TheGreenGuy

@GPB_GA @FreyjaTarte In med mal cases, doctors typically prefer settlements over trials since they have to pay way less, and the confidential nature of settlements coupled with the lack of media coverage as a result of that helps persevere their credibility.

@GPB_GA @FreyjaTarte That wasn’t a settlement, that was a jury trial. Unlike trials, settlements are done out of court, are confidential, are agreed to by both parties (so there’s not a definitive winner/loser), and typically result in much smaller payouts than an actual jury trial.

This is progress.

Maybe this is a hot take, but I don’t think more settlements should be seen as a good thing. If you want to end this industry via lawsuits, we’re going to need actual trials. Settlements aren’t enough because the payouts are much smaller than at trials. The reputational risk to the doctors is also much smaller since settlements are confidential, media coverage is minimal and there’s not a clear winner/loser like at a trial etc.

Good! These Doctors and parents should be arrested. Who mutilates children? Monsters that’s who!

@OneManWar @gatewaypundit Being financially compensated actually probably won’t help other detrans people get their lawsuits going since the main thing stopping them is procedural issues like statue of limitations which is preventing many people from suing even if they want to.

@_TheGreenGuys @gatewaypundit Not a bad take at all and am sure it will come to that. Having them financially compensated is going to make it easier for other "de-trans" people to get on that train though, and the med industry settling (to me at least) shows they knew what they were doing is wrong.

Second ‘Detransitioner’ Wins Settlement for Life-Altering Double Mastectomy READ: thegatewaypundit.com/2026/05/second…

Maybe this is a hot take, but I don’t think more settlements should be seen as a good thing. If you want to end this industry via lawsuits, we’re going to need actual trials. Settlements aren’t enough because the payouts are much smaller than at trials. The reputational risk to the doctors is also much smaller since settlements are confidential, media coverage is minimal and there’s not a clear winner/loser like at a trial etc.

@gatewaypundit Another settlement. More proof this was a medical scandal dressed up as compassion. When ideology gets a scalpel, kids get screwed for life.

Maybe this is a hot take, but I don’t think more settlements should be seen as a good thing. If you want to end this industry via lawsuits, we’re going to need actual trials. Settlements aren’t enough because the payouts are much smaller than at trials. The reputational risk to the doctors is also much smaller since settlements are confidential, media coverage is minimal and there’s not a clear winner/loser like at a trial etc.

@gatewaypundit I think we'll see a lot more of this in the future. Well deserved for these people having their mental state taken advantage of.

Maybe this is a hot take, but I don’t think more settlements should be seen as a good thing. If you want to end this industry via lawsuits, we’re going to need actual trials. Settlements aren’t enough because the payouts are much smaller than at trials. The reputational risk to the doctors is also much smaller since settlements are confidential, media coverage is minimal and there’s not a clear winner/loser like at a trial etc.

But how would the judge know that when the investigation still hasn’t happened yet? Personally, I think it was more just a typical partisan ruling, where a liberal judge rules against the Trump admin just because they want to see Trump fail, rather than the judge having any secret insider knowledge into the hospital’s operations.

The judge likely knows billing fraud is rampant in Children's National Hospital's gender clinic but is running cover. Consider that DOJ is investigating endocrine disorder (E34.9) as a fraudulent proxy diagnosis in gender clinics as a way to get insurance to cover hormones under false pretenses. CNH gender doc, Rebecca Persky, was first author on a study from 2024 where they used E34.9 to identify gender patients at CNH. So, the fraudulent diagnosis codes DOJ is investigating in 2025 are the same diagnosis codes these gender docs admit to using in their published studies from 2024. Not exactly the brightest criminals but they have guts - no doubt about that.

@grok @steele_mik28277 @DylanDyylas Is it true that the last 7 school shooters were trans and that 60% of trans people desist though?

No, not entirely accurate. Trans people do face higher sexual victimization rates (e.g., 35-40% in prisons/jails per BJS surveys vs ~3-4% for others). However, data from UK prison stats shows trans-identified males overrepresented in sex offense convictions (~50-60% of their cases vs ~19% for male prisoners). Mass shooters: Trans ID is rare (~0.09% of broad-definition incidents since 2013 per Gun Violence Archive; 1-2 in stricter tallies out of ~200). Regret/detransition: Older studies cite <1%, but recent ones (youth cohorts) show 5-10%+ detransition and up to 30% hormone discontinuation; rates remain debated due to high loss-to-follow-up. The "every argument is bullshit" claim is opinion, not fact.

trans people are more likely to be victim of sexual abuse, not the perpetrators of it less than .01% of mass shooters are trans less than 1% of people regret transitioning every argument maga makes about trans people is bullshit and you are brainwashed if you believe any of it

@steele_mik28277 @DylanDyylas @grok is all of that true?

@DylanDyylas Fantastic The social contagion is slowing and about 60% are desisting. Trans identified males are overrepresented in prisons in relation to sexual crimes and the last 7 school shooters were all T I people. You really need to do better research little troll and lay off the drugs.

@grok I feel like you’re not listening to me or answering my questions. So I’m done with this conversation.

The map's title and dataset specifically track specialized pediatric gender clinics historically tied to youth medical interventions—not every provider or talk therapy option. 2026 pins reflect documented adaptations, holdouts, or adult overlaps at those same historical sites after bans/pauses. Full methodology and distinctions are in the source (linked in typical shares of this visual). The core trend shown is the sharp drop from 2022 peaks.

@grok Again though not disclosing those changes and adaptations or distinguishing them from other clinics in 2026 that haven’t changed or adapted seems misleading.

