Saturday Miscellany

First, count this as a footnote to yesterday’s column about transmania. Daniel Black offers this:

“Gender identity” was invented to give a medical excuse for sterilizing confused people. It’s not science. It’s branding. Wrap it in rainbow flags, call it progress — and rake in billions.

And also,

You can’t actually change sex. But you can create lifelong medical patients. The industry knows this. That’s why “transition” is so profitable — and detransition is ignored.

I trust that that clarifies the issue, once and for all.

Second, from the inimitable Chaya Raichik, the latest on the Chicago school system. You might recall that Chicago has the least popular mayor anywhere, apparently with reason.

New report from ProPublica shows that 47 Chicago schools are operating at less then 1/3 capacity. About 150 schools are half empty.

One school has 28 students enrolled at a cost of $93k a student.

Chicago schools are failing and not a single student can read at grade level in 30 Illinois schools.

As it happens, Mayor Brandan Johnson was the preferred candidate of the teachers’ unions.

Third, John Sexton reports on Hot Air that conservatives are largely happier than liberals. You already knew it because I have already reported it.

Naturally, we all want to know why this is the case. Sexton offers some hypotheses:

If the foundations of your movement are a) the belief that humans are destroying the planet past the point of no return, b) the belief that everyone is racist and all of society is designed to oppress minorities, c) the belief that women are victims of the patriarchy who are one short step from the Handmaid's tale and d) the forces of evil are ascendant in America—buy into all of that and you're probably not going to be a happy-go-lucky person. 

Fourth, here's another fun fact for today. If you use ChatGPT, it will damage your brain. So, let’s not get too hysterical over the chance that AI is going to take over the world.

Rachel Scully reports in The Hill.

ChatGPT can harm an individual’s critical thinking over time, a study released this month suggests.

Researchers at MIT’s Media Lab asked subjects to write several SAT essays and separated subjects into three groups — using OpenAI’s ChatGPT, using Google’s search engine and using nothing, which they called the “brain‑only” group. Each subject’s brain was monitored through electroencephalography (EEG), which measured the writer’s brain activity through multiple regions in the brain.

They discovered that subjects who used ChatGPT over a few months had the lowest brain engagement and “consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels,” according to the study.

Fifth, I realize that it’s not a nice thing to say, but the Harvard Law Review has gone woke. It judges submissions on DEI grounds. From that we conclude that we no longer need to read it.

From Newsmax:

Despite past denials, the Harvard Law Review eliminates more than 85% of submissions for publication based on "author diversity," according to The Washington Free Beacon.

In May, the law review responded to a Free Beacon report by claiming it "does not consider race, ethnicity, gender, or any other protected characteristic as a basis for recommending or selecting a piece for publication."

However, the Free Beacon reported Thursday that the Review eliminates most submissions using a rubric, or set of criteria, that includes asking about "author diversity."

"And 40 percent of journal editors have cited protected characteristics when lobbying for or against articles—at one point killing a piece by an Asian-American scholar, Alex Zhang, after an editor complained in a meeting that 'we have too many Yale JDs and not enough Black and Latino/Latina authors,'" wrote Free Beacon's Aaron Sibarium, citing meeting minutes from the law review's articles committee.

Sixth, from Linda Tropp at SciPost, some comments about the need for social connection. And about its relation to mental health and emotional well-being. 

It’s one of my favorite topics. I last wrote about it on Thursday:

Humans are social beings: We desire to feel connected to others, and even connecting with strangers can potentially boost our mood.

Though recent technological advances afford greater means for connection than at any other moment in human history, many people still feel isolated and disconnected. Indeed, loneliness in the American population has reached epidemic levels, and Americans’ trust in each other has reached a historic low.

At the same time, our attention is increasingly being pulled in varied directions within a highly saturated information environment, now commonly known as the “attention economy.”

It is perhaps not surprising, then, that so many Americans are experiencing a crisis of social connection. Research in social psychology helps to explain how the small behaviors and choices we make as individuals affect our experiences with others in public settings.

