Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Journal: Transgenderism 'Not Supported By Scientific Evidence'

dailycaller
by PETER HASSON

Although popular culture and many of the leading media organizations have bought wholeheartedly into the idea that gender identity is something distinct from one’s biological sex — that a man could be born in a woman’s body or vice versa — such beliefs have no grounding in any credible scientific evidence, according to a report published Monday in the journal The New Atlantis.

Arizona State University professor of statistics and biostatisticsLawrence S. Mayer and John Hopkins University Medical School professor of psychiatrics Paul McHugh co-authored the report, which examined top peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences.

“Examining research from the biological, psychological, and social sciences, this report shows that some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence,” they noted.

Among the key findings listed by the authors was that, “The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.”

“Children are a special case when addressing transgender issues. Only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood,” the authors continued.

“There is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of interventions that delay puberty or modify the secondary sex characteristics of adolescents, although some children may have improved psychological well-being if they are encouraged and supported in their cross-gender identification. There is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender.”

“An area of particular concern involves medical interventions for gender-nonconforming youth. They are increasingly receiving therapies that affirm their felt genders, and even hormone treatments or surgical modifications at young ages,” they added later.

“But the majority of children who identify as a gender that does not conform to their biological sex will no longer do so by the time they reach adulthood. We are disturbed and alarmed by the severity and irreversibility of some interventions being publicly discussed and employed for children.”

The report also found that, “The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings—the idea that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.”

“While there is evidence that biological factors such as genes and hormones are associated with sexual behaviors and attractions, there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation,” the authors explained.

“While minor differences in the brain structures and brain activity between homosexual and heterosexual individuals have been identified by researchers, such neurobiological findings do not demonstrate whether these differences are innate or are the result of environmental and psychological factors.”

McHugh previously served for 26 years as the Psychiatrist in Chief at John Hopkins Hospital.

“At Johns Hopkins, after pioneering sex-change surgery, we demonstrated that the practice brought no important benefits,” he wrote in a June 2015 essay on the topic.

In addition to his position at ASU, Mayer is currently a scholar in residence at Hopkins.

He dedicated his work on the report “to the LGBT community, which bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared the population as a whole. We must find ways to relieve their suffering.”

Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson


Tags: Transgender

Thank You Mr Hasson and DC.

HT to Huck Funn


Monday, August 22, 2016

Bring The Funders of Black Lives Matter To Justice

frontpagemag

How many police officers have to die so a grad student in gender studies doesn’t have to get a real job?


(Ed; Now if That ain't hitting the nail on the head. 'Gender Studies? If you're really that gender ID challenged, the next time you get in the shower, take a look. All the gender study anyone needs.)


 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Follow the money is the watchword of politics.

The left pretends that it is above money or against money, but its networks rival those of any drug cartel or mob outfit and are often constructed to thwart any investigation of its finances.

These networks are strange reincarnations of Cold War era Communist front groups. Except that instead of the money coming from Soviet agents, the cash flows from left-wing billionaires and family foundations hijacked by the left to serve uglier and darker purposes.

And yet the setup has remained basically the same.

Out front are the front groups. These organizations pretend to be grassroots movements stocked with photogenic young people. They zero in on specific issues targeting a key demographic. Behind the scenes are the big money people who are pulling their strings. In between is a shadowy world built to distance the funders from the funded. The passionate young people don’t seem nearly so authentic when you realize that they’re just puppets dancing to the tune of an 86-year-old billionaire rattling around a 16-room mansion on Fifth Avenue or a vast estate in Bedford.

The recent Soros leaks showed how the left’s grass roots organizations are dictated to by radical billionaires like him. And they also show that Soros‘people were well aware of the need to distance themselves from the organizations that they were funding. And it is all about the funding.

Take Black Lives Matter.

Behind the bullhorns and race riots is something different. It’s not outrage. It’s big money.

In a splashy item, the Ford Foundation announced that it had helped found the Black-Led Movement Fund. The Black-Led Movement Fund wants to raise $100 million on top of another $33 million from Soros and assorted left-wing groups.

What is this Black-Led Movement Fund? The announcement defaults to Borealis Philanthropy. What is Borealis Philanthropy? It’s what is known as a philanthropic intermediary. And it’s not the only intermediary behind the Black-Led Movement Fund.

