I thought you had posted it about a week ago though apparently not. But I'd watched the opening few minutes last Wednesday when it was first published, presumably after seeing it linked-to or discussed on Glinner's page/Substack. It's a bit too long to really justify the time (59 minutes) but she seems a smart cookie, someone who fortunately hadn't drunk the KoolAid before realizing the poisonous rot in the whole phenomenon.
Somewhat apropos of which, a shorter video - some 7 minutes - by UK MP Miriam Cates and, as a bonus, my comment thereon - which "Someone" has liked:
Although I think my comment highlights or underlines some "misperceptions" of yours about gender in this previous comment of yours:
I had a bit of a revelation. Trans persons think they are completely "normal". The fact that they cut off their breasts, or cocks, and take hormones, and cut up their genitals is just a normal human endeavor. So, they don't see their trans status as being a "treatment". They see their trans status as an exploration to find the truth. They really believe gender is a "expression" that is on a spectrum.
Kind of fascinating, in a sick sort of way, to reflect on the fact that, as you put it, many of the transloonie crowd think that "cutting up their genitals is just a normal human endeavor". Something of a fascinating story, if one has the stomach for it, on a transman who surgically acquired "her" own penis:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/10/maga ... =url-share
Now that you've paid to fix the cat of your daughter's transman "boyfriend" - if I remember correctly on both accounts, maybe you'll be interested in paying to fix the "boyfriend" "himself" ... ;-)
But an amusing bit in the NYTimes story where the transman in question - Ben - described how "her" penis was intially "too large" in diameter:
Ben hoped to get the implant — and a matching silicon testicle — sometime in early 2022, but before that he wanted to address two complications. First, his urine stream had grown weak, and he worried he might have a urethral stricture. Second, his penis was still very thick — far too thick to put his hand around.
I can sympathize ... ;-)
Though moot at what point "body modifications" cross the line from cosmetic surgery to pathology - apparently some 40,000 American "women" have "breast enhancement surgery" every year:
However, the crux of the matter, and a major part of the problem, is that you seem to reject the whole concept of gender itself. As I've argued in my YouTube comment, the whole concept of gender is pretty much incoherent twaddle - though not entirely so - with little to no science as any kind of leavening. However, there is some merit in the definition in the lead sentence of Wikipedia's article on the topic:
Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them.
There are probably hundreds if not thousands of psychological traits that show differences in the population distributions by sex, all of which might reasonably contribute to that "range" - AKA, spectrum. And maybe some marginal value in thinking, as does Wikipedia, that our sexes contribute to that spectrum.
However, what is rank insanity is the apparent "thinking" of many of the transgendered that if they remove their gonads then they've changed both their genders and their sexes. They've certainly changed their genders, but all they've done as far as their sexes is to turn themselves into sexless eunuchs.
Sure would like to know whether your daughter's "boyfriend" (if that's the case) - and/or your daughter - realize that's the case, whether they have any clue at all what it means to have a sex, what traits one must possess to qualify as male or female.