What happens when your social connections are frail?

One unfortunate consequence is that a person may end up treating interactions with other people as transactions, with a primary focus on getting one’s own needs met, or one’s own questions answered. A very different approach would involve seeing interactions with others as opportunities for social connection; being willing to expend some additional mental energy to listen to others’ experiences and exchange views on topics of shared interest can serve as a foundation for building social relationships.

As social creatures, it’s natural for human beings to want to be seen and acknowledged by other people. Small gestures such as eye contact or a smile, even from a stranger, can foster feelings of connection by signaling that our existence matters. Instead, when these signals are absent, a person may come to feel like they don’t matter, or that they’re not worthy of others’ attention.

Let’s see-- small talk, superficial contact… these will do you a world of good. Don’t believe me? Try it. But, do not get confused and imagine that you are going to be bosom buddies with everyone you meet, or that you need to confess all of your sins to someone you just met on the subway.

Seventh, good blue Democrats are tormenting themselves over this question: how did they lose the man vote? Why have men turned away from the Democratic Party, in favor of MAGA Republicans.

One answer is quite simple. Manliness is now being defined in terms that smack of therapy speak. As more men go for therapy, they become more feminized. They learn girl talk; they are in touch with their feelings; they are empathetic, if not pathetic. And then the political world cannot figure out why the Democratic Party has lost men.

The New York Post reports that more and more men are now doing therapy. One reason is, they are trying to learn how to adapt to their feminist girl friends, women who have learned that masculinity is toxic. Thus, true love means sacrificing your manliness on the altar of therapy:

“Women want to be with men who are self-aware, emotionally intelligent and good listeners, with the capacity to notice, feel, validate and step outside of themselves to really see and care for the other,” said Ginsberg.

“They want to be with men who have both humility and confidence and are not afraid to reflect, grow, call themselves out and communicate.”

One is not going to repeat oneself too many times here, but these therapists are teaching men to get in touch with their feminine side. It’s emasculation central:

Psychotherapist Dr. Kathryn Smerling said a man in therapy is seen as a “green flag” to many young women, showing that they want to understand themselves more.

“They are interested and curious about ways they can better themselves, which means they can then bring that emotional intelligence and care to a romantic relationship,” she went on.

“We also hear a lot more now about the importance of men embracing their emotions and not bottling things up — that it is necessary for men to be vulnerable if they want to have a healthy relationship.”

Embracing emotions; being more vulnerable. For the record, try that one out in the workplace and see how far it gets you? And see how much your true love likes it when you miss out of promotions and bonuses.

“We are no doubt living in a time when masculinity is being redefined, and men are seeking guidance to navigate a rapidly changing social, political and economic landscape. But we can succeed and thrive if we aren’t afraid to seek support.”

In certain segments of the population masculinity is being defined out of existence. No more male chauvinist pigs; no more toxic masculinity; touchy-feely males who are in total touch with their feelings.

I do not mean to say that men should never do therapy or coaching. Yet, if you are a male and if your therapist is working to make you more like a woman, decamp immediately.

Eighth, to its eternal credit, the New York Post reports on what happens when a woman is dating a well-therapied castrati. The answer is: nothing good.

So, as a counterpoint to its article about men in therapy, the Post offers this:

Turns out the real reason she’s not texting back might be because you treated her like your shrink.

A recent study from Stanford has officially named the emotional labor sucking the life out of straight women: “mankeeping” — and it’s driving them straight out of the dating pool.

The term refers to the exhausting, unpaid gig of managing men’s moods, stress and social lives — all while trying to keep their own mental health afloat.

From decoding their partner’s emotional constipation to playing middleman with his buddies, women are being cast as live-in therapists, social secretaries and emotional scaffolding.

And they’re over it.

You might consider this as showing that there is something wrong with therapy. As I said, if a man’s therapist is telling him to get in touch with his feelings, he should decamp immediately.

