The Perversion Of Science

One of the big problems we have in the West — and this has been true for many years at this point — is the perversion of science.

For at least one decade in the United States, there was a grand delusion that was promoted by nearly every member of the legacy media. It was promoted by universities; it was promoted by Hollywood.

The basic idea was simple: A boy could be a girl. A girl could be a boy. There could be a female brain inside a male body, and vice versa. Sex was not, in fact, defined by biology. It was defined by the soul hovering inside you that might be a different sex than your actual physical body.

This was treated as a fundamental, eternal truth by most people in a position of authority. Why? Because the scientific community decided it was going to back the insanity of the gender theories.

Now it turns out that virtually all of that was just based on absolute nonsense.

According to The Free Press: 

At their conferences, closed to outsiders and the press, the gender clinicians allowed themselves to speak freely. They spoke about the boys who said they wanted to be girls and the girls who felt they were meant to be boys, and the medical and surgical interventions that would make them appear as the opposite sex. The clinicians also discussed new procedures for a new type of patient—some of them adolescents—who wanted to be made to look as if they had no sex at all. 

In one of the videos, obtained exclusively by The Free Press, from the 2021 conference of the US Professional Association for Transgender Health, Amy Penkin, a social worker with the Transgender Health Program at the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) spoke about one such case. Penkin told the audience about Sky, who she described as an 18-year-old recent high school graduate who was living on his own for the first time.

Penkin explained that Sky expressed a desire to look like “a Barbie down there.” Sky, Penkin said, reported “being asexual, never having had sex, and having no desire to have sex in the future.” Indeed, Sky did “not want to feel any pleasurable sensation and hope[d] removal of all erogenous tissue [would] be possible,” according to Penkin.

Not so long ago, a patient like Sky would have been given a psychological evaluation and offered mental health counseling. But in the evolving world of gender medicine, clinicians now want to help young people like Sky achieve their gender goals.

Penkin explained to fellow professionals that requests for procedures that are “nonbinary” are “growing in number.” But the field is still wedded to binary assumptions. This means that procedures such as “nullification” (surgically leaving patients with no external genitals) or “penile preserving vaginoplasty” (surgically crafting a pseudo-vagina underneath the penis) are not as accessible as they should be.

Penkin said that when confronted with a patient like Sky, existing “research” and “standards of care” are “not enough to meet the needs of our patients, and we need to take it to the next level to really think about how we evolve and match the needs of our patients as their needs are being expressed to us.”

Here is Penkin speaking at a gathering of a major professional association for transgender health:

This is Sky, who’s 18 years old. They recently graduated from high school and report living on their own for the first time. At consult, they expressed a desire to look like a “Barbie” down there. They report being asexual, never having had sex, and having no desire to have sex in the future. Sky does not want to feel any pleasurable sensation and hopes removal of all erogenous tissue will be possible. And they come to our clinic with a referral and two letters of support for vulva plastic surgery.

We came to deliver this presentation because we recognize that the tools in our system, such as what is evidence-based practice and the research tell us what are the standards of care tell us, that is not enough to meet the needs of our patients and we need to take it to the next level to really think about how we evolve and match the needs of our patients, as their needs are being expressed to us.

That is an amazing statement, that patients express their needs to doctors as though they’re simply going into the store and buying a cup of coffee, and the doctors are then tasked with fulfilling the needs of their patients.

That is precisely the opposite of how medical science is supposed to work. It is the job of the doctor to diagnose. It is the job of the doctor to tell you about your own biology and what is true and what is false.

But that’s not the way it works in the world of so-called trans medicine. A psychologist named Mair Marsiglio agreed and described doing just that. She spoke about the idea that even people with multiple personality disorder or psychosis should not be barred from mutilating surgery.

The Free Press continued:  

One of the biggest revelations from the recordings is how these clinicians acknowledge performing unproven, seemingly experimental treatments—only it appears there is often no protocol being followed, no formal research being conducted, and no ethics-board approval being sought. These practitioners say their goal is to fulfill the “embodiment” desires of their patients, whatever these may be, and doing this may require “deviat[ing] from guidelines.” 

Thus, people get together at conferences and change the guidelines, the standards of care, in order to match what the “patients would like” from these particular “medical practitioners.”

In order to get all this done, what was required was groupthink. British endocrinology consultant Leighton Seal explained that the best way to avoid criticism was to make the decisions as a group:

And therefore, when you’re doing operations, we have to accept, at some point somebody will regret the surgery they’ve done. so to allow people to move the field forward. You need to have a support network around you as a clinician so that if that decision is made and that decision is regretted, how did you make that decision process?

So as an individual practitioner, if you make that in isolation, you could be vulnerable to being criticized for doing something that is outside of the norm. Whereas if you have a network around you where a clinical team in concert with the individual has made a decision, you then have a framework to say, “Well, the ethics of this were explored.”

This is all insanity.

Why am I bringing this up? Let’s be real, conservatives won on this issue because reality was always going to win, even when it was unpopular.

We here at The Daily Wire refused from the outset of the company to use so-called gendered pronouns. We refused to use people’s chosen pronouns. Your pronoun was your sex. Period. We never varied on this. This was and is a strong position held by the company, and we figured that truth would eventually prevail.

50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at DailyWire.com/cyberweek.

So why does this matter? Because it’s not just that there are consequences for bad science in the field of trans ideology. There are consequences for everyone.

This is also true in the world of the economy. Evidence has emerged that a major climate change study published in Nature is false.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

The research, published last year in the prestigious journal Nature, projected that the world’s economic output would decline 62% by 2100 under a high-carbon emissions scenario. The estimate was much more severe than other forecasts, prompting scrutiny of the underlying data. “We broadly agree with the issues raised, and have made corrections to the underlying economic data and to our methodology to address them,” said study author Leonie Wenz, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “These changes are too substantial for a correction of the original article in Nature.”

… after the study was published, other researchers found that economic data from one country—Uzbekistan—during a short time from 1995 to 1999 had skewed the results. Without Uzbekistan, the 2100 damage forecast fell to 23%, not 62%.

Here is what’s amazing. The study had already been cited by the time it was pulled by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, the World Bank, and the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), a coalition of central banks.

This horrible study was used in order to determine whether banks could invest in certain things.

Central bank models of the economic impacts of climate change could have far-reaching implications. If these models show impacts are going to be much worse than previously thought, regulators could make banks set aside more capital to buffer against potential losses associated with assets exposed to climate change…

This means the banks would have to hold more cash back and not lend it out to other businesses because of the potential risk from climate change.

The study was overtly wrong.

They had to pull it, but it is on the very basis of bad science that many, many decisions are made.

That is why it is a very good thing that the president of the United States will not bow to transgender ideology or climate change extremists.