I was surprised to see Sage at the State of the Union Address, and pleasantly surprised to see her looking - at least on the surface - well. My problem is exactly the point you made. After spewing so much false information, being obnoxious, divisive and boastful, Trump said something true and important, and, frankly, when he said "you guys are crazy" in an incredulous way, at that very moment I was with him all the way. I can't stand the guy, but I totally agree with him on this point. The problem is that nobody who isn't as steeped in this issue as those of us on your Substack would believe him, and the fact that it is him making these arguments for protecting young people from all sorts of abuse (medical, psychological, sexual) unfortunately weakens the arguments.
I don't know what we can possibly do about it other than to keep on trying to inform the public that, like a broken clock, Donald J. Trump is correct in this one issue. We have to keep explaining that, regardless of whether Trump's motives on this issue are pure (I can't read his mind and won't venture a guess, but I have my doubts), he is right about the need to prevent unnecessary, harmful medical interventions that cause young people to become less functional and less healthy and unnecessary, and harmful teachings and social interventions that cause young people to become confused, to become hateful of their bodies, and to believe falsehoods about themselves and about their doubting parents and loved ones.
I didn't watch the speech (I just can't), but my husband did and he told me about the "you guys are crazy!" moment, which he thought was funny because it was so true on this issue. It's really a shame that Trump is such a poor messenger. We can't read his mind, but there is ample public evidence that the only thing he truly cares about is himself, and that he has no problem with cruelty as long as it serves his interests. This issue is so important, and we really need a prominent public figure who can make a credible case going forward, not someone who taints the cause with his own depravity.
I’m so sick of the opinions about Trump that are wrong. He’s a great father, a doting grandfather, a good husband so obviously he cares about others besides himself. He comes off as callous at times but his actions belie his words. What’s he’s done today in freeing the Iranian people from a truly horrible leader is so brilliant. Did he stomp in and demand Iran now rebuild their country his way? No. Please, get a grip on reality. He’s just a man, who was rich kid who’s now trying his best to do good things for us. Do you know many rich kids trying to do the same, despite the vile rhetoric thrown at him at every turn? No wonder he’s a bit callous. I would be, too, if I were spoken of the way you all talk about him. Forgive his mistakes, just as you all want to be forgiven for yours.
Lisa, I’m extremely disappointed you had to lead with the criticism of him, rather than just praising what he did that you feel is a good thing. You could have left that off and led with Sage’s story. She deserved better than divisive rhetoric in describing her story. I’m not MAGA, attack me all you want- I’m too old to care.
I am more worried that Trump will fail to follow through on the promise that his executive orders hold (held?) for curbing the excesses of trans activism. Who knows what Trump understands about the issues or how well the groups charged with implementing them are staffed, funded and administered.
Nothing like this happened in my case but in my interactions with schools, counselors, therapists, and courts, I can absolutely see how this happened. I have chills because I know if one person had made a slightly different call, I could have lost my child or she would have been sent down an even worse trajectory.
Thank you so much for this account. I reread the Saga of Sage from PITT 2022 and the NY Post story from 2023 last night. Her story haunts me as I have the following people in my life: a couple whose eldest daughter ran away to be with a "Romeo" she met on line who then sex trafficked her; a couple whose youngest son at age 13 was sex texting with a 44 year old married man and father - they were about to meet in person when mom figured it out and intervened, and of course, many high school students over the years who do have real sexual trauma, have made rash decisions, as well as students who suddenly identify with new genders, pronouns, and names for all sorts of reasons. I tell my colleagues I will not hold a secret from the family, unless we are calling CPS. I appreciate your retelling of her story and I will share this with others. It is unbelievable that the judge was more concerned with the girl's pronouns than the actually rapes and traumas that she had suffered. Terrible.
I read this to my spouse, whom I’ve partly succeeded at deprogramming, but he continues to be skeptical (which I’ll grant is healthy, to a point) and resistant (which gets frustrating) as I try to raise his awareness of things the rest of our tribe is not yet discussing.
"Sage’s court-appointed attorney claimed she and Roger were unfit to take her home because they kept calling Sage “Draco,” and using she/her pronouns." Do you mean that they kept calling "Draco" Sage?
