It's also how Jihadis and Islamists use moderate Muslims. This is a common tactic because it's so effective.
I find it hard to believe that only 26% of US teens use ChatGPT for schoolwork, unless of course the other 74% are using Grok.
The number of US teens using ChatGPT for schoolwork has doubled in the last year, from 13% to 26%.
Black and Hispanic teens are about 41% more likely to use ChatGPT for schoolwork than white teens, even though white teens are more likely to know about ChatGPT.
Black and Hispanic teens are about 41% more likely to use ChatGPT for schoolwork than white teens, even though white teens are more likely to know about ChatGPT.
🚨DATA ALERT: New data reveals that most Americans, now including a majority of teens, are "uncomfortable" with using "gender-neutral pronouns."
Young teens (ages 13-14) are considerably more uncomfortable with gender-neutral pronouns than older teens.
Older teen girls were the most comfortable with using gender-neutral pronouns (58%). Only 47% of younger teen girls, 38% of younger teen boys, and 45% of older teen boys said they were comfortable using gender-neutral pronouns.
Young teens are more uncomfortable with using gender-neutral pronouns than adults (56% versus 54%, respectively).
Young teens (ages 13-14) are considerably more uncomfortable with gender-neutral pronouns than older teens.
Older teen girls were the most comfortable with using gender-neutral pronouns (58%). Only 47% of younger teen girls, 38% of younger teen boys, and 45% of older teen boys said they were comfortable using gender-neutral pronouns.
Young teens are more uncomfortable with using gender-neutral pronouns than adults (56% versus 54%, respectively).
This does not bode well for the gender "medicine" industry. Hopefully this blood in the water will spark a lawyer feeding frenzy.
The legal battle over gender-affirming care must shift focus.
Legislation should not merely target procedures but dismantle the pseudoscientific terminology and concepts—“gender identity,” “brain sex,” and “sex assigned at birth”—that prop them up.
Legislation should not merely target procedures but dismantle the pseudoscientific terminology and concepts—“gender identity,” “brain sex,” and “sex assigned at birth”—that prop them up.
🚨As the U.S. enters an era of legal warfare over pediatric “gender-affirming” care, it’s time to shift the terms of debate from outcomes to the foundational premises of the practice.
No amount of reported benefit can salvage a practice rooted in pseudoscience. 🧵
No amount of reported benefit can salvage a practice rooted in pseudoscience. 🧵
I can’t speak for my “fans,” only for myself. But I’ve never been blind to the problems on the right. I’ve been a strong critic and even predicted that the worst elements of the right would begin to surface as they gained cultural and institutional power. I published a piece on my Substack just yesterday criticizing the fringe right.
To the extent that I’ve given a pass to anything toxic on the right, it’s only because I’ve viewed certain elements on the left as even more toxic. I believe wokeness is an immensely destructive ideology—more destructive than the racist fringes of the right—because it is itself deeply racist, far more mainstream, and has embedded itself in our institutions to a staggering degree.
In a two-party system, you’re forced to choose one side over the other. Choosing a side at a particular moment doesn’t mean you think it’s without fault. Serious flaws can exist. The question is simply whether the flaws on the other side are worse.
To the extent that I’ve given a pass to anything toxic on the right, it’s only because I’ve viewed certain elements on the left as even more toxic. I believe wokeness is an immensely destructive ideology—more destructive than the racist fringes of the right—because it is itself deeply racist, far more mainstream, and has embedded itself in our institutions to a staggering degree.
In a two-party system, you’re forced to choose one side over the other. Choosing a side at a particular moment doesn’t mean you think it’s without fault. Serious flaws can exist. The question is simply whether the flaws on the other side are worse.
Rooting pronouns in the two sexes naturally limited the number of possibilities. The moment a significant segment of society acquiesced to "they/them" pronouns, the limiting principle was lost. Now we have to endure this insanity.
Tune in!
🔗citationneededpodcast.com/p/a-new-paper-…
Tune in!
🔗citationneededpodcast.com/p/a-new-paper-…
🚨 BREAKING: Trump admin forces UPenn to BAN males from women’s sports
The DOE has announced UPenn will now:
✅ Ban males from women’s teams & locker rooms
✅ Restore women’s records erased by Lia Thomas
✅ Issue public apology to female swimmers
✅ Post biology-based sex definitions under Title IX
This comes after the DOE ruled UPenn violated Title IX when Lia Thomas competed on the women’s team.
This is a huge cultural and legal turning point.
Full story:foxnews.com/sports/upenn-a…
The DOE has announced UPenn will now:
✅ Ban males from women’s teams & locker rooms
✅ Restore women’s records erased by Lia Thomas
✅ Issue public apology to female swimmers
✅ Post biology-based sex definitions under Title IX
This comes after the DOE ruled UPenn violated Title IX when Lia Thomas competed on the women’s team.
This is a huge cultural and legal turning point.
Full story:foxnews.com/sports/upenn-a…
Glad to see the tide turning in a major way on keeping men out of women's sports! My first ever TV appearance back in 2019 was on this topic, which I managed to dig up.
Consistency is key!
Consistency is key!
It’s not “extreme” to support banning extreme, irreversible, body- and life-altering medical procedures on healthy children that have no demonstrated evidence of benefit.
What’s extreme is allowing them to happen.
What’s extreme is allowing them to happen.
The gay rights movement worked because it asked people to accept a simple truth: gay people were already their neighbors, coworkers, family. It relied on normalization through familiarity.
But other movements couldn’t replicate this. Their populations were too small for most people to know someone personally—so activists/advocates simply expanded definitions to make these groups or conditions appear more common.
The result is a form of concept creep where everything is considered “trauma,” “autism” is everywhere, “intersex” is apparently as common as red hair, and kids are labeled “trans” for not conforming to stereotypes.
In addition to inflating stats, this definitional expansion confuses the public, diverts resources, and harms the very people it was meant to help.
My new essay explains why real progress requires facing reality, not redefining it.
🔗realityslaststand.com/p/the-casualti…
But other movements couldn’t replicate this. Their populations were too small for most people to know someone personally—so activists/advocates simply expanded definitions to make these groups or conditions appear more common.
The result is a form of concept creep where everything is considered “trauma,” “autism” is everywhere, “intersex” is apparently as common as red hair, and kids are labeled “trans” for not conforming to stereotypes.
In addition to inflating stats, this definitional expansion confuses the public, diverts resources, and harms the very people it was meant to help.
My new essay explains why real progress requires facing reality, not redefining it.
🔗realityslaststand.com/p/the-casualti…