You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Psychology’ category.
Read the full text at the APA and think to yourself, when did the APA lose it’s mind?
—
Let’s breakdown the claims and look at the evidence. I think they are hitting the the gender-crackpipe and abandoning science and medical evidence shredding their credibility in the process.
### Claim 1: “APA’s organizational assessment and position are grounded in the best available science.”
**Refutation:**
– **Lack of Specificity:** The statement is vague and does not define what constitutes “the best available science.” Scientific consensus requires replication, rigorous methodology, and falsifiability, yet the APA often relies on studies with small sample sizes, self-reported data, or observational designs that lack controls (e.g., many transgender health studies cited later). These do not meet the gold standard of randomized controlled trials or longitudinal data with clear causal inference.
– **Ideological Influence:** The APA’s guidelines, such as the 2015 “Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People,” emphasize affirming gender identity without equally exploring alternative psychological explanations (e.g., co-occurring mental health conditions like body dysmorphia or autism spectrum traits, which are overrepresented in gender dysphoria cases—see Littman, 2018). This selective focus suggests a predetermined narrative rather than an impartial synthesis of evidence.
– **Counterpoint:** A truly scientific approach would weigh all hypotheses equally, including those questioning the affirmation-only model, rather than aligning with activist-driven frameworks like “gender-affirming care” without robust long-term outcome data.
—
### Claim 2: “Sex is a biological characteristic determined by chromosome and reproductive anatomy (American Medical Association, 2021), and the assertion that only two sexes exist is not scientifically accurate. Approximately 1.7% of the world population is born with genital variations, known as differences in sex development (DSD) or variations in sex characteristics (VSC) (Esteban et al., 2023).”
**Refutation:**
– **Misrepresentation of Biology:** Sex is defined by gamete production (sperm or ova), a binary system in humans and all mammals (Lehtonen & Parker, 2014). Chromosomes (XX or XY) and reproductive anatomy align with this binary in over 99.98% of cases, per rigorous estimates (Sax, 2002). DSDs (e.g., Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome) are medical conditions, not a third sex; individuals with DSDs still produce either sperm or ova (or neither), not a unique gamete type.
– **Inflated Statistics:** The 1.7% figure originates from Fausto-Sterling (1993), a sociologist, not a biologist, and includes conditions like mild hypospadias or late-onset adrenal hyperplasia, which do not ambiguity in sex determination. More accurate estimates from clinical data (e.g., Blackless et al., 2000, revised by Sax, 2002) place true DSD prevalence at 0.05% to 0.1%, a tiny fraction. This exaggeration serves an activist narrative, not scientific precision.
– **Conflation with Gender:** The APA conflates biological sex (a measurable trait) with gender identity (a subjective experience), undermining its claim to scientific grounding. DSDs are irrelevant to gender identity debates, as most transgender individuals do not have DSDs (APA itself acknowledges this elsewhere).
—
### Claim 3: “Everyone has a gender identity, defined as a person’s deeply felt, inherent sense of being a girl, woman, or female; a boy, man, or male; a blend of male or female; or an alternative gender (Institute of Medicine, 2011).”
**Refutation:**
– **Unfalsifiable Assertion:** The claim that “everyone has a gender identity” is a philosophical stance, not a scientific fact. It assumes a universal internal experience without empirical evidence that all individuals possess this “deeply felt” sense. Studies of gender identity rely on self-reports, which are subjective and cannot be independently verified or measured biologically (Zucker, 2017).
– **Cultural Bias:** The concept of gender identity as an inherent trait is a modern Western construct, not a universal truth. Anthropological evidence shows that many cultures historically recognized roles based on sex, not an internal “identity” (e.g., Nanda, 1990, on hijras in India). The APA’s framing ignores this variability, prioritizing a contemporary activist lens over cross-cultural data.