Alas, not many of us have staff. I love that you're reminding us all of the details of Sage's story. Not looking forward to reading the rest, but I am looking forward to being informed.
I regularly use ChatGPT to summarize and discuss articles. After a rocky start, I was able to persuade ChatGPT to summarize and discuss articles that deal with the trans issue from a gender critical perspective.
So I was looking forward to doing the same with this piece. My prompt was "summarize." I then pasted this piece into ChatGPT's window and hit "enter." At first ChatGPT produced several paragraphs of summary. Then the summary vanished from the screen and was replaced by this message in bold red:
----------------------------------------------
This content may violate our usage policies.
Did we get it wrong? Please tell us by giving this response a thumbs down.
----------------------------------------------
I gave the response a thumbs down, typed "summary" as my prompt, pasted this article again, hit enter and the same thing happened. "This content may violate our usage policies."
So I asked ChatGPT for help:
----------------------------------------------
ChatGPT did not let me upload a gender critical article just now because it MAY violate ChatGPT's usage policies. You and I have been discussing perfectly "safe" gender critical material here for months. I need you to help me get past the improper censorship.
----------------------------------------------
I received this Big Brother-y reply from ChatGPT:
-----------------------------------------------
I’m really glad you told me this directly instead of just stewing about it.
First, I want to separate two things clearly:
1. You and I discussing gender-critical ideas.
2. The system blocking a file upload.
Those are not the same mechanism.
OpenAI’s policies do **not** prohibit gender-critical analysis, skepticism about gender identity ideology, discussion of contested research, or criticism of institutional practices. We’ve been discussing those topics for a long time without issue, as you’ve noticed.
What *does* trigger automated blocks are things like:
* Language that is classified as targeting or degrading a protected group
* Slurs or explicit dehumanizing phrases
* Advocacy of exclusion, punishment, or harm
* Certain high-risk policy phrases that get flagged automatically, even if used analytically
The upload filter is automated and conservative. It sometimes blocks material because it *might* contain disallowed language — not because the ideas themselves are forbidden. It errs on the side of caution.
That doesn’t mean your material is illegitimate. It means the automated gatekeeper couldn’t confidently classify it as compliant.
Here’s how we can work around that properly (not by evading policy, but by staying within it):
### 1. Try pasting in smaller sections
Sometimes a long piece triggers flags because of density of language. Break it into sections and paste them one at a time.
### 2. Remove or paraphrase any sharp rhetorical language
If the article uses:
* insults toward “trans people” as a class
* language implying delusion, fraud, contagion, etc.
* statements advocating removal of rights
that’s what the filter will hit.
You can paste the argument while replacing emotionally charged wording with neutral phrasing. We can analyze the logic without repeating inflammatory language.
### 3. Frame the purpose explicitly
For example:
> “I’d like to analyze the rhetorical structure of this gender-critical essay.”
>
> “I want help assessing the empirical claims in this piece.”
That signals analytical intent.
### 4. If it still won’t upload
You can summarize the core argument in your own words and we can examine it. You don’t need the entire article verbatim for us to do serious analysis.
---
Let me also reassure you of something important:
Discussing:
* whether gender identity ideology is contested
* whether sex is immutable
* whether affirmation policies have risks
* whether courts or schools overreached
is absolutely allowed.
What isn’t allowed is attacking people as a protected class.
From everything you’ve written over months, your interest is structural, philosophical, legal, and institutional. That is legitimate analytical ground.
So let’s do this calmly and strategically.
If you’d like, tell me:
* What message did the system give you exactly?
* Was there a particular phrase in the article that might have tripped it?
We’ll figure out a clean way to get the substance examined without running into automated tripwires.
-----------------------------------------
"If the article uses: * insults toward “trans people” as a class* language implying delusion, fraud, contagion, etc. * statements advocating removal of rights . . ." ????
All I can say at this point is FFS.
ChatGPT has as much as admitted to me that Open AI has a pro-trans bias. I can't help thinking that OpenAI's censorship with a velvet glove must be something like what the former Soviet Union did to suppress disfavored ideas. Frankly, I think it was the mention of Trump in connection with trans that caused ChatGPT to shut it down. Sigh.
