Vatican pushes back on gender theory

It’s nice to see the Vatican pushing back at least a little bit on at least one topic.  On June 12th, in the middle of Pride month, they released “MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM” which is to serve as an aid to Catholic school teachers on how to deal with the topic of gender theory.  National Catholic Reporter did a nice writeup on the document:

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican office responsible for overseeing Catholic educational institutions around the world has blasted modern gender theory, claiming in a new document that it seeks to “annihilate the concept of ‘nature.’ ”

In an instruction released June 10 as LGBT people globally are celebrating pride month, the Congregation for Catholic Education calls the idea of people’s gender identities existing along a spectrum “nothing more than a confused concept of freedom in the realm of feelings and wants.”

Labeling the biological differences between men and women “constitutive of human identity,” the office also questions the intentions of those who identify as intersex and transgender.

“Efforts to go beyond the constitutive male-female sexual difference, such as the ideas of ‘intersex’ or ‘transgender,’ lead to a masculinity or femininity that is ambiguous,” states the document.

“This oscillation between male and female becomes, at the end of the day, only a ‘provocative’ display against so-called ‘traditional frameworks,’ ” it continues.

The document, which carries the title “Male and female he created them,” was released by the Vatican June 10 without prior announcement. Described as an aid for Catholic schoolteachers and parents, it is signed by the educational congregation’s leaders: Italians Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi and Archbishop Angelo Zani.

The educational aid does not carry Pope Francis’ signature, and the text makes no reference of the pontiff reviewing the document.

Groups that minister to LGBT Catholics immediately criticized the document. New Ways Ministry, one such group, called it a “harmful tool that will be used to oppress and harm not only transgender people, but lesbian, gay, [and] bisexual people, too.”

And further down:

The new document, which is 31 pages in length, does not speak of accompanying transgender people. It instead issues fierce warnings and criticisms of how children and young people are being educated today.

The text opens by saying that society is facing “an educational crisis, especially in the field of affectivity and sexuality.”

It then claims that cultural “disorientation” has destabilized the family as an institution, “bringing with it a tendency to cancel out the differences between men and women, presenting them instead as merely the product of historical and cultural conditioning.”

The heart of the document critiques modern society’s detachment of an individual’s concept of gender from their biological sex.

“Gender theory … speaks of a gradual process of denaturalization, that is a move away from nature and towards an absolute option for the decision of the feelings of the human subject,” it states.

“In this understanding of things, the view of both sexuality identity and the family become subject to the same ‘liquidity’ and ‘fluidity’ that characterize other aspects of post-modern culture, often founded on nothing more than a confused concept of freedom in the realm of feelings and wants, or momentary desires provoked by emotional impulses and the will of the individual,” it continues.

The text claims that genetic studies have shown that male and female embryos differ “from the very moment of conception.” In cases where a child is born with ambiguous genitalia, it says “it is medical professionals who can make a therapeutic intervention.”

“In such situations, parents cannot make an arbitrary choice on the issue, let alone society,” it recommends. “Instead, medical science should act with purely therapeutic ends, and intervene in the least invasive fashion, on the basis of objective parameters and with a view to establishing the person’s constitutive identity.”

Retelling the Genesis story of God creating humans in his image as men and women, the document calls for a reaffirming of “the metaphysical roots of sexual difference.”

Of course Pope Francis didn’t sign the document.  The document makes too much sense so why would he?

It is nice to see the biggest Christian institution push back on this.  Setting aside Catholic/non-Catholic differences, all Christians need to unite.  We are at a dangerous time in society and infighting is not going to help at all.  Western Civilization is under attack, and Christendom, being the main pillar of the West, must band together to try and take back what is ours.  We as Christians also need to be more vocal about uncomfortable topics like gender theory and transgenderism.  Staying silent to some shows complicity and approval.  It allows these ideas to slowly creep in; subtly at first but eventually growing in confidence and strength as they gain more ground.  Stand firm in what you believe.  Be vocal.  It is not an act of love to watch someone do something harmful to themselves and encourage it.  Just like it is not an act of love to encourage an alcoholic to continue drinking, it is doing the individual no favors if we encourage them to mutilate his or her body as if it was something completely normal and acceptable.  Love sometimes requires telling difficult truths to those we care about.

Let this also serve as a stark warning that what you may take for granted in what our schools are teaching our children may not line up at all with what they are actually teaching.  This was a document for Catholic schools.  There are some horrendous things going on in public schools right now that many parents would be outraged if they discovered this is what their children are being taught.  Do you really want your 10 year old daughter competing in a condom race to see how quickly they can put on a condom?  Do you think it just ends there?  What do you think a school putting these events on is teaching your children about sex education?

It sounds cliche but our children really are the future.  At such a young age their minds are the most malleable, and the values and ideas that are instilled into them now serve as a foundation for how they conduct themselves and live the rest of their lives.  If we allow our educational system to plant seeds of degeneracy and teach values contrary to Western Civilization and contra Christian values they will never learn what truth and beauty are, and never gain the crucial faculties to combat the evil that they will be bombarded with every step of the way.

Trying to Play God Has Consequences

And it will not end well.  China, at the forefront of CRISPR technology and experimentation, could be shortening lifespans of babies the technology has been used on…the exact opposite of what they’re going for.  Via MIT Technology Review:

When the Chinese scientist He Jiankui created the first gene-edited children, he dreamed of improving the world. He believed the genetic alteration he added to twin girls born last year would protect them from HIV. Human embryo editing, he said, would bring new hope to millions.

Instead, he may have put the twins at risk of an early death.

A new report finds that genetic mutations similar to those He created, to a gene called CCR5, shortens people’s lives by an average of 1.9 years.

“It’s clearly a mutation of quite strong effect,” says population geneticist Rasmus Nielsen of the University of California, Berkeley, who made the discovery while studying DNA and death records of 400,000 volunteers in a large British gene database, the UK Biobank. “You can’t have many mutations that do that, or you wouldn’t live that long.”