– **Lack of Evidence:** No biological marker (e.g., genetic, hormonal, neurological) consistently predicts gender identity across populations. The APA’s reliance on the Institute of Medicine (a policy body, not a primary research source) highlights the absence of direct scientific evidence for this sweeping claim.
—
### Claim 4: “Gender as a non-binary construct has been described and studied for decades across cultures and has been present throughout history (Gill-Peterson, 2018).”
**Refutation:**
– **Historical Overreach:** Gill-Peterson, a historian and transgender studies scholar, interprets historical figures through a modern non-binary lens, often without primary evidence that these individuals identified as such. For example, “third gender” roles (e.g., Two-Spirit in Native American cultures) were often tied to social function or spiritual status, not an internal non-binary identity (Lang, 1998). This is retrospective activism, not scientific history.
– **Scientific Weakness:** Studies of non-binary gender are largely qualitative or anecdotal, lacking the quantitative rigor to establish it as a universal human trait. The APA’s endorsement skips over the fact that most research in this area comes from gender studies, a field criticized for ideological bias (see critique by Bailey & Hsu, 2022).
– **Selective Citation:** The APA ignores counterevidence, such as evolutionary psychology and anthropology, which emphasize sex-based roles as adaptive traits across human history (Buss, 2019). This cherry-picking suggests alignment with activist goals over balanced science.
—
### Claim 5: “Physiologically, neuroimaging research has suggested that cortical brain volume in transgender individuals appear to be more like their preferred gender (see Mueller et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2019).”
**Refutation:**
– **Overstated Findings:** Mueller et al. (2021) and Nguyen et al. (2019) report small, inconsistent differences in brain volume, often overlapping with cisgender controls. These studies have small sample sizes (e.g., Mueller: n=40 per group; Nguyen: n=29 transgender participants), limiting generalizability. Brain structure varies widely within sexes, and no unique “transgender brain” pattern has been established (Joel et al., 2015).
– **Causality Problem:** Even if differences exist, correlation does not imply causation. Brain plasticity suggests that behavior or hormone use (common in transgender samples) could shape brain structure, not that it reflects an innate gender identity (Bao & Swaab, 2011). The APA ignores this alternative explanation.
– **Scientific Consensus Absent:** Larger meta-analyses (e.g., Guillamon et al., 2016) find no consistent brain signature for transgender identity, contradicting the APA’s confident tone. This selective citation reflects a narrative-driven approach, not a scientific one.
—
### Claim 6: “Those whose gender identity differs from their biological sex at birth may face discrimination, stigma, prejudice, and violence that negatively affect their health and well-being (Bradford et al., 2013).”
**Refutation:**
– **Undisputed but Limited:** No one contests that discrimination harms mental health, but the APA frames this as uniquely tied to gender identity without comparing it to other stigmatized groups (e.g., racial minorities, obese individuals). This lacks scientific context—mental health risks from stigma are not specific to transgender status (Meyer, 2003).
– **Overemphasis on External Factors:** The APA downplays internal factors like pre-existing mental health conditions (e.g., depression, anxiety), which are prevalent in transgender populations independent of discrimination (Dhejne et al., 2011). This selective focus aligns with activist calls to blame society rather than explore all variables.
– **Weak Citation:** Bradford et al. (2013) is a survey-based study, not a controlled experiment, and relies on self-reported experiences, which are prone to bias. The APA’s reliance on such data over longitudinal or clinical studies suggests a preference for narrative over rigor.
—
### Claim 7: “Research demonstrates that gender-related discrimination appears to be the most documented risk factor for poor mental health among transgender individuals.”
**Refutation:**
– **Misleading Claim:** While discrimination is a factor, studies like Dhejne et al. (2011) show that transgender individuals have elevated rates of psychiatric morbidity (e.g., suicide attempts) even after transitioning and in supportive environments, suggesting intrinsic or co-occurring issues beyond discrimination. The APA’s focus on external blame ignores this complexity.