The Ford Foundation press release claims that it partnered with “Borealis Philanthropy, Movement Strategy Center, and Benedict Consulting.” The Movement Strategy Center is yet another intermediary connecting funders and donors. And that’s alongside Solidaire, Neighborhood Funders Group–Funders for Justice and, for those who still feel too exposed, Anonymous Donors.

Why does all this funding need to be heavily disguised?

First, it’s a good bet that a good deal of it will be going to people who are not protesting anything.

Nobody needs $133 million to rile up a mob in Baltimore, Ferguson or Milwaukee. The social justice grads who are kept on the payroll to community organize don’t cost nearly that much.

The more the money is moved around, the harder it is to tell where it’s going and who is cashing in.

For example, the Benedict Consulting referenced by the Ford Foundation in its Black-Led Movement Fund piece doesn’t appear to have any sort of internet presence. It may however refer to Ingrid Benedict who was formerly a senior fellow at the Movement Strategy Center also referenced as having helped found the Black-Led Movement Fund. Benedict also appears to have assisted in putting together Resource Generation’s framework for funding Black Nationalist movements.

And Benedict also appears to work as a Philanthropic Consultant while heading up Abigail Disney’s Daphne Foundation. Benedict’s clients include the Ford Foundation, Resource Generation, Neighborhood Funders Group and the NoVo Foundation. These groups also appear to be involved in funding the Black-Led Movement Fund.

Is there a conflict here? Probably far smaller than the ones involved in the Clinton Foundation. But there is also little doubt that money fed into this network will be following a most interesting route.

Second, funding Black Lives Matter and the various organizations orbiting around the same protests means funding race riots, sedition and street violence by hate groups.

It’s understandable that some major donors might not wish to be publicly associated with that. Some people would love to have their name stamped on the sack of Baltimore. But not everyone does.

Radical Chic, as Tom Wolfe documented so aptly in the piece of the same name, is exciting for some. Rich Saudis and Qataris fund mass murder from Syria to Paris. The obese princeling that tires of his imported luxury cars and his harem of imported slaves brought in by modeling agencies can pay for mass murder by cutting a check to Al Qaeda or ISIS. His American counterparts in Marin County or Arlington can watch poor neighborhoods burn after cutting a check to the right domestic terrorists.

The latest wave of Black Nationalist activists is cashing in on that frisson. So are the fundraisers.

And they should not be allowed to get away with it.

Call it Radical Chic or the Capitalist Communism of left-wing billionaires, those who suffer are the families of wounded and murdered police officers, the small business owners whose shops are looted or put to the torch and the residents of troubled neighborhoods for whom life grows even worse.

The last ten years have witnessed a monumental effort by the left to recreate its worst abuses of the seventies without a hint of apology, acknowledgement or conscience. This time around there is absolutely nothing natural or historical about these developments. Instead they are being funded as a dedicated effort by some powerful and influential people who are forcing history to repeat itself.

The grim farce of left-wing billionaires funding race riots in poor neighborhoods is as ugly as it is unacceptable. Twenty year olds in t-shirts and thirty year olds in blue uniforms should not be dying for the amusement of George Soros or any other bored Manhattanites looking for a radical thrill.

Financing race riots is not charity. It’s domestic terrorism. And the powerful men and women funneling money into the racist network of Black Nationalist groups should be treated just like Al Qaeda funders.

It’s time to hold them accountable.

Beyond the Soros clan, the entire network of family foundations and front groups financing street violence has to be investigated and dismantled. The funding of domestic terror in our cities must be curtailed by exposing who is behind them and how they have benefited from the violence.

Those who have gotten cash and kicks from the destruction of cities must be brought to justice.

Black Lives Matter is a racist hate group. But behind the hate is profit. Social justice activists go to extremes to catch the attention of funders. There are a great many graduates with useless degrees whose only career paths run through social justice activism. And activism does not pay well.

Take the tactics up a notch and you won’t have to punch the clock for pennies at some storefront educational non-profit, but you can get cash from George Soros. The ugly hateful tactics of Black Lives Matter paid off. Follow the money and you’ll see broken lives but also heaps and heaps of dirty cash.

And that is what it’s about.

How many police officers have to die so a grad student in gender studies doesn’t have to get a real job? How many towns and cities have to be burned so Soros can relive his World War II glory days?

