🚨BREAKING: The @nytimes and @business killed stories at the 11th hour covering new research on DEI pedagogy and its negative psychological impacts.
The study showed that certain DEI practices increase hostility, authoritarian tendencies, and agreement with extreme rhetoric. 🧵
The study was conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in collaboration with Rutgers University. It investigated the psychological effects of DEI pedagogy, specifically trainings that draw heavily from texts like How to Be an Antiracist and White Fragility.
The findings were unsettling, though perhaps not surprising to longstanding opponents of such programs. Using carefully controlled experiments, researchers found that exposure to anti-oppressive rhetoric consistently amplified perceptions of bias where none existed.
In one experiment, participants read excerpts from Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi, juxtaposed against a neutral control text about corn production. Afterward, they were asked to evaluate a hypothetical scenario: an applicant being rejected from an elite university.
Those exposed to the DEI materials were far more likely to perceive racism in the admissions process, despite no evidence to support such a conclusion.
Those exposed to the DEI materials were also more likely to advocate punitive measures, such as suspending the admissions officer or mandating additional DEI training.
The NCRI also analyzed anti-Islamophobia training materials to determine their effectiveness in reducing anti-Muslim prejudice and to examine whether they unintentionally skew perceptions of fairness, potentially reinforcing biases against institutions viewed as oppressors.
"Following exposure to the texts, participants were presented with a controlled scenario involving two individuals—Ahmed Akhtar and George Green—both convicted of identical terrorism charges for bombing a local government building."
"In the control group (corn), Ahmed’s trial was perceived as just as fair as George’s, indicating no baseline perception of Islamophobia. In the anti-Islamophobia content group (treatment), George’s trial ratings were not significantly different from the corn content group (control). However, participants in the anti-Islamophobia treatment group rated Ahmed’s trial as significantly less fair (4.92 vs. 5.25) than did those in the control group. The training led them to perceive injustice toward Ahmed despite the specifics of his situation being identical to those of George."
"These results suggest that anti-Islamophobia training inspired by ISPU materials may cause individuals to assume unfair treatment of Muslim people, even when no evidence of bias or unfairness is present."
The study also looked at DEI training on caste discrimination. Participants exposed to materials from Equality Labs—a prominent provider of anti-caste training—were significantly more likely to perceive bias.
Those people were also more likely to endorse dehumanizing rhetoric, including adapted quotes from Adolf Hitler where the term “Jew” was replaced with “Brahmin.”
The findings suggest that these programs may not only fail to address systemic injustice but actively cultivate divisive and authoritarian mindsets.
Critics of DEI have long pointed to its lack of empirical support, and the NCRI study adds weight to those concerns.
As troubling as the study’s findings are, its suppression may be even more consequential. The decision to withhold this research from public discourse speaks to a larger issue: the growing entanglement of ideology and information.
The public deserves to know if the tools being deployed to foster “equity” and “anti-racism” are instead causing harm.
As DEI programs continue to expand across schools, workplaces, and governments, the stakes could not be higher. Whether this research sparks a broader reckoning or remains buried will depend on whether institutions—and the media that hold them accountable—are willing to confront uncomfortable truths.
You can support my work exposing the harms of woke ideologies like DEI, gender ideology, and sex pseudoscience by donating or subscribing to my publication Reality's Last Stand below. Thank you for your support.🙏
I can't reliably tell what's parody anymore in the woke world, but the identity flags seem to be proliferating due to the normalization of the "transabled" (i.e., able-bodied people who desires a specific disability) community.
🧵A brief tour (it gets a lot more insane) ⬇️
"Mixed" category
Transpluriabled / Transmultiabled: a physically non-pluridisabled individual who desires to acquire multiple disabilities, or feels as if they are or should be pluridisabled (someone with multiple disabilities).
Transill / Transnoso: someone who desires to acquire an illness/illnesses or disease/diseases (somatic or mental) that they don't physically have.
Diachrohna/Transchronichana: someone who wants or feels like they should have the fictional Hanahaki, Hanakanjo, or Hanauso Disease, chronically.