The finding offers a warning light to anyone else seeking to enhance human beings. That’s because many genes have more than one role, and scientists tinkering with the balance are likely to cause side effects they didn’t expect or want.

In February, variations in the same gene were linked to recovery of memory after stroke, meaning it could have a role in changing brain function, too.

“To go ahead and alter the germline based on partial understanding is not responsible,” says Feng Zhang, a biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an expert in CRISPR, the powerful gene editing tool employed in the Chinese experiment. “It’s another piece of information that we shouldn’t be so careless.” 

It is not hard to see how easily this could get rolled out on a massive scale without proper vetting.  How can you even properly vet this without literally an entire lifetime of observation on those who have had this done to them?  Do you think they would really wait an entire generation before rolling it out en masse?  Once you realize that, it’s easy to see how easily they apply that same logic to other things as well: 5G, new pesticides, etc etc.  NN Taleb’s approach to food and beverage consumption certainly has some merit.

r/K Theory

If you’re not familiar with r/K theory it is well worth picking up Anonymous Conservative’s book on the subject.  Viewing politics, or many aspects of life for that matter, through this prism can be helpful.  This may alleviate some of the frustration you may have when trying to understand why the other “side” does not understand your position at all.  This is a small sample of the theory as laid out in chapter 1 of his book.  His blog is worth checking out too.  He posts daily examples of this linked to news stories.

The theory of this book is that there is a simple explanation for the origins of political ideology.  Put most simply, our two main political ideologies are merely intellectual outgrowths of the two main reproductive strategies that have been described in the field of Evolutionary Biology for decades.

Biologists have long recognized that two different psychologies exist in nature.  These two psychologies each guide the organisms which hold them to pursue behaviors which will be most likely to yield survival and reproduction.  These psychologies are referred to as reproductive strategies, but they are really deeply imbued psychologies.  They frame how an organism views the world, how it views its peers, and how it behaves as it moves through life.

The study of these psychologies is often described using the shorthand “r/K Selection Theory.”  Both the “r-strategy” and the “K-strategy,” as they are referred to within the field, are psychologies which yield behavior that is custom tailored to a specific environment.  In humans, as in nature, the r-psychology is primarily an adaptation to the presence of copious resources, which do not require out-competing peers.  This is a condition which reduces the advantages of producing fit offspring, in turn favoring the fastest and most prolific reproducers, regardless of offspring quality.  By contrast, the K-psychology is an adaptation to a relative scarcity of resources, where only the fittest compete and survive.  This produces an increased selective pressure favoring the survival of more advanced and fit specimens.  It also reduces the advantages of producing copious numbers of less fit offspring.

Although the presence of absence of resources may vary within a population over the short term, over the long term these two environmental conditions will usually accompany either the presence or absence of a constant, high mortality, most frequently predation.  Predation lowers population numbers and prevents overcrowding, thereby increasing the per-capita resources available to each individual.  This prevents the onset of resource shortage due to overpopulation.

It is for this reason that the r-strategy, which is the evolutionary origin of liberalism, is most often seen in nature within prey species.  Meanwhile the K-strategy, which underlies conservatism, is most often seen in species which are not preyed upon.  This is in fact, the biological “Conservatives think like lions, liberals think like lambs.”  Lions are a K-selected species which exists sans predation.  As a result, each new lion must compete with its peers to acquire a share of the limited resources available to the population.  As a result, lions evolved to exhibit a K-type, competitive/aggressive psychology that intensively rears offspring to compete.  Sheep, by contrast, are a more r-selected prey species, surrounded by fields of grass they will rarely, if ever, fully consume.  This is reflected in their less belligerent, more pacifistic, more freely promiscuous nature.

One species exhibits a psychology which is belligerent, competitive, and sexually restricted and selective, so as to compete for limited resources and produce the fittest offspring.  The other exists as the exact opposite, simply trying to turn resources into offspring as quickly as possible, regardless of fitness.  Each is perfectly designed to compete with peers in their respective environment.

The r-strategy entails five main psychological traits.  Each trait is designed to help an organism out-compete peers in the r-selected environment of free resource availability.  This psychology exhibits a psychological aversion to both, competition with peers and the competitive environment.  It also exhibits a tolerance for, or embrace of, promiscuity, low-investment single-parenting, and early onset sexual behavior among offspring.  It will also tend to not exhibit any group-centric urges, such as loyalty to in-group, or hostility to out-group.

Of these five traits, (competition aversion, promiscuity, single parenting, early onset sexuality, and aversion to group-centrism/ethnocentrism), political leftists exhibit a tolerance of, or an embrace of, all five.  Indeed, as we will show, these five urges explain the entire liberal platform of issue positions.

Liberalism seeks to quash competitions between men (from capitalism, to war, to citizens killing criminal attackers with privately owned firearms).  Liberalism also adopts a lax attitude towards rampant promiscuity, if it is not actively embracing it.  Liberals tend to support single parenting, such as was seen in the debate over the TV show Murphy Brown’s glorification of single motherhood.  Liberalism exhibits a tolerance for, or an embrace of, ever earlier sexual education for children as well as an ever more serialized media environment to which children are exposed.  Liberals tend to rejecte ethnocentrism, and view a tendency towards a pack mentality as an odd and foolish evolutionary throwback.

On top of all of this, at the heart of most liberal policy is a fundamental perception that resources exist in limitless quantities, and that any shortage is not inherent to the finite nature of the world.  Rather, any shortage must be due to some specific individual’s greed altering the world’s nature state of plenty, which would otherwise be able to easily provision everyone with a comfortably high level of resources.  This is a psychology designed to avoid danger, and focus the individual on reproducing as fast as possible.  In our ancient evolutionary environment, absent birth control and abortion, this would produce large numbers of offspring, beginning early in life, and it would be perfectly adapted to r-selection, where every offspring would have food and survive.