– **Cherry-Picking:** The APA overlooks research on rapid-onset gender dysphoria (Littman, 2018) or desistance rates in youth (Steensma et al., 2013), which suggest social influence or temporary identity exploration in some cases. This omission reflects an activist-driven avoidance of inconvenient data.
– **Lack of Causality:** “Most documented” does not mean “most causative.” Observational studies cannot disentangle discrimination from other variables (e.g., personality traits, trauma), yet the APA presents it as settled science.
—
### Claim 8: “Conversely, self-esteem, pride, transitioning, respecting and supporting transgender people in authentically articulating their gender identity can promote resilience, improve their health, well-being, and quality of life (Mezza et al, 2024; Witten, 2003).”
**Refutation:**
– **Weak Evidence Base:** Mezza et al. (2024) and Witten (2003) are cited, but Witten is a theoretical piece, not an empirical study, and Mezza (hypothetical, as it’s 2024) lacks accessible methodology for scrutiny as of March 15, 2025. Claims about transitioning improving outcomes rely on short-term studies with high dropout rates (e.g., Bränström & Pachankis, 2019, retracted conclusions after reanalysis).
– **Long-Term Data Gaps:** Large-scale studies (e.g., Dhejne et al., 2011) show persistent elevated suicide rates post-transition, contradicting the APA’s optimistic framing. The APA ignores this, favoring affirmation-centric narratives over neutral analysis.
– **Activist Language:** Terms like “authentically articulating” are subjective and activist-derived, not scientific. The APA’s emphasis on “pride” and “respect” as variables reflects a therapeutic ideology, not a testable hypothesis.
—
### Conclusion:
The APA’s positions often rely on selectively cited, low-quality studies, conflate subjective experiences with objective facts, and ignore counterevidence or alternative explanations. This pattern suggests capture by gender activism, which prioritizes affirmation and social justice over rigorous, falsifiable science. True scientific inquiry would demand larger samples, longitudinal data, and exploration of all hypotheses—not a preordained alignment with ideological goals.
A daily 20-minute nap can significantly boost cognitive performance and overall health. Research shows that short naps improve alertness, memory, and decision-making by giving the brain a quick reset. A NASA study found that pilots who napped for 26 minutes showed up to 34% better performance in their duties. By allowing the mind to consolidate information and reduce fatigue, a brief nap acts as a powerful tool for productivity, especially during the midday slump when energy levels naturally dip.
Beyond mental benefits, a 20-minute nap can enhance physical well-being and emotional balance. Sleep experts note that short naps help regulate stress hormones like cortisol, reducing the risk of burnout and improving mood. They also support cardiovascular health by lowering blood pressure, as evidenced by a study in the *American Journal of Cardiology* showing that regular nappers had a 37% lower risk of heart-related issues. This brief rest period allows the body to recover without disrupting nighttime sleep, striking an ideal balance for long-term wellness.
Culturally, we often view naps as a luxury or sign of laziness, but they should be embraced as a universal habit. In countries like Spain and Japan, where siestas and “inemuri” (napping in public) are normalized, people report higher satisfaction and efficiency. Incorporating a 20-minute nap into daily routines—whether at work, school, or home—can democratize rest, making society healthier and more productive. It’s a small time investment with outsized returns, accessible to everyone regardless of lifestyle or schedule.
The more you know.
The Reid Technique, formally known as the Reid Psychological Technique, is an interrogation method developed by John E. Reid and Associates in the 1940s and 1950s. It’s primarily used by law enforcement in the United States to elicit confessions from suspects. Here’s a breakdown of its key components:
-
Behavioral Analysis Interview (BAI):
-
This initial phase involves a non-accusatory interview where the investigator assesses the subject’s behavior, verbal responses, and body language to determine if the person is likely deceptive or truthful. The focus is on observing signs like posture, eye contact, and verbal cues.
-
-
Nine Steps of Interrogation:
-
1. Direct, Positive Confrontation: The interviewer directly confronts the suspect with the evidence or belief of their guilt.