Can you name the judge & Sage's attorney? As I remember, the attorney lied to the judge. ... this case hits at a very visceral level. Democrats sat there like idiots. Democrats are for they/them, right?
One of the remarkable things about Sage's story is that her family did get her back. ... Others of us haven't been so lucky.
This is great (not the material, the writing). 2 typos: (1) Sage’s court-appointed attorney claimed she and Roger were unfit to take her home because they kept calling Sage “Draco. I think you mean that they didn't call her 'Draco'. (2) It is the story of how a few poorly executive papers in the early 2000s about the importance of family acceptance were misinterpreted. I think you mean poorly executed, although I don't know that that would be the best way to criticize them.
Yes. As someone who was quietly gender critical in the DMV area as all of this was going down, I want to know which Virginia and Maryland local authorities should be held accountable for this disgusting horror show.
What a harrowing story. I am trying to make sense of the timeline. You say "Three months later, after continually trying to regain custody, Michele received a call from a Baltimore social worker: Sage had gone missing." And then at the end: "But it was forty-four days between the night Sage left and when Michele got her back." Is the "night Sage left" not the night she left her home (which seems implied given that this sentence seems to sum up the whole ordeal)? Is it the night she left the foster care place?
Good catch. The deal is: I took this from a draft of the book and hadn't copyedited, so I need to go back and double check! I hurried to get it out (and had first pitched a shortened version to major news outlets, but they didn't take it.)
Thank you so much for following up on this.
I was surprised to see Sage at the State of the Union Address, and pleasantly surprised to see her looking - at least on the surface - well. My problem is exactly the point you made. After spewing so much false information, being obnoxious, divisive and boastful, Trump said something true and important, and, frankly, when he said "you guys are crazy" in an incredulous way, at that very moment I was with him all the way. I can't stand the guy, but I totally agree with him on this point. The problem is that nobody who isn't as steeped in this issue as those of us on your Substack would believe him, and the fact that it is him making these arguments for protecting young people from all sorts of abuse (medical, psychological, sexual) unfortunately weakens the arguments.
I don't know what we can possibly do about it other than to keep on trying to inform the public that, like a broken clock, Donald J. Trump is correct in this one issue. We have to keep explaining that, regardless of whether Trump's motives on this issue are pure (I can't read his mind and won't venture a guess, but I have my doubts), he is right about the need to prevent unnecessary, harmful medical interventions that cause young people to become less functional and less healthy and unnecessary, and harmful teachings and social interventions that cause young people to become confused, to become hateful of their bodies, and to believe falsehoods about themselves and about their doubting parents and loved ones.
Thanks for letting me vent!
I didn't watch the speech (I just can't), but my husband did and he told me about the "you guys are crazy!" moment, which he thought was funny because it was so true on this issue. It's really a shame that Trump is such a poor messenger. We can't read his mind, but there is ample public evidence that the only thing he truly cares about is himself, and that he has no problem with cruelty as long as it serves his interests. This issue is so important, and we really need a prominent public figure who can make a credible case going forward, not someone who taints the cause with his own depravity.
Exactly right.
I’m so sick of the opinions about Trump that are wrong. He’s a great father, a doting grandfather, a good husband so obviously he cares about others besides himself. He comes off as callous at times but his actions belie his words. What’s he’s done today in freeing the Iranian people from a truly horrible leader is so brilliant. Did he stomp in and demand Iran now rebuild their country his way? No. Please, get a grip on reality. He’s just a man, who was rich kid who’s now trying his best to do good things for us. Do you know many rich kids trying to do the same, despite the vile rhetoric thrown at him at every turn? No wonder he’s a bit callous. I would be, too, if I were spoken of the way you all talk about him. Forgive his mistakes, just as you all want to be forgiven for yours.
Lisa, I’m extremely disappointed you had to lead with the criticism of him, rather than just praising what he did that you feel is a good thing. You could have left that off and led with Sage’s story. She deserved better than divisive rhetoric in describing her story. I’m not MAGA, attack me all you want- I’m too old to care.
