🚨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.🙏
Last week, the American Psychological Association released a statement about Trump's EO on the biology of sex.
In a section titled "What the Science Says," the APA makes several embarrassingly false statements due to their blind commitment to sex pseudoscience.
THREAD 🧵
STATEMENT 1: "Sex is a biological characteristic determined by chromosome and reproductive anatomy."
This statement is reflective of profound ignorance regarding the distinction between how sex is developmentally DETERMINED and how it's DEFINED.
It's true that in humans sex is "determined by chromosomes," but that just means genes on certain chromosomes guide embryos down developmental pathways that will result in either a male or female. So, on its face, this statement seems all right.
But the fact that they included "reproductive anatomy" in how sex is determined reveals their muddled thinking. The development of certain reproductive anatomy that has the function to produce either sperm or ova is how sex is DEFINED, not how it's DETERMINED.
STATEMENT 2: "The assertion that only two sexes exist is not scientifically accurate."
Because sex is universally defined in terms of the type of gamete an individual has the biological function to produce, and there are only two types of gamete (sperm and ova), there are and can only be two sexes.
For there to be more than 2 sexes would require a distinct third gamete that a person can have the biological function to produce.
🚨NEW: Proponents of "gender-affirming care" assert that "trans" people have an opposite-sex brain, a belief shaped by a pervasive pseudoscientific narrative flooding culture, courts, and clinics.
Here, @NeuroSGS, @buttonslives, and I address this fatally flawed "research." 🧵
The “brain sex” myth isn’t just an academic debate, it’s a diagnosis from doctors pushing people toward medical transition.
Take Yarden Silveira. The belief that he had a “female brain” caused him to pursue transition, and complications likely caused him to take his own life.
Civil rights lawyers, activists, and researchers pursue this “brain sex” angle to ground “gender identity” in biology. This is a legal play, because U.S. law protects “innate” characteristics, giving this claim serious weight.
So I usually just quote the most ideological and insane sections of the woke papers I share here, but the abstract of this new paper is so unhinged that I'll let it speak for itself in full.
🚨The NCAA's "transgender" policy is a TROJAN HORSE!
While the new policy might appear reasonable at a glance, a closer look reveals a massive loophole that actually streamlines the process of allowing males to compete in women’s sports. 🧵...
First, the policy is steeped in gender ideology and deliberately avoids referencing objective biology. It defines “woman” as a “gender identity” rather than as an “adult human female”—the language of Trump's EO. Further, it defines “gender identity” circularly as “an individual’s own internal sense of their gender.”
Second, though the policy states that “a student-athlete assigned male at birth may not compete on a women’s team,” and that eligibility will be determined based on the sex “marked on [the athlete’s] birth records,” this standard is easily manipulated.
They're doubling-down on sex pseudoscience. This won't end well for them.
This article attempts to critique the new definitions of sex announced by the @HHSGov, yet the new HHS statement completely anticipated their critiques and makes them entirely irrelevant.
Thread 🧵...
Sex is all about gametes, or "reproductive cells." Other traits—which emerge during puberty—are considered "secondary sex characteristics" because they are a downstream effect of sex, not sex itself.
The "expert" cited here, Sam Sharpe, is a Ph.D. candidate at Kansas State University, and self-describes as “a trans and intersex person” who has “been involved in trans and intersex activism since 2016.” Sharpe has previously called for a “more inclusive understanding of sex diversity” and believes Lia Thomas (the male swimmer who won an NCAA Division I title in the women’s category) is being discriminated against for “failing to conform to expectations of cisnormative white femininity.”
Sharpe says that “biological sex is complex, variable, not fully understood, and definitely not a binary,” and has blamed the binary view of sex on “capitalism.”
Sharpe is an activist first, and a biologist second.
The article claims that the new definition of sex "leaves out people who carry genetic variants and don't make any reproductive cells, or gametes."
This is 100% FALSE.
The new HHS statement (right) explicitly explains that "having the biological function to produce eggs or sperm does not require that eggs or sperm are ever produced" and covers cases where "males and females may not or may no longer produce eggs or sperm due to factors such as age, congenital disorders or other developmental conditions, injury, or medical conditions that cause infertility."
They're choosing to ignore the substance of the document.
🚨ALERT: On Day 1, Trump signed an executive order affirming the reality that sex is binary, immutable, and based on gametes—not “gender identity.”
However, protecting women’s rights requires not only acknowledging biological reality but also PREVENTING EFFORTS TO HIDE IT. 🧵
Right now, 44 states allow their residents to amend their birth certificate's sex marker. Fifteen states will even issue NEW birth certificates without any indication that a change has been made, and all records linked to the original are sealed, accessible only by court order.
⚠️Such efforts to conceal biological reality must not be allowed!⚠️
To actually defend women's rights, we need an additional executive order banning amendments to sex markers on birth certificates, at least for national purposes.