Even one is too many and we have long since gone past one.

Follow the money. Bring on the justice. End the violence.


Thank You Mr Greenfield and FPM.

Friday Music On Monday? For The Victims of Psychiatry, Thunder, Dirty Love

Whole weekend was OBE.

Thursday, August 18, 2016

Pro Palestinian Thugs Attack Jews On US Campuses

frontpagemag
And strangely, it’s a distant country that wants to do anything about it.
August 18, 2016

P. David Hornik



Israel has a history of helping, sometimes saving, Jewish communities in distress. The idea that Israel is responsible for all Jews has a special place in the Israeli ethos.

This week the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset held a meeting to discuss the case of a Jewish community in distress. The bipartisan meeting was jointly called by MK Anat Berko of the right-of-center Likud Party and MK Nachman Shai of the left-of-center opposition party Zionist Union.

Strangely, the Jewish community in question was not one living in a failed state or an oppressive dictatorship. Instead, the focus of the meeting was on the United States—specifically, the Jewish students at its universities.

American universities are, of course, a major arena of anti-Israeli activity including Israel Apartheid Weeks, BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) advocacy, and the silencing—often through violent disruption—of Israeli or pro-Israeli speakers.

The Knesset members were told that:

· Jewish students in institutions such as NYU, the University of Pennsylvania, Connecticut College, the University of Oklahoma, Harvard, Claremont College in Los Angeles, Vassar College in New York, and many others have been subjected to harassment by BDS and Students for Justice in Palestine activists, including the taping of eviction notices to their doors. Jewish students who have approached campus administrations for help say they avoid taking action. In one case, at NYU, some anti-Jewish students who had posted “eviction notices” were expelled.

· Students for Justice in Palestine has been compiling lists of Jewish students on American and Canadian campuses with details of their dorm addresses, raising real concern about the students’ safety.

· The universities claim to oppose anti-Israeli and antisemitic activity—and, of course, abuse of any kind on a racial, ethnic, religious, gender, or sexual-orientation basis, to the point of providing “safe spaces” and the like for students who feel they have been offended. Yet, in reality, it’s open season for students who engage in such activity as long as it’s directed at Israel or Jews. At the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, students and former students tied to Students for Justice in Palestine and the Muslim Students Association have praised Hitler, threatened violence, incited violence, and endorsed terror organizations in social-media posts. Jewish groups in Tennessee have expressed “anger, disappointment and worry” at the university’s “tepid response” to complaints.

· Out of 941 reported antisemitic incidents in the U.S. in 2015, 90 occurred on university campuses. Those 90 marked an increase of almost 100% from 47 in 2014. Amnon Goldstof, head of an Israeli reserve-soldiers NGO call Reservists on Duty that has recently toured the U.S., told the Knesset committee that “Jewish students are the most persecuted minority on [U.S.] campuses.”

· MK Berko said that it has become almost impossible for Israeli or pro-Israeli speakers to address students at U.S. campuses. She told the committee that “when she was supposed to give a lecture on a US college campus, it had to be moved because protesters blocked the hall where it was supposed to take place.” Also attending the meeting was Tzahi Gabrieli of the Strategic Affairs Ministry, who “said the physical intimidation of the sort Berko faced is the most common on campuses.”

The latter part of the meeting, in which Gabrieli detailed the Strategic Affairs Ministry’s approach to countering the anti-Jewish phenomena, was held behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, New Jersey governor Chris Christie has signed a law prohibiting the state’s public worker pension fund from investing in companies that boycott Israel and support BDS.

New Jersey thereby becomes one of over a dozen states that have passed anti-BDS laws this year. This is a welcome and laudable development. It is, though, strangely discordant with a situation where “pro-Palestinian” activists are allowed to attack Jews on U.S. campuses. Even stranger is that a distant, foreign country—Israel—is taking upon itself the task of doing something about it.

The time for the U.S. authorities to crack down on these thugs is now. 

Tags: Campus, Israel, Left


Thank You Mr Hornik, FPM, and Israel.

Obama To Bypass Congress, Unilaterally Raise Death Tax

CNSNews
Curtis Dubay | August 18, 2016 |



ED; or in this case, whenever the Emperor gets another wild hair and doesn't even bother to take it to Congress.


President Barack Obama isn’t afraid to enact his agenda over the will of Congress. At this late stage in his presidency, he’s still overreaching his authority to push through an agenda; his most recent overstep being an effort to unilaterally raise the federal estate tax.

Conservatives have successfully lessened the impact of the estate tax, colloquially known as the “death tax,” in recent years. In 2000, before George W. Bush became president, the death tax had a rate of 55 percent and struck families with assets valued at $675,000 or more.

Today, because of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, the rate is down to 45 percent and only estates worth over $10 million face the tax. This is a victory conservatives should be proud of.

Of course, there are no permanent victories in Washington, especially when it comes to tax policy. Raising the death tax is a perpetual desire of liberals. They see this tax as a necessary tool to stop wealth from being concentrated among a few families.

Obama has long wanted to raise the death tax, and has included steep increases to the death tax in each of his budgets. But instead of accepting the will of Congress as a check on his power, Obama has chosen to raise the death tax on his own.

Recently, the Treasury Department released regulations to limit the ability of families to use valuation discounts to reduce their death tax liability when a family member dies.

Valuation discounts make sense economically because they allow families to reduce the taxable value of an asset that does not have a deep and frequently-traded market. For instance, the owner of a family-owned business may pass on a $20 million business to his children. The IRS would assess the death tax on the $10 million value of the business (after the $10 million exemption).

However, that ignores the fact that the family cannot readily sell the business, or some of its assets, because there is no market for a portion of a family-owned enterprise. Valuation discounts allow families to reduce the value of the business to better reflect its lack of marketability.

The same thinking applies to the valuation of any asset. Those assets with deep and active markets will, all else equal, have higher prices than those with inactive markets.

The new IRS regulations would make it harder for family-owned businesses to use valuation discounts, and as a result, raise the death tax bills of families trying to hold onto their companies. This will destroy jobs as those businesses are broken up and slow the economy.

What liberals miss in the death tax debate is that the wealthiest people do not typically inherit their fortunes. They earn them. Think Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Mark Zuckerberg.

Furthermore, when the government taxes away half of what people accumulate during their lifetimes, it creates a powerful disincentive for families to build wealth. The death tax is a particularly potent scourge of family-owned businesses. These businesses are usually closely held and look valuable on paper because they often own many assets. However, small businesses generally lack liquid cash to pay their estate tax bill when the principal owner passes away, forcing the surviving family members to sell the business to pay the IRS.

The tax ends up becoming a deterrent for leading a successful life. That deterrent has a powerful negative impact on the economy. That is why there is also an incredibly strong economic argument for abolishing the death tax completely.

The public has 90 days to voice its opinion on the Treasury’s regulations and the administration’s unilateral action on this important issue. Americans should tell the Obama administration that they do not appreciate the effort to make it harder for a businesses to stay in the family after a loved one passes away.

Curtis S. Dubay, a leading expert on tax reform, income tax, corporate tax, international taxes, and the estate tax, is a research fellow in tax and economic policy at The Heritage Foundation.

Editor's Note: This piece was originally published by The Daily Signal.


CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.

Thank You Mr Dubay and CNS.


This is "Making The Rich Pay Their Fair Share" in plain, idiot proof english.

So let's put every family farm in America out of business that han't already been put out of business by taxing them off their land.

Land redistribution has worked out so well in Russia, Communist China and every place else it's been tried. Wait, It Hasn't?

Someone better tell Hillary.

Joe Biden: Trump Can't Be Trusted With The Nuclear Launch Codes, Then POINTS Out The Guy With Him Who HAS The Codes


Biden's sole purpose in being VP has been, from the start, to be Obama's Fail Safe Insurance Policy against Impeachment.

So, you want to trust Hillary with those launch codes?

She's the one who approved Joe Biden to convince the voters that she Does possess the judgment skills to be trusted with those launch codes.

Transgender Anyone? 1st Sales Drop In Years Sends Clueless Target Execs Scrambling For Answers

weaselzippers


Paging Captain Obvious.

Via Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Its shelves are better stocked than ever before. It’s added thousands of new grocery items. And it’s rolled out new offerings such as the jazzy in-house Cat & Jack kids clothing line.

So why haven’t shoppers been showing up at Target Corp.’s stores in the last few months like they have in the past?