Disabledfluid: someone whose disability/incapacity-acquisition desires or disability/incapacity feeling/identification changes over time. It can change at random or it may vary in response to different circumstances.
Aerodisabled: when one's disability-desires-acquisition, disability/incapacity identification, or feeling changes based on the setting or atmosphere. This can refer to things like temperature, weather, time of day, time of year, elevation, etc.
"Physical" category
Crutchian: someone who uses crutches to walk even though they don't need them physically {it should be noted that if you plan on doing this, please consider how much you require the aid over someone who physically requires it, dysphoria is horrible, but mobility aids are hard to access}.
Transtuirot / Transrottui: someone who desires a fractured leg, or who feels as if they have or should have a fractured leg when they physically do not.
Wheelchairqior: someone who uses a wheelchair even though they don't need one physically {it should be noted that if you plan on doing this, please consider how much you require the aid over someone who physically requires it, dysphoria is horrible, but mobility aids are hard to access}.
Transvitiligo: a transill identity in which someone desires to physically acquire vitiligo in order to match their internal identity to their physical body, or someone who identify/internally feels as if they have or should have vitiligo.
🚨BREAKING: A brand new study in a peer-reviewed @SpringerNature journal—"Queering Babies"—sexualizes infants and exposes the ideological rot in academia.
The paper, which argues that surrogate babies are “queer creatures by default” and that perhaps all babies are inherently queer, stretches the boundaries of logic, coherence, and decency.
The author claims his paper "explores how encounters with [surrogate babies] disrupt or confirm normative expectations about the ‘babyness’ of babies, the ‘parentness’ of parents, and the interactions between these two."
He does this through a "autoethnographic account in dialogue with a collection of personal narratives from same-sex and different-sex parents to address the performative and relational aspects of this queerness."
The paper isn't merely absurd, it is also disturbing—it explicitly engages in the sexualization of infants.
The author recounts his daughter’s instinctual search for a breast during early skin-to-skin contact with him as “somewhat animalistic and perverse.” He describes a newborn’s attraction to breastfeeding as evoking "feelings of alienation and connotations of the sexual."
He then extends this strange sexualization by framing the connection between parent and child as inherently “gendered and sexual.” He writes: “The umbilical cord of 𝗍̶𝗋̶𝖺̶𝗎̶𝗆̶𝖺̶ shared fate, going back to the primal desire to 𝗅̶𝖺̶𝖼̶𝗍̶𝖺̶𝗍̶𝖾̶ connect and stay connected. And the future of connection—or this connected future—is always gendered and sexual.”
The author’s framing of queerness in infants also adds to the disturbing subtext of sexualization. Queerness, as he defines it earlier in the paper, inherently carries connotations of “sexualized strangeness.” To ascribe this quality to infants—who are incapable of sexual agency—is both inappropriate and disturbing. By defining queerness in this way, Boross is conflating its sexual meanings with infant behavior, dangerously blurring boundaries that should remain clear and unambiguous.
See the post below for a link to my full report.
If academia is to regain its credibility, it must return to the principles of rigorous inquiry and empirical validation, rejecting the postmodern tendencies that have allowed such works to thrive. realityslaststand.com/p/queering-bab…
It's hard to convey how unregulated and extreme "gender medicine" is compared to literally all other medical practices.
Consider these two recent cases from different medical fields:
1. Two days ago, a popular YouTube podiatrist known as The Toe Bro had his license suspended for five months for failing to detect toe cancer in a patient that resulted in the patient needing to have the toe amputated.
2. Today, top youth gender doctor, Johanna Olson-Kennedy, faces a lawsuit by a patient who was prescribed puberty blockers at age 12 after just one consultation and without prior therapy. Olson-Kennedy is accused of pressuring the patient’s parents to consent to the treatment by citing the widely debunked "suicide myth"—that their daughter would likely commit suicide without it. She also authorized cross-sex hormones for the patient at age 13 and wrote a letter of support for the patient's double mastectomy at age 14 that lied about the duration of the patient's transgender identity.
