Monday, September 3, 2018

A Brown University Researcher Released A Study About Teens Imitating Their Peers By Turning Trans. The Left Went Insane. So Brown Caved.

A Brown University Researcher Released A Study About Teens Imitating Their Peers By Turning Trans. The Left Went Insane. So Brown Caved.

Protestors march through Chinatown en route to the Justice department after a rally in response to last month's suicide of transgender Ohio teenager Leelah Alcorn, on January, 10, 2015 in Washington, DC.
Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images
This week, Brown University pulled down a news story on a study conducted by a Brown University researcher. That study focused in on what it described as “rapid-onset gender dysphoria”: gender dysphoria that was not present in early youth, but that manifested within days or weeks in teens and young adults. The study author, Lisa Littman, assistant professor of the practice of behavioral and social sciences at Brown’s School of Public Health, stated, “This kind of descriptive study is important because it defines a group and raises questions for more research. One of the main conclusions is that more research needs to be done. Descriptive studies aren’t randomized controlled trials – you can’t tell cause and effect, and you can’t tell prevalence. It’s going to take more studies to bring in more information, but this is a start.”
Littman did talk to 250 parents of children who suffered from rapid-onset gender dysphoria. According to Science Daily:
Among the noteworthy patterns Littman found in the survey data: 21 percent of parents reported their child had one or more friends become transgender-identified at around the same time; 20 percent reported an increase in their child's social media use around the same time as experiencing gender dysphoria symptoms; and 45 percent reported both. … The pattern of clusters of teens in friend groups becoming transgender-identified, the group dynamics of these friend groups and the types of advice viewed online led her to the hypothesis that friends and online sources could spread certain beliefs. Examples include the belief that non-specific symptoms such as feeling uncomfortable in their own skins or feeling like they don't fit in -- which could be a part of normal puberty or associated with trauma -- should be perceived as gender dysphoria; the belief that the only path to happiness is transition; and the belief that anyone who disagrees with the teen is transphobic and should be cut out of their life.
"Of the parents who provided information about their child's friendship group, about a third responded that more than half of the kids in the friendship group became transgender-identified," Littman said. "A group with 50 percent of its members becoming transgender-identified represents a rate that is more 70 times the expected prevalence for young adults."
Additionally, 62 percent of parents reported their teen or young adult had one or more diagnoses of a psychiatric disorder or neurodevelopmental disability before the onset of gender dysphoria. Forty-eight percent reported that their child had experienced a traumatic or stressful event prior to the onset of their gender dysphoria, including being bullied, sexually assaulted or having their parents get divorced.
This suggests that the drive to transition expressed by these teens and young adults could be a harmful coping mechanism like drugs, alcohol or cutting, Littman said.
There is no question whatsoever that in Western societies, reported rates of transgenderism have been rising dramatically in recent years, as publicity about transgenderism becomes the norm. From 2014 to 2015 alone, referrals to Britain’s gender identity service for children doubled. The numbers have also spiked in Australia and the United States, among others. It’s seriously questionable whether that’s merely an effect of people who were transgender coming out of hiding, or whether behavior is actually changing.
In any case, this Brown University study could not stand — any effort to actually research the environmental component of transgenderism is met with raucous calls for censorship. And Brown immediately caved. The University pulled down a news article about the study. Realistically, Brown and the journal in which the original comment was published, PLOS ONE, turned against the study because it offended politically correct sensibilities about transgenderism. Brown’s School of Public Health Dean Bess Marcus even issued a letter to the entire “community”:
Independent of the University’s removal of the article because of concerns about research methodology, the School of Public Health has heard from Brown community members expressing concerns that the conclusions of the study could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.
The University and School have always affirmed the importance of academic freedom and the value of rigorous debate informed by research. The merits of all research should be debated vigorously, because that is the process by which knowledge ultimately advances, often through tentative findings that are often overridden or corrected in subsequent higher quality research. The spirit of free inquiry and scholarly debate is central to academic excellence. At the same time, we believe firmly that it is also incumbent on public health researchers to listen to multiple perspectives and to recognize and articulate the limitations of their work. This process includes acknowledging and considering the perspectives of those who criticize our research methods and conclusions and working to improve future research to address these limitations and better serve public health. There is an added obligation for vigilance in research design and analysis any time there are implications for the health of the communities at the center of research and study.
The School’s commitment to studying and supporting the health and well-being of sexual and gender minority populations is unwavering. Our faculty and students are on the cutting edge of research on transgender populations domestically and globally. The commitment of the School to diversity and inclusion is central to our mission, and we pride ourselves on building a community that fully recognizes and affirms the full diversity of gender and sexual identity in its members. These commitments are an unshakable part of our core values as a community.
In an effort to support robust research and constructive dialogue on gender identity in adolescents and youth, the School will be organizing a panel of experts to present the latest research in this area and to define directions for future work to optimize health in transgender communities. We believe that more and better research is needed to help guide advances in the health of the LGBTQ community. We welcome input from faculty, staff and students about the composition of this panel and scope of the discussion.
This is academic tyranny. End of story. As Jesse Singal of New York Magazine points out:
Raising questions about study methodology is normal. Pulling down articles about scientific studies thanks to public pressure isn’t. It’s simply an attempt to shut down discussion about a critical issue of public importance in order to avoid a narrative that the political Left doesn’t want: a narrative that suggests that the transgender movement might actually be having an impact on the behavior of people who don’t actually suffer from childhood gender dysphoria, associating costs with society’s radical embrace of a completely unscientific set of ideas regarding sex and gender.