That was the troubling question on analysts’ minds after the Minneapolis-based retailer reported a surprising 2.2 percent drop in traffic during the May-to-July period — its first decline in that metric in a year and a half, and the biggest slide it’s seen since the Great Recession outside of the massive data breach a few years ago that temporarily scared off shoppers.

The company’s shares tumbled nearly 6 percent by midday trading Wednesday as Target also reported its first comparable sales drop in two years and lowered its forecast for the second of the year, including during the holidays, when it now expects sales to be flat to down two percent. It was a stark change from just a few months ago when Target executives said sales could grow as much as 2.5 percent this year.

Target executives offered their own explanations for the falloff in traffic: It lost some trips to in-store pharmacies amid the rebranding of them to the CVS Health banner. Electronic sales were down double digits — Apple products in particular tumbled more than 20 percent. And an overhaul of the grocery department to include more specialty and organic items is still not hitting the mark with consumers.

But analysts also wondered if there were deeper issues at play — in particular, Target’s ability to hold off the mounting threat from Amazon.com.

“Clearly this was a step in the wrong direction,” said Sean Naughton, an analyst with Piper Jaffray. “Some of the concern is now going to be about Amazon’s continued success and the potential for Prime Now (Amazon’s delivery service within two hours on select items) becoming more ubiquitous across the country with people being able to get things more quickly.”

Keep reading…


How did the Execs responsible for this get to Be the execs responsible for this?

In a nutshell?

Academia.

These Execs deserve to be sued by their own stockholders.

Thank You Star Tribune and Dapandico.

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

15 Yr/145K Patient Study Finds Locking Up People In Psych Hospitals Provides NO Benefit

lancet
abstract



Suicide risk and absconding in psychiatric hospitals with and without open door policies: a 15 year, observational study
Dr Christian G Huber, MD†,Press enter key for correspondence informationPress enter key to Email the author,
Andres R Schneeberger, MD†,
Eva Kowalinski, MD,
Daniela Fröhlich, MA,
Stefanie von Felten, PhD,
Marc Walter, MD,
Martin Zinkler, MD,
Prof Karl Beine, MD,
Prof Andreas Heinz, MD,
Prof Stefan Borgwardt, MD,
Prof Undine E Lang, MD
†Contributed equally
Published Online: 28 July 2016

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30168-7
|

Article Info

Summary

Full Text
References
Supplementary Material

Summary
Background

Inpatient suicide and absconding of inpatients at risk of self-endangering behaviour are important challenges for all medical disciplines, particularly psychiatry. Patients at risk are often admitted to locked wards in psychiatric hospitals to prevent absconding, suicide attempts, and death by suicide. However, there is insufficient evidence that treatment on locked wards can effectively prevent these outcomes. We did this study to compare hospitals without locked wards and hospitals with locked wards and to establish whether hospital type has an effect on these outcomes.
Methods

In this 15 year, naturalistic observational study, we examined 349 574 admissions to 21 German psychiatric inpatient hospitals from Jan 1, 1998, to Dec 31, 2012. We used propensity score matching to select 145 738 cases for an analysis, which allowed for causal inference on the effect of ward type (ie, locked, partly locked, open, and day clinic wards) and hospital type (ie, hospitals with and without locked wards) on suicide, suicide attempts, and absconding (with and without return), despite the absence of an experimental design. We used generalised linear mixed-effects models to analyse the data.
Findings

In the 145 738 propensity score-matched cases, suicide (OR 1·326, 95% CI 0·803–2·113; p=0·24), suicide attempts (1·057, 0·787–1·412; p=0·71), and absconding with return (1·288, 0·874–1·929; p=0·21) and without return (1·090, 0·722–1·659; p=0·69) were not increased in hospitals with an open door policy. Compared with treatment on locked wards, treatment on open wards was associated with a decreased probability of suicide attempts (OR 0·658, 95% CI 0·504–0·864; p=0·003), absconding with return (0·629, 0·524–0·764; p<0 0="" absconding="" and="" but="" completed="" not="" p="0·63).<br" return="" suicide="" without="">Interpretation

Locked doors might not be able to prevent suicide and absconding.


Funding

None.

And it only took them 15 years and 145,000 thought criminals to figure this out.

Well, this is Psychiatry we're dealing with.