Gee No shit!
A new study released by the University of California Los Angeles finds that gender “nonconforming” young people in California are more than twice as likely to have psychological problems than those comfortable with their biological sex.
According to the study, 17 percent of “gender nonconforming” respondents reported severe psychological distress, versus 7 percent of “gender conforming” youth.
The American College of Pediatricians has asserted that children and adolescents who are uncomfortable with their biological sex suffer from gender dysphoria, as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V):
A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind, not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V)…
The study, released by the school’s Williams Institute – a sexual orientation and gender identity think tank – and the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research also found no significant differences in the rates of suicidal ideation (thinking) and suicide attempts between “gender nonconforming” young people and those who are comfortable with their biological sex.
That outcome is in stark contrast with other research often cited by proponents of the practice of immediately affirming young people who claim to be a gender that is inconsistent with their biological sex.
In 2015, for example, the Huffington Post featured a column that portrayed “transgender” individuals who consider or attempt suicide primarily as victims of “rejection by friends and family,” “discrimination,” and “internalized transphobia.”
The fear of suicide is one of the primary reasons parents of gender confused children immediately rush to affirm their children’s claim to be a different gender. The fear also fuels the recommendation by LGBT “affirming” therapists that gender-confused children must be affirmed in their gender confusion and even allowed to begin taking puberty-suppressing drugs in order to begin “transition” to the opposite sex.
The UCLA study’s authors point to lack of acceptance of the young person’s chosen gender identity and victimization by family and others as primary causes of the psychological problems experienced by “gender nonconforming” young people:
This finding highlights the need to increase access to affirming mental health care and other supports, as well as to educate parents, schools, and communities on the mental health needs of gender nonconforming youth. It also makes it clear that we must focus on continuing to reduce known risk factors, such as bullying and bias, against gender nonconforming people.
Researchers Paul Hruz, Lawrence Mayer, and Paul McHugh also address the problem of “gender-affirming” therapy in a paper titled “Growing Pains,” published at The New Atlantis.
The authors write:
Gender-affirming models of treatment are sometimes applied even to very young children. Often, the gender-affirming approach is followed in later youth and adulthood by hormonal and surgical interventions intended to make patients’ appearances align more closely with their gender identity than their biological sex. In order to improve the success of the physical changes, interventions at younger ages are increasingly being recommended.
The authors warn of decisions made to help “affirm” a gender-confused child’s perceived identity, without any connection to scientific fact or research.
“Though there is little systematically collected data on the number of young people (or even the number of adults) who identify as transgender or who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery, there is some evidence that the number of people receiving medical and psychotherapeutic care for gender identity issues is on the rise,” they write.
The UCLA study’s main headline is that, in California, 27 percent of participants between the ages of 12 and 17 self-report that others view them as “gender nonconforming” at school. The authors included two questions in the California Health Interview Survey that were asked of 1,594 young people in California between the ages of 12 and 17.
First, the young people were asked, “Are you male or female?” and, subsequent to that question, were asked:
A person’s appearance, style, dress, or the way they walk or talk may affect how people describe them. How do you think other people at school would describe you?
- Very feminine
- Mostly feminine
- Equally feminine & masculine
- Mostly masculine
- Very masculine
The authors categorized male participants, who said others describe them as “very feminine” or “mostly feminine,” and female respondents, who said others describe them as “very masculine” or “mostly masculine,” as “highly gender nonconforming,” while those youth who responded “equally feminine and masculine” were categorized as “androgynous.”
Those young people categorized as “highly gender nonconforming” numbered 59, while 331 were placed in the “androgynous” category. Of the youth participants in the study, 1,204 were in the “gender conforming” category.
California was the first state to adopt the LGBT rights agenda formally into its public schools, as part of a new history and social studies curriculum that will reach children as young as the second grade.
Feminists who have raised concerns about the transgender cult deserve the support of all decent people, and conservatives ought not to withhold that support because of ideological differences. When you’re at war, you need allies, and if Churchill could make an alliance with Stalin for the sake of defeating Hitler, then I see no reason why conservatives and feminists can’t make an alliance to defeat the transgender cult.
How many issues do I agree with Magdalen Berns about? Probably very few, but THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LESBIAN WITH A PENIS!
“Lesbians don’t have penises. . . . If you’re born with a penis and [testicles], you’re male. You don’t get ‘assigned’ reproductive organs. Males are defined by their biological sex organs. Likewise, a homosexual is someone who’s attracted to members of the same biological sex. . . . Males can’t be lesbians.”
— Magdalen Berns
Where do weirdos like Riley Dennis and Zinnia Jones get the idea, first of all, that they can “identify” as female and demand that the rest of us accept this identification as legitimate? But having once made that leap beyond the bounds of biological reality, how do these deranged people then have the effrontery to call themselves “lesbians”? Well, this is the logical conclusion of the “gender equality” argument.
Why did the Supreme Court rule that VMI could not continue as an all-male institution? Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s majority decision invoked the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment, but that amendment said nothing whatsoever about “gender equality.” The 14th Amendment was intended to protect the rights of the former slaves whose freedom had been won as a consequence of a war fought by all-male armies, and the amendment was ratified by all-male legislators in an age when women did not even have the right to vote. More to the point, when feminists had attempted to enshrine “gender equality” in the Constitution, legislators had rejected the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. What Justice Ginsburg and the Supreme Court majority were doing, in the case of United States v. Virginia Military Institute, was nullifying the democratic process for the sake of a “progressive” ideology that the American electorate had never embraced.
Much of the Court’s opinion is devoted to deprecating the closed mindedness of our forebears with regard to women’s education, and even with regard to the treatment of women in areas that have nothing to do with education. . . . The virtue of a democratic system with a First Amendment is that it readily enables the people, over time, to be persuaded that what they took for granted is not so, and to change their laws accordingly. That system is destroyed if the smug assurances of each age are removed from the democratic process and written into the Constitution. So to counterbalance the Court’s criticism of our ancestors, let me say a word in their praise: they left us free to change. The same cannot be said of this most illiberal Court, which has embarked on a course of inscribing one after another of the current preferences of the society (and in some cases only the counter majoritarian preferences of the society’s law trained elite) into our Basic Law. Today it enshrines the notion that no substantial educational value is to be served by an all men’s military academy — so that the decision by the people of Virginia to maintain such an institution denies equal protection to women who cannot attend that institution but can attend others. Since it is entirely clear that the Constitution of the United States — the old one — takes no sides in this educational debate, I dissent.
Exactly so. At some point during the 20th century, those whom Justice Scalia called “the society’s law trained elite” reached a consensus that anything done in the name of “equality” was good, and that all opposition was bad. It is unjust “discrimination” to believe that all-male institutions serve a useful purpose, and if the state of Virginia cannot be permitted to maintain an all-male military academy . . .?
It may seem like a strange leap from the VMI case to a perverted idiot like Riley Dennis claiming to be a lesbian with a penis, but the premise of “gender equality” leads inevitably to such a syllogism. This was obvious to me in 2009, in regard to the same-sex marriage issue:
Are men and women equal in the fullest sense of the word? If so, then equality implies fungibility — the two things are interchangeable and one may be substituted for the other in any circumstance whatsoever. (La mort à la différence!) Therefore, it is of no consequence whether I marry a woman or a man. . . .
This is why so many of those who would defend traditional marriage find themselves unable to form a coherent argument, because traditional marriage is based on the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different, and hence, unequal. Traditional marriage assumes a complementarity of the sexes that becomes absurd if you deny that “man” and “woman” define intrinsic traits, functions, roles.
To declare men and women unequal, however, puts one outside the law — you are guilty of illegal discrimination if you say that there is any meaningful difference between men and women. Yet if you refuse to argue against sexual equality, you cannot argue effectively against gay marriage . . .
Far be it from me to dictate to others how they organize their domestic lives. My own marriage isn’t Ozzie and Harriet or Leave It to Beaver or any other 1950s situation-comedy model of “tradition,” yet the basic roles of husband and wife, mother and father have a way of scripting themselves according to circumstances and human nature. The idea of complementarity is to combine counter-balancing forces, male and female, in such a way that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Specialization, division of labor, economies of scale — these are logical advantages of a well-ordered family life, and it is a dangerous error to imagine that we can remodel family life in the name of “equality” without undermining the stability of the structure.
My oldest daughter married a wonderful man, who has devotedly performed his equal share of domestic duties. They recently had their first child, however, and I can confidently predict that, as my daughter stays home to care for their newborn, she will inevitably find herself doing a larger share of the household chores, while her husband works longer hours at the office to pay the bills, and their marriage will thus tend toward a more traditional division of labor, at least until such time as their baby (and any future offspring) is ready to start school.
No matter how committed a couple may be to an ideal of “equality,” the natural division of labor in family life is implicit in human biology, and only a fool would resent this arrangement as unfair. As pleasant as it might be to imagine a world where everyone can do whatever they please in a utopia where money grows on trees — where there are no electric bills or mortgage payments to worry about, no diapers to be changed or dishes to be washed — we do not live in such a world, and find ourselves constrained to live within limitations. We have duties we cannot escape, especially if we believe that the responsibility of caring for our children cannot be outsourced to government bureaucrats (which everybody should believe). As the welfare state has expanded, however, many have forgotten this sense of duty, which is why divorce is so rampant and 40% of the nation’s children are born to unmarried women.
“If Americans can be divorced for ‘incompatibility of temper’ I cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.”
— G.K. Chesterton, 1910
You may not see how this discussion of marriage is relevant to the claims of the transgender cult, or to the Supreme Court’s 1996 VMI ruling, but the elite’s commitment to radical notions of “gender equality” has opened Pandora’s Box, from which a spirit of chaos has emerged. Permit me to enunciate a simple truth of human nature:
Men and women are different
in ways that are socially significant.
Commit that sentence to memory — it rhymes, and is easy to remember — and you will never succumb to the error of “gender equality.”
A major reason why feminists battling the transgender cult find themselves in such difficulties is that the feminist movement has spent the past half-century arguing for an ideal of “gender equality” based on a belief that there are no meaningful differences between men and women. Having made equality the first premise of their syllogism, however, feminists claim to be startled by the conclusion — lesbians with penises! And they are further dismayed that young women are getting their breasts amputated and injecting themselves with testosterone in order to become a Frankenstein’s monster simulacrum of a “male.”
In a free society, I cannot forbid others from “the pursuit of happiness,” but neither can I be forbidden to call insanity by its right name. What has happened, under the regime of “equality,” however, is that our right to free speech is being infringed if we express sentiments (or make reference to facts) that contradict whatever fashionable notion of “equality” the progressive elite may endorse at any given time. We are supposed to condemn as “hate speech” the concerns of parents like Susan Nagel:
About a year ago my then 16-year–old daughter told us she believes she is transgender. Soon after, she began begging to take testosterone, to wear a breast binder, to have others call her by male pronouns, and to legally change her name. . . . Over the course of a month or two after coming out, she changed from a generally cheerful person to a morose one who spent hours crying and who told me to hide the knives.. . .
I am a liberal, and I fully support equal access to housing, employment, education, and healthcare for all marginalized people, including transgender people. I do not think being transgender is immoral or that gender diversity is disturbing. Still after spending many sleepless nights researching the transgender movement, I have come to be very afraid for my daughter. . . .
I encounter many well-meaning people who believe the transgender movement is simply a civil rights movement. They do not understand my concerns and assume I am ignorant or a bigot. I think it is because most people’s knowledge of the transgender movement is limited to mass media accounts focusing on discrimination against transgender people or on an individual’s struggle to be true to his or her self. . . .
I am shocked by how readily some friends accept the idea of using synthetic hormones for the purpose of transitioning teenagers. Some of these people avoid drinking milk from cows treated with bovine growth hormone and avoid eating inorganic vegetables or food tainted by genetically modified organisms. If teenagers ingest risky chemicals for politically correct reasons, is the harm is somehow reduced? . . .
You can read the whole thing. The point is that concerns about the transgender cult are spreading, as more and more young people are being recruited by a network of online sites that present “transition” as a panacea that can cure whatever it is an unhappy teenager is unhappy about. These concerns involve rapid-onset gender dysphoria and the ways in which peer pressure can create a transgender social contagion.
What we are witnessing is a new appreciation of enduring truths about human nature among women whose feminist commitment to progressive ideals of “gender equality” had blinded them to reality. It’s rather like the way the Stalin-Hitler Pact of 1939 shattered the Popular Front.
This brings us back to Magdalen Berns, who holds a physics degree from the University of Edinburgh and describes herself as “a critic of religion, capitalism, identity politics, conservatism, neoliberalism and socially imposed gender norms.” She’s no right-winger, in other words, yet she is fighting the same “social justice warrior” (SJW) mentality that was exposed in 2014 by the #GamerGate activists. And what a pugnacious fighter she is! It would seem that SJWs have reached their Stalingrad, so to speak, and radical feminists like Magdalen Berns are the Red Army, ferociously defending the embattled city against the onslaught.
Give me such fighters as allies, I say, and I will not quibble with them over ideological differences, so long as the war continues.
Women’s Studies professor and feminist author Susan M. Hartmann credits the Ford Foundation with being a substantive force that created the feminist movement. In fact, Ford’s support of women’s studies and feminist causes is so extensive that it cannot be summarized in an article of this length. The subject is ripe for a full-length book. It is safe to say that without the Ford Foundation, feminism would not have been successful in gaining such a strong foothold in academia, and by extension, politics.
