Social Media Censors Discussion on the Safety of COVID Vaccines and Potential Alternative Treatments

I am not medically trained. I have nothing to contribute regarding the safety of COVID vaccines or the efficacy of potential alternative treatments such as the use of Ivermectin. I am writing this article because I am concerned about censorship of these issues, especially when these discussions involve well-accomplished experts. This article is a follow-up of my earlier article discussing the censorship of Brett Weinstein and medical experts by Big Tech, "Adverse Side Effects from COVID Vaccines." We need to have these conversations in order to break through the official gated policy narrative on these issues. I will tell this story in tweets. It will never be the case that censorship will improve the quality of the conversations on these issues. Click on these images and dig in:

Continue ReadingSocial Media Censors Discussion on the Safety of COVID Vaccines and Potential Alternative Treatments

Flattened and Ossified World Views

Chimamanda Adichie is one of the thoughtful writers who has dared to touch the third rail of transgender activists.

I gave an interview in March 2017 in which I said that a trans woman is a trans woman, (the larger point of which was to say that we should be able to acknowledge difference while being fully inclusive, that in fact the whole premise of inclusiveness is difference.)

In her article, "IT IS OBSCENE: A TRUE REFLECTION IN THREE PARTS," she describes the fallout. I admire her honesty and courage, her willingness to say what needs to be said, but also her kind-heartedness. Here is an excerpt:

I notice what I find increasingly troubling: a cold-blooded grasping, a hunger to take and take and take, but never give; a massive sense of entitlement; an inability to show gratitude; an ease with dishonesty and pretension and selfishness that is couched in the language of self-care; an expectation always to be helped and rewarded no matter whether deserving or not; language that is slick and sleek but with little emotional intelligence; an astonishing level of self-absorption; an unrealistic expectation of puritanism from others; an over-inflated sense of ability, or of talent where there is any at all; an inability to apologize, truly and fully, without justifications; a passionate performance of virtue that is well executed in the public space of Twitter but not in the intimate space of friendship.

I find it obscene.

There are many social-media-savvy people who are choking on sanctimony and lacking in compassion, who can fluidly pontificate on Twitter about kindness but are unable to actually show kindness. People whose social media lives are case studies in emotional aridity. People for whom friendship, and its expectations of loyalty and compassion and support, no longer matter. People who claim to love literature – the messy stories of our humanity – but are also monomaniacally obsessed with whatever is the prevailing ideological orthodoxy. People who demand that you denounce your friends for flimsy reasons in order to remain a member of the chosen puritan class.

People who ask you to ‘educate’ yourself while not having actually read any books themselves, while not being able to intelligently defend their own ideological positions, because by ‘educate,’ they actually mean ‘parrot what I say, flatten all nuance, wish away complexity.’

People who do not recognize that what they call a sophisticated take is really a simplistic mix of abstraction and orthodoxy – sophistication in this case being a showing-off of how au fait they are on the current version of ideological orthodoxy.

People who wield the words ‘violence’ and ‘weaponize’ like tarnished pitchforks. People who depend on obfuscation, who have no compassion for anybody genuinely curious or confused. Ask them a question and you are told that the answer is to repeat a mantra. Ask again for clarity and be accused of violence. (How ironic, speaking of violence, that it is one of these two who encouraged Twitter followers to pick up machetes and attack me.)

And so we have a generation of young people on social media so terrified of having the wrong opinions that they have robbed themselves of the opportunity to think and to learn and to grow.

Continue ReadingFlattened and Ossified World Views

The Problem with the Transgender Affirmative Care Standard

This is an excerpt from a review  of Abigail Shier's book Irreversible Damage by Dr. Harriet Hall, from a section called, "The customer is always right."

A new “affirmative care” standard of mental health care has been adopted by nearly every medical accrediting organization. The American Psychological Association guidelines go much further than respecting and supporting trans identities; they mandate that therapists adopt gender ideology themselves. Therapists must accept and affirm the patient’s self-diagnosis. Shrier likens this to telling an anorexic teen “If you think you are fat, then you are. Let’s talk about liposuction and weight-loss programs”. She asks whether a standard guided less by biology than by political correctness is in the best interests of the patient.

We don’t provide affirmative care for anorexia. We don’t say “Yes, you are fat” and offer to help them reduce their weight even more. Part of a therapist’s role is to question a patient’s self-assessment.

Dr. Hall emphasizes that she is open to current treatments, but only where the patient needs them:
I support hormones and gender surgeries for adults who will benefit from them. I care about the welfare of these adolescent girls and it bothers me that some of them may be unduly influenced and take irreversible steps they will later regret.

Dr. Hall concludes:

[Abigail Shrier's book] will undoubtedly be criticized just as Lisa Littman’s study was. Yes, it’s full of anecdotes and horror stories, and we know the plural of anecdote is not data, but Shrier looked diligently for good scientific studies and didn’t find much. And that’s the problem. We desperately need good science, and it’s not likely to happen in the current political climate. Anyone who addresses this subject can expect to be attacked by activists. Is ROGD a legitimate category? We don’t know, since the necessary controlled studies have not been done. I fully expect Shrier to be called a transphobe and to be vilified for harming transgender people, and I’m sure I will be labeled a transphobe just for reviewing her book.

She brings up some alarming facts that desperately need to be looked into. The incidence of teen gender dysphoria is rising and appears to be linked to internet influences and social peer groups. The number of people identifying as lesbians is dropping. Therapists are accepting patients’ self-diagnoses unquestioningly, and irreversible treatments are being offered without therapist involvement. We know at least some of these patients will desist and detransition, and we have no way to predict which ones. Children are being instructed in how to lie to parents and doctors to coerce them into providing the treatments they want. Families are being destroyed.

Continue ReadingThe Problem with the Transgender Affirmative Care Standard

The Many Types of Gametes

Along with our ramped up search for UFO's, shouldn't we invest $ to document all of the intersex gametes? Gametes that are neither sperm nor egg? It appalls me that colonizing doctors keep pompously "assigning" labels of "egg" and "sperm" to gametes.

I'm reacting tongue-in-cheek to Colin Wright's collection of some of the prominent recent claims that there are allegedly more than two sexes and that "sex is a spectrum." Most surprising is the recent claim in a formerly respectable magazine, Scientific American. Wright's collection is worth a quick tour - click the image below.  Read it and weep.

What are gametes and why are they relevant to this discussion?

Gametes are an organism's reproductive cells, also referred to as sex cells. In species that produce two morphologically distinct types of gametes, and in which each individual produces only one type, a female is any individual that produces the larger type of gamete—called an ovum— and a male produces the smaller tadpole-like type—called a sperm.
It's rather amazing what one can do when one boldly separates the concept of gametes from the concept of sex. These days, it's a way for someone to claim victimization, to gain the warmth of a deluded tribe and to get a lot of attention. Here's why that conceptual move fails. 

In this hard-fought conceptual game, the Woke team prefers to categorize people by their feelings and intuition in terms of numerous "genders," ignoring that the traditional way of categorizing people into male and female, men and women, has deep biological roots related to the propagation of the species.  Using sex organs and games as the basis to categorize individuals as male or female is not an arbitration division. In fact, we divide every other mammalian organism into one of two sexes, male and female, based on the types of the type of gamete that organism produces. That division works virtually every time we encounter a mammal. Dividing humans into male and female is easy and intuitive, based on simple observation of sex organs. There is no need for a doctor to "assign" the sex of a newborn baby. With extremely rare exceptions (2 out of 10,000), that determination is purely scientific.

But we now have increasing numbers of people and organizations declaring that there are more than two sexes. It's a classic case of making shit up.

I'll close with this quote by a being that happened to look like an egg:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Continue ReadingThe Many Types of Gametes

The Great Power of False Media Narratives

The false story about the motives of the Pulse Nightclub murderer is alive and well, despite indisputable evidence that he was attempting to kill people, not LGBT people. Legacy media and politicians cling to the false narrative and we simply must assume (at this point) that they know that their story is false. However, their false story is powerful. It serves as effective cheap signaling and it moves people to anger, including people who should know better. The Pulse story is merely one example of a common phenomenon today. The story itself serves as the foundation for a "truth," upon which cherry-picked factoids, most of them easily disproved, make everyone in one's tribe feel the righteous anger. Again, Pulse is one example of many. We could substitute dozens of commonly exchanged "truths" for Pulse. That is what much too often serves as "news" in the year 2021. Glenn Greenwald elaborates.

Whatever Mateen's motives were, the horror and tragedy of the extinguishing of forty-nine innocent lives at PULSE on June 12, 2016, remains the same. But this enduring falsehood — which continues to deceive many well-meaning people through this very day, long past the point that it has been definitively debunked — is damaging for so many reasons.

Lying about what happened dishonors Mateen's victims. It harms the cause of LGBT equality, which does not need lies and fabrications to be a just movement. It obscures how often U.S. violence in the Muslim world causes "blowback” — to use the CIA's term — by motivating others to bring violence to the U.S. as retaliation and deterrence for violence against innocent Muslims. And a major reason for the completely unjust prosecution of Noor Salman was to appease understandable demands within the Orlando LGBT community for someone to be punished, but mob justice rarely produces anything benevolent.

No matter how noble the intent, journalism — and activism — becomes corrupted if it knowingly supports falsehoods. That the PULSE massacre was an act of anti-LGBT hatred is a fiction. Unless you are a neocon, there is no such thing as a "noble lie.” It is way past time for politicians and activist groups to stop disseminating this one.

Seeing that this completely false story still has legs (referring to the murderer's motives, not the murders themselves which certainly happened), I am reminded of Daniel Kahneman's discussion of the power of narratives in his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman indicates that we crave consistency in our explanations, not completeness, and this craving leads to overconfidence. We are profligate generators of flimsy explanations and we are "rarely stumped." As a result, poor evidence can make a great story (p. 209). Also, we often believe primarily because our friends believe. Our confidence in our beliefs are preposterous but necessary given our limited cognitive horsepower. That said, once we have our story down pat, it becomes easy to repeat and our confidence in telling that story grows, even if untrue. Confidence results from cognitive ease and coherence, but confidence does not equal truth (p. 238).

Continue ReadingThe Great Power of False Media Narratives