This isn't the first patient Olson-Kennedy has rushed to transition. She has a reputation for advocating the removal of medical safeguards for youth distressed about their sex.
Despite this, she and many other gender doctors, known for similar extreme practices, continue to practice experimental "gender-affirming care" without convincing evidence of benefit and amid a host of known harms.
The Toe Bro made a genuine mistake that resulted in a cancerous toe being amputated, and his license gets suspended for 5 months. Meanwhile, gender doctors like Olson-Kennedy regularly bypass medical safeguards to amputate healthy body parts without sound medical reasons and face no consequences.
This new peer-reviewed paper in the a @SpringerNature journal, uses "feminist blue posthumanities to reimagine...how brine shrimp are perceived in science, culture, and art."
The paper "introduced the concept of hydrosexuality" to enrich "feminist blue posthumanities and feminist biology through art-based practices and queer advocacy." Its use of the "hydrosexual perspective challenges settler science by exploring the connections between the reproductive system of brine shrimp and the economy, ecology and culture."
Its analysis "draws inspiration from low trophic theory and Queer Death Studies" to "gradually alter white humans' perceptions and understandings of brine shrimp."
I gotta say, this might dethrone the classic Feminist Glaciology paper for Most Insane Paper Ever. I am convinced that @ConceptualJames, @peterboghossian, and @HelenPluckrose are behind this!
"Ewelina Jarosz (she/they) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Media and Cultural Research at UKEN, Poland. Her current research explores the intersections of environmental art, queerfeminist blue posthumanities, queer ecologies, and activism of pleasure. They are also transdisciplinary collaborative artist working in cyber_nymphs art research duo with Justyna Górowska and they launched the hydrosexual movement in arts."
🚨BREAKING: Laura Helmuth has resigned as Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American after over four years in the role. During her tenure, she transformed @sciam from a widely respected, objective popular science magazine into a science-themed, woke political publication.
Her resignation follows a series of (now deleted) unhinged posts she made on Bluesky on election night. She has since apologized for the posts, and assured readers that her political views do not compromise the "editorial objectivity" at Scientific American.
Yeah, right.
Scientific American is a leading "science" magazine pushing sex spectrum pseudoscience.
I demand an explanation from the @NIH and @genome_gov as to why I was just kicked out of their public event "Exploring the many dimensions of sex and gender in the genomics era," which I had registered for in advance and was quietly attending.
About 20 minutes into Dr. Tucker Pyle's session titled "Sex and Gender in the Clinic," a window popped up stating, "The host has removed you from the webinar."
When I tried to rejoin the webinar, I was told I could not rejoin.
According to the event description, this is a "public two-day National Institutes of Health (NIH) symposium" that "brings together experts from the biological and social sciences to clarify and contextualize – but not resolve - the complexities around sex, gender, and genomics by considering them in their scientific, ethical, and historical contexts."
I was not disruptive and could not have been, even if I had wanted to, because the webinar was view-only. I did not submit any questions in the Q&A chat window either. I was just quietly watching.
I signed up for the webinar because, as a scientist involved in influencing policy on sex and gender, I wanted to gain a deeper understanding of how these concepts are being applied in medicine and genomics. If anyone should be attending this event, it's me.
The event claims to be an "interdisciplinary conversation," yet the speaker lineup consists entirely of ideologically aligned sex and gender activists who promote radical and pseudoscientific views of sex and gender.
Additionally, @TomasBogardus, an academic who has also voiced dissent from activist orthodoxy on sex and gender issues, was removed from the event around the same time I was.
This is completely unacceptable.
I demand that Eric D. Green (@NHGRI_Director), the director of the @genome_gov at the @NIH, who gave the opening remarks, explain why Dr. Bogardus and I were kicked out of the event.
I wrote about this event shortly after it was announced in May. See my article below for the details. city-journal.org/article/nih-ho…
After emailing the Communications Director, I was told that they did not know why I was removed. I am suddenly now able to rejoin the webinar. 🤔