Host claims to seek the truth, but unless you wanna be fed far right dog poo, this ain’t it. Also, the infamous may 10th episode. Host and guests claimed that the conversation needed to be had but fail to understand why a majority of people, specifically other BCBAs, educators, parents, and those with disabilities are upset: 1) Laughing at asking the question. If this is an important and serious topic, why the laughter? 2) When encountering not one, but possibly hundreds of people upset at what you said, your approach was to tell them they had no right to be upset, or that being upset did not mean they were correct, or whatever else the host said on her platform. Instead of coming from a place of TRUE curiosity and wanting to understand others (as host claims she does), she instead cried victim and claimed she was being “bullied” or “canceled.” Had you said what you said on your podcast at the beginning, maybe more people would have understood you or cared to have a further conversation. And it’s okay to take some time to process, and find your words. But at no point were you actually quiet. You continued to spit your n*sty rhetoric. You think you’re having important or difficult discussions. But your delivery is obviously terrible. You don’t get to decide that - your audience does. Fix your delivery and maybe more will care to listen and take you seriously.

I listened to the May 10th episode after seeing Kayla claim that the critiques were taken out of context. Unfortunately, the episode did not make the podcasters appear any better than the short clip that’s been circling the internet. In fact, I think it made them all appear worse. The speakers lacked careful analysis and made assumptions throughout the episode. As others have mentioned, they shared that discussion regarding the possibility of eugenics should be had. Either the speakers supper eugenics or are ineffective communicators and unintentionally normalized eugenics. In any case, the rhetoric is dangerous. The whole episode is filled with far-right dog whistles. I do not recommend this podcast, specifically, the May 10th episode.

The conversation surrounding the topic of whether or not to kill disabled people was beyond sickening to listen to. Kayla Perry needs to lose her BCBA certification. Disgusting.

I love this podcast and look forward to it every week. Listening to the honest clear discussions about the relevant topics in the field as practitioners! It’s so nice to hear intelligent conversations to expand our understanding.

The term unorthodox implies contrary to what is usual, traditional, or accepted. It is normally used to defy orthodox practice or tradition. Having listened to a number of episodes ranging from transgendered people to mental health it appears that this podcast is “traditional” at best. Often the tone is that of one generation complaining about another generation. I almost laughed out loud when the host started on a rant about “kids these days and how they don’t have the x, y, or z skill because they didn’t have x,y,z hardship like I had!”. The speaker often equates transgendered girls to nothing more than social contagion or being susceptible to influence by social media. The sourcing of this claim came from a poorly vetted book, based on debunked research which was highly influenced by selection/sampling bias. The host uses the DSM-5 and the data in there and concludes that the increase in transgenderism must be based on social media. Ignoring that the broader scientific mental health community (ACA, AMA, APA, etc) for over 10 years has been describing the hardships and high rates of suicide or violence faced by people who may be transgendered. By the end of the episode I was more convinced that the host was conclusion shopping rather than engaged in active inquiry and skepticism. The sourcing of this podcast seems to be a retelling of Joe Rogan, Candace Owen, Jordon Peterson, or whatever ever right wing talking head the speaker may find who happens to agree with her point of view. I initially gave two stars because I think the episode on logical fallacies was of interest. I tend to agree with the speaker on things like neuro-diversity and trauma informed care. I think we need to be critical of such labels or people who claim to practice techniques using these labels because they are poorly defined and have no measurable criteria to base the practice on. After sitting down and discussing points of view with Kayla it was refreshing to have a conversation and to focus on what we agree on. I may have been rather unfair with my initial rating. I may not agree with all the points Kayla is trying to get across but understand her desire to create dialogue and understanding between people.

I love this podcast. The host is bright, witty and most importantly tackles hot topic, divisive issues openly and honestly. I nod throughout her episodes, because she has the confidence and courage to say out loud what I feel so many of us are afraid to acknowledge and voice ourselves. I’m an SLP and a mother, and I really worry about these movements that have a lot of social credit (neurodiversity and gender affirming practice/care), particularly when applied generally across whole groups of people, when these movements are at best, misguided, and at worst, malevolent. The host doesn’t claim or reveal herself to be of any particular political affiliation, and those who try to somehow discredit her by attributing her comments/stance to political personalities are just the sort of people who need to listen to her the most. Listen and look past labels and use your own critical thinking to judge the merits of the claims presented.