Colin Wright Warns of the Danger Posed by Innocuous-Seeming Requests for “Pronouns”

I have no business telling any adult what to do with his or her body. That is their own business. It's a different story with children. We need to make sure that our children (and their parents) are not being given false information that leads to irreversible physical damage to their bodies (cross-sex hormones and surgeries), in many cases leading to sterility. There are real cases of gender dysphoria but, historically speaking, they have been rare (1/10,000) and they have overwhelmingly been boys. Today, almost 2% of teenagers are claiming to be transgender and they are overwhelmingly girls who tend to fall into social clusters, which would not be expected if dysphoria were truly a medical condition.

What is going on and why should be be concerned? Much of the left-leaning news media cheerleads for those who promote gender ideology and totally ignore the numerous and growing cases of those teenagers who detransitioned--who permanently altered their bodies, often through double mastectomies then, years later, declared that they were, indeed, the sex aligning with their chromosomes, their gametes and their sex organs readily apparent at birth. It's not rocket science to figure out the sex of most people (intersex cases are extremely rare). These stories by numerous detransitioners are extremely difficult to read. They are stories of deep regret, stories of how these teenagers got caught up in a fad encouraged by their peers, and enabled by well-meaning activist school teachers and counselors, as well as almost instant access to cross-sex hormones, often at Planned Parenthood. The parents are often concerned that they must allow their children to transition based on commonly touted but false statistics and unsubstantiated claims that suicide is the only other option.

Biologist Colin Wright recently wrote "How to Make a Trans Kid." It is well-written and accurate upon my own extensive readings. I recommend reading Wright's entire article. Here is an excerpt:

Most people understand the terms “man” and “boy” refer to adult and adolescent human males, respectively, and that “woman” and “girl” refer to adult and adolescent human females, respectively. These are not “identities,” but terms that describe objective facts about one’s age and biological sex.

Gender ideology, conversely, is a belief system asserting that what makes someone a woman or a girl, or a man or a boy, has nothing whatsoever to do with their sex, but is based entirely on the social roles and stereotypes with which they “identify.” Therefore, a person who identifies with feminine roles and stereotypes is a girl or woman, and a person who identifies with masculine roles and stereotypes is a boy or man—regardless of their biological sex. According to gender ideology, people who do not identify with the social roles and stereotypes typically associated with their sex are considered “transgender.”

That’s Gender Ideology 101. If it comes across as completely insane, that’s because it is.

Gender ideology has therefore proven to be a hard sell for many adults who rightfully view such ideas as regressive and sexist. After all, this worldview entails that a woman who does not fully embrace femininity is not actually a woman, and a man who does not embrace masculinity is not actually a man. If this sounds similar to the regressive and oppressive system that women’s and other human rights groups fought for decades to overcome, that’s because it is. But it’s actually much worse, since it also promotes the idea that a “mismatch” between one’s sex and “gender identity” can be medically “corrected” with hormones and surgeries.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingColin Wright Warns of the Danger Posed by Innocuous-Seeming Requests for “Pronouns”

Blown Opportunities in Ukraine

Aaron Maté gives us context you won't hear from most legacy news outlets:

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has presented the White House with a geopolitical crisis that it played a critical role in creating. In February 2014, Victoria Nuland, a current senior State Department official and former Dick Cheney advisor, was caught on tape plotting the installation of a new Ukrainian government – a plan, she stressed, that would involve Biden and his then-top aide, and current National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan. Weeks later, the democratically elected Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted and replaced by Washington-backed leaders – including a prime minister selected by Nuland.

The regime change in Kiev made Biden the most influential US political figure in Ukraine, as underscored by the lucrative Burisma board seat gifted to his son Hunter. While the Biden family and other well-connected players profited, Ukraine fell into civil war. In the eastern Donbas region, Kremlin-backed Ukrainian rebels took up arms against a fascist-infused coup government that cracked down on Russian culture and countenanced murderous assaults on dissidents. Rather than promote the 2015 Minsk II accords -- the agreed-upon formula for ending the Donbas conflict – the US fueled the fight with a weapons and training program that turned Ukraine into a NATO proxy. Influential US politicians left no doubt about their intentions. As the Donbas war raged, lawmakers declared that they were using Ukraine to “fight Russia over there” (Adam Schiff) and vowed to “make Russia pay a heavier price,” (John McCain). In February of this year, Russia invaded to bring the eight-year fight to an end, leaving Ukraine to pay the heaviest price of all.

The Biden administration shunned multiple opportunities to prevent the Russian assault. When Russia submitted draft peace treaties in December 2021, the White House refused to even discuss the Kremlin’s core demands: a pledge of neutrality for Ukraine, and the rollback of NATO military forces in post-1997 member states that neighbor Russia. At the final round of talks on implementing Minsk II in early February, the “key obstacle,” the Washington Post reported, “was Kyiv’s opposition to negotiating with the pro-Russian separatists.” Siding with Ukraine’s far-right, which had threatened to overthrow Volodymyr Zelensky if he signed a peace deal, the US made no effort to encourage diplomacy. Emboldened to escalate its war on the Donbas, the Ukrainian government then massively increased shelling on rebel-held areas in the days immediately preceding Russa’s February 24th invasion.

