Back when I wrote my review of Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, I opened by saying the following:
This comparison offended a fellow named Jenny Ian Asencio, who wrote the following yesterday in response to my article:
You are a sick person and should be reported for this alone. To compare good faith discussion  of an issue even trans people believe in to a bigoted plagiarism of a bigoted plagiarism of an anti-Jesuit screed from the 1600[‘]s that was circulated specifically to kill Jews says more about YOUR lack of character than it says anything bad about Abigail Shrier. You couldn’t have proven your lack of integrity better than you did by even bringing the Protocols into this argument, much less comparing Irreversible Damage to them.
(I feel the need to note, the same day this comment was published, a TERF on Twitter accused me of living in a “Medium echo-chamber.”)
He later edited his comment with this edition:
Then again, Buck Angel is one of the few long-term case studies of what trans medicine does to a body, so your dismissal of his LIVED EXPERIENCE is a contradiction of everything you say you believe in.
For the record, I only mentioned Buck Angel a grand total of one time in the review, and it’s when I said this:
“Trans-influencers” is basically Shrier’s term for any transgender person she doesn’t like who is also public (it’s easy to notice she doesn’t call Buck Angle a “trans-influencers,” because he sat down for an interview for this book and is usually on Shrier’s side) — and you better bet you she comes up with the most absurd conspiracy theories about them.
I totally stand by that point, by the way, especially considering Buck Angle — no matter what you think of him — is much more well known than any of the people she calls “trans-influencers.” The only reason I can think of as to why she doesn’t call Angel one is because he’s on her side.