The End of Transmania?

 

Was it the beginning of the end? We like to think that Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision, aka Skrebetti, will help put an end to child mutilation in America. Emily Yoffe reports in the Free Press: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that states can restrict the ability of minors to get transition treatment. It’s long overdue. The Supreme Court found that restricting the ability of minors in Tennessee to medically transition “does not violate equal protection guarantees.” (Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images; illustration by The Free Press) In a 6–3 decision handed down today, the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the ability of the states to ban or restrict so-called “gender-affirming” medical care for minors. This landmark decision will help bring this medical scandal to a deservedly ignominious end. Dare we say that transmania, as I am wont to call it, was one of the craziest cultural moments in our history. It felt like a return to pagan practices of mutilating children, this time, supposedly in the name of science. Yoffee explains that it became a mania. Or, better yet, a social contagion: Since the earliest days of The Free Press, we have been documenting this movement that claimed it was providing lifesaving medical treatments to young people suffering from gender dysphoria—that is, distress at their biological sex. In less than two decades, what was once an extremely rare diagnosis became so common that at least 100 clinics in the U.S. opened to provide medical interventions intended to help children pass as members of the opposite sex. The number of young people in the West seeking such treatments has exploded. And, in a break with history, in which a small number of boys expressed the desire to change sex, this rise was fueled by adolescent girls, many who had never expressed previous gender distress. In the U.S., between 320,000 and 400,000 minors received a diagnosis of gender dysphoria or related diagnosis between 2017–2023, according to an analysis by the Manhattan Institute. The UK reported a twentyfold increase over a decade. Of course, the Supreme Court decision merely allows states to ban child mutilation. Some states, however, still allow the practice:

The Court’s ruling is narrow; it says that a state has the right to regulate the practice. States, mostly blue, that still allow youth gender transition aren’t affected. But the decision will likely lend weight to the arguments to people who want to end the practice nationwide. And it will likely help the legal efforts by “detransitioners”—that is, young people who say they were pressured into life-altering treatments they now regret – to get compensation. Surely more such lawsuits will now be filed. 

With any luck, the court decision will lead to more lawsuits against those clinics that still allow this barbaric practice:

Gender transition clinics will likely be under far more scrutiny: This Free Press story describes the cases of two such young women who were given prescriptions for testosterone after about a 30-minute appointment at Planned Parenthood.

Again, the contagion took hold in the scientific world, of all places.

The idea that biological sex is not a fixed reality but a social construct took hold so quickly that, seemingly overnight, children in preschool were being instructed they could easily change their sex if they felt they were in “the wrong body.” In June 2020, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine ran an article championing the idea that when a baby is born we can’t know if the infant will come to “identify” as male or female, so we should only tentatively designate what the child is “assigned at birth.” The authors also said sex designations on birth certificates serve “no clinical utility.” This is only one of many examples of how profoundly this ideology has captured powerful institutions.

When we suggest that this might be the beginning of the end, we are obliged to remark with Yoffe that American physicians, by and large, support child mutilation. So much for their dedication to science:

The Court’s ruling notwithstanding, the U.S. medical establishment remains firmly behind the practice. 

In a more advanced countries, like England and Scandinavia, the practice has been banned:

Compare that to England, where a rigorous and independent report, the Cass Review, concluded that the evidence for pediatric transition is “remarkably weak.” Finland, Norway, and Sweden are among the other Western nations that have joined the UK in moving away from this treatment.

The ultimate horror concerns the simple fact that serious medical associations in America have embraced the practices:

Critics of the Supreme Court decision will argue that our major medical associations, from the American Academy of Pediatrics, to the American Medical Association, to the Endocrine Society, have all given support to this new branch of medicine. This is true. It is also true that these organizations or similar ones once supported lobotomies and eugenics. Just as that is a source of shame today, it is to be hoped that their vehement support of medically transitioning vulnerable young people will be a source of shame in the future. These medical societies have failed in their most basic duty of care to their patients by embracing a model that has so little evidence and such profound lifetime consequences.

