Justice for mutilated ‘transgender’ patients ⁠93%

By Susan Quinn⁠98%

8/5/2026, 9:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 38.4% saturation with 238 hits. Analysis detected 1,989 faulty-reasoning hits from 620 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 82.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠93% (2,290 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.50% of the article peer group.

The past few years have been filled with horrific stories of children being mutilated in the name of transgender ideology. 
Due to some children's discomfort with and disconnection from their own bodies, adults were able to encourage them to believe they were "transgender" and to push them into the miasma of gender transition. 
In many cases, the children didn't even receive counseling to determine if these procedures made sense for them. 
Countless numbers have since realized what a dreadful decision they made. 
But help is on the way to reverse this trend. 
Rep. 
Diana Harshbarger of Tennessee has taken the lead in introducing legislation requiring insurance companies to provide "detransition" (that is, restorative) care for these patients who now realize the devastating choice they've made. 
Harshbarger's proposed legislation is a good starting point: 
Dubbed the Treatment and Restoration Uniformity and Transparency in Health Coverage (TRUTH in Coverage) Act, the legislation has a companion bill in the U.S. 
Senate introduced by Sen. 
Roger Marshall of Kansas. 
The act would require private insurers that cover 'sex-rejecting procedures,' such as genital mutilation and opposite-sex hormones, to pay for 'restorative care' for victims of transgender procedures. 
The measure would force these insurers to provide financial coverage, including for costs of copayments and deductibles, for the devastating, extensive damage. 
(The act does not classify as 'sex-rejecting procedures' any legitimate treatments for rare cases of sexual disorders 'determined through genetic or biochemical testing.') 
Several organizations, besides insurance companies, have been complicit in providing these procedures. 
Although 27 states have set limitations to "gender affirming care," too many are still offering it. 
Harshbarger's proposed legislation would offer legal recourse to those patients who have been damaged through these treatments: 
The law would also provide an unprecedented level of transparency into the horrific effects of transgender surgeries and opposite-sex hormones, and bring 'long-overdue justice,' said Dr. 
Michelle Cretella, Adolescent Health Council co-chair at the American College of Pediatricians. 
Profiting insurers have ignored the systemic harm 'across multiple organ systems' caused by 'puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and cross-sex surgeries' for more than a decade, Cretella added. 
Striking fear in the hearts of parents who were told that their children might commit suicide if they were not "treated" has proven to be untrue. 
In fact, to the contrary, suicide rates for those who pursued these procedures have shown significant increases. 
For those patients who realize they've made a terrible and life-altering mistake pursuing these changes, there has been little recourse. 
No societies support them, and no insurance funds are provided to help them adjust to or reverse the medical procedures they were engaged to have. 
Currently, insurance companies may refuse to cover the damages, which can lead to overwhelming out-of-pocket expenses. 
Without adequate insurance coverage, patients may face myriad health risks, including hormone imbalances, surgical complications, and psychological trauma. 
Passing this legislation could seriously cripple the transgender movement, which would be an outstanding outcome. 
Insurance companies may finally realize that there are huge, ongoing risks if patients decide that they were misled by multiple parties into pursuing these treatments and want to reverse them. 
Those physicians whose greed leads them to offer these services may be reluctant to continue doing them if insurance companies refuse to collude with them. 
Teachers, counselors, and even parents may realize that persuading children to participate in these procedures, rather than getting counseling for their gender dysphoria, could put them at risk at some point. 
Unfortunately, these changes will likely be made for business and financial reasons, rather than moral and ethical reasons. 
But it's a very good place to start. 
The legislation needs to be passed, and soon, to protect our children from more atrocities. 
Image created using AI. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.8%Susan Quinn: 10.2%American Thinker: 9.8%Confirmation Bias16.8%This article: 6.5%Susan Quinn: 1.0%American Thinker: 0.6%Anchoring Bias6.5%This article: 6.0%Susan Quinn: 3.7%American Thinker: 3.4%Availability Heuristic6.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.4%American Thinker: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.0%Susan Quinn: 0.9%American Thinker: 1.2%Hindsight Bias5.0%This article: 1.3%Susan Quinn: 0.1%American Thinker: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias1.3%This article: 14.2%Susan Quinn: 8.5%American Thinker: 6.4%Framing Effect14.2%This article: 2.4%Susan Quinn: 2.1%American Thinker: 0.5%Loss Aversion2.4%This article: 2.6%Susan Quinn: 1.6%American Thinker: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Susan Quinn: 2.3%American Thinker: 1.4%Optimism Bias6.5%This article: 2.4%Susan Quinn: 1.8%American Thinker: 2.3%Pessimism Bias2.4%This article: 32.1%Susan Quinn: 10.0%American Thinker: 11.5%Negativity Bias32.1%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 1.0%American Thinker: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Susan Quinn: 3.3%American Thinker: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error12.3%This article: 5.0%Susan Quinn: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 3.6%American Thinker: 3.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Susan Quinn: 3.2%American Thinker: 4.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.5%American Thinker: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.8%American Thinker: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Susan Quinn: 0.1%American Thinker: 0.6%Primacy Effect1.3%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Susan Quinn: 6.6%American Thinker: 5.0%Ad Hominem6.0%This article: 5.3%Susan Quinn: 9.3%American Thinker: 3.7%Straw Man5.3%This article: 5.6%Susan Quinn: 4.9%American Thinker: 4.1%Appeal to Authority5.6%This article: 10.3%Susan Quinn: 2.4%American Thinker: 4.1%False Dilemma10.3%This article: 11.5%Susan Quinn: 2.6%American Thinker: 3.2%Slippery Slope11.5%This article: 1.3%Susan Quinn: 0.1%American Thinker: 0.3%Circular Reasoning1.3%This article: 21.3%Susan Quinn: 11.7%American Thinker: 15.1%Hasty Generalization21.3%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 1.2%American Thinker: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.8%Susan Quinn: 9.2%American Thinker: 8.0%Appeal to Emotion16.8%This article: 14.7%Susan Quinn: 2.8%American Thinker: 2.2%Begging the Question14.7%This article: 15.3%Susan Quinn: 2.7%American Thinker: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.3%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.4%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.7%Susan Quinn: 0.7%American Thinker: 1.4%Burden of Proof2.7%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.9%Susan Quinn: 1.1%American Thinker: 3.3%Anecdotal7.9%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 16.5%Susan Quinn: 1.8%American Thinker: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.5%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.7%Susan Quinn: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.2%Special Pleading3.7%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.6%American Thinker: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.1%Susan Quinn: 2.2%American Thinker: 2.7%Unattributed Quote12.1%This article: 3.9%Susan Quinn: 1.6%American Thinker: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection3.9%This article: 38.4%Susan Quinn: 21.4%American Thinker: 20.2%Biased Writer Voice38.4%This article: 11.5%Susan Quinn: 3.8%American Thinker: 5.3%Indoctrination11.5%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 19.5%American Thinker: 14.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Quinn: 1.4%American Thinker: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

620 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers12%attributed speech545writer words
Selected voice

Diana Harshbarger

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words43% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+97.1 ptsWriter: 2.9%Diana Harshbarger: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-43.7 ptsWriter: 43.7%Diana Harshbarger: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-13.0 ptsWriter: 13.0%Diana Harshbarger: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.4 ptsWriter: 4.4%Diana Harshbarger: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.