be an important book if the book is about reviving an old argument that transgenderism of young girls is an agenda or a movement.  Well, it is at this point that we know Loren Seibold knows nothing about the book. It is here that I have to come up to the plate and say Loren Seibold either does not know what he is writing about or is purposely lying to his readers. Whichever answer, it is not good for Adventist Today.  Unless of course the purpose of Loren Siebold is not honest journalism but leftist propaganda, in which case lying for the political cause is part of progressivism.

One thing all readers must learn is to identify fictional material that is attributed to someone else. This is most easily done by checking the sources. Is there a quote given, what is the source and can we read the quote. Is there any context to the quote? Here Loren Siebold gives single word quotes “agenda,” a “movement”. By just using the single out of context quotes the reader is forced to accept Loren Seibold’s explanation.  I am pretty sure he is just passing on what some other unscrupulous writer had written. That is a huge problem if someone cannot even take the time to get some first-hand information what good is their information. It is no better than gossip and in this case it is malicious gossip.

So what is the book about? The reason for the book is set forth in the beginning of Chapter 2 under the title the Puzzle:

“In 2016, Lisa Littman, ob-gyn turned public health researcher and mother of two, was scrolling through social media when she noticed a statistical peculiarity: several adolescents, most of them girls, from her small town in Rhode Island had come out as transgender—all from within the same friend group. “With the first two announcements, I thought, ‘Wow, that’s great,’ ” Dr. Littman said, a light New Jersey accent tweaking her vowels. Then came announcements three, four, five, and six.

 Dr. Littman knew almost nothing about gender dysphoria—her research interests had been confined to reproductive health: abortion stigma and contraception. But she knew enough to recognize that the numbers were much higher than extant prevalence data would have predicted. “I studied epidemiology… and when you see numbers that greatly exceed your expectations, it’s worth it to look at what might be causing it. Maybe it’s a difference of how you’re counting. It could be a lot of things. But you know, those were high numbers.”

 In fact, they turned out to be unprecedented. In America and across the Western world, adolescents were reporting a sudden spike in gender dysphoria—the medical condition associated with the social designation “transgender.” Between 2016 and 2017 the number of gender surgeries for natal females in the U.S. quadrupled, with biological women suddenly accounting for—as we have seen—70 percent of all gender surgeries.¹

 In 2018, the UK reported a 4,400 percent rise over the previous decade in teenage girls seeking gender treatments.²

 In Canada, Sweden, Finland, and the UK, clinicians and gender therapists began reporting a sudden and dramatic shift in the demographics of those presenting with gender dysphoria—from predominately preschool-aged boys to predominately adolescent girls.³”

Jumping a head a couple of paragraphs:

“If this sudden spike in transgender identification among adolescent girls is a peer contagion, as Dr. Littman hypothesized, then the girls rushing toward “transition” are not getting the treatment they most need. Instead of immediately accommodating every adolescent’s demands for hormones and surgeries, doctors ought to be working to understand what else might be wrong. At best, doctors’ treatments are ineffective; at worst, doctors are administering needless hormonal treatments and irreversible surgeries on patients likely to regret them. Dr. Littman’s theory was more than enough to touch a nerve.

 Activists stormed the Twitter page of PLoS One, the peer-reviewed scientific journal of the Public Library of Science that had published Dr. Littman’s paper, accusing her of anti-trans bigotry. They claimed that Dr. Littman had deliberately solicited parent reports from conservative, anti-trans parent groups. (In fact, over 85 percent of the parents self-identified as supporting LGBT rights.)” (page 21-22)

 

From there the book is a deep dive into researcher and psychologist data and observations.

Now I don’t expect people to take the time to read her book but this is an important topic. Take the time to listen or watch her Interview with Jorden Peterson. Peterson as a clinical Psychologist is very clearly a deep thinker even if he is not the best at interviews. Please take the time to listen or watch and then see just how much truth there is to Loren Siebold’s statement: “Abigail will make a great deal of money on this book from the many people who love simple answers that blame others for problems they don’t understand.”