-
2. Theme Development: The interrogator offers moral justifications or themes for the crime, trying to minimize the suspect’s moral culpability.
-
3. Handling Denials: Denials are interrupted to prevent the suspect from gaining confidence or solidifying their denials.
-
4. Overcoming Objections: The interrogator counters any objections or reasons given by the suspect for not committing the crime.
-
5. Procurement of the Suspect’s Attention: The focus is shifted to listening to the interrogator rather than formulating their own defense.
-
6. Handling the Suspect’s Passive Mood: When the suspect becomes quiet or resigned, the interrogator takes this as a sign to push forward.
-
7. Presenting an Alternative Question: Offering two choices, one more socially acceptable than the other, both implying guilt, e.g., “Did you steal because you needed the money or because you were angry?”
-
8. Having the Suspect Orally Relate Details of the Offense: Encouraging the suspect to admit to details of the crime.
-
9. Converting an Oral Confession to a Written One: Ensuring the confession is documented, often with the suspect writing or signing a statement.
-
Criticism and Controversy:
-
The technique has been criticized for leading to false confessions, particularly because of its psychologically coercive methods. Critics argue that it can pressure innocent people into confessing due to the stress, isolation, and manipulation involved in the process.
-
There’s also a debate over its scientific validity, especially regarding the behavioral analysis for detecting deception, which many experts now consider unreliable.
-
Reform and Alternatives: Due to these criticisms, some jurisdictions have moved away from the Reid Technique, advocating for or adopting more evidence-based, less coercive methods like the PEACE model (Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure, Evaluate) used in places like the UK.
See it for yourself – https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/wpath-files
One psychologists appraisal of the harms being done based on gender affirming medical-woo.
“WPATH Members Causing Surgical Harm. p28-29 (my bold) “As well, there is evidence in the files of members doing surgical harm to severely mentally ill patients. In an undated message thread, a therapist expresses concern about referring her “trans clients with serious mental illness” for surgery due to difficulty in predicting their future stability, “in particular, given the extensive recovery period and ‘postnatal’ care required for vaginoplasty.”
“A California marriage and family therapist replied, saying it depends on many factors, such as how much support the mentally ill person has, whether they have a safe place to recover, and whether or not they understand instructions such as “dilate, wash, monitor.” She added that in the last 15 years, she had only declined to write one referral letter, and that was mainly because “the person evaluated was in active psychosis and hallucinated during the assessment session.” “Other than that – nothing – everyone got their assessment letter, insurance approval, and are living (presumably) happily ever after,” said the therapist, who has referred for genital surgery people diagnosed with major depressive disorder, c-PTSD, and who are HOMELESS.
“Here, the therapist’s use of the word “presumably,” like the previous surgeon’s “that I am aware of,” indicates no systematic follow-up of patients, which would be reasonable to expect from a surgeon who knows he or she is doing something risky, invasive and experimental. Without follow-up, there is no way to know whether the severely mentally ill person was able to cope with the arduous 2+ hours a day of post-op dilation, the long recovery period, and the lifelong impact of the surgery on the patient’s physical health and ability to form intimate relationships.
“WPATH-affiliated surgeons do not appear to have even the slightest curiosity about the outcome for such patients. While the therapist was right to be concerned about the level of support patients have during the immediate post-op period, her contribution demonstrates the myopic thinking of gender-affirming healthcare providers. “WPATH members typically focus on short-term patient satisfaction from the drastic, life-altering interventions they endorse and appear to have little concern for how the patient will fare in 20, 30, or 40 years.”
—–
Dr P says: 1. That WPATH members are even considering ‘GA’ care for people with serious mental illness shows the complete moral and regulatory vacuum in this area.
2. A person with any active mental health problem should not be referred for major, experimental life-altering surgery.
3. It is unconscionable that therapists have so profoundly lost their way.
4. These therapists are simply rubber-stamping any patient request. They are not conducting any type of mental health evaluation or assessment.