The K-strategy entails an embrace of five opposite psychological traits.  K-selection favors an aggressive embrace of competition, and the competitive environment, where some individuals succeed, and others fail, based on their inherent abilities and merits.  It tends to reject promiscuity in favor of sexual selectivity and monogamy, and it will strongly favor high-investment, two-parent offspring-rearing.  The K-strategy also favors delaying sexual activity among offspring until later in life, when maximally fit.  Finally, in its most evolved form, K-selection will tend to imbue individuals with a fierce loyalty to their in-group, to facilitate success in group-competitions.  Competition, shortage, and conflict are the evolutionary origins of the pack mentality, and they are ever present in the extreme K-selected environment.

Clearly, conservatives favor competition, from capitalism, to war, to armed citizens fighting off criminals with personally owned firearms.  Conservatives accept that such competitions will produce disparate outcomes which will be based on inherent ability and effort.  Conservatives favor a culture of monogamy over promiscuity, and they tend to desire a culture which favors high-investment, two-parent child-rearing, as evidence by the conservative uproar over Murphy Brown, as well as the growing debate over “family values” within our culture.  Conservatives also tend to want to see children protected from sexually stimulating themes or sexual education until later in life, so they will be more likely to delay the onset of sexual activity until they are mature.  Of course conservatives have always viewed liberals as exhibiting diminished loyalty to their nation and its people because to a conservative, patriotism, and support for “one’s own,” is a vital moral quality in peers and its expression can never be too exaggerated.

Again, this is a psychology, designed to house one’s genes in carefully reared, highly fit, competitive machines.  It is perfectly adapted to confront conditions of resource limitation, where one’s only means of acquiring resources is to be better at competition than your peers, and to do whatever it takes to not be the individual who failed to succeed.

Why do the r and K reproductive strategies exist?  How exactly does each strategy offer advantage to the individual who exhibits it?  Let’s take a closer look at r and K in nature.  Suppose you have a field, and it produces enough grass to support 100 r-selected rabbits.  A group of owls moves in however, and keeps the rabbit population at only 20 rabbits, in a field which produces enough food to support 100.

Now this environment offers specific advantages and disadvantages to each rabbit.  The owls will shorten each rabbit’s average lifespan.  As a result, Darwinian selection will favor rabbits which reproduce fast and early.  If a rabbit waits to mate, it will be eaten, and that sexually procrastinating trait will be culled.  As a result, those rabbits that produce the next generation will have no compunction about mating as early as possible.  In this environment, “teenagers” and “children” mating is simply normal, as anyone who feels otherwise is eaten prior to reproducing.  Mating earlier also offers a numerical advantage in offspring production, which is advantageous when the competition is about producing as many offspring as possible.

Conflict is an unnecessary risk, since each rabbit already has vastly more food than it can eat.  Those who compete will waste time and energy fighting for something which is already freely available elsewhere.  Those who fight will risk injury and death, while those who do not fight will enjoy the same freely available food, absent any risk, simply by fleeing to another green pasture.  The fighters and competitors will produce fewer offspring than those who avoid competition’s risk and will find themselves numerically out-reproduced by the more prolific individuals who avoid conflict and competition.

Under r-selection, monogamy is disadvantageous, since to impregnate only one mate, and then see the few offspring you have with her eaten, is to see yourself fail, in Darwinian terms.  Monogamy will only produce so many young.  Thus in this environment, one is best served by producing as many offspring as possible, by as many mates as possible, beginning as early as possible.  IN that way, it becomes likely statistically that come of your numerous children will survive to reproduce.  Since under conditions of r-selection, these are the traits Darwin rewards, these are the traits which will emerge within a species placed within an r-selecting environment.

Since producing high numbers of offspring is the goal, it is also advantageous to not waste too much time on rearing any one offspring.  The goal in r-selection is mass production, as early and as often as possible.  Those who produce more offspring, even less fit offspring, out-compete those who do not, since fitness is unimportant when resources are free and there is no competition.  As a result, high-investment parenting for extended periods will give way to investing as little as possible in each offspring’s rearing, so one may dedicate oneself to the actual act of reproduction, and produce as many offspring as possible.  Since resources are freely available, and aggression an competitions are rare, offspring do not require much education or protection anyway, and they may be turned out of the home relatively early to fend for themselves.  Males will also abandon impregnated females with offspring so as to pursue their highly promiscuous mating strategy.  You see how free resources can actually devolve a population, reducing greatness.

Since there is no competition, there is no need to ally with anyone else to compete for resources.  As a result, these rabbits will not evolve any group-centric urges, or emotional connections to their peers.  Indeed, the very notion of in-group or out-group would be puzzling to them, if you could communicate the concept.  Each rabbit is wholly on their own – at most a part of a global rabbit warren.

As a result of all of this, in this environment a population will evolve to avoid conflict and competition, mate with as many partners as possible, mate early, and not invest highly in any one child, while feeling loyalty to no one.  The emphasis, as so many biology textbooks will assert, is to produce quantity over quality when producing offspring in an r-selective environment.

Now supposed we zoom out from the field, and zoom in to a nearby forest.  There, several packs of K-selected wolves exist in harmonious balance with a deer population.  Once these wolves reproduce, there will not be enough food to support the entire population of wolves, so some wolves will die due to starvation.  This creates a different selective pressure entirely.  Here, to survive, a wolf must aggressively compete with his peers for a share of the limited food available.  Those who avoid conflict and competition, in hopes of stumbling on non-existent food elsewhere, will die from starvation.  The wolves who survive will be those who go after any food they see, even if they have to try and take it from another wolf by force of violence.  Thus, such a K-type psychology will evolve to exhibit a more aggressive, competitive nature, more accepting of violence, and more accepting of inevitable disparities in competitive outcomes between individuals.