Looking back at the pre-invasion period, Jack Matlock, the US ambassador to the Soviet Union under Bush I, now concludes that “if Ukraine had been willing to abide by the Minsk agreement, recognize the Donbas as an autonomous entity within Ukraine, avoid NATO military advisors, and pledge not to enter NATO,” then Russia’s war “probably would have been prevented.”

Why would we be so stupid? Why would put all the citizens of the US and of the world at risk over the Donbas, which most Americans don't care about and had never even heard of?

This might be the answer, which makes total sense given that we blew hundreds of billions of dollars on Afghanistan with no credibly articulated metric of success (until we unilaterally pulled out). The White House is starting to admit that neither side can "win" this war in the Ukraine. That, not a problem, because the goal is endless war, as Julian Assange explained:

Continue ReadingBlown Opportunities in Ukraine

Reporters Who Keep Us in the Dark so that They can be Popular with their Peers

Freddie DeBoer points out one of the biggest stories that is not being reported. It is a story that affects (and often corrupts) ALL the big stories. It appears that reporters think of themselves as being back in high school and it appears that their need to be seen as admirable by their peers affects whether they will ask serious questions or whether they will pursue a story at all.

DeBoer is an excellent writer and I subscribe to his Substack. This is a critically important story that is kryptonite to all of the "news" reporters out there with misplaced priorities--in other words, the many "news" reporters who would rather be popular than do the difficult job of being real journalist. Here's an excerpt.

In the fifteen years I’ve written for public consumption, this is the topic I’ve returned to most. I have argued that people who work in the media are in great majorities unduly concerned with being popular among their peers, and that this desire distorts our newsmedia and what it covers in destructive ways. I also believe that the most important site of this kind of social conditioning is Twitter. A corollary to this is that the industry, which will give the most trivial subjects immense amounts of coverage (like, say, the “Try Guys”) avoids talking about the powerful impact of the desire to be popular, a kind of within-industry omerta that prevents anyone from looking too closely at how the sausage gets made. I told this story my first year of writing, I’ve told it most every year since, and I’m telling it again now. Because nothing ever changes.

There are, of course, many people of both talent and integrity within the industry who do their best to avoid this social capture. Many of them are open-minded about who they read and what they’ll engage with. Indeed, the median writer is (unsurprisingly) more thoughtful and willing to challenge consensus than the crowd. But even the most independent of them tend to at least maintain the code of omerta, refusing to publicly question the in-crowd dynamics even if they won’t play into them with their own behavior. And I do get it; they have to live and work in that industry and coexist alongside the peers that they might be criticizing in aggregate. It would, though, make me feel slightly less crazy if more people would say, even occasionally, “people in the industry really want to be well-liked, and they change their public personas and their work to remain so.” What’s frustrating for me is that, while they may not share my level of disdain for this condition, many individual writers have privately conceded the broad contours of what I’m saying. But they don’t do so publicly. Like I said. Omerta.

Of course, the disciplinary action taken against people who speak the way I am is exactly what you’d expect: insiders accuse critics of insiderism of merely being jealous that they aren’t insiders themselves. It can’t be the case that someone like myself could genuinely, organically observe the ways in which media cliquishness distorts the practices of journalism and commentary and advocate for something better. Any such critics must necessarily merely want to be a part of the hierarchy they criticize, sour grapes. Again, it never changes.

What I never understand is why no enterprising media reporter doesn’t ever try to report this out. There are no industries where insiderism and patronage don’t impact the labor market to some degree, so why not try to explore that influence? How does the insiderism of elite media Twitter influence the industry and thus our national story?

Continue ReadingReporters Who Keep Us in the Dark so that They can be Popular with their Peers

Kafkaesque Example of a College Title IX Prosecution Under the Obama Rules

I did not vote for Trump and I find him generally deplorable. However, the new Title IX college sexual harassment rules implemented by Trump and Betsy DeVos are well supported by the case law and are an enormous improvement over the version of the rules implemented by Obama.

What could possibly go wrong under the Obama version of the rules? Listen to this horrific miscarriage of justice described by attorney Lara Bazelon, speaking with Glenn Loury.

The proposed new Title IX rules by Joe Biden will be a catastrophically bad miscarriage of justice. FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) points out the many problems with Biden's proposed rules:

Rejecting the definition of student-on-student harassment set by the Supreme Court in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education.

Requiring institutions to police speech and sexuality worldwide, not just in programs and activities on and around campus.

Requiring institutions to issue gag orders on the parties and their advocates that prevent them from disclosing “information and evidence obtained solely through the sex-based harassment grievance procedures,” meaning institutions of higher education are now required to enforce prior restraint and content-based restrictions on students’ speech or the speech of those advocating on their behalf.

Revoking the current requirement that accused students must be offered an opportunity to have a live hearing to contest the allegations against them.

Eliminating the right to a live hearing to contest claims, and thus also eliminating the right to cross-examination.

Allowing a single investigator to both investigate and adjudicate complaints, dramatically increasing the odds that one person’s bias, subconscious or otherwise, permeates the process. Such a system increases the likelihood of error, thus increasing the likelihood that accused students will be unfairly deprived of their access to educational opportunities or benefits.

If finalized, these and many other proposed provisions will mark a new, and unfortunately familiar, era of Title IX hearings in which institutions of higher education fail to protect the First Amendment and due process rights of students and faculty, likely resulting in costly litigation for institutions to ensure these basic protections are met.

Continue ReadingKafkaesque Example of a College Title IX Prosecution Under the Obama Rules