Update. Here is the Joe Rogan podcast with Abigail Shrier. It is a more conversational program with a bit more on cultural and activists content. Pretty sure that after listening/watching this most people would say that Loren Seibold's paragraph in question above is really activist in nature. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4SIh4Pt39AtGQYzMJMNkv1

You can read articles by Abigail Shrier at: https://muckrack.com/abigailshrier/articles

Update 12-9-21

Read her speech at Princeton: What I told the Students at Princeton

When truth is the last thing you want to report

 It seems every time I read an article from Adventist Today I read false information. It seems as if they have no filter at all by which they can test the truth of their articles. It seems to me it is really now all about pushing a political leftist view upon the readers of AToday.

 

Take this recent article. Abortion Is Terrible, but Abortion Laws Are Worse by Lindsey Abston Painter  14 September 2021 

“Only if you have been living under a rock would you not have heard that at the beginning of September the state legislators in Texas passed a draconian law criminalizing abortions past six weeks of pregnancy. Not only the woman who has an abortion will be treated as a criminal, but anyone involved in any way, including any doctor or medical personnel involved—and even a person who drove her to the clinic or offered her shelter. Women who leave the state to have an abortion are to be immediately prosecuted when they return.” 

Is that paragraph true? Does the Texas law criminalize abortions past 6 weeks? Are the women treated as a criminal, is everyone peripherally involved treated as criminals? Are women who leave the state for an abortion immediately prosecuted when they return?

The answer is no to all of those assertions. No one has to look too hard to see that those statements are all untrue. Pretty much a few paragraphs from an NPR article can show just how wrong the Lindsey Abston Painter’s article is.

“The law allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone else who helps a woman obtain an abortion — including those who give a woman a ride to a clinic or provide financial assistance to obtain an abortion. Private citizens who bring these suits don't need to show any connection to those they are suing.”

 “Groups who oppose abortion rights have pushed for this Texas law, hoping that it will be harder for federal courts to knock it down. Instead of requiring public officials to enforce the law, this law allows individuals to bring civil lawsuits against abortion providers or anyone else found to "aid or abet" illegal abortions.”

“Anyone who successfully sues an abortion provider under this law could be awarded at least $10,000. And to prepare for that, Texas Right to Life has set up what it calls a "whistleblower" website where people can submit anonymous tips about anyone they believe to be violating the law.”

“"These lawsuits are not against the women," says John Seago with Texas Right to Life. "The lawsuits would be against the individuals making money off of the abortion, the abortion industry itself. So this is not spy on your neighbor and see if they're having an abortion."

As a fact checking website states:

“​​On May 19, Abbott signed a law stating that ‘a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman unless the physician has determined … whether the woman's unborn child has a detectable fetal heartbeat.’ The law creates an exception if the physician determines a medical emergency makes an abortion necessary. Critics have noted that fetal heartbeats can be detected as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, limiting the window in which a woman can legally seek an abortion in Texas.”

“The law allows citizens, rather than the state, to sue anyone who performs or assists in procuring an abortion. Those found to have done so will, thus, be civilly instead of criminally liable, and will be made to pay “statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each abortion.” Notably, SB8 does not allow for suits to be brought against women who recieve abortions after a heartbeat is detected.”

Reading the Facebook comments there are loads of people who praise this AToday article even though it begins with clearly false information. My point is not for or against the Texas law but simply pointing out the lack of factual information in the Adventist Today article. Most of the article is typical of political progressive arguments for abortions. So the article is trying to be a persuasive argument for the leftwing views on the subject. This points out again that the major focus of Adventist Today is the spreading of political progressive, democrat philosophies.