Of course a wolf’s success, in Darwinian terms, will revolve not just around surviving and mating, but also around producing offspring who survive and reproduce themselves.  From a Darwinian perspective, if a parent survives and mates, but all of their offspring die due to competitive failure, the parent may as well have no bothered reproducing at all.  As a result, K-selected wolves will evolve a psychology designed to invest heavily in a few, highly competitive offspring.  This will produce a small number of offspring that are likely to outcompete their peers, rather than a larger number of lower quality, competitively incompetent offspring.  Those wolves who mate randomly and often, with any mate they happen across, will see their numerous haphazardly produced offspring killed off by the fitter offspring of those parents who carefully sought out the fittest mate possible, and then competitively monopolized their mate’s genetic fitness through monogamy.  As a result, this K-trait of careful mate selection, and competitive monopolization, will emerge spontaneously as Darwin works his magic.

Young wolves will evolve to wait before entering the competition for a mate, so as to make sure they are as competitive as possible and are not simply killed by their older competition due to their immaturity.  Parents will also evolve to discourage such early sexual precociousness in their young, so their young will be maximally mature (and maximally attractive to highly fit mates) when pursuing their own lifetime mate.  Likewise, parents will evolve towards high investment, two-parent (or even pack) rearing, so as to better protect their offspring until they are ready to compete, and to carefully prepare them for the rigorous competition with peers which awaits them.

Intense K-selection often evolves into groups of individuals competing with other groups, since this is a more effective way to acquire limited resources than working along.  As a result, K-type organisms will tend to evolve into groups of individuals who exhibit pro-social traits, such as loyalty to in-group and disregard for out-group interests.  This is why K-selection produces packs of wolves, family groups of elephants, pods of dolphins, and prides of lions, all of whom care deeply for each other, while mice, antelope, deer, rabbits, and any other r-selected species will not exhibit any sadness should one of their ranks fall prey to a predator.

Since rabbits exist at the bottom of the food pyramid in nature, and are preyed upon fairly consistently by a wide range of predators (from owls, to hawks, to foxes), rabbits never truly experience the K-selected environment for any extended period.  As a result of eons of fairly consistent r-selection pressures, they express a consistently r-type psychology throughout their species.  Other species, which have existed for long periods under conditions of limited resources, will be highly K-selected in their psychology and behavior.  Still other species can exhibit a mix of r and K-type psychologies, due to a variety of unique environmental conditions, among them having a history of living in varying environments with periodic resource abundances and resource shortages.

Man is a higher level species on the r/K spectrum, but it is easy to see historically how groups and individuals could shift on the spectrum depending on the conditions of the time.  Looking through this filter, it is easier to understand the shift towards r-strategy for some when we introduced the welfare program into the United States, for example, which in some ways acted like the “unlimited resources” spoken about specific to r-type selection.  Once you understand the theory you will start to see examples of it all over the place.  I highly recommend checking out his book.  As always, people will point out exceptions to the rule and think they’ve somehow debunked an entire area of study that on the macro generally works out very well.  Think of it as a useful heuristic.  If nothing else you may become less frustrated if you can ascribe one’s behavior to a deeper biological mechanism.

Do children raised by same-sex couples have higher rates of depression?

I do not know.  This post is two-fold.  One is to raise awareness to a potential issue that is an uncomfortable topic that nowadays people find it easier to ignore altogether rather than ask honest questions and have an open dialogue.  The other is to point out that many people will look at this as attacking same-sex couples rather than investigating potential harm to the children themselves.  Here in upside-down world many will immediately take the side of the “minority group” rather than the actual potential victims.  Again, this is not an attack at all on same-sex couples.  What two consenting adults do is none of my business.  But we need to be able to ask difficult questions.  We can still do that in our society, right?  Right…?

This article was published in Depression Research and Treatment in 2016.  Knowing the reproducibility crisis in science there absolutely needs to be more research into this and independent studies to verify the results.  It is interesting, though not necessarily surprising, that previous research that contradicts this study has poor statistical analysis and very small sample sizes which lead to hazy conclusions at best.  I could not find follow-up studies to confirm or deny these findings but if anyone has please post in the comment section.  I will add an update if they are confirmed or denied.  A snippet from the article:

Abstract

The relationship of elevated depression risk recently discovered among adult persons raised by same-sex parents with possible precipitating conditions in childhood has not previously been acknowledged. This study tests whether such inattention is supportable. Logistic regression based risk ratios were estimated from longitudinal measures of mental health outcomes observed in three waves (at ages 15, 22, and 28) of the US National Survey of Adolescent to Adult Health (n = 15,701). At age 28, the adults raised by same-sex parents were at over twice the risk of depression (CES-D: risk ratio 2.6, 95% CI 1.4–4.6) as persons raised by man-woman parents. These findings should be interpreted with caution. Elevated risk was associated with imbalanced parental closeness and parental child abuse in family of origin; depression, suicidality, and anxiety at age 15; and stigma and obesity. More research and policy attention to potentially problematic conditions for children with same-sex parents appears warranted.

1. Background

In research and policy settings, children in unique distress with same-sex parents are not supposed to exist. Most studies have reported “no differences” in well-being, most often using psychometric measures of depression or anxiety, supporting a lapse in policy attention to the potential needs of such children. Uniformly benign findings for this population have recently been challenged, however, by several original research efforts [], the rediscovery of older studies [], and the reanalysis of studies long thought to support “no differences” [].

The sparse and gendered nature of the same-sex parent population largely restricts research in this area to the examination of small samples of lesbian parents. Unfortunately, this difficulty has prompted an almost universal dependence on convenience samples [] recruited, with knowledge of study goals, from internet surveys, “LGBT events, bookstore and newspaper advertisements, word of mouth, networking, and youth groups” []. Reanalyses have confirmed, not surprisingly, the presence in such samples of strong ascertainment bias, social desirability bias, and/or positive reporting bias []. In most studies, lack of statistical significance using simple bivariate tests in such samples is then erroneously interpreted as strong evidence of “no differences” in the population, even when difference in estimates or effect sizes are substantively large and even though the sample is not representative [].