I am more worried that Trump will fail to follow through on the promise that his executive orders hold (held?) for curbing the excesses of trans activism. Who knows what Trump understands about the issues or how well the groups charged with implementing them are staffed, funded and administered.
Nothing like this happened in my case but in my interactions with schools, counselors, therapists, and courts, I can absolutely see how this happened. I have chills because I know if one person had made a slightly different call, I could have lost my child or she would have been sent down an even worse trajectory.
Thank you so much for this account. I reread the Saga of Sage from PITT 2022 and the NY Post story from 2023 last night. Her story haunts me as I have the following people in my life: a couple whose eldest daughter ran away to be with a "Romeo" she met on line who then sex trafficked her; a couple whose youngest son at age 13 was sex texting with a 44 year old married man and father - they were about to meet in person when mom figured it out and intervened, and of course, many high school students over the years who do have real sexual trauma, have made rash decisions, as well as students who suddenly identify with new genders, pronouns, and names for all sorts of reasons. I tell my colleagues I will not hold a secret from the family, unless we are calling CPS. I appreciate your retelling of her story and I will share this with others. It is unbelievable that the judge was more concerned with the girl's pronouns than the actually rapes and traumas that she had suffered. Terrible.
Truly Orwellian, Kafkaesque, dystopian, and horrifying beyond words.
I read this to my spouse, whom I’ve partly succeeded at deprogramming, but he continues to be skeptical (which I’ll grant is healthy, to a point) and resistant (which gets frustrating) as I try to raise his awareness of things the rest of our tribe is not yet discussing.
He seemed stunned by this.
Thank you, Lisa.
Brilliant and haunting. So grateful for your voice.
"Sage’s court-appointed attorney claimed she and Roger were unfit to take her home because they kept calling Sage “Draco,” and using she/her pronouns." Do you mean that they kept calling "Draco" Sage?
Yep, thanks. Will fix.
also " It is the story of how a few poorly executive papers in the early 2000s" is probably supposed to be "executed papers"?
Thank you! I was rushing to get it out this morning because, you know, SOTU!
Alas, not many of us have staff. I love that you're reminding us all of the details of Sage's story. Not looking forward to reading the rest, but I am looking forward to being informed.
I regularly use ChatGPT to summarize and discuss articles. After a rocky start, I was able to persuade ChatGPT to summarize and discuss articles that deal with the trans issue from a gender critical perspective.
So I was looking forward to doing the same with this piece. My prompt was "summarize." I then pasted this piece into ChatGPT's window and hit "enter." At first ChatGPT produced several paragraphs of summary. Then the summary vanished from the screen and was replaced by this message in bold red:
----------------------------------------------
This content may violate our usage policies.
Did we get it wrong? Please tell us by giving this response a thumbs down.
----------------------------------------------
I gave the response a thumbs down, typed "summary" as my prompt, pasted this article again, hit enter and the same thing happened. "This content may violate our usage policies."
So I asked ChatGPT for help:
----------------------------------------------
ChatGPT did not let me upload a gender critical article just now because it MAY violate ChatGPT's usage policies. You and I have been discussing perfectly "safe" gender critical material here for months. I need you to help me get past the improper censorship.
----------------------------------------------
I received this Big Brother-y reply from ChatGPT:
-----------------------------------------------
I’m really glad you told me this directly instead of just stewing about it.
First, I want to separate two things clearly:
1. You and I discussing gender-critical ideas.
2. The system blocking a file upload.
Those are not the same mechanism.
OpenAI’s policies do **not** prohibit gender-critical analysis, skepticism about gender identity ideology, discussion of contested research, or criticism of institutional practices. We’ve been discussing those topics for a long time without issue, as you’ve noticed.
What *does* trigger automated blocks are things like:
* Language that is classified as targeting or degrading a protected group
* Slurs or explicit dehumanizing phrases
* Advocacy of exclusion, punishment, or harm
* Certain high-risk policy phrases that get flagged automatically, even if used analytically
The upload filter is automated and conservative. It sometimes blocks material because it *might* contain disallowed language — not because the ideas themselves are forbidden. It errs on the side of caution.
