While other developed nations are banning "gender-affirming care" for minors concerning "transgenderism," American liberals continue to stump for the idea that a child can consent to change their sex through the process of "transitioning." That disconnect was on full display as podcast host Michael Knowles battled a PBS reporter Amna Nawaz on the topic. 

ALSO SEE: Trump Confronts Main Governor in Heated Exchange Over Vow to Defy Women's Sports EO

In what I would describe as a revealing exchange, the alleged journalist wore her defensiveness on her sleeve as Knowles cited statistical studies showing transgenderism is a social contagion and not a biological construct. 

(Credit to Newsbusters for saving me some time and providing a transcript.)

Notice that while this PBS reporter continually cites unnamed “experts” to counter Michael’s points, she never once addresses anything he says about how harmful transgender ideology has been to children.

These people have no real argument. pic.twitter.com/SVFzxOlzo9

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) February 21, 2025

Nawaz: You mentioned you think there was a lot of progressive overreach that helped propel President Trump back into the White House. And specific to that, you have called transgenderism, in particular, one of those issues that you think moved people and moved the needle. You have also said previously that it should be eradicated from public life entirely. And when you were asked about that, you said that you were calling for an end to the ideology, not for an end to the people.

Knowles: Yes.

Nawaz: If you have changed your view at all, please let me know. But I will confess, I don't know what the difference is when articulated like that. So could you explain it?

What Nawaz is doing there is a favorite tactic by biased reporters, which is first to offer the opportunity for what amounts to a religious indulgence followed by a purposeful conflation of issues. There is no ambiguity about saying you want to end an ideology but not harming the people who espouse it. Yet, Nawaz claims to be very confused about the matter, saying, "I don't know what the difference is when articulated like that." She knows what the difference is, but if she were to admit that, she would be conceding an obvious truth: Transgenderism is an ideology driven by mental illness and political ambition. 

Transgender ideology offers social power to those who wield it. Does anyone think an 82-year-old Joe Biden actually believed a man could become a woman? Or that most Democrats truly care about the issue at all? Of course, they don't, but there is political power in creating and weaponizing victim groups. 

Knowles: Sure. If I say that I want to eradicate poverty, I'm not saying that I want to eradicate all the poor people. Quite the opposite. I would like to help the poor people by eradicating poverty. And so when I made my comments at CPAC a couple years ago, I have now repeated it so many times, I think I have it memorized. I said, for the good of society, and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen prey to this confusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely, the whole preposterous ideology, at every level….

Nawaz: I will say, as a -- you're saying that it's reality. This it is a belief system that you hold. I mean, transgenderism is something that has been acknowledged by medical professionals. There's an entire body…

Notice the inversion of reality. That's another favorite tactic by the mainstream press. According to Nawaz, it is now a "belief system" to hold to the biological reality that men and men and women are women. No, that is simply a fact, and no amount of "medical professionals" buying into transgenderism ideology for their own gain, be it financial, political, or both, changes that. 

Now, watch what happens next. 

Knowles: And rejected by medical professionals.

Nawaz: By a few.

Knowles: Dr. Paul McHugh, who pioneered the …

Nawaz: There's an entire body of scientific and medical knowledge that backs this up. And that's what gender-affirming care has all been based on in recent years.

Knowles: Not really. Not really.

Nawaz: I will just ask you this, though. We're talking about 1 percent of the U.S. adult population here.

Putting aside that Nawaz is wrong that there's any real scientific basis for "gender-affirming care," did you see what she did there? Yet another favorite tactic of left-wing reporters is to claim something by citing unnamed "experts" and then quickly shifting the discussion when they are challenged. Nawaz says there's "an entire body of scientific and medical knowledge" that supports "gender-affirming care." Okay, who? She should be expected to list specific studies that support her contentions. Instead of doing so, she shifts to trying to downplay transgenderism as an issue, a sure-fire sign she's losing the argument. 

Knowles: Thirty percent of Gen Z self-identifies as LGBT.

Nawaz: Because more people, experts believe, are comfortable coming out and sharing the identity.

Knowles: Or because it's a social contagion.

Nawaz: You believe transgender people make other people transgender? Is that what you're saying?

Knowles: This is also backed up in the medical literature. There was a study in 2018 that showed that school children who are socializing with people who identify as transgender are much more likely to identify as transgender themselves.

Nawaz: Michael, you realize this is the same argument people made about gay people, right?

Knowles: Well, I'm talking about the whole LGBT ideology. So I suppose, in some ways, I'm making that argument myself.

Nawaz: You don't believe that gay people exist?

Knowles: Say it again?

Amna Nawaz: You don't believe gay people exist?

Knowles: Well, I think people have same-sex attractions and all of that. But I suppose the question I would have to ask is…

Nawaz: But that is -- no, no, in answer to my question, do you believe that gay people exist?

Knowles: I think some people are attracted to members of the same-sex, yes.

Nawaz: Those would be gay people, correct?

Knowles: Well, I don't think that one's sexual desires necessarily define one's identity.

I'm a broken record at this point, but again, notice the misdirection. Nawaz can't argue against the statistical reality that transgenderism is a social contagion so she quickly shifts to mixing issues to deflect the weakness of her position. Someone who has same-sex attractions does not claim to be able to change from one sex to the other to satisfy those desires. Someone who identifies as transgender does, and that is a major distinction that can't be glossed over by clutching one's pearls. 

Given the insane rise of transgenderism in one generation over such a short period, any claim that it is simply a natural process playing out is ludicrous. It is clearly a social contagion not driven by any biological factor. Nawaz knows that which is why she didn't even attempt to address the study Knowles cited. Instead, she quickly built a strawman to beat up.

Here's how the exchange wrapped up.

Amna Nawaz: When you use words like eradicate…

Michael Knowles: Well, you know what the word eradicate means.

Amna Nawaz: … do you worry that puts a target on people's backs?

Michael Knowles: Certainly not. In fact the only targets that I have had on my own back are when I question these kinds of ideologies that have been so terrible for people.

The only times I have ever been attacked in public — in one case, someone who's in federal prison for trying to blow me up at a speech in Pittsburgh — is because I dared to question the trans ideology. People are being introduced to this ideology at younger and younger ages.

It can lead to horrific outcomes, especially for younger people put on puberty blockers, which often cannot be reversed. It leads to castration, bone problems, and early death. These are not the sort of things that we should wish for people if we wish for their own good.

And so what it really comes down to is whether or not a man can become a woman or a man can secretly be a woman if he appears to be a man. And my contention is, that just isn't how human nature works.

Amna Nawaz: I'm just going to clarify. You did say it's your contention. I would encourage people to go check out the research and studies on their own.

In short, this interview was a case study of how left-wing journalists attempt to gatekeep their political viewpoints through emotional manipulation and reliance on ambiguous appeals to authority. The moment someone pushes back, they are forced to shift the goalposts, as we saw several times when Knowles painted Nawaz into a corner. And just to put the cherry on top, the aforementioned propaganda disguised as unbiased journalism is being paid for by your taxpayer dollars. How does that make you feel?