 

 

 

 

Politics seems to color everything Adventist Today publishes

 

By Ron Corson

Once again we see Adventist Today wallowing in their political leftists views.  They really should change the name of the site to Leftist Thoughts for Adventists. The latest article from Jack Hoehn entitled ComeAndReason.com Seems Unreasonable on COVID  The article’s third paragraph reads:

Anti-vaccination Views

That is why his political views now infusing health issues are so distressing. In the past he has come out in support of the twice-impeached past American president’s policies both on his Christian website and in an article published on the Spectrum website February 3, 2020.

That is interesting how the political left has forgotten that it was the Trump Administration that fast tracked the vaccine creation and production.  But now Trump is just that twice-impeached President, even though he was never convicted of any offense by the Senate which is needed to really complete an impeachment of a president. But now to the left Trump is synonymous with Anti-vaccination views. Interestingly Donald Trump had the COVID-19 virus and who was also vaccinated. Facts that in the world of insinuation have no place it appears.

The next paragraph is equally as silly:

Now Jennings focuses on masks, vaccines, and what he considers the threat of “mandates.” He calls the most-studied vaccines in the long history of vaccination “experimental injections,” as if this were some sort of isolated lab study instead of a crisis response to a death-dealing pandemic.

Let’s begin with the clearly false statement that the COVID-19 vaccines are the most studied vaccines in history.  It has not even been out for 2 years, we have no studies on the long-term effect or even the 5-year effect of the vaccines. It is impossible to believe anyone thinks it is the most studied vaccine in history but you see that is what Dr. Hoehn who was actually at one time a doctor thinks!

Why Hoehn is not equally concerned with mandates is peculiar since even President Biden and his Spokesperson have said that they would never do mandates. Kind of something that anyone with any regard for our Republic should be concerned with.  Of course, there is a fear side to a lot of leftists who feel that individual rights have no place when the world is in a pandemic condition even though the case fatality rates is pretty much less than 1% for those below 60 and does not rise to above 4% until the age of 70. So yes it is a death-dealing disease just like every other disease in the world. See the chart at https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#interpreting-the-case-fatality-rate

I will not bother to argue support or data against Dr. Hoehn’s position or Dr. Jennings position as that much more complex a subject and really there is nothing to Dr. Hoehn’s position he simply implies that Dr. Jennings is wrong by appealing to organizations. That, by the way, is not really how science works and that appears to be one of the key points to Dr. Jennings argument, pretending that science is a consensus business instead of a questioning endeavor.

Toward the end Hoehn states:

Only the last three on the list are not dangerous with possible serious side effects, and all have proven to be largely ineffective in preventing death or long-term disability from COVID-19. All have had their proponents, Petri dish or theoretical suggestions, and all have been tested in real life. There are now very few politically unmotivated supporters of any of those drugs. Dr. Jennings denies political motivation, but when you are agreeing mostly with QAnon conspiracists and irrational pillow salesmen, one gets a bit anxious.

Here we see again that Hoehn feels this is all political and indeed it is to him. I am sure that Jennings article mentions nothing about QAnon or Michael J. Lindell is the inventor and CEO of My Pillow, Inc. famously a supporter of Donald Trump. He is also a well-known Christian whose testimony from drug addict to successful businessman seems to make him one of the enemies of the political left. We can look at Dr. Jennings article here, something that Hoehn did not link to in his article or really even quote Dr. Jennings. Funny how that works isn’t it, a electronic publication that can’t even link to the article it is criticizing. That is a good indication that you are not dealing with an honest journalistic endeavor.

That is the saddest point in all this. I don’t really care that people have different views on the vaccine or masks. I care a lot more that the Adventist Church is becoming the playground of political progressives who have no interest in even dealing with other views and actively removes those who disagree with them from their pages.  I care most about people who are ignoring government over-reach by the state and Federal government claiming an emergency. No doubt the next emergency will be climate change which will likely be far more over-reaching than this pandemic but if there is no push back against government mandates now it will be far harder in the future.