Lanny Davis Admits He Fibbed About The Trump Tower Story. CNN Still Refuses To Back Off Its Story That Relied On Davis.

CNN
Photo by John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images
With President Trump’s consistent focus on “fake news,” it’s easy to forget that the term was originally popularized by members of the mainstream media attempting to explain away Hillary Clinton’s loss by blaming the dissemination of false stories. But if that was the media’s concern, they could have begun by looking in-house — it turns out that the media have been responsible for a bevy of fake stories targeting the right for decades on end (see Rather, Dan). The latest example: CNN absolutely botched a story claiming that President Trump knew in advance about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between members of the Trump campaign and a Russian-backed lawyer supposedly offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.
It turns out that a CNN story from July 26, 2018 claiming just that was supplied by Lanny Davis, the Clinton-associated lawyer for Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal fixer — a man who just flipped on Trump to the FBI, implicating Trump in campaign finance violations. CNN says it stands by the story. Davis, however, told The Washington Post this week, “I should have been more clear — including with you — that I could not independently confirm what happened. I regret my error.” Davis then told Anderson Cooper, “I think the reporting of the story got mixed up in the course of a criminal investigation. We were not the source of the story.” The CNN story originally said Davis offered no comment. CNN, however, said, “We stand by our story, and are confident in our reporting of it.”
CNN’s original story rocketed around the media, with “confirming” stories following from NBC News and The Washington Post, among others. According to BuzzFeed News, Davis was the confirming source for all of that.
These admissions follow another from Davis regarding a claim that Trump knew beforehand about the hacking of Democratic emails by the Russians. “I am not sure,” Davis now says. “There’s a possibility that is the case. But I am not sure.”
All of which should call into serious question Davis’ credibility. And CNN’s, if they don’t have any additional information. According to BuzzFeed News:
The network, in effect, doesn’t appear to believe it made a mistake — the story was, some inside CNN argue, carefully worded to hedge against those in the Cohen camp changing their tune. In other words, the story reports claims that Cohen had said he was willing to make, not the underlying truth of those claims.
The decision from CNN to continue to stand by the story suggests that it believes the strength of its other sources outweighs any waffling from Davis — or that the network believes Davis was telling the truth then, and not now. But Davis’s new statement that he was a source for a story he now refutes raises questions about what action, if any, the network might take.
“We should address Lanny Davis’s comments in our reporting and be more transparent with our readers about our reporting,” one CNN staffer told BuzzFeed News.
As someone who has personally made this mistake, it’s important to note that caveating information doesn’t inure you to blowback. While CNN’s story may still be technically true, those aren’t the rules of the game anymore: rumors mustn’t be reported, even if the reporting of the rumors is accurate. So if Davis was trafficking in rumors and CNN printed them, that’s their fault. And by the media’s own standards, that means CNN is pushing fake news.

Shapiro At 'National Review': Conservatives Oust Radicals, The Left Welcomes Them The Daily Wire

The Ben Shapiro Report

Sep 2, 2018
Ben Shapiro Headshot

Ep. 615 - Canadian On The Moon

Shapiro At 'National Review': Conservatives Oust Radicals, The Left Welcomes Them

Shapiro At 'National Review': Conservatives Oust Radicals, The Left Welcomes Them

A Brown University Researcher Released A Study About Teens Imitating Their Peers By Turning Trans. The Left Went Insane. So Brown Caved.

A Brown University Researcher Released A Study About Teens Imitating Their Peers By Turning Trans. The Left Went Insane. So Brown Caved.

Catholic Charities Of Buffalo Shutter Adoption Services Thanks To New York Mandating That They Hand Over Kids To Gay Couples

Catholic Charities Of Buffalo Shutter Adoption Services Thanks To New York Mandating That They Hand Over Kids To Gay Couples

Lanny Davis Admits He Fibbed About The Trump Tower Story. CNN Still Refuses To Back Off Its Story That Relied On Davis.

Lanny Davis Admits He Fibbed About The Trump Tower Story. CNN Still Refuses To Back Off Its Story That Relied On Davis.

The best conservative commentary. The most insightful and irreverent minds. Get exclusive access to The Ben Shapiro Show and more.
The Media Properly Honor John McCain After His Death. Their Scorn For Him In 2008 Helped Make Trump.

The Media Properly Honor John McCain After His Death. Their Scorn For Him In 2008 Helped Make Trump.

The Stupidity Of Trump's Anti-McCain Antics

The Stupidity Of Trump's Anti-McCain Antics

The Media’s Coverage Of Pope Francis' Alleged Sex Abuse Cover-Up Is Insanely Despicable

The Media’s Coverage Of Pope Francis' Alleged Sex Abuse Cover-Up Is Insanely Despicable


McCarthy leads GOP charge against Silicon Valley

   
McCarthy leads GOP charge against Silicon Valley
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is leading the charge against President Trump’s new favorite punching bag: big tech.
The California Republican, who hopes to replace Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) next year, has been aggressively promoting a campaign to “stop the bias,” referring to what critics say is a pattern of discrimination against conservative voices on social media.
To that end, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey is scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill this week at a hearing requested by McCarthy.
“I’ve had many conversations with the president about how we have to stop this bias,” McCarthy, one of Trump’s closest allies on Capitol Hill, told Fox News on Thursday.
“I’ve spoken to Jack Dorsey throughout the month,” McCarthy added. “He and I philosophically disagree, but we do agree on one thing: We believe in the First Amendment. But we also believe in transparency and accountability.”
The majority leader’s recent crusade against social media comes at a time when Trump has ramped up his own rhetoric against the tech industry. His eagerness to champion the cause could endear him to both the White House and conservative lawmakers — two constituencies that could be crucial to securing the Speakership.
Trump recently asserted that Google and other platforms are “rigged” against him, an accusation that Google rejected, and one that came on the heels of allegations from conservatives that Twitter has been “shadow banning” certain Republicans so that their accounts are less visible to users.
That controversy started after prominent conservatives aligned with Trump, including Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) failed to appear on Twitter’s auto-populated drop-down search box when users typed in their names.
The company said that it does not “shadow ban” according to political ideology, but acknowledged that its attempts to crack down on hate speech have unintentionally reduced search results for lawmakers from both parties.
McCarthy was quick to take up the mantle on the issue, tweeting more than a dozen times last month with the hashtag “stop the bias.” He also made the media rounds to step up pressure on Dorsey to publicly testify on Capitol Hill.
But not all of McCarthy’s efforts on that front were successful. One of his tweets attempting to demonstrate censorship of conservatives drew criticism for being misleading.
After sharing a screenshot of a tweet from Fox News host Laura Ingraham that was covered by language warning of “potentially sensitive content,” Twitter users were quick to point out that Ingraham’s tweet was covered up due to settings in McCarthy’s own Twitter account, not because of a company campaign to silence conservative voices.
Still, the crusade to keep the issue of alleged anti-conservative bias in the spotlight could earn McCarthy some political capital. One of the lawmakers who Republicans say has been targeted by Twitter’s “shadow banning” practice is Jordan, a leader of the Freedom Caucus who is also running for Speaker.
While Jordan may struggle to secure the 218 votes needed to win the gavel, his far-right group has the power to veto any Speaker hopeful if Republicans retain control of the House in the midterm elections.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday will hear testimony from Dorsey, but it’s unclear whether Congress or the Trump administration will take any action against tech and social media companies, which lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been reluctant to regulate further.
Proposed steps for regulation, however, could include making Facebook and other social media platforms a public utility, forcing Google to be more transparent about its algorithms and making it easier for individuals to sue technology companies.
McCarthy says all options are on the table.
“Congress is going to look at everything, because of how powerful they have become,” he told Fox News.
   
LOAD COMMENTS (9,021)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *