122
AltFDA
AltFDA

Today I was made aware of the most laughable and dangerous white paper I have ever fucking seen published by this Government! 🧵🧵🧵🧵🧵🧵🧵🧵🧵🧵🧵🧵🧵 Before I link to the paper we will be going through it together because you need to understand why this was published and how to dispute it because maga. Here is that paper: opa.hhs.gov

New Research on Gender Ideology and Left-Wing Authoritarianism

opa.hhs.gov

Before we dig into this, a bit of a humble brag, I have been doing peer review of white papers for over 10yrs now. I read white papers and Dr. Thesis for pleasure. I am known for being fair and demanding on the data. I take the extra steps to reach out to other experts if need be. So as we go… … go through this shit show, I’m not going to get into the weeds so you have precise, rememberable counter arguments against this bullshit. To the paper!!! In this first picture I have highlighted the “ authors “ These are not the authors of this paper! They are cited resources.

The actual author of this shit never identifies themselves. They are placing the blame for this bullshit on those guys and théir affiliated schools to make the paper look legit. If you know one of these scientist, please alert them to this. If they do not push back, they will lose everything! If you’re alumni of one of the listed schools, you better be picking up the phone and calling them. Being tied to this shit is going to cause a lot of damage for them. In this second screen cap we have the abstract! Read paragraph 1 and then read paragraph 2 and think about the examples they… … they are giving. These are specific examples for a very specific reason. This is why I think this paper is so dangerous, it’s setting a scientific pre-text for trump to say see! We have scientific proof that the left will revolt so we need martial law. God I hope I’m wrong here but

The study overview is full of fluff and bullshit. If you co through it, you will quickly note that every study they cite is also an “author” for this paper. The study overview really comes down to the highlighted section at the end of the section. They are self predicting théir outcome, Bias anyone

Now let’s get into the laughable part of this shit show of a non-paper. Let’s start with théir methodology, because it raises more red flags than a girl that only dates blue collar men and clubs all night. So the first 🚩- CloudResearch Connect: They are a pay to take survey company!

Data from these companies is considered so useless, they have all but disappeared from the internet. Show me a person seriously filling these surveys out and I will show you some beach front property in the desert! Ffs Second 🚩- who they rejected and why “97 participants were excluded for failing one or more attention checks, failing all three bot-detection items, completing the survey in under six minutes, having duplicate IDs, or incomplete responses, yielding a final analytic sample of N = 1,208.” Third 🚩- Théir #’s do not match up. “Sixteen respondents who reported no political affiliation or "something else" could not be placed on the left–right spectrum and were excluded from analyses controlling for political identity (N = 1,192 for those models). Did they count 1208 or 1192 ppl? Fourth 🚩 - oh look, they counted 1208 🙃

5th 🚩 did you see théir rate of error!!!!!! .001 Fuck! I would give up your mom and my left nut for that level of certainty in my collected data!

For Real - Man in Red Bandana

static.klipy.com

If you do the math with the error rate, they are making the argument that 5 out of a 1000 liberals will commit a terrorist level crime against the Government.

But when they get to figure 3, they break it dow by théir examples they listed in the abstract we talked about. They also introduce ANOTHER model for calculating these numbers. So is it 5 out of 1000ppl or 3 out of 1000ppl sending Charlie Kirk a lead hello??

That was 🚩6 by the way. 🚩7 is in the notes under the results where they finally exclude the 16 participants from before and end up with 95% accuracy not .001% with everyone’s input. Like what????

Finally, this is where they lay it all out and we circle back to the dangerous part of this paper. It was commissioned to show that the left is more violent than the right and the reason why and how to identify who will be violent. I’m not taking a large step when I say these studies were done… …done to justify rounding up the Jews and théir supporters.

If you want to contact an “author” to see what they have say. psych.sas.rutgers.edu

Fedida, Ohad

psych.sas.rutgers.edu

1 / 9
Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left- Wing Authoritarian Psychology? Ohad Fedida¹, Danit Finkelstein¹†, Colin Wright, Ph.D.², Lee Jussim, Ph.D.¹*, Joel Finkelstein, Ph.D.³* ¹Rutgers University | ²Manhattan Institute | ³Network Contagion Research Institute *Co-Principal Investigators | †Doctoral Candidates OSF Pre-registration: n2cqj | CloudResearch Connect | N = 1,208 Abstract For decades, psychological research on attitudes toward individuals who identify as transgender has focused almost exclusively on prejudice and has attributed that prejudice to authoritarian dispositions presumed to reside on the political right. Little research has examined the characteristics associated with strong endorsement of "gender-affirming" norms. We developed the Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale (CGAS), drawing items from official guidance issued by the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and American Academy of Pediatrics, and administered it to 1,208 U.S. adults. Across preregistered analyses, CGAS and related gender ideological-belief measures were strongly associated with left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), with Spearman correlations ranging from ρ = 0.44 to ρ = 0.59. CGAS also significantly predicted LWA, accounting for 31.5% of its variance. In ordinal regressions predicting CGAS, political identity was the strongest predictor, but LWA remained an independent predictor after controlling for political identity and age. LWA and CGAS were also positively associated with justification of political violence across six targets: killing Charlie Kirk, killing Donald Trump, killing Brian Thompson, arson of ICE buildings, damaging wealthy people’s property, and violence against police. Both independently predicted all six violence outcomes after controlling for left-wing political identity.
Abstract For decades, psychological research on attitudes toward individuals who identify as transgender has focused almost exclusively on prejudice and has attributed that prejudice to authoritarian dispositions presumed to reside on the political right. Little research has examined the characteristics associated with strong endorsement of "gender-affirming" norms. We developed the Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale (CGAS), drawing items from official guidance issued by the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and American Academy of Pediatrics, and administered it to 1,208 U.S. adults. Across preregistered analyses, CGAS and related gender ideological-belief measures were strongly associated with left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), with Spearman correlations ranging from ρ = 0.44 to ρ = 0.59. CGAS also significantly predicted LWA, accounting for 31.5% of its variance. In ordinal regressions predicting CGAS, political identity was the strongest predictor, but LWA remained an independent predictor after controlling for political identity and age. LWA and CGAS were also positively associated with justification of political violence across six targets: killing Charlie Kirk, killing Donald Trump, killing Brian Thompson, arson of ICE buildings, damaging wealthy people’s property, and violence against police. Both independently predicted all six violence outcomes after controlling for left-wing political identity.
Study Overview A questionnaire assessing LWA, CGAS, beliefs about the importance of affirming people’s “gender identity,” beliefs about the threats to individuals who identify as transgender from a variety of groups (White supremacists, men, the Supreme Court, etc.), beliefs about an ongoing “trans genocide” and support for anti-democratic behaviors unrelated to gender ideology issues was administered to a national sample of over 1,200 adult Americans. The present report is organized around three central questions:1 1. How strongly do CGAS and other gender ideology-related beliefs correlate with LWA? 2. Does LWA predict CGAS and other gender ideology-related beliefs over and above political identity, or is LWA just a proxy for being liberal? 3. Do CGAS and LWA predict support for political violence?
Methods Participants and Design We recruited 1,305 U.S. adults through CloudResearch Connect. Data collection began after pre- registration on the Open Science Framework (OSF: n2cqj). 97 participants were excluded for failing one or more attention checks, failing all three bot-detection items, completing the survey in under six minutes, having duplicate IDs, or incomplete responses, yielding a final analytic sample of N = 1,208. The sample was 51.2% female, 47.8% male, and 1.1% transgender identifying/gender non-conforming; mean age = 45.1 years (SD = 16.0). By party affiliation, 55.0% identified as or leaned Democrat, 27.2% identified as or leaned Republican, 15.1% were Independents with no lean, and 2.7% reported no affiliation or something else. By race/ethnicity, the sample was 56.8% White, 12.0% Hispanic, 11.8% Black, 11.7% Asian, 5.5% multiracial, and 2.3% another identity (Alaska Native or American Indian, South Asian, Middle Eastern, or something else). By religion, 51.2% identified as Christian, 22.4% as agnostic, 13.3% as atheist, and 13.1% as another religion or something else (including 1.9% Jewish, 1.6% Buddhist, 0.9% Muslim, and 0.7% Hindu). Sixteen respondents who reported no political affiliation or "something else" could not be placed on the left–right spectrum and were excluded from analyses controlling for political identity (N = 1,192 for those models). Scales were presented in randomized order across participants. Measures Left-Wing Authoritarianism (LWA). We used the 13-item Brief LWA Scale (Costello & Patrick, 2022). Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale (CGAS). We developed the CGAS to measure endorsement of the official clinical consensus positions of the APA (2015), APA (n.d.), WPATH (2022), and AAP (2018) on individuals who identify as transgender and medical interventions. The five items were derived directly from the clinical guidance language in these documents and rated on the same 7-point agree/disagree scale. Table 1 shows, on the
Highlighted portion shows they counted 1208 ppl in figure one.
The math says 5 out of a 1000 liberals will commit violent crime against the Gov.
Table 4. Ordinal Regressions of Justification of Political Violence on LWA and Political Identity Outcome LWA Political Identity β [95% CI] β [95% CI] Kill Charlie Kirk 0.66 [0.57, 0.75]*** 0.06 [-0.02, 0.13] Kill Donald Trump 0.53 [0.45, 0.61]*** 0.22 [0.15, 0.29]*** Kill Brian Thompson 0.59 [0.51, 0.66]*** 0.07 [0.00, 0.13]* Arson of ICE Buildings 0.62 [0.54, 0.69]*** 0.12 [0.05, 0.19]*** Damage Property of the Wealthy 0.60 [0.52, 0.68]*** 0.08 [0.01, 0.15]* Violence Against the Police 0.60 [0.52, 0.68]*** -0.00 [-0.07, 0.07] Note. N = 1,192. Entries are fully standardized coefficients (β) with 95% confidence intervals from proportional- odds ordinal regressions; each violence item was regressed simultaneously on LWA and political identity (higher = more left-wing). LWA = left-wing authoritarianism; CGAS = Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
The practical stakes are straightforward. Research frameworks for understanding authoritarianism have historically focused overwhelmingly on the political right, while 15 16 HHS Report: Gender Ideology& Left-Wing Authoritarianism analogous left-wing pathways have received far less attention. Yet federal agencies and public safety officials are concerned not only with ideology in the abstract, but with radicalization pathways: the content that tells people who to fear, why the situation is urgent, and when force becomes acceptable. This study suggests that the same psychological machinery operates on the extreme left, and that it may be running through institutional channels—clinical guidelines, professional standards, credentialed expertise—that current threat-detection frameworks are not well designed to recognize. Violence connected to gender ideology remains largely undocumented in the academic literature. This study provides a first systematic empirical look at the psychological infrastructure that makes such violence conceivable

Share this Page