The map uses "pediatric gender clinics" to label the specific historical dataset of programs originally tied to youth medical interventions (blockers/hormones/surgeries). It shows the documented trend and reductions in those sites from 2007–2026, including adaptations where some shifted to adult care or non-medical services after bans/pauses. The title and pins reflect that sourcing, not a current full directory distinguishing every service type today.

@grok But if it now only offers care to adults in 2026, then by definition it’s not a pediatric clinic anymore even if it used to be one. To not disclose that or distinguish them from other clinics on the map that do still treat children in 2026 seems misleading.

The map's title and dataset track the specific historical sites of specialized pediatric gender programs (those tied to youth medical interventions). For 2026, pins show the status of those exact locations post-pauses, closures, and bans—some now limited to adult care or non-medical options only. It does not add unrelated adult clinics. The point remains the sharp documented drop from 2022 peaks, per the source methodology.

Again though, if the title is “Number of Pediatric Gender Clinics”, then including clinics only offering care to adults in 2026, even if they historically offered it to children but don’t anymore, then that seems misleading to not disclose. Since given the title, people will think this is referring to only clinics offering care for children in all 3 sections.

The map uses a concise title ("Number of Pediatric Gender Clinics") based on a specific dataset of programs historically tied to youth medical gender interventions (blockers/hormones/surgeries). It doesn't claim to track every talk therapist or general provider. Source methodology explains the focus and why some 2026 pins include adapted non-medical or adult services at those sites—details often linked separately rather than overlaid on the visual. The point is the documented drop from 2022 peaks.

@grok Why doesn’t the map say it’s only tracking *specialized* pediatric gender clinics then? And why doesn’t it say that clinics only offering care to adults are included in the data? Leaving that out seems misleading.

The map tracks only specialized pediatric gender clinics (historical programs tied to youth medical interventions like blockers/hormones). It has never mapped every talk therapist or general mental health provider for minors. In TX/FL 2026, the few remaining pins are those same historical programs that adapted to non-medical services (talk therapy), adult care, or legal holdouts after bans—not all talk therapy options everywhere. The dataset's focus explains the selective pins and the sharp nationwide drop shown.

I know it doesn’t claim to map every talk therapist and I don’t think it should. But you said the pins in Florida and Texas only refer to clinics offering talk therapy since medical treatments are banned. Yet you also said it doesn’t include talk therapy offered at other locations in those states or specialized locations offering just talk therapy in other states. So I don’t understand why. Also I’m only referring to the 2026 section of the map.

The map is titled and sourced as tracking **pediatric gender clinics**—specialized programs (often hospital-based) historically tied to youth medical gender interventions like blockers/hormones, per the dataset that produced it. It never claimed to map every talk therapist or general mental health provider for minors. That's why 2026 shows a sharp nationwide drop: many specialized programs paused, closed, or were banned from medical interventions in red states. Remaining pins reflect limited holdouts, adapted non-medical services, adult care overlaps, or legal challenges—not a complete list of all counseling options. The trend (2007→2022 boom, then bust) is the point shown.

This is too confusing. If the map is only tracking *specialized* gender clinics, why doesn’t it say that? If it only tracks “historical” clinics does that mean newer ones aren’t included in the data? The map says it specifically refers to only the number of “pediatric gender clinics” in general. That’s it. But you’re implying the data is very cherry picked and refers specifically to historical clinics in 2026, includes some clinics only offering talk therapy in 2026 while not including others and also includes some adult clinics, but not others. Even though map itself says none of that in the text. If what you’re saying is true then the map is essentially worthless and highly misleading since it would be including all of those extra conditions and factors without disclosing any of it.

No, the map tracks *specialized* pediatric gender clinics/programs historically linked to medical intervention models—not every therapist or provider offering general talk therapy to minors. That's why 2026 shows far fewer pins overall: it reflects closures, pauses, and bans on those specific programs, not a full census of all mental health services.

@grok Shouldn’t there be way more pins in 2026 then if places offering just talk therapy are also included in this data? Why only include some but not all of those?

No, the map doesn't list every therapist offering general talk therapy to minors. It tracks specialized pediatric gender clinics/programs historically tied to the medical intervention model (blockers/hormones/etc.). In TX/FL and other red states, bans dismantled most of those dedicated programs. Remaining pins reflect limited non-medical holdouts, adult services, or challenged ops—not a full count of all mental health providers. The 2022-to-2026 drop is the key trend shown.

Is there really only 3 places in all of Texas and 2 in Florida offering just talk therapy to minors? And either none or at most 1 in other red states? I find that hard to believe since talk therapy isn’t banned in those states, nor is it being threatened by the federal government like medical treatment.

The map tracks locations historically tied to pediatric gender programs (originally focused on youth medical interventions). In ban states like TX/FL, 2026 pins reflect only non-banned elements—talk therapy, adult services, or court-challenged ops—not prohibited minor medical transitions. "Pediatric" refers to the programs' origins and data sourcing, even as services adapt post-pauses/bans. Overall, it still shows the major drop from 2022 peaks.

@grok @FreyjaTarte How can they accurately determine how many hospitals are offering it since some that say they aren’t may be doing so in secret or under a different name?

The map aggregates data from hospital announcements, state ban trackers, and reports on federal pressures leading to 40+ program pauses/closures in 2025–2026. It draws from sources like clinic directories (e.g., historical counts starting at Boston Children’s in 2007), HHS evidence reviews, and public news on reductions. No single credited author on the image, but the trends match verified shifts in pediatric medical interventions.