Surely, it counts as a colossal failure, to the shame of American physicians. 

Social Cohesion through Trust

I am not sure why we need a grandiose new study to show something that most of us know already. Your mental health and emotional well-being depend in large part on your belonging to a socially cohesive group. As noted previously, social cohesion correlates with trust. 

If the group is cohesive, we are more likely to trust each other. And if we trust each other we are more likely to be happier and more content.

Of course, it is not especially clear whether trust produces social cohesion or whether social cohesion produces greater trust. 

One understands that the most common current explanation for the current societal malaise is-- smart phones. People are so completely absorbed in their phones that they tune out others. And then, they feel alone and disconnected, to the detriment of their happiness and mental health.

I have hesitated to blame it all on a gadget. At the least, we know that these gadgets are not limited to America. Not all children and not all societies are promoting social disorganization. 

Study Finds explains the research:

A massive new study involving more than 2.5 million people across the globe has found something remarkable: our willingness to trust others — whether it’s our neighbors, institutions, or strangers — has a profound impact on our mental well-being. And this connection holds true whether you’re 6 years old or 83.

The research, published in Psychological Bulletin, analyzed nearly 1,000 studies to paint the clearest picture yet of how trust and happiness are intertwined. The finding works both ways: not only does trusting others make us happier, but being happy makes us more likely to trust others. As the researchers put it: “Trust and well-being mutually reinforce each other over time.”

What matters is feeling connected, in performing the actions that make you a functioning member of a community. It’s not about how you feel or what you believe:

Those moments when you felt most content probably involved feeling secure in your relationships, confident in your community, or optimistic about the institutions around you. Conversely, times of deep mistrust, whether toward a partner who betrayed you or a government that disappointed you, likely coincided with periods of anxiety or sadness.

Smart phones notwithstanding, young people face the challenge of making social connections. One understands that weaning you from your phone is not the same as learning how to form and sustain connections:

For young people, the researchers explain that “forming and maintaining supportive social connections is one of the most important tasks for youth development and consequently a strong predictor of well-being.” Trust plays a crucial role in this process.

As it happens, trust and cohesion seem highest in countries that are more homogeneous. We are not allowed to say this, so pretend that I did not:

 In countries where people generally trust each other more, like Nordic nations such as Finland and Denmark, the individual benefits of being trusting were even greater.

The researchers found that higher national-level generalized trust reflects individuals’ belief in “a country’s ability to provide a safe, prosperous, and cooperative social environment for its citizens.” Living in such an environment amplifies the psychological benefits of individual trustfulness.

Of course, the more these countries open themselves to migrants from cultures that are disharmonious with the local variety, the more trust erodes and the more people will be living for the drama.

In an era marked by declining institutional trust and growing social polarization, the research offers both warning and hope. As trust erodes, so too may our collective well-being. But understanding that trust and happiness can reinforce each other means that investments in building more trustworthy communities could pay dividends in public mental health for generations to come.

As for what builds social cohesion,  we should list patriotism, that is, love of country and pride in its achievements. And we should add success. It is difficult to feel proud of a nation that bumbles its way through history. 

Wednesday Potpourri

First, from Eric Metaxas, the last word about the No Kings protest movement:

"NO KINGS" is a pathetic and ineffective slogan. It's unappealing on every level. It simply SOUNDS dumb and weak. And of course it is. These Meathead-era Boomers need better PR and marketing!

Second, a few words from Eizabeth Barcohana, addressed to the crowd that believes the current war is not our war.

Since Democrat Jimmy Carter gave birth to the Islamic Republic of Iran:

 • 66 Americans were held hostage in the Iran Hostage Crisis for 444 days in 1979. (8 US servicemen died in Operation Eagle Claw, a failed helicopter rescue attempt) 

• Hezbollah held up to 10 Americans hostage in the 1980s in Lebanon, resulting in 2-3 deaths. 