The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source. From the early 1950s to the present the CIA’s intrusion into the foundation field was and is huge. A U.S. Congressional investigation in 1976 revealed that nearly 50% of the 700 grants in the field of international activities by the principal foundations were funded by the CIA (Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, Frances Stonor Saunders, Granta Books, 1999, pp. 134-135). The CIA considers foundations such as Ford “The best and most plausible kind of funding cover” (Ibid, p. 135). The collaboration of respectable and prestigious foundations, according to one former CIA operative, allowed the Agency to fund “a seemingly limitless range of covert action programs affecting youth groups, labor unions, universities, publishing houses and other private institutions” (p. 135). The latter included “human rights” groups beginning in the 1950s to the present. One of the most important “private foundations” collaborating with the CIA over a significant span of time in major projects in the cultural Cold War is the Ford Foundation.
Edit: someone rightly took issue with the website on which the above was published (contains some questionable links on the side bar). So here’s the CIA itself discussing the same issues, in a somewhat humorously defensive tone:
The data comes not from the website but from the book by academic Frances Stonor Saunders, a British historian, as well as congressional investigations. To repeat: there is no doubt, none, nada, that CIA has used philanthropic foundations throughout its history. The same essay was published on other sites as well.
For those still skeptical, go to 26.32 in this documentary and you’ll find an actual News report by CBS from the 1970’s describing the scandal of CIA using philanthropic organizations as fronts.
This is not a “conspiracy theory”. It is part of the documented historical record.
In Orwell’s 1984, dissident groups (represented by Emmanual Goldstein) are actually controlled by the party. By the same token, capitalist “philanthropic” foundations have long attempted to steer the left in certain directions — specifically, away from class analysis and toward identity politics and postmodernism. Feminism is their greatest triumph.
It’s ironic that so many people blame Marx for feminism, considering that the entire purpose of funding gender and ethnic studies was to reduce the focus on class.
“The Women’s Liberation Movement may be considered as subversive to the New Left and revolutionary movements as they have proven to be a divisive and factionalizing factor…. It could be well recommended as a counterintelligence movement to weaken the revolutionary movement.” This was from an August, 1969 report by the head of the San Francisco FBI office. Within several years, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations were pumping millions into women’s studies programs on campus.
Once again I have to stress that this is not a “conspiracy” since it was done out in the open, although to the extent that CIA used these foundations to disguise their involvement in domestic politics, I suppose it may qualify. Certainly the CIA’s funding of Gloria Steinem and Ms. Magazine was illegal, since CIA is prohibited from engaging in domestic counter-intelligence operations.
There are two possibilities here: one is that the great capitalists are just really enamored with feminism. So much so that they bankrolled the certifiable nutcase Sally Miller Gearhart, founder of the first gender studies class and promoter of male genocide.
The other possibility is that elites aren’t quite as dumb and incompetent as many assume. They recognized the gender war as an ideal way of neutering the left by dividing and conquering the working class. Whether by design or accident or a little of both, they have succeeded. Pseudo-“leftists” today talk almost exclusively about identity politics; they alienate the white male majority by labeling them privileged oppressors; and the traditional American left — which focussed on anti-war activism, civil rights, free speech and above all class issues — is all but dead.
Abstract This essay shows, among other things, how the development of the NSF’s social science program during the 1950s reflected a variety of political, institutional, and intellectual concerns, including academic worries about the standing of Marxism as social science, anti-Communist political pressures, and the dominant presence of natural science leaders at the NSF. Under these conditions, the agency developed a cautious strategy of funding the so-called hard-core end of the social research continuum, designed to ward off criticisms about the subversive connotations of social science while strengthening its ostensibly apolitical and objective scientific status.
Hot science/Cold War: The National Science Foundation after World War II (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274349992_Hot_scienceCold_War_The_National_Science_Foundation_after_World_War_II [accessed Dec 29 2017].
The national science foundation funded Cathrine Mckinnons phd
MacKinnon became the third generation of her family to attend her mother’s alma mater, Smith College in Massachusetts. She graduated in the top 2% of her class at Smith and earned a J.D. and a Ph.D. from Yale University. While at Yale Law School, she received a National Science Foundation fellowship.
McKinnions father was a judge who was appointed by Nixon and she was the one who wrote the criticism of marxism that turned the conversation on to gender as a social construct instead of class.
She also introduced legal dominance feminism, which advocates an authoritarian legally repressive system to use on men to protect women. She is the mother of the movement to erode the presumption of innocence.
Here is an essay about the cia using social sciences to defeat the left.
Steinham eventually had to admit to being a cia agent.
The cia and front organizations funded postmodernist social science, of which modern feminism is part.
Ms Magazine and various feminists confirmed that capitalist foundations (that are known to be cia fronts) are responsible for funding modern feminism.