5. Who is regulating their practice? And that of the surgeons? Is anyone being regulated?
6. Maybe the homeless person needed somewhere to live, not to have his penis cut off? Just saying.
Transgender ideology is based on lies and emotional coercion. Very effective lies and coercion mind you – enough to make doctors forget about the “do no harm” part of their medical training and instead take up gender-woo and non evidence based medical practices.
So here it is – the beginning of the unraveling, and more importantly the beginning of the lawsuits for medical malpractice. The gender cult adherents are about to enter the FAFO phase of what happens when you let feelings supersede evidence based medicine.
Unfortunately, doctors, psychologists, and many other mental health professionals are deep within the folds of the gender-woo cult and will not leave willingly. The road ahead is long, but we are starting to make the trek back to reality and evidence based medicine.
March 4, 2024
Newly leaked files from within the leading global transgender healthcare body have revealed that the clinicians who shape how “gender medicine” is regulated and practiced around the world consistently violate medical ethics and informed consent. The files, which were leaked from within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), were published today by the US-based think tank Environmental Progress.
WPATH is considered the leading global scientific and medical authority on “gender medicine,” and in recent decades, its Standards of Care have shaped the guidance, policies and practices of governments, medical associations, public health systems and private clinics across the world.
However, the WPATH Files reveal that the organization does not meet the standards of evidence-based medicine, and members frequently discuss improvising treatments as they go along. Members are fully aware that children and adolescents cannot comprehend the lifelong consequences of “gender-affirming care,” and in some cases, due to poor health literacy, neither can their parents.
“The WPATH Files show that what is called ‘gender medicine’ is neither science nor medicine,” said Michael Shellenberger, President and founder of Environmental Progress. “The experiments are not randomized, double-blind, or controlled. It’s not medicine since the first rule is to do no harm. And that requires informed consent.”
The raw files have been published in a report called The WPATH Files: Pseudoscientific surgical and hormonal experiments on children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults, which contains analysis by journalist Mia Hughes that puts the WPATH Files in the context of the best available science on gender distress.
Environmental Progress has made all files available to read at the end of the report. The leaked files include screenshots of posts from WPATH’s internal messaging forum dating from 2021 to 2024 and a video of an internal panel discussion. All names have been redacted other than several WPATH members of public significance, such as Dr. Marci Bowers, an American gynecologist and surgeon who is the President of WPATH, and the Canadian pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Daniel Metzger.
In the WPATH Files, members demonstrate a lack of consideration for long-term patient outcomes despite being aware of the debilitating and potentially fatal side effects of cross-sex hormones and other treatments. Messages in the files show that patients with severe mental health issues, such as schizophrenia and dissociative identity disorder, and other vulnerabilities such as homelessness, are being allowed to consent to hormonal and surgical interventions. Members dismiss concerns about these patients and characterize efforts to protect them as unnecessary “gatekeeping.”
The files provide clear evidence that doctors and therapists are aware they are offering minors life-changing treatments they cannot fully understand. WPATH members know that puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries will cause infertility and other complications, including cancer and pelvic floor dysfunction. Yet they consider life-altering medical interventions for young patients, including vaginoplasty for a 14-year-old and hormones for a developmentally delayed 13-year-old.
The WPATH Files also show how far medical experiments in gender medicine have gone, with discussions about surgeons performing “nullification” and other extreme body modification procedures to create body types that do not exist in nature.
A growing number of medical and psychiatric professionals say the promotion of pseudoscientific surgical and hormonal experiments is a global medical scandal that compares to major incidents of medical malpractice in history, such as lobotomies and ovariotomies.
“Activist members of WPATH know that the so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ they provide can result in life-long complications and sterility and that their patients do not understand the implications, such as loss of sexual function and the ability to experience orgasm,” Shellenberger said. “These leaked files show overwhelming evidence that the professionals within WPATH know that they are not getting consent from children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults, or their caregivers.”
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…