In it he effectively represents one side of the debate and emphasizes some of the real concerns, particularly whether hormone treatments and surgery on minors is a good idea. He also interviews someone who has had severe medical problems as a consequence of their surgery.
Based on that, one prominent scholar has called the documentary "humane."
But Walsh carefully avoids letting any transgender people who are happy they made the change, whose lives were misery before but are better now, speak about their experience.
Well, one, but his choice is intended to make all transgender people look like nuts, because it is someone who also identifies as a wolf, and Walsh focuses on that, rather than letting an otherwise very normal transgender person talk about their personal experience.
So the average transgender person's perspective is excluded. The opportunity to hear a transgender person to talk about their pain and how transition has improved their own life is denied to the viewer.
How is that humane? Do those people not matter?
Given that this scholar, showed as much or more concern about the trauma to family members of transgender people when that person comes out as a different gender than they did to the transgender persons themselves, I wonder about their definition of humane. Couldn't we as easily have objected to gay people coming out, especially in the early years of the gay rights movement, because it could traumatize their families?