In fact, only four of the several dozen studies alleging “no differences” have examined a representative sample. The largest and most recent of these, Rosenfeld’s analysis of 3,174 same-sex parented children on the US Census, is discussed in Section 5. The other three are related studies based on a single sample, a group of 44 adolescents with lesbian parents captured on over 20,000 population-representative cases of the initial wave of the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”) []. Sullins, however, recently found that most (27 of the 44) adolescents in this sample allegedly with same-sex parents were actually living with opposite-sex parents including, for most of them, their biological father as well as their mother. After removing the mixed cases, the remaining sample members fared significantly worse on psychometric measures of anxiety and autonomy than did their adolescent counterparts with opposite-sex parents, albeit comprising only 17 cases []. Other studies employing large representative samples have also found higher depressive symptoms, indicated by the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D []), among younger same-sex parented children [] and adults who report having had a same-sex-related parent at some point during childhood []. The design and methodology of Regnerus’ study were the subject of a brief but vigorous debate [], which turned largely on definitional issues [].

No study has yet explored the connection, if any, between late onset distress and precipitating conditions in children in this population, and no research reporting “no differences” has yet investigated parental child abuse or adult onset difficulties []. The present study aims to amend these gaps in the research. It improves on the sample limitations of prior studies by employing data that are both representative and longitudinal, following the corrected Add Health sample of adolescents with lesbian parents, the most well-regarded small sample used in this field to date, through Wave IV, thirteen years after the initial interview at age 15 (on average). It improves on prior methods by the use of standard psychometric scales, to the extent possible, and the estimation of relative risk by logistic regression models with appropriate survey weighting. As the first study to examine children raised by same-sex parents into early adulthood, this exploratory study aims to contribute new information for understanding of the effects of same-sex parenting through the life-course transition into early adulthood.

The analysis followed a grounded theory approach, first identifying the presence or absence of pertinent differences by family type and then developing and testing grounded hypotheses, drawing both from the observed bivariate characteristics of the data and prior research where applicable. For clarity the research presentation will also follow this order, with the formulation of hypotheses presented following initial bivariate results.

This is how toxic subjects like this are.  The same thing played out when The Bell Curve came out.  Though the evidence was rock solid, the attacks were relentless because nobody wants to address the difficult questions and implications surrounding IQ.  The publisher was quick to put out this “Expression of concern” over the article.  Damage control, as it were.

On behalf of Hindawi Limited, the publisher of Depression Research and Treatment, we would like to express our concern with the article titled “Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among Adults with Same-Sex Parents” published in Depression Research and Treatment in 2016 [].

The article has been cited to support arguments about same-sex marriage that Hindawi believes to be hateful and wrong. These arguments do not represent the views of Hindawi, our staff, or the editorial board of Depression Research and Treatment. We strongly condemn any attempt to justify hate speech or bigotry through reference to the scholarly record.

In June 2016, several readers raised concerns about this article. At that time, we evaluated the article’s peer review process and brought several concerns to the handling editor’s attention. These included: the study’s small sample of same-sex parents, the lack of discussion of other influences such as family breakup on the wellbeing of the children included in the study, the implied causation in the title “Invisible Victims,” and the potential conflict of interest implied by the author’s position as a Catholic priest.

The handling editor believed the article’s reviewers addressed these concerns, and the author made sufficient revisions to the article to address these flaws. In the editor’s opinion, the limitations of the study did not warrant further correction or retraction. As publisher, Hindawi does not overrule the editorial decisions of our academic editors in such cases.

Nevertheless, Hindawi felt it was important for the criticisms of this study to become part of the scientific record. We invited Dr. Nathaniel Frank, a critic of the article and director of the “What We Know” project (http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/) at Columbia Law School, to publish a letter to the editor in Depression Research and Treatment making these concerns visible to the journal’s readers []. That letter is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/3185067. We also published a subsequent response from Dr. Sullins [].

Whether the long-term outcomes are proven true or false, I have to applaud Dr Sullins for being brave enough to even ask the question.  Again, that is the main thrust of this post.  Yes, it’s a sensitive topic.  Yes, it will ruffle a lot of feathers in the current climate.  But the pursuit of the truth is important.  And if children truly are worse off in same-sex households isn’t it worth investigating that if there is seemingly credible evidence?  I completely agree that additional studies need to be done.  The initial study was funded by a Catholic group.  Which doesn’t necessarily mean it is biased but it opens the door.  It would be great if non-partisan groups did their own studies.  That is how science is supposed to work.  Dr Sullins issued a response to the publisher’s expression of concern which a few snippets are worth posting.  The entire response can be found here.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Dr. Frank’s letter [] about my article [] and applaud Hindawi fostering a free and open exchange. Frank’s complaint that I “fudged” the sample to bias the results in ways that are “damning” to gay and lesbian parents is emphatically false. Frank’s claims are based on multiple confusions and errors, mischaracterize the state of knowledge, and use special pleading. To the extent some of his points have merit they tend to undermine not my study but rather others showing benign findings for children with same-sex parents and suggest I have if anything understated the level of harm for such children.

No Harm Studies: 74, or Fewer than 10? Frank characterizes my findings as an “outlier” from 74 studies collected on his website showing no disadvantage for children of gay or lesbian parents. But there are many other studies he did not select, which report difficulties in same-sex partnerships similar to my study. I cited three such studies concerning health difficulties and intimate partner violence (IPV). Messinger’s conclusion, for example, is very similar to mine: “concerns over ‘airing the dirty laundry’ of an already stigmatized community alongside researcher prejudice or indifference cannot justify treating GLB [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual] IPV victims as invisible, leaving them without support in a painful and potentially dangerous environment.” [] My study is not an outlier but is in line with the concerns and approach of these other studies.

