US study shows link between transgender ideology and left-wing violence

"..an authoritarian disposition organized around left rather than right political content"

That sounds like the left in this country to me.🤔

Eight out of 10 owners who expressed a preference said their cat prefers it

Remember that.? That's what this reminds me off.

This study seems to be a bit like that. I can't open the study in my location, but I did get this that opens.

HHS Releases Study Finding Individuals Who Associate with Left-Wing Authoritarian Beliefs and Radical Gender Ideology Are More Likely to Justify Political Violence | Health.gov

The opening line from that link.

"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today released a commissioned study that found individuals who believed in radical gender ideology were more likely to hold left-wing authoritarian beliefs and believe political violence is justified. The same study found individuals who held left-wing authoritarian views were more likely to justify political violence."

And the study the OP posted about is linked in that.

So, the right wing Trump admin commissioned this study. Interesting, because what if the study did not say what they want it to say? After all, Rutgers University are good at doing studies, and they are not going to "fiddle" it.

But see the basis of the whole thing. Is there a connection between people are more authoritarian and political violence ?

Well yes. It's not exactly rocket science, is it ? Of course people who are more authoritarian will lean towards political violence being ok. It is pretty much in the definition of Authoritarianism.

Unfortunately, I can't get the full report, but it would be an interesting read in how they define things. "Left wing authoritarian for example."

Bits in bold below are from the article I linked.

“This study raises important questions about what happens when ideology is given the authority of medicine,” said Admiral Brian Christine.

Is that not exactly what this commissioned study is doing ? POTUS himself is anti Trans, and he is always accusing "the left" of all sorts of things.

“The association between sex-rejecting clinical beliefs, authoritarian attitudes, and the justification of political violence warrant serious scientific scrutiny. HHS will continue to pursue rigorous research that examines these relationships and gives the American people the evidence they deserve.”

Giving the "American people the evidence they deserve".

Cool, in that case I suggest a new study. This time do it across left, center, right, both economical left and social left/ right, and get percentages. That is, find what group are the greater risk to society as a whole.

It really does look like "Eight out of 10 owners who expressed a preference said their cat prefers it"

“The study only measured how people thought about violence in a survey. It did not measure whether anyone actually committed violent acts.”

Well, gosh! Considering how some posters demand that the studies they link about personality traits from studies using self-reported ‘thoughts’ about their own personalities are treated as robust and credible enough to use as category boundaries, it is surprising to see this claim used by a poster to discredit a study.

BTW, KJK was not physically attacked in Australia. She had a can of tomato soup poured over her in New Zealand.

You really can't see any issue with substances being thrown at people because they disagree with you?

Whenever I see people laughing about milkshakes or soup or any liquid (given that the assaulted person has no idea what it is) being thrown at people they don't like, I think of how scary it must be to be hit unexpectedly by an unknown liquid thrown by people who seemingly feel perfectly comfortable making threats against other people and my sympathies are with the assaulted, whatever their political leanings might be.

“The study only measured how people thought about violence in a survey. It did not measure whether anyone actually committed violent acts.”

I was thinking the same thing, if when a man thinks he's a woman is enough to make him a woman, why aren't people thinking about violence enough to make them violent.

Funny how an activist report posing as a 'scientific study' is considered highly creditable and the latest in scientific thought, but a commissioned report that comes to a different conclusion is biased and not reliable.

Andy NGO is not 'far right'.

You need to read that again, maybe. I said it didn’t occur in Australia, but New Zealand, and gave the nature of the assault. I didn’t make a comment about the assault itself. That’s on you.

What is he then? If he’s a leftist I’m sure he’d love to hear it.

Since forever, from what I can see the only ones calling him Far Right is Wikipedia, the usual suspects and you. 🤔

Cross posts - edited to add is that the only choices, Leftist or Far right, is investigative journalists not allowed.

Righto, pal.

Funny how some reports are not treated with rigour here, just because they say what we want them to.

At least hold some semblance of standards. This is RW propaganda dressed in light academica.

So what is he then, in your opinion?

These are good critiques. We need to be hard on ideas we agree with as well as the ones we don't, or we will fall into the same trap.

From my observation, some people can't form an identity of their own, so they look to an external source. It can be a person, characters from a book series or a political party. In my experience, some of those people are attracted to extreme political opinions because they want an excuse to be violent, rather than the extreme views making them violent.

I have a friend who identifies strongly as part of the rainbow community to the point where sometimes his thoughts are indistinguishable from the hive mind. He bought that Harry Potter game on PlayStation but kept calling JK Rowling "a fucking bitch"... out loud in the office. The third time he said it, I turned my chair, stared at him and said, "Come on now", and I genuinely think it was the first time he actually heard what he was saying; it was like the end of a prayer for him. He is intelligent enough to read the room, unlike others. He is so focused on being "the good side" that I think he gets lost in what being a "good" person actually means; for example, I think he cares about individuals who happen to be women, but is reasonably misogynistic if given the opportunity.

For the people who are discrediting the study based on the conservative views of the authors or backers, does that mean the results of all studies run by left wing academics are now null and void?

Depends on whether the methodology is sound which it isn't on this one.

Then why have the authors' leanings been raised at least as much as any supposed methodological "flaws"?

If you think about historical political vigilantism a lot of it stems from the structural inability to address grievance in a civilised way rather than particular issues. When people know the have no peaceful options they will & have resorted to violent resistance whatever the isssue. The black slave rebellions, French Revolution, Jewish polish uprisings, PLO, Hamas & Luigi Mangione are all examples why injustice left unattended never ends well.

Because its relevant to the impetus behind such a bogus study. Calling out notorious political operatives making something out of nothing matters.

Not sure about the study, but there is little doubt that transgender ideology encourages and excuses those who use terrorist actions and threatening behaviours.

My daughter said, directly to me, that she thought that JK Rowling and I deserved all the threats aimed at us, because we were despicable.

Transactivism dehumanizes women who object and there is historical precedent showing that dehumanization of groups is often carried out before violence towards them.

So I believe transactivism, in itself, breeds normalisation of violence. All those banners and memes with their inherent threats are not a coincidence.

That is certainly one view, and it is supported by the suffragettes' violent actions. The issue is that using violence can actually slow down the promotion, as resources have to be diverted to deal with the violence, and it often creates a power vacuum.

Despite the suffragettes' actions, women didn't get the vote until after WWI in the UK. In NZ they got it in 1893 without using violence. The civil rights protests in the US in the 1960s resisted violence despite the horrific violence they were subjected to.

Trans "rights" are interesting, though, because they essentially already exist. Using the toilet that aligns with your feelings, not your body, isn't a right for anyone; being called by your preferred name or pronoun isn't a right for anyone. Having access to medicalised cosmetic procedures also isn't a right for anyone.

Societal change is slow, often far too slow to solve the inequalities recognised at the time. For political violence to happen, people have to believe that it is their only option, and that doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is not inevitable that inequality action has to be violent to be affective.

BTW, KJK was not physically attacked in Australia. She had a can of tomato soup poured over her in New Zealand

She thought she was going to die. Her security team said if they hadn't managed to bundle her out she would've been ripped to shreds.

Women have been battered and had their eyes blacked. It's not a secret.

Decapitate terfs, the only good terf is a dead terf, choke on my girl dick, the terf is a slur website, the wallpaper in J. K. Rowling's castle, Wes Streeting's office, the women at the EHRC having to move offices, burn it down outside buildings containing women, windows bashed, the police presence at every single GC woman's meeting. Hilary Cass not being safe on public transport.

That's just off the top of my head.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that trans ideology is a magnet for violent men.

Harassing women, entering their spaces, telling them to shut the fuck up about it, and calling it progressive, what's not to like?

They even like to call it Bash Back.

The endless, desperate word salad bollocks trying to defend it tho - it's almost rather comical.

I disagree that the ideology itself encourages violence; I believe that has been added on by the early adopters as a way of forcing people to kowtow to their feelings about themselves.

When this started, gay people didn't have equality in rights either, so it makes sense that gay men specifically in this area felt this was a way to get the same rights as women, at the very least.

Violence is an option, but rarely is the answer.

It’s no different to the Maoist movement of violence towards dissidents, people turning on their parents

I agree with this. It is a magnet for violent misoginistic pathetic disempowered men to lampshade their extreme hatred for women with a human rights cause.

Not to mention at the same event a 21 year old man punched a 71 year old woman in the face and was discharged without conviction for it 🤬