That doesn’t mean your material is illegitimate. It means the automated gatekeeper couldn’t confidently classify it as compliant.
Here’s how we can work around that properly (not by evading policy, but by staying within it):
### 1. Try pasting in smaller sections
Sometimes a long piece triggers flags because of density of language. Break it into sections and paste them one at a time.
### 2. Remove or paraphrase any sharp rhetorical language
If the article uses:
* insults toward “trans people” as a class
* language implying delusion, fraud, contagion, etc.
* statements advocating removal of rights
that’s what the filter will hit.
You can paste the argument while replacing emotionally charged wording with neutral phrasing. We can analyze the logic without repeating inflammatory language.
### 3. Frame the purpose explicitly
For example:
> “I’d like to analyze the rhetorical structure of this gender-critical essay.”
>
> “I want help assessing the empirical claims in this piece.”
That signals analytical intent.
### 4. If it still won’t upload
You can summarize the core argument in your own words and we can examine it. You don’t need the entire article verbatim for us to do serious analysis.
---
Let me also reassure you of something important:
Discussing:
* whether gender identity ideology is contested
* whether sex is immutable
* whether affirmation policies have risks
* whether courts or schools overreached
is absolutely allowed.
What isn’t allowed is attacking people as a protected class.
From everything you’ve written over months, your interest is structural, philosophical, legal, and institutional. That is legitimate analytical ground.
So let’s do this calmly and strategically.
If you’d like, tell me:
* What message did the system give you exactly?
* Was there a particular phrase in the article that might have tripped it?
We’ll figure out a clean way to get the substance examined without running into automated tripwires.
-----------------------------------------
"If the article uses: * insults toward “trans people” as a class* language implying delusion, fraud, contagion, etc. * statements advocating removal of rights . . ." ????
All I can say at this point is FFS.
ChatGPT has as much as admitted to me that Open AI has a pro-trans bias. I can't help thinking that OpenAI's censorship with a velvet glove must be something like what the former Soviet Union did to suppress disfavored ideas. Frankly, I think it was the mention of Trump in connection with trans that caused ChatGPT to shut it down. Sigh.
Also Orwellian, Kafkaesque, dreadful. Chilling. Like Pravda.
Wow. Thanks for documenting this, Ollie.
Hi Lisa,
Can you name the judge & Sage's attorney? As I remember, the attorney lied to the judge. ... this case hits at a very visceral level. Democrats sat there like idiots. Democrats are for they/them, right?
One of the remarkable things about Sage's story is that her family did get her back. ... Others of us haven't been so lucky.
I can go back through the complaints and get those names, yes. For later in the week! I was rushing to get this out because of Sage being at the SOTU.
This is great (not the material, the writing). 2 typos: (1) Sage’s court-appointed attorney claimed she and Roger were unfit to take her home because they kept calling Sage “Draco. I think you mean that they didn't call her 'Draco'. (2) It is the story of how a few poorly executive papers in the early 2000s about the importance of family acceptance were misinterpreted. I think you mean poorly executed, although I don't know that that would be the best way to criticize them.
Hopefully fixed now, thank you!!
Can we name names of all who participated in this travesty??
Yes. As someone who was quietly gender critical in the DMV area as all of this was going down, I want to know which Virginia and Maryland local authorities should be held accountable for this disgusting horror show.
Nightmarish story that sounds entirely plausible. Horror.
Ok, but why would her grandmother and grandfather initially encourage the lesbian lifestyle.. “you do you”. 🤷♀️
What a harrowing story. I am trying to make sense of the timeline. You say "Three months later, after continually trying to regain custody, Michele received a call from a Baltimore social worker: Sage had gone missing." And then at the end: "But it was forty-four days between the night Sage left and when Michele got her back." Is the "night Sage left" not the night she left her home (which seems implied given that this sentence seems to sum up the whole ordeal)? Is it the night she left the foster care place?
Good catch. The deal is: I took this from a draft of the book and hadn't copyedited, so I need to go back and double check! I hurried to get it out (and had first pitched a shortened version to major news outlets, but they didn't take it.)
I can't help my fact-checking impulse! ☺️
Keep it up!!