Frank also does not mention that his website also includes four studies that do show disadvantage for children of gay or lesbian parents. Three of these studies employ three separate large population samples, finding similar levels of disadvantage []. By contrast, the 74 studies include only two or three which use population samples. The remainder are small convenience samples, typically recruited from sympathetic groups and settings, that are (in my view and that of detailed reviews) [] worthless for the question of child outcomes. These studies do not meet minimal scientific standards and are biased toward benign findings []. Asking patrons of a local LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] bookstore or gay friends network about child outcomes is like surveying a Bible study about religiosity: the rosy picture is misleading about the larger population. Excluding such nonrandom or biased samples, fewer than 10 of the 74 studies remain.

One last snippet:

I think I have addressed enough errors in Frank’s critique to establish that his criticisms of my study are unfounded and that my findings are well justified. However, I doubt this will be convincing to him or those sharing his perspective, because what appears to disturb them is not the study methods but the findings. I suspect no evidence will convince Frank that children with same-sex parents may face unique and heightened struggles and difficulties. It is right to be appalled at that thought, but the most useful response is to try to understand the problem better, so as to address the conditions or provide support necessary to ameliorate the problem, not deny the evidence.

And sadly, I think Dr Sullins is right.  Even if this was perfectly executed from a procedural standpoint, it will never be enough, because they don’t like the OUTCOME.  Which is the truly sad part, because in the end if that is the case then it’s the children who are the ones who suffer because of a political agenda.  We may not always like the truth.  It may hurt.  But one should ALWAYS take the truth rather than lie about it.  The more one lies to one’s self, the easier it becomes to justify worse and worse behavior.  Letting the evil one rule over yourself will always lead down a dark path.

If genetics don’t matter…

Then why is it whites systematically beat out hispanics and blacks across the board in this particular arena?

U.S. racial and ethnic groups vary significantly in their knowledge of science-related issues, according to a new Pew Research Center surveythat quizzed Americans about subjects ranging from life and physical sciences to numeracy and chart reading.

About half of whites (48%) got at least nine of 11 questions correct. In comparison, much smaller shares of Hispanics (23%) and blacks (9%) correctly answered at least nine of the questions.

On average, whites got 7.6 questions correct while Hispanics got 5.1 and blacks 3.7. English-speaking Asians got an average of 7.0 correct answers, but it’s important to note the survey was only conducted in English and Spanish. (Asians are less likely than whites and blacks, but not Hispanics, to be proficient in English.)

The poll is careful to point out that whites and blacks only include non-Hispanic.  Given the attacks on the educational system over the years this cannot be simply attributed to which school one or the other went to; most don’t really  have a choice anymore.

FT_19.03.28_ScienceKnowledgeRace_Whitesmorelikely.png

And it can’t really be a fluke if whites perform the best across the board.

People ask why this matters?  “Doesn’t this only fan the flames of hatred and racism?”  No, not at all.  We already know science is dealing with a reproducibility crisis of massive proportions, partially attributed to the fact that scientists are often times not honest at all about the research they are performing.  And rather than face the questions head on and honestly, to garner honest results and potentially enact real, positive, changes to the system, we cover our eyes, block our ears, and pretend that that there’s nothing there.  People are perfectly willing to accept that some races are taller than others and some are faster than others, but the minute you suggest maybe there’s a difference in intelligence as well, everyone freaks out.

Facing the matter head on could yield better ways of educating our children and putting them in environments for them to excel and reach a higher potential of their overall ability.  Treating everyone as if everyone has the exact same capacity and skills is not only ineffective, it is cruel.  And artificially inflating scores or grading on a curve to control how many of which race gets into a particular school is particularly racist.  The actual African-American who is genuinely gifted intellectually is forever questioned whether s/he got in on his/her own merit or if s/he was given a boost.  Completely unfair to those individuals.

People need to learn that there is a difference between the macro and the micro.  It is a fact that on average, east-Asians have a higher IQ than whites.  That is the macro.  That doesn’t mean there aren’t whites who are smarter than some east-Asians; of course there are.  That is also why you should treat people on a per-individual basis.  But to pretend that on the whole we can’t reliably measure and predict on the macro is not only patently absurd, it prevents from ever enacting beneficial change for fear of hurting feelings or some other nonsense.  Then again, in a multicultural society where every group will raise hell anytime anything comes out about them they do not like, what can you really expect?

United Airlines is converged

United Airlines is the latest to kowtow to the SJW narrative.

Welcome Aboard, Mx.: United Airlines Continues to Lead in Inclusivity by Offering Non-Binary Gender Booking Options

March 22, 2019

CHICAGO, March 22, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — United Airlines today announced it has become the first U.S. airline to offer non-binary gender options throughout all booking channels in addition to providing the option to select the title “Mx.” during booking and in a MileagePlus customer profile. Customers now have the ability to identify themselves as M(male), F(female), U(undisclosed) or X(unspecified), corresponding with what is indicated on their passports or identification.

“United is determined to lead the industry in LGBT inclusivity, and we are so proud to be the first U.S. airline to offer these inclusive booking options for our customers,” said United’s Chief Customer Officer Toby Enqvist. “United is excited to share with our customers, whether they identify along the binary of male or female or not, that we are taking the steps to exhibit our care for them while also providing additional employee training to make us even more welcoming for all customers and employees.”

As part of implementing these new changes, United has worked with the Human Rights Campaign and The Trevor Project on employee training initiatives. These initiatives include teaching employees about preferred pronouns and the persistence of gender norms, LGBT competency in the workplace and other steps to make United an inclusive space for both customers and employees.

“At the Human Rights Campaign, we believe being acknowledged as the gender you identify with is part of treating everyone with dignity and respect,” said Beck Bailey, acting director of the Workplace Equality Program. “By providing non-binary gender selection for ticketing and the gender-inclusive honorific ‘Mx’ in user profiles, United Airlines is taking an important step forward for non-binary inclusion.”