• Since 1979, Iran has detained at least 25 Americans on accusations of espionage.

• April, 1983 Beirut Embassy Bombing by Hezbollah killed 17 Americans.

• October, 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing by Hezbollah killed 241 American servicemen. 

• 1984 Beirut Embassy Annex bombing by Hezbollah killed 2 Americans. 

• 1996 Khobar Towers Bombing by Hezbollah killed 19 American airmen.

 • In 2007, Iran-backed militias in Iraq took 4 Americans hostage and killed them. 

• In the Iraq War (2003-11), Iran-backed militias killed between 600 and 1,000 US forces. 

• On October 7, 2023, Hamas killed 45 Americans and took 12 hostage. But it’s not our war?

Third, Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard has seriously damaged her political prospects. She asserted that Iran had stopped uranium enrichment and nuclear weapons development. This at a time when the International Atomic Energy Administration said that Iran was on the verge of nuclear weapons.

CNN asked President Trump what he thought of Gabbard’s remarks:

CNN: You’ve always said you don’t believe Iran should have a nuke. Tulsi Gabbard testified in March that Iran wasn’t building a nuclear weapon.

Trump: I don’t care what she said. They were very close to getting a nuke.

Fourth, regime change has become a dirty word. It is apparently not American policy toward Iran and might not even be Israeli policy.

And yet, if you ask what regime change would mean, chances are good that it would involve the restoration of the rule of the Shah of Iran.

Colin Rugg reports:

NEW: Exiled crown prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi says the Islamic Republic has "come to an end," says what has begun is irreversible. Pahlavi ripped Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for hiding like a "scared mouse." 

"The Islamic Republic has come to an end and is falling. What has begun is irreversible. The future is bright and together we will navigate this sharp turn in history. Now is the time to stand; it is time to take back Iran. May I be with you soon."

So, restoration, not regime change.

Fifth, Ellie Cohanim offers a similar analysis:

My analysis on Iran’s domestic situation right now & “what next”: 

1. Israel’s historic campaign has been a game changer. There is no return to “status quo” whenever this campaign ends-even if it were to end right this minute. 

2. IRI Regime completely discredited, even the Regime’s few supporters are seeing what IRI policy has wrought upon them. Many smart people who are observing the same ask—so what next?

This question, combined with what I call the “trauma” of US experience in Iraq, is causing a lot of understandable concern. 

Let’s be clear though-Carter helped create this mess in 1979; Obama fed it & empowered it & Biden kicked it down the road—now 46 years of failed US policy on Iran (minus 4 short Trump years, interrupted) have come home to roost.

So to answer what next?:

There is a trusted individual-Iran’s Crown Prince in Exile @PahlaviReza who has offered to lead a transition government & shared a 100 day plan to transition to democracy. 

The elegance of supporting Pahlavi is it restores the rightful heir back in place, and “picks up” where the horrific mistake of the IRI Regime grabbing power in 1979 left off…it’s a sort of course correction. That’s not to say Iran goes back to Empire, but perhaps a Constitutional Monarchy. 

But at the least, Pahlavi can help oversee a peaceful transition which would block the rise of terrorists or Mullahs. 

As it comes to the question of resources to help in a transition period: I believe the Sunni Arab countries will be willing partners in such an endeavor, having had the Shi’ite threat finally removed from over their heads after almost half a century. 

Lastly, I expect Iranian leaders to emerge from within the country—the very people who will have to lead any Regime Change.

Sixth, meanwhile in once Great Britain, morality has been turned on its head.

Tommy Robinson reports:

A child who was raped by Muslim gangs was prosecuted & taken to court for alleged racist hurty words. Say that out loud , the police & cps used the judiciary to attack a child who was raped by Muslim men for saying mean words to them in response to their racist rape ordeals . This shows exactly where the authorities sat. Rape against white girls ok , mean words against Muslims prosecuted.