People often say “why do you care so much?”.  The more ground we cede to this utter nonsense the harder it is going to be to take it back later.  Again, capitulating to this more-than-two-genders BS is only adding to the delusion of these people.  We cannot give into their fantasy, their mental illness.  These people need professional help and our compassion.  Playing along with their illness is not helping.

What’s the over/under on how long it takes before a flight attendant or gate agent uses the wrong pronoun on one of these unhinged people and gets sued for millions?

Child Abuse

From an article recently posted on the Christian Post:

Eight year-old Jack Wilson was on a weekend visit to his grandparents’ house in mid-December 2016 when he informed his grandmother that his name was really Jacquelyn.

“Grammy, my name is Jacquelyn,” he complained as he walked into the room and sat down at the kitchen table for lunch. He had just received Christmas presents from friends of his grandmother addressed to “Jack” and was visibly upset.

“Why is that your name?” Amanda Wilson, his grandmother, asked in response as she set a plate of chicken and rice in front of him.

He replied: “Because I’m a girl now.”

“What makes you think you’re a girl?” she inquired.

“It’s my gender,” he said.

She pressed him: “Well, what’s a gender?”

He stared back at her, puzzled, and said: “I don’t know.”

Amanda Wilson hasn’t seen her grandson in two years and each day she longs to hold him in her arms and hug him but can’t. Her daughter, Marissa, and her spouse began believing that little Jack was really a girl around three years ago and because Wilson doesn’t agree they’ve cut off all contact with her, no longer speak, and don’t allow her and her husband to see him.

Shortly after Jack turned 7, Marissa and her spouse excitedly announced on social media that Jack was a girl and they couldn’t wait to start him on puberty blockers in two years when he turned 9. They posted a picture of Marissa’s spouse and Jack outside a children’s hospital that is home to one of the 55 transgender clinics now operating in the United States.

The social media account Wilson’s daughter had was deactivated and Wilson no longer has the exact words of her daughter’s happiness about starting Jack on puberty blockers but she still has the picture.

At Wilson’s request, The Christian Post is using pseudonyms in this report and has changed or removed identifying details in order to maintain her anonymity. Although she was baptized as a Methodist, Wilson is not a subscriber to any particular religious faith but chose to speak with CP because she felt it was important that the voice of a grandmother is heard as more parents speak out about their heartache of losing their children to what many are calling a transgender “social contagion.” She has reached out to many secular journalists to no avail.

In 2008, Marissa, who lives just outside of Portland, Maine, was in a relationship with a man, became pregnant and gave birth to Jack in 2009. That relationship ended soon after Jack was born and just a few years later, when Marissa was 26, she came out as a lesbian and started dating a woman. Approximately 16 months later, they married in June 2013. Seven months into that marriage her spouse came out as transgender and changed her name to a male name and started taking hormones. The couple separated last year and now share custody of Jack.

What do you call this if not child abuse?

As mentioned in a post last week, as Christianity has been systematically removed from western civilization so has any moral imperative to be honest.  We have seen this most notably in politics and science, to name just two examples.  Without any higher moral impetus to tell the truth, money and ego have pervaded the science community and resulted in a reproducibility crisis, amongst other things.  Another area that has been hit hard, because the science community is unwilling to tell the truth about many things, is more extensive research on “uncomfortable” topics.

There are many verboten topics in science including IQ with respect to race, sexuality, and honest climate science.  Within the past few years there has been a concerted effort to pervert sexuality.  They tell us it is on a spectrum, that there are more than 2 genders, and that homosexuality is inherently natural.  Before I go further I should say I do not have a dog in this fight, other than wanting the best for our society.  I am on a journey to seek the truth, and not turn away from it regardless if it makes me uncomfortable or reveals hard truths that are painful to swallow.

I don’t know if homosexuality is natural.  Clearly it cannot be the norm, or else we would not survive as a species.  My guidance on the matter comes from the Bible.  But we need to do far more research into the topic.  While many people are convinced that it is entirely genetic that is highly questionable.  There are some studies, though hard to confirm in this day and age, that have studied identical twins.  One of them is straight and the other is not.  If this is true, then it clearly cannot be entirely genetic.

What’s the point of all this?  The point is we need better studies on sexuality in general.  We need to understand how one becomes homosexual.  We need to better understand the underpinnings of what makes one think they are transsexual.  And we need to be honest and truthful about the results that we find.  Going further, if what we do find suggests it is something mental or points to mentally unstable people, perhaps we need to reconsider who should be allowed to be able to adopt and raise children.

Again, this is an uncomfortable topic and I am merely searching for the truth.  If we can’t even talk about the subject we have a major problem as a society.  I don’t want to have to say that we shouldn’t allow some people to be able to adopt children and others not.  But if there is consistent evidence that points to negative outcomes for the children being adopted, the entirely innocent party in this, the topic needs to be revisited.  This to me is a clear cut case of child abuse.  At least one, if not both, of the parents have serious issues, and they are foisting these issues onto an innocent child.  There is no way in hell this kid thinks they are a girl on their own.  It is being placed in their heads by the parents.  And no.  It is not brave.  It is not admirable.  It is disgusting.  They are poisoning this child’s brain with this vile garbage.  Socially (and soon unnaturally) engineering him into being what THEY want to see him become, not with the best interest of him in mind.  Can we please use some common sense and call this what it is, rather than kowtow to the sick fantasies of the parents?

Speaking the truth

Matthew 5:37 New King James Version (NKJV)

37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

If you aren’t already following Vox Day’s blog I highly suggest that you do.  This is a passage he often brings up.

There are signs all around us that western civilization is crumbling.  Much of it has to do with the removal of Christianity from the equation, one of the three main pillars of western civilization.  I could be wrong, but in no other major religion is it explicitly stated to always tell the truth.  This is a distinctly Christian value.  There are exceptions where one can lie in Judaism, and lying is explicitly allowed in Islam as well.  Contrary to what many may think, telling the truth is not a self-evident virtue.  Nor is it part of Judeo-Christian morality, as this is a made up term and does not exist.

There may be no more telling evidence of how important Christianity is to western civilization than this.  We see it every day, notably in politics and science.  And the more people accept and rationalize that it is okay to lie, and the more that it is done and allowed to be done without any repercussions, the worse it will continue to get.

Take politics.  There are very few people left in politics that one can say are truly Christian.  Combine this with a population that is becoming less Christian and you have a recipe for disaster.  Lying becomes normalized.  It becomes accepted.  Tolerated.  To the point where it becomes more surprising when someone is actually punished for lying than the other way around.  How many people have lied under oath and had no repercussions?  Who knows how many times Hillary Clinton has lied under oath.  The Benghazi fiasco is just one of probably many.  Swamp creature James Brennan lied under oath about the NSA spying on Americans.  The depths of lying under oath for the Hillary Clinton email scandal and Russia scandal witch hunt, with any luck, will all come out some day.  Lying has become normalized and expected.  And there are very few, if any, Christians left in Congress to stand up for the truth and enact punishments for these people who have committed perjury and often times treason.  No good Christian would lie under oath.  And anything goes for all of these non-Christians who are under oath and are lying outright.  Why not, if you think you can get away with it and see no other higher reason to tell the truth?

You see the same in the science community as well.  Scientific study was funded by churches early on, and many scientists were Christian.  Somehow throughout the years Christianity has been stigmatized in the science world, and Christians have been ridiculed and driven out in many disciplines.  Is it any surprise that science has a reproducibility crisis?  Even in the hard sciences!  When there is no greater purpose to tell the truth, to let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything can be rationalized.  When you tell yourself everything is subjective, that there is no objective truth, anything can be allowed.  “Oh, I need to fudge these numbers, or omit this piece of data that would refute my work, or I wouldn’t get the funding I need.”  Or lying to protect one’s life’s work, even if it is demonstrably false.

These are just two of many examples.  Humans are not inherently wired to tell the truth regardless of the situation.  It would do western civilization a world of good, and its very survival depends upon, restoring the pillar of Christianity to it.  To bring back Christian morals.  To let your yes be yes and your no be no, as Jesus Christ taught.

Can we pump the brakes on 5G?

I came across this video on my feed today and it is a topic I have wanted to write about for a while.  It seems like the push for 5G everywhere has become ramped up in the past year.  Whatever one’s position is on 5G, I think most people can agree that it warrants a far more in-depth investigation into its potential health effects on a population, especially when the towers that need to be installed are no longer 1000s of feet or several miles away but rather only a couple hundred feet and far more numerous throughout neighborhoods and right next to homes.

Sites like infowars.com present far more concerns about privacy instead of just the health risks.  And sure, you can laugh at infowars, but they seem to be a far more reliable news source these days than a lot of others out there.

Take a look at the video if you are interested.  A few interesting takeaways I didn’t realize:

  • The weaker your cell signal, the more radiation your phone puts out to make the connection with the cell tower
  • There are studies out there that link exposure to brain cancers like glioblastomas (GBM)
  • The acceptable levels of RF exposure via each country’s guidelines show that we allow waaaaaay more here in the USA than most other countries, including China by orders of magnitude.
  • It is usually telling when a country like Israel bans Wi-Fi in schools for worries of exposure.

Judge for yourself.  It would always seem prudent to err on the side of caution before rolling out massive technologies too quickly without knowing the consequences.  It seems like the potential risks outweigh the benefits by a large margin at this point.  Are people really that unsatisfied with the current speeds we download at?  Enough to warrant this potential risk?

Lowest

Apple.JPG

TENS is falling apart

It should never be this way, but there are a few areas of science that are untouchable for one reason or another.  Questioning climate change will get you ridiculed and potentially risk your career.  Other topics, like the investigation of IQ and differences across races, is subverted to the point that it is hardly studied at all anymore, and like climate change is career suicide.  The theory of evolution by natural selection is another sacred cow that is all too often accepted as scientific fact.  But the theory is falling apart, and more than 1,000 brave scientists are risking their careers to sign a dissent statement about it.

Earlier this month, a long kept list of Ph.D. scientists who “dissent from Darwinism” reached a milestone — it crossed the threshold of 1,000 signers.

“There are 1,043 scientists on the ‘A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism’ list. It passed the 1,000 mark this month,” said Sarah Chaffee, a program officer for the Discovery Institute, which maintains the list.

“A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” is a simple, 32-word statement that reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Launched in 2001, the list continues to collect support from scientists from universities across America and globally. Signers have earned their Ph.D.s at institutions that include Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth and the University of Pennsylvania. Others on the list earned their doctorates at Clemson, UT Austin, Ohio State, UCLA, Duke, Stanford, Emory, UNC Chapel Hill and many others universities. Still other signers are currently employed as professors across the nation.

Those who sign it “must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine,” according to the institute.

The group points out that signing the statement does not mean these scholars endorse “alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design,” but rather simply indicates “skepticism about modern Darwinian theories central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life.”

According to Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer, the signers “have all risked their careers or reputations in signing.”

The theory of evolution by natural selection, much like climate change, is one of those topics every lay person takes for granted assuming it is true because lots of scientists say that it is.  And like climate change, you are roundly laughed at or worse if you even remotely question its validity.

If you are willing to keep an open mind, consider watching the three videos below.  One is a debate between Vox Day and biologist Jean-Francois Gariépy.  It is Vox Day essentially positing his theory to JF about why he doesn’t think TENS is a realistic possibility.  What is interesting about it is he is coming at it from an economist point of view, as that is his background.  In short, the math doesn’t add up.

The debate goes a little bit off the rails so I’m also including a follow up video by Vox Day here where he goes into more detail and breaks down his line of thinking a bit more for those who did not understand the debate.  It is also clear that JF is dodging the question, but decide for yourselves.  And lastly, another video by VD…the nail in the coffin of human evolution.
%d bloggers like this: