American Thought Leaders - James Lindsay and Logan Lancing Expose the Truth Behind Queer Theory

Episode Date: May 13, 2024

Sponsor special: Up to $2,500 of FREE silver AND a FREE safe on qualifying orders - Call 855-862-3377 or text “AMERICAN” to 6-5-5-3-2“They actually believe that all children are intrinsically queer, and that what’s happening is that normal society is ’socializing‘ them, which is a fancy word for ’brainwashing' them, to be normal, which means—for them—not queer, where queer is a political stance.”In this episode, I sit down with James Lindsay and Logan Lansing to discuss their new book, “The Queering of the American Child: How a New School Religious Cult Poisons the Minds and Bodies of Normal Kids.”“It took me less than one minute to find a whole suite of furry literature about children adopting ‘fursonas,’ or furry personas, and identifying not as human, explicitly underwritten by queer theory in the doctrine,” says Mr. Lancing.What is queer theory? Who are its biggest proponents? And what practical impact has it had on America’s youth, our institutions, and society at large?“What they define for a pedagogy right from the beginning in 1993, was a radical form of educative activism, implemented deliberately to interfere with, to intervene in the production of normalcy in school subjects, which is just technical gobbledygook from queer theory. That means we are going to use critical pedagogy as a method and we’re going to make sure kids do not turn out normal,” says Mr. Lancing. “They’re going to turn out deviant, abnormal, perverse—whatever it is that is positioned against the norm, that is the goal. And they laid that out. Right at the very beginning. They also added that their goal was to make it explicitly activist in nature, so there is no room for interpretation.”“There are no brakes on the train. Yesterday’s radical is today’s conservative. It has to keep moving towards the direction of completely dissolving normalcy, boundaries, and legitimacy. So, don’t be surprised if it gets a bit crazier than even children biting other children while they’re dressed as dogs and cats and wearing tails,” says Mr. Lancing.“And it was meant to bring about what Paulo Freire’s vision was: a next generation, non-Soviet, Marxist revolution in the children, based off of an education system he derived from Mao Zedong, in his own words. What Mao had done in the 1950s successfully with children, he imported into his method,” says Mr. Lindsay. “But, of course, we know that Mao used that in the mid-1960s as the basis to create his Red Guard that then went and did exactly what we see schoolchildren in America doing today. Can they read? Not really. Can they write? Not so much. How are they at math? Failing. However, they know to show up on the statehouse steps when there’s some policy they don’t like or when something happens, so that they can do a die-in or they can do some kind of show of activism.”Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guests, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

They actually believe that all children are intrinsically queer, and that what's happening is that normal society is socializing them, which is a fancy word for brainwashing them, to be normal, which means for them not queer, where queer is a political stance. In this episode, I sit down with James Lindsay and Logan Lansing to discuss their new book, The Queering of the American Child, how a new religious cult poisons the Minds and Bodies of Normal Kids. It took me less than one minute to find a whole suite of furry literature about children adopting fursonas

and identifying not as human explicitly underwritten by queer theory and the doctrine. What is queer theory? Who are its biggest proponents? And what practical impact has it had on America's youth, our institutions, and society at large? There are no brakes on the train. Yesterday's radical is today's conservative. It has to keep moving towards the direction of completely dissolving normalcy, boundaries, legitimacy. This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Janja Kellek. Before we start, I'd like to take a moment to thank the sponsor of our podcast, American Hartford Gold. As you all know, inflation is getting worse. The Fed raised rates for the fifth time this year, and Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is telling Americans to brace themselves

for potentially more pain ahead. But there is one way to hedge against inflation. American Hartford Gold makes it simple and easy to diversify your savings and retirement accounts with physical gold and silver. With one short phone call, they can have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside your IRA or 401k. American Hartford Gold is one of the highest rated firms in the country with an A-plus rating with a Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied clients. If you call them right now, they'll give you up to $2,500 of free silver and a free safe on qualifying orders. Call 855-862-3377. That's 855-862-3377. Or text American to 65532. Again, that's 855-862-3377. Or text American to 65532. Logan Lansing, James Lindsay, such a pleasure to have you on American

Thought Leaders. Thanks for having us. I'm glad to be here. Let's talk about childhood innocence. This is something I've been thinking a lot about, something you reference in your book, something that's kind of sacred, I think, in, I hope, most sane societies. Yet, you make the case that this is precisely what's targeted by queer theory, queer pedagogy. Explain that to me. Yeah, so childhood innocence is targeted by queer theory because fundamentally queer theorists do not believe childhood innocence exists. They think it's what's called a social construct to be technical. So they don't see anything wrong with targeting childhood innocence because they don't see

any barriers there that should prevent them from doing what they're trying to do with children. Actually, at a fundamental level, and we learned this from Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, who is a foundational queer theorist, that queer theory sees innocence and initiation as a fundamental binary that must be overcome. So all children are not innocent. All children, from the queer theory perspective, are initiated into some worldview. So innocence, in this respect, is just whatever normal people in society have illegitimately and unjustly and for self-serving purposes defined it to be so that they can protect children from

experiencing the queer that the queer theorists want them to experience so that they can grow up in turn out a certain way which is primarily what's called cis heterosexual so a person who identifies with the sex observed at birth which they would call sex assigned at birth and with heterosexual. So a person who identifies with the sex observed at birth, which they would call sex assigned at birth, and with heterosexuality. And the thing is that queer and gay are not the same. And this is something that has been wildly conflated as well. Maybe James, you could speak to that. They actually believe that all children are intrinsically queer and that what's happening is that normal society is socializing them, which is a fancy word for brainwashing them, to be normal,

which means for them not queer, where queer is a political stance. So the word queer is very distinct from being homosexual. In the foundational work where queer is defined as it's used in the word or the term queer theory. This is a book called Saint Foucault, referring to Michel Foucault, the postmodern philosopher. David Halperin wrote, and this is in 1995, a paragraph defining queer. And that paragraph starts with the words, unlike gay identity. And just by the typesetting, it turns out unlike gay identity is in giant, bold, you know, all caps at the beginning of this paragraph. So the first thing on the page in St. Foucault talking about what queer really means is it's not like being gay. If all children are thought to be intrinsically queer, that would include

straight children and gay children and anything else that they might imagine as John Money phrased it on the cover of his most famous book Gay Straight and Inbetween. So their idea is that unlike gay identity which is rooted in the positive fact means something true of what he calls homosexual object choice. Queer is not necessarily based in any positive truth or stable reality. In fact, it's nothing to do with who you are. He says it's defined positionally, which means politically, vis-a-vis the normal. He then goes on and says that it's an identity without an essence, which means it's not essential to who you are. Certainly, it's true that men are men and women are women, essentially. There is an undeniable biological reality to male and female.

It's likely true that some people are homosexual as a matter of essence. It's who they are. We don't know why that's who they are, necessarily. Queer is different. It has no essential connection to anything about the person, which means you cannot actually be queer. You can only act queer. It is a political stance. And he says, what's that political stance defined by? And this is his own words. He says it's defined by whatever is opposed, whatever is opposed to the normal, the legitimate, and the dominant. That's the definition of queer. So it is a political orientation that is against the idea of normalcy and legitimacy in the world. And like I said, their fundamental belief, and this has come from some of the

activists, one who said it directly on Twitter quite famously some years ago, goes by or is named Linds, like part of my last name, Amer. Linds Amer said that all children are queer. She said that we're not, she, I think, said that we're not after gay kids, we're after all kids, because all kids are intrinsically queer. That childhood innocence is sacred. In other words, set aside and protected, wholly, in a way. That has to be disrupted because otherwise it will straighten out, in her own words, sorry, in Hannah Dyer's words, it will straighten out kids if they're allowed to grow up within a construct of childhood innocence. So they want to queer that,

or in other words, disrupt that as early as possible so that the children can be brought up free of the socializing effects of normalcy. Well, speaking of the first lines of books or papers, the first line in your book, Logan, is American education is in the grip of a religious cult. Yeah, we wanted to come out with a statement because we believe it fundamentally to be true. Queer theory has sold itself in education for the last 30 years as an academic discipline that can be deployed in schools to make them more inclusive and equitable and to build cultures where all students feel like they belong. But even a cursory reading of the academic literature from queer theory, many of whom the authors we cite in the book, Michelle Foucault, Judith Butler, Hannah Dyer, David Halperin, reveals that queer theory is full of mystical teachings, confessions of faith, demands for purity, religious rites, rituals, and practices, a collective call for action and activism with children, and to go back to what James was just saying, a fundamentally unsettling belief of what human nature is and what our purpose in life should be. And the purpose of practicing queer theory, of getting others to join this cult through all these various methods that anyone familiar with cults will find typical, they're easily identifiable, is to convince primarily children that they are queer. And the only reason

they can't realize it is because normal people in society have illegitimately and unjustly defined their lifestyles, their behaviors, their love interests as normal and legitimate to the exclusion of everyone else who might choose to live in other ways. Therefore, there's a conflict at the heart of society and really at the heart of history that must be resolved. And the way queer theory sees it resolving is convincing people that they are queer, they've just forgotten it, they've been brainwashed out of it to grow up a certain way, and they need to develop this consciousness. We call it a queer consciousness, much like a class consciousness, but in a different domain, and start tearing away at all norms, all legitimate institutions, values, common sense, anything that can be defined,

categorized, that has a barrier around it, must be dissolved. Because in their view, if they can just do that long enough at the end of history, which all cults have views of the end of history, they'll live in a world where they can experience their queerness. They can investigate what's defined in the academic literature as their queer potentialities. It'll be a perfect world where no one is leveling expectations, norms, values, or judgments on them. They will be liberated to be and become queer. Now there's other reasons I think we could go into for why I think it's

justified as a cult, but if that doesn't sound like a cult doctrine, I don't know what does. Well, you know, it's one thing to explain it as you did, and I think it's quite compelling what you said. It's another thing to say that American education writ large is in its grip. It's hard to imagine how something like that would even happen. Well, you know, we've talked in the past, Jan, about the trend of critical pedagogy. And so American education, at least at the level of colleges of education, by their own telling, has been in the hands of critical pedagogy since 1992, which turns out to be roughly the same year that queer theory earned its name, give or take one or two.

And so critical pedagogy is this very different approach to education. It was developed originally, or the ideas that became critical pedagogy were developed originally by a Brazilian Marxist by the name of Paulo Freire. And his view was that the point of education should be, and again, I want to just harp on the religious and cult undertones of this word, the point of education should be what he called conscientization. In other words, to conscientize, to awaken, to woke somebody up to a different view of reality, which they consider to be the true view of reality that's hidden by broader society,

for queer theory, by normal society. And so the point of education is to awaken people to a different consciousness. Now, Paul Afreide, just to be very clear, explains his process of education for conscientization as literally a death and rebirth. He says that it's dying to who you were so you can be reborn on the side of the oppressed. He says, in fact, that it doesn't count, this new apprenticeship, he calls it, doesn't count unless you experience your own personal Easter. And in fact, he says that the Christian Easter is just another date on the calendar that's dead to its true potential. And he said, he's playing

puns, with no possibility of being resurrected. This is extremely strong indications of cult language. He was into liberation theology and he developed a method of so-called education and the purpose of critical pedagogy is actually simple. It is to use educational activity as an excuse to have political radicalizing conversations with children, to conscientize them, to wake them up. And now, by the critical pedagogue's own reckoning, in fact, Isaac Gottesman wrote a book that's very important reading if you want to understand what happened in education. It's called The Critical Turn in Education. He was a professor at Iowa State.

He's a Marxist. In the first sentence of the book, he says that all the 60s radicals went into education. Within a few paragraphs, he's talking about how by 1992, Paul O'Fredy's influence had arrived at where it is today. That's what he wrote in, say, 2016 or 15 when he published the book, which is to say everywhere. So the pipeline to produce teachers, to produce administrators for schools, to produce licensure, to produce accreditation, that entire pipeline was captured by critical pedagogy by the early 1990s. Well, what's contained within the critical constructivist epistemology that they use, and I know I'm very technical now, but just to say that

they have words for this. What's contained in that? Well, all I know I'm very technical now, but just to say that they have words for this. What's contained in that? Well, all of your critical theories of identity are the vehicles. What is the subtitle, as a matter of fact, of Isaac Gottesman's book, The Critical Turn in Education? The subtitle is, From Marxist Critique to Post-Structural Feminism to Critical Theories of Race. We're all familiar with critical race theory. Well, a critical theory of sex, gender, and sexuality would be called queer theory. And so queer theory is contained within that same model. Judith Butler is considered the kind of fairy godmother, that's my terminology for her, of queer theory. And she was a post-structuralist feminist. So this was all directed into education. I would even argue that most of it developed in education,

specifically to take over American schools to target American children with this cult awakening process that's meant to be a personal death and rebirth or resurrection and Easter for the children so that they wake up, as Paul O'Freddy put it, on the side of the oppressed in solidarity with them, giving up all of their old ways of thinking, all of their old assumptions and beliefs, and adopting new ones in solidarity. And to be really clear, he calls this a prophetic education. So the religious language is not at all ambiguous. And in the foreword to that book, which was written by his acolyte, Henry Giroux, he says, well, how is Paul O'Freddy prophetic? He says he's prophetic in the fact that he's calling us to build the kingdom

of God here on earth in solidarity with the oppressed through endless activism. And so it's hard not to see this as a religious cult, but, also a deliberate capturing of the American education system through the pipeline that creates all of the pieces, teachers, administrators, credentialing, licensing, accreditation. And that's a 30-year-old project now. You talk about the use of, you know, what we think of as education, for example, math class comes to mind, right? That the purpose of math class is not what the parents in most cases think is the purpose of math class. So maybe, Logan, if you could speak to that. Yeah, there's an eye-opening book that I read as part of my research for our book, and it's called Queering Critical Literacy and Numeracy for Social Justice, which essentially that's a mouthful.

But in academic jargon, what that means is we are going to apply Paulo Freire's method that James just talked about, this conscientization process, this teaching children how not to read and write, but teach them how to read their world in specific political Marxist ways and write the new world order that comes after. She's taking that method and applying it to math class. So what she's telling you right from the title is we're not going to learn math in this class. We are going to learn how to use math for social justice. And it was absolutely eye-opening because it really gave life to the mechanics of how this actually operates in classrooms. So just to give you one example. In this math class, the students, again, under the pretense of learning math,

are told to go and read various articles. And they're to select their own articles to make them engaging, which, again, comes directly from Freire. But some of the articles are also provided to them, and they're supposed to go read them as a group, come back with a math problem based on the article. And one of the examples the author provides that she provided these children who are in fourth and fifth grade was an article that compared

marriage equality laws by state with suicide rates by state, ostensibly so the children could go read this and then create a math problem that drew a link between the two, which is wholly inappropriate. rates by state, ostensibly so the children could go read this and then create a math problem that drew a link between the two, which is wholly inappropriate. And what she learned, and she admits this explicitly in the paper, is that the children usually did not finish their math problems because they were emotional wrecks. All they wanted to do was discuss the politics of marriage equality, transgender health care, and the various other intersectional oppressive forces in society, which she writes about a lot throughout. So clearly what I saw

in there, and what I had learned previously from James's work, is this is Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy applied in the context to use math as a mediator for a political lesson, and in this case, a queer political lesson, so children can be initiated into queer theory. And this is not new. By 93, the first two authors to take critical pedagogy and smash it together with queer theory as a way to bring queer theory into schools was Penn. And that was called Queering Pedagogy Praxis, which is a Marxist word for activism, makes imperfect, but with a dash through I am imperfect. So it's a pun, I am perfect. And what they defined queer pedagogy

right from the beginning in 1993 as was a radical form of educative activism implemented deliberately to interfere with to intervene in the production of normalcy in school subjects which is just technical gobbledygook from queer three that means we are going to use critical pedagogy as method and we're going to make sure kids do not turn out normal. They're going to turn out deviant, abnormal, perverse. Whatever it is that is positioned against the norm, that is the goal. And they laid that out right at the very beginning.

They also added that their goal was to make it explicitly activist in nature. So there is no room for interpretation. From the very beginning, this was designed to initiate these children into this way of viewing the world. It's very clear in Paul Freire's writing on education. He says explicitly in his book from the mid-1980s called The Politics of Education, he says explicitly that for the revolution to be authentic it must be perpetual. So that's what you're talking about is that the new normal becomes a new right wing immediately, the new status quo that has to be overturned.

He says otherwise it will become sclerotic and bureaucratic, and you're going to have to have another revolution anyway. And so I think he had in mind Soviet Union and how that became a bureaucratic nightmare. And he nods very explicitly to the revolution in Mao's China as his inspiration for his education method that's given in the first chapter of his most famous book called Pedagogy of the Oppressed from 1970. So they know what they're doing. They're building this out. But I want to put a little color on this idea. So Logan gave the example from that book about drawing, first of all, drawing correlation is not really a math topic, having taught math for fourth and fifth graders, but drawing correlations between, you know, LGBT policy or whatever and suicidality. What the Freudian critical pedagogy method boils down to at its core is what Paulo called

the generative themes method of education. So when Logan said that they're supposed to pick things that are engaging to them or they're provided things that are engaging to them. So the idea is to get something that's engaging not just to their minds, but to their levels of excitement, to their emotions. It's supposed to stimulate their hopes and fears. They're actually explicit about this. It's supposed to be emotionally engaging to them. It's supposed to be meaningful to them. What Paul O'Fready said is from their real lived experience, from their concrete existence. And what the goal there was is to bring up this topic, tie it into so-called LGBT topics, and then to implant into fourth graders the idea of suicide. And so that's a generative theme. Now they're thinking

about suicide where they may not have been thinking about suicide before. What, fourth graders thinking about, you know, killing themselves. And now this is a topic that's in their world. Their innocence has been stolen from them by this process. But this is how subtle this can be. This is a real example from a real teacher training that happened in Indiana. Jennifer McWilliams brought it to my attention after having gone through the training herself. And it is a math example for second graders, and it was a word problem example. I'll just very quickly relate it to you. It's Johnny is riding in the car on his way to an amusement park with his mom and dad. The amusement park is 50 miles away. They've already driven 30 miles. How much further is there to go? And I used to teach math,

so I know that the point of the word problem is extract the numbers, set up the subtraction, solve the subtraction problem, report back in words. They have 20 miles left to go. And so fine. But that's not what the teachers are meant to do. They have to make it engaging. And to engage with the generative themes in the word problem, they say, hey kids, who's ever been to an amusement park? Now the kids are excited. Some raise their hands, some don't. Now you have a difference. You have what they would call a stratified population. Or what Marx would see as a basis for conflict. The conflict of history is now playing out in the classroom.

Oh, why is it that some of you have been and some of you haven't been to amusement parks? And you are taught as teachers to prime the students until somebody says, not everybody can afford it, my parents won't let me because I'm not old enough, and then you can have these discussions. Well, what can we do to make it so everyone can afford to go? Is parental authority the best way to decide who gets to go? But it's not just amusement park, which is a very innocuous term that's generative here. Mom and dad is generative here. And there you can end up with a queer theory conversation. Does everybody have a mom and a dad? What are some different family models? And then you're off to the races. Or you could actually

prime off of car and have all the environmentalist sustainable development goal conversations that they lay out in what they call education for sustainable development, which is a big push now. So these generative themes are tucked throughout, suicidality being one of them in the example from the book that Logan just gave. But this is how that method works. And it was meant to bring about what Paul O'Fredy's vision was, was a next generation, non-Soviet Marxist revolution in the children based off of an education system he derived from Mao Zedong in his own words what Mao had done in the 1950s successfully with children he imported into his method but of course we know that that Mao used that in the mid-1960s as the basis to create his red guard that then went and did exactly what we

see school children in America doing today. Can they read? Not really. Can they write? Not so much. How are they at math? Failing. However, they know to show up on the statehouse steps when there's some policy they don't like or when something happens so that they can do a die-in or they can do some kind of show of activism. And just like Logan said, all the experiments that have happened throughout the world with this form of education successfully radicalize kids. They make them into emotional wrecks. And then in the words of the activists themselves, the goal is when they enter into that crisis is to structure the environment around them so they resolve the crisis productively. That's a direct quote from Kevin Kumashiro.

And then they resolve the crisis productively means by adopting the worldview of the woke cult in this case. You know, you think to yourself, how the heck did Drag Queen Story Hour become a thing that is like people are fighting for? Of course, these days, a lot of people are fighting against it. Right. But somehow it's just like this is the right and good thing that children should be exposed to. Yeah, absolutely. So Drag Queen Story Hour is a program, how it sells itself is under what it calls explicitly in its own literature. There's a paper James Lindsay discovered called Drag Pedagogy, the Playful Practice of Imagination that kind of blew up a couple of years ago because it's the justification for putting drag queens into schools. And in that

paper, they say, we use tropes of empathy to sell what we're doing, but we just use that to justify its educational value. That is a direct quote. They come right out and say, we're lying about how we're getting this into schools, but the purpose of getting it into schools and having a drag queen, a highly usually sexualized male reading books in front of children is to, in our words in the book, is to initiate them into the cult. But just the justification is that these people are persecuted. Make sure that society accepts them for who they are. That's the ostensible purpose. Ostensibly. And it's also, in their own words, because a drag queen reading to you in their own words

is less boring. It's dialed up because of the colors. And this is how a lot of the surface of queer theory gets to children. It's done through colorful cartoons like the Gender Man, Bread Man, and the Gender Unicorn. Lots of colors, how they describe it is it's dialed up. But the purpose of it, and they use the technical term that James has been discussing, is as a generative theme to what they call alternative modes of kinship. Now, they don't go explain that much further than to say that through alternative modes of kinship, children can be taught to live queerly. I think, James, you've gotten into some issues over what you call that over the last couple of years,

but what it really amounts to is grooming. And I don't't necessarily and I'm not going to speak for you James I personally don't necessarily mean that as sexual grooming but certainly at a at a bare minimum as cult or worldview grooming why is a highly sexualized man in lipstick and this colorful costume reading books in front of me why is a man dressed like a woman? And of course, the point is for them to then ask themselves, well, if he can do that, well, can I? He's talking about his gender identity. Do I have a gender identity? And again, what is absolutely wicked, in my opinion about this, is that in their own literature, they say we use tropes of empathy and inclusion to get this into schools, but that is just to justify the educational value.

And this is a huge problem because cities like New York City's Department of Education, in the first six months, I believe, of 2022, they had over 49 tri-queen story hour performances in their public schools. We've mentioned Judith Butler's name a few times, fairy godmother of queer theory. And Judith Butler's entire corpus of work can really be boiled down to kind of a few things. But one of them is a six-word sentence that is, drag is life, life is drag. Her technical term for it is gender performativity. In other words, everybody is always performing, acting, performing their gender. Her account would be that you're born, you have whatever

sexual anatomy you have when you're born. The doctor observes this. This becomes a sex assigned at birth that might be a right or wrong answer about who you are. And then society, which is called the theory of socialization, or sometimes more deeply, it's embedded in what's called the social reproduction hypothesis, that society is going to reproduce itself from one generation to the next, because society is now going to socialize you, if you're born a boy, to wear boy clothes and do boy things. And if you're born a girl, to wear girl clothes and do girl things and that's actually what makes you become in the kind of very old Simone de Beauvoir one is not born but becomes a woman that's what makes you become a male or female is that you're doing a drag act all the time now what does that mean for a drag performer well the drag performer is awakened they know that

life is a drag act and they're leaning into that. So they're this now awakened guru who's now coming into the classroom to initiate children into the possibility of performing their gender in any or all circumstances or performing another gender or trying them on like a dialed up outfit. Here's an example, by the way, of the dialed up that's horrifying for people when they find this out. We're all familiar with the flags. How many flags can there possibly be? We know the rainbow flag. We know the one with the wedge cutting in and some of them have like a circle cut in. There's a million flags, but there's also flags for like specific sexualities. There are all these rainbow colors. There's a trans flag that's the pink and blue and white. And then there's the

bisexual flag, which is like this kind of red and blue and purple, hundreds of sexualities. There's flags, right? Well, did you know there's a straight flag? And so imagine that you're a child in, say, first grade or kindergarten, five or six years old, and you say, we're going to look at the different flags for the different sexualities as part of comprehensive sexuality education, which came from the United Nations, by the way. We're going to look at sexualities. Here are all these colorful flags. Which one are you? And you have this bright rainbow flag and this red, blue, purple flag and these pink flag, all these bright colors. The straight flag is stripes of gray. It's just gray. It's the most boring possible flag. So now these kids are

presented with a generative opportunity to pick a flag. And then, well, what does that mean? What is demisexual? You're dealing with a six-year-old, right? And so you start telling them all these fantastical things about it. And it turns out that the drag queen and drag queen story hour plays the same role. That the purpose of the drag queen is, the word they use is a generative educational opportunity. The presence of the drag queen and his performance specifically are meant to generate the idea of a liberation or liberatory potential in the child's mind and to stoke those conversations. And even in states where these things have been banned, which is a number of states now in schools, there's usually a loophole in the law overall that's called the doctrine of spontaneous utterance.

So if the student provides a spontaneous utterance, if they say something, then the teacher has license to talk about it, even if it's a prohibited topic. And that becomes this kind of backdoor for them to continue having these political conversations, even where they've been banned. So if the drag queen is, even if they just see it on TV and they happen to say, I saw a drag show last night. Now it was a spontaneous utterance. The student brought it up. Now the teacher can talk about it. So if they can find circumstances by which they put a drag queen, say at a county library, and then the kids go and then they come to school and talk about it on Monday. Now the

teacher has the opportunity to go into some of the lesson and to start doing some of the conscientization potential. And all of this is very deliberate and very by design, but it all ties back to exactly the same thing, which is this overcoming of childhood innocence through the introduction of inappropriate themes that are then going to be contoured and structured in a productive direction, which means to radicalize our children, not into a red guard

specifically like in China, but maybe into a rainbow guard. Are all teachers actually doing this? All teachers do not do this. Many of them do it, I would argue, and I think we make a good case for this, without knowing they're doing it. They've only been taught to use Paulo Freire's generative methods, which are no longer called critical pedagogy generally. It's usually got a title by the name of culturally relevant pedagogy, which comes out of the same literature and the person who not coined the term but popularized it was Gloria Ladson Billings. In 1995, she published a paper towards a culturally relevant pedagogy, explicitly drawing reference to Freire and the critical consciousness raising process. Most teachers have been taught culturally relevant teaching or pedagogy,

because these are things that are fundamentally pushed down from the Department of Education itself and its Office of Civil Rights. It's deeply ingrained, this queer theory itself, into all of these credentialing bodies into the Department of Education. It's just not called queer theory. If you're a parent looking at your children's assignments saying, is there queer theory in my child's schools? You're not going to find it written on an assignment, but it's certainly happening, usually through a conversational style, a back and forth. Paulo Freire's dialogical process is the technical term for it. But a lot of teachers don't know that. They think, I believe, they're

being empathetic and inclusive because they've been sold a lie. And this is, if people aren't familiar, Marxists are very good at redefining words without telling you. They share words, but they've got a different dictionary. They employ the Mott and Bailey strategy rather well. And actually, there's a one of the most ridiculous papers I read during while I was researching this book was called Navigating Parental Resistance. And in this, these two educators explicitly deal with the ways that they overcome parental objections to what they're doing, which is queer pedagogy in the classroom with children. And so

in the paper, the two methods they detail are number one, couching queer pedagogy and larger learning objectives. So they explicitly state they put queer pedagogy in a learning objective like becoming a problem solver. So when the parents come and they object, they say, well, we're just teaching your children to be problem solvers. You know, we're not going to talk too much about we're discussing solving society's problems as informed by queer theory, like transgender discrimination or the fact that your child may have a gender identity that you don't know about. We're just teaching them to become problem solvers in general. So who has a problem with that? Who can possibly have that?

And, of course, that works on many parents. Parents, by the way, in the paper, they call significant gatekeeping mechanisms to the queer work that they need to do with children. They say parents represent status quo power relations of the normal society trying to prevent this from happening. So that sounds right, actually. I mean, I agree with that. That's the job. So what they're admitting in that, though, is that they know this is wrong. They know they shouldn't be doing this. The other method, just to detail quickly, as they say explicitly, they use the authority of their mandated curriculum from their Department of Education

as cover for, again, their queer work. Specifically, the example they cite is one dad had an issue with his daughter being introduced to Alex Geno's George, which is a book about a transgender 10-year-old. So the teacher says, well, it's mandated. This is my mandated curriculum. We have to do that. Now, of course, she doesn't need to use that book to accomplish her mandates that she has for English language arts education, but that's what she hides behind. And what's really ghastly about it, the line that really cut at my heart

as a parent, was she said, when the student returned to school the next day after having to complete the assignment, she said, you know, how did it go last night with your dad helping you with the assignment? Did he help you? And the little girl responded, yeah, he helped me with commas. And the authors celebrate this as an achievement, as parental resistance overcome. And they say that it's an excellent way to help parents, direct quote, come to terms with the queer education their child is receiving. They use the word palatable. It's a great way to make it palatable for parents who don't want this to happen. So they explicitly know what they're doing.

Some teachers and then many teachers, I think, just don't know that they're doing it because it's hidden under a banner of inclusive teaching. Really queer theory in schools is almost synonymous with inclusive policies, practices, and procedures. Just to be a little technical, this is very familiar to a lot of people and so naming it may help clarify what they experience. What they're doing is they're switching levels of abstraction strategically to confuse people. So oh no, we're just dealing with mandatory curriculum which might be to deal with reading lessons, but the problem was taking place on a lower level of abstraction, a more concrete example.

I don't want you teaching the book George to my daughter. But then they abstract up one level in order to get around parental resistance. So what they're doing is manipulating. The other example was a conceptual jump as well. They're modifying which level of abstraction that they're talking on at any given time so that they can get away with doing some specific you don't want them to do by hiding behind some generality. Oh, we're just problem solving. And they don't tell you, well, there's a lot of meanings. Problem solving could take on a lot of contexts in a more specific sense. So it could be solving society's problems. It could be solving society's problems using queer theory. That's

even more concrete. So we're two levels down and they say, oh, we're just working on problem solving. And when they do that, what they're actually doing to steal the word from Marx is they're mystifying. They are intentionally mystifying. If they have written a document using strategies to overcome parental resistance to what they're doing, there are many teachers who are opposed to this utterly. There are a lot, I think, like Logan said, who are trapped by this value system of inclusion, not able to discern that inclusion means including things that are inappropriate. And if you don't, you've got something wrong with you.

You're a bigot or some moral failing or intellectual failing. But at the same time, there are a small body of people, probably in most school districts, if not all of them, who are activists, who know deliberately exactly what they're doing. And it turns out not to take that many to do that. We describe this sort of in the book, not specifically about this, in the structure of cults, is that you have people who really know what the cult's about. We call them the inner circle. Then you have people who understand and are caught by the cult doctrine and are really, they've intellectualized it. They've rationalized it. We call them the inner school. That's actually borrowing from the Chinese term neijia, which is inside school, the disciples. And then most of the people that are caught in

this are actually socially and emotionally caught up in it. And that would be an outer school or an outside school, weijia in the Chinese, if I have it right. And so this structure, most of your teachers in schools are either going to be repellent to this or they're caught up through policy or through values, not really meaning to do harm. But they think it's just, well, I mean, the title of one of Gloria Ladson Billings' papers from 1995 was, but that's just good teaching. Then you have some who have rationalized and intellectualized it. It's a smaller percentage. If I had to guess, we're talking the 80-20 rule probably applies. And then there's a very small number, usually in any given setting, who are hardened activists who are driving the

agenda. And it doesn't take very many of them with this kind of structure to be able to push this agenda in enough classrooms to create an inside-outside dynamic. You have a pressure from outside activists, you need to make the school more inclusive, we need to do this, it's coming down from the government. And then you have an inside dynamic where some proportion of the teachers, some proportion of the students have been brought into it and they start demanding it. They demand accommodation for their queer personalities or their queer identities, as they call them, or whatever else. They demand accommodation. So now you have this thing and they lean on it and they say, oh, well, we're just responding to student demand. It's a different domain,

but there was just a publication from the NEA the other day, the teachers union saying there's a great inside demand for more environmental education by the students themselves. Four out of five dentists agree. They only found four in the world, but out of the five they chose, four agreed. So they find a few students who demand that they want or need this, or who they assess in some way through relentless surveying. Oh, well, you might have gender confusion, so you need this kind of inclusive classroom. And then this very small number of people become a demand base that creates an inside agitation and combined with an outside pressure. And it just squeezes the organization into changing, often adopting radical policies and training at extraordinary expense very rapidly

before anybody can even know what's going on. When you couple that with the fact that they're trying to hide it from parents that it's happening at all, like quite explicitly that they say that they have to hide it from parents. They are caught on tape talking about how they have to hide it from parents. When you combine those things together, you see that this is a very deliberate maneuver. Now, just to be very clear and fair one more time, not all teachers are deliberately involved. Very few are probably deliberately involved. And some teachers are putting up a good fight. I wish they were a little more vocal and had some kind of an organization

that they could cleave to, kind of like Moms for Liberty, but for teachers or something like that, where they could come out and, you know, really support each other and articulate what's going on in the schools from the inside. It's great we have accounts like Libs of TikTok and others exposing it, but it'd be even better if we had actual insiders showing what's happening in the schools and how it got there and what they're expected to do with that level of clarity. There are a few that I actually communicate with quite regularly. They send me, you know, here's the thing that we just discovered. The HR departments, not just in education, but kind of everywhere have, and I would say everywhere, especially in large organizations, maybe not so much in small organizations. selecting a disproportionate number of people who are either the true believers or the ones who kind of understand how it works and at least performatively share, you know, structure their

resumes or know the talking points and so forth, which, you know, obviously would also, you know, push the whole system along and kind of grow it, so to speak? Yes. You know, there's a little bit of an either or, and I'm saying yes. I think that it was simultaneously organic and deliberate. And we have to acknowledge that the Long March through the Institutions was not a conspiracy theory. It was a deliberate strategy. Rudi Deutschke named it in 1966. What was he referring to when, and he was a Marxist, what was he referring to as the first example of the successful long march to the institutions? He wasn't riffing off of Antonio Gramsci, who had not been translated out of the Italian and was still held by the Soviets. He was referring, and he's the father of cultural Marxism, who said to infiltrate the institutions.

He was referring to Mao Zedong's successful infiltration of institutions to control Chinese society when he took over starting in 1949. And so the long march for the institutions is actually real. And then it was echoed in 1972 by the most famous and influential of the radical leftists of the day, Herbert Marcuse, in his less read book, Counter-Revolution and Revolt, which was after the attempt in 1968 to throw everything off failed, he got all mad and had to say, well, the counter-revolution has come, and now we have to revolt against that. And so he writes this relatively short book and says explicitly, naming Rudy Doitschke by name, naming the Long March to the institutions by name, and says this is exactly what we should do. We should go into the professions. We should become computer programmers. And in particular, he says we should go into

education at all levels. So there is a deliberate pressure from the activists themselves to take these positions, including HR or the equivalent, whatever that happens to be in these kind of institutional apparatuses. They want this. And I just want to jump in, like Marcuse was no sort of like casual side intellectual. He was a rock star. He was the rock star. Yeah. He is considered the father of the new left. So basically all leftism since the Vietnam War, he's considered the intellectual progenitor of all of it. And I mean, I've done a podcast, in fact, titled We Live in Herbert Marcuse's World. And so I think that he was extraordinarily influential. So he called for this. So you have the activists trying to get in. We see that echoed, like I mentioned earlier, in Isaac

Gottesman's first sentence of The Critical Turn in Education. Where have all the 60s radicals gone? He says, not to the yuppiedom and not to the religious cults, to the classroom. So that happened. So there is this, and they disproportionately, being in a cult, pick their own, whether it's that they're deliberately doing it or whether it's that they are finding people who share what appear to be identical values to theirs or similar values to theirs and preferentially choosing them. Simultaneously, the environment, the HR environment changed radically. A lot of conservatives like to say with the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, but that's not correct. What is correct is that civil rights law was very radically and rapidly reinterpreted.

I think when you read civil rights law, it's pretty clear on its face that you have these protected categories. Sex, can't discriminate by sex. Race, you can't discriminate by race. It doesn't say which races. It doesn't say which direction the sex discrimination can only discriminate against females. There's none of that in there. It's very clear that these are categories that cannot be discriminated upon. In 1971, there was a very important Supreme Court decision called Griggs v. Duke Power. It was about race and it set up the doctrine of interpretation that's called disparate impact. Sparing the details of the court case, the long and short is that if there is some disproportionality or what in the modern parlance in inequity and outcomes. So you have, for example, more white people than black

people proportionally being able to get to management, or that was specifically the case, that case, then even if you can find no evidence of discrimination in, say, the test or the interviewing process or anywhere, you can find no evidence of any discrimination, you can assume it must be there by default, by the fact of disparate outcomes and so all of a sudden we went from a literally 14th amendment equal protection clause understanding of the civil rights act this is by 1971 so just a few years later to a what doesn't exist in the 14th amendment an equitable protection clause that sets up the entire diversity, equity, and inclusion industry that really did. It developed overwhelmingly within kind of the HR field, within the kind

of managerial field. But that created a legal doctrine that overwhelmingly strengthened the pressure on institutions to bend toward bids for diversity, equity, and inclusion over time. I mean, affirmative action, of course. Yes, it's all based off of that. And I know we're talking primarily about queer theory, but that was in the space in which critical race theory was developed. Critical race theory got its name in 1989. So it's queer theory in 1990 or 1991. These doctrines were developing in that space and critical race theory was developed explicitly, read their own writings from the 70s and 80s leading up to the birth of the field,

to increase access to affirmative action. It's very, very clear in the book Critical Race Theory, the key writings that form the movement, the term affirmative action is used something like 400 times. It's very clear that they're very concerned with that particular legal doctrine. And they use the disparate impact of Griggs versus Duke power overwhelmingly specifically to advance that. And that became law in 19, was it 91? As Thomas Sowell very eloquently outlines, right, in his work, it's a preposterous idea to believe that disparate outcomes mean discrimination. Ibram Kendi's bread and butter is this particular trick, which is to set you up to where you don't have any good options. In the parlance, it's called an affordance trap. They afford you too few interpretations for the data. So what Ibram Kendi says, and he says this all the time in his talks, and he says it all the time in his

books, in his articles, is, for example, with testing. He says, well, if there are disparate outcomes in the test, either there's something wrong with the test, aka it's racist, or you're saying there's something wrong with black people, aka you're racist. So those are the only two options he affords you. So now you're in this affordance wrong with black people, aka you're racist. So those are the only two options he affords you. So now you're in this affordance trap. This is precisely the argument that's used specifically to queer theory in schools in regards to gender identity and mental health outcomes. So the affordance is either children are discriminated against and that's why they've got poor mental health outcomes. It would have to be that either children are discriminated against, they have poor mental health outcomes, or you're saying that

you're not inclusive enough and that's why they have poor mental health outcomes. Yeah, precisely. So basically the long and short of it is the reason children, the mental health outcomes are problems, psychopathologies, trauma, that stuff doesn't precede the gender identity that is caused because the gender identity is not being included. They don't feel like they belong in the school community. That's been a huge trap that a lot of people have fallen into because they, many teachers like we discussed, are empathetic and they want all of their children to feel like they're included and belong.

And so when they get a bunch of data thrown at them with these affordance traps and they say, well, clearly there's a disparity here. The children who have adopted a different gender identity than the sex they were assigned at birth or the gender they were assigned at birth have these terrible mental health outcomes. So there must be some discrimination in here. We're not accounting more. We need to include more queer theory into the school. We need more inclusive policies. So we see it there. As opposed to if you were to actually help them with their mental health issue, the situation would resolve.

Right. It's inverting symptom and cause. that say a gender identity disorder as they used to be called that is a symptom of other underlying mental health conditions or a response to previous trauma which you'll find many people provide tremendous evidence that that's very frequently not necessarily always but very frequently what's going on so rather than saying that gender identity disorder is a symptom of an underlying mental health or trauma based disorder they're saying that it is in fact that the gender identity disorder is the cause of the other comorbid mental health disorder. And they're also saying, how dare you say that?

Exactly. Right. And so there's something wrong with you, stupid and evil, particularly if you disagree. This is precisely the logic behind the DSM-5 changing in 2013, too, to classify sex confusion, which is what it really amounts to in children, from being a gender identity disorder, as in a disorder of your identity, something's wrong with the internal processes and you don't really know what you should identify as and you're off track and not normal to one of gender dysphoria where it's we are no longer trying to help you overcome address the root causes of your your mental health issues or whatever's causing the sex confusion now this is truly exquisite what has happened in the dsm uh because and the dsm just for the benefit of our audiences that's the diagnostic and statistical manual of psychiatric disorders, that's the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. So it is the gold standard book for understanding and diagnosing and recommending treatment for psychiatric disorders. identify the definition of gender dysphoria, which replaces the previous gender identity disorder, is the distress associated with having a perceived mismatch between sex and gender expression.

The disorder itself is the distress. And so the resolution to that is not to treat whatever's underlying cause, as Logan said, but is rather to ameliorate the distress. And the pathway that they've decided is the only way to ameliorate the distress is affirmation. We always hear that, gender-affirming care. We have to affirm, we have to celebrate belonging, inclusion. These are all words that are related, but specifically, the pathway to treatment is given as affirmation, which in the, if this was addiction literature, we'd call enablement. But you have to affirm the gender confusion or sex confusion of the child in order to reduce the distress. That's the entire corrupt understanding of this problem that has now gone like an epidemic among young people, especially young girls.

You affirm them when they repeat queer theory, and you correct them when they don't repeat queer theory. And so in some sense, you're pulling them in through exploiting their distress, which means that their trauma, you're exploiting that trauma specifically to bring them further along into the doctrine in the name of medical care. It's the only condition in all of psychological medicine. It's the only condition that's treated that way. And the reason is very simple. Why is it this? It's because queer theory has captured not just our schools,

but also our professional institutions like the American Psychological Association, which promotes this line relentlessly, the American Psychiatric Association, which is even kind of more strongly devoted to it, American Medical Association. You name the professional organization, the Endocrine Society, they are all captured, these professional organizations across the board. The way the American Psychological Association characterizes anything outside of affirmation is conversion therapy. So if you are not affirming the cult identity, which is what it really is, of a child

who has significant problems that need to be addressed to help them, that's the most wicked thing about this. These are kids that have been traumatized and they're hurt or something wrong and we need to help them. But all of these organizations are saying to hell with that. That's conversion therapy trying to help them resolve those issues. You must, to your point, affirm. You have to. And multiple states are not just threatening to, but literally taking away the children of parents who don't do this. It's not just that states like California and many others have set up as sanctuary states. The case, it's now a very famous case of Adam Vina in Los Angeles County

has lost his son because his, I think, ex-wife started taking the son down the path of transition and he disagreed. He's not affirming. And so now he has a restraining order against his son, technically, has a restraining order against him, and he hasn't seen his son in years. So this isn't something hypothetical. It's actually the law has now gotten involved that you are doing child abuse if you aren't affirming. Why? Because it's written in the gold standard psychological care textbook that the goal is to ameliorate the distress associated with,

which means dragging into the cult doctrine through this practice of affirmation. It's the injury of development. I've spoken with a number of detransitioners on the show, and all of them describe a situation. I mean, I imagine it like they've become apostates. This speaks to the sort of the cult characteristics of this ideology of the system, right? I want to get you to comment on that. But the other thing is obviously recently we've had, you know, Miyake's WPath files work which has shown how

ideological a lot of this is. There is that there isn't, you know, a strong medical basis and medicine for it. And frankly, this CAST report that came out even more recently, similarly, and shows these circular frames of reference where they cite each other's papers to prove all of which don't have a basis in actual medicine. I mean, I'm maybe going a little bit overboard in saying that, but that's the sense I get. I haven't read the whole report in little bit overboard in saying that, but that's the sense I get. I haven't read the whole report in detail. So maybe if you could comment on those two items as we start to finish up here. Yeah, I think we really need to pay a lot of attention to

detransitioners. And that is because just like someone who may be a Scientologist, you see how difficult it is for them to leave what I believe is the cult they're in. When detransitioners decide to turn away from the doctrine of queer theory, they are viciously, viciously attacked. Immediately, their stories are no longer credible. Immediately, they never really felt it on the inside. Immediately, they're a liar. They must be relentlessly attacked and shunned. So we need to support them because it is with detransitioners that we see that it is wholly unethical and certainly not clinically efficacious to try and get consent at all, let alone informed

consent from children before you give them a cascade of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and potentially removing their breast and doing genital surgeries on them. Because we have evidence in detransitioners that they certainly regret it. And they all say the same thing. Where were the adults? I couldn't possibly have given my informed consent. I didn't know anything about sex or sexuality. My mind was still forming. How did you let this happen to me? So I think, briefly, to your point, we need to listen to detransitioners. I think we need to elevate them because they expose the cult dynamics of queer theory. If you listen to them, they talk about the manipulations. They talk about all of the dynamics that kept them in the cult. And if parents can learn those, hopefully they can

prevent their children from falling prey to the same thing. And then to the broader circular reasoning and citations, what all of these organizations do is that they reference each other for their policies and procedures. So the policies and procedures aren't actually rooted in objective scientific analysis because again, queer theory does not care about science and objective truth. It doesn't think it exists. So they reference each other. So there is no science that's behind it. There's just cult doctrine putting it out there. I often tell people or I ask them, the Endocrine Society, the APA, all of these, they say the same thing. Where do you think they got the idea of gender identity or gender expression? Where did they get these terms from?

And people say, well, what do you mean? And I say, you've got to ask that question because those terms all come from queer theory. So it is pure ideology with no relation to objective fact or science. Clearly, some kids have sex confusion. I am not saying that that is not the case. You can give a concrete example of that. He mentioned the Endocrine Society and WPATH. Well, it's not well known that the preponderance of the leadership of the Endocrine Society currently are WPATH members. So WPATH will cite the Endocrine Society and the Endocrine Society will cite WPATH. And that's a chain of two.

But imagine if you had four or five researchers or entities, so this is just hypothetical, but imagine that WPATH cites the American Medical Association, which has a group of activists that put something out. And then that cites the Endocrine Society and then that cites the American Academy of Pediatrics and then that cites WPATH. And you can get the circle a little of activists that put something out. And then that cites the Endocrine Society, and then that cites the American Academy of Pediatrics, and then that cites WPATH.

And you can get the circle a little bit bigger that way. This is the mechanism of that kind of circular logic exposed by the CAST report in particular, this idea laundering, as Brett Weinstein originally called it some years ago. And that's ultimately where the postmodern philosophers called this legitimation by pyrology, which is a very fancy way of saying manufactured consensus, that they invent the belief that everybody believes this by making it look official on paper with lots of citations.

But the citations, if you try to say, well, where did it all go back to? And it just kind of, if you trace it, you end up going in a circle. You come back to the same people in the same organizations. And that's what the same people in the same organizations. And that's what the Cass Report was showing. I think these two things, the WPATH files and the Cass Report, are extremely important. We should be paying attention to this. We need the United States and Canada to back off from this. They're probably the two most aggressive countries and still pushing queer theory-der derived and gender ideology, as we call it, derived ideas into

specifically education and medicine. But the point about detransitioners is beautiful and very important. Detransitioners actually reveal something very important about the entire phenomenon, at least of transgender, and minors in particular. The question is, okay, so let's say we have a girl, maybe it's our friend Chloe Cole. And so at some point, Chloe Cole was 100% convinced that she was a boy. And that was her internal feeling, that was her truth, right? But then now she's 100% convinced in alignment with physical reality that she is a girl. One of two things is true. One of the things is that her internal sense of having been a boy during that phase, which

she was one hundred percent convinced of, was never veridical. The other is that it's simply not possible to do an accurate diagnosis. There's nothing upon which a diagnosis could be based because it could later change. And so what you have then is trying to treat what amounts to a psychiatric condition as a physical condition, as something that is rooted in her essence, to be a little specific. But we already heard from David Halperin in The Definition of Queer that it's an identity. Queer is an identity without an essence. It's not located in the body anywhere. It's not even located in the brain anywhere. So what you have is either they're fundamentally wrong about the nature of gender identity because Chloe was born female, 100%

convinced she was male, at which point everybody was expected to say, well, she's 100% accurate in her own assessment about herself, and then later said, wait, I was wrong, which means the gender identity thing cannot possibly be this kind of concrete thing. It's ephemeral. It's mystical or even spiritual. Or if we want to back away from that and say, say well that's not what they're saying in the first place they're saying that it's you know maybe it is a little bit subjective

it's subjective and objective mixed together and so maybe it could change again later or like Logan said oh she was just mistaken or lying in particular lying well then what that means is it's not possible to diagnose it all you can say is what the DSM has folded and given into is that she's experiencing some kind of distress related to her sense of gender. And they, like I said earlier, inverted symptom and cause in order to justify a treatment. But this is very important because the existence of detransitioners at the very least says it's not possible for these doctors to accurately diagnose a condition

meriting permanent treatments like cross-sex hormones, as they're called, or puberty blockers or surgeries. Because it's that it cannot be known whether or not it is veridical or non-veridical. There was recently a paper that came out in something like the Australia, Asia, it's a very strange title of the journal, but this paper recently came out saying that gender-affirming care is specifically, they said, not compatible with ethics, specifically because it cannot distinguish between pathological and non-pathological etiologies of gender dysphoria.

In other words, when is it the cause and when is it the symptom? A single detransitioner at all says that this diagnostic method is unreliable. And in fact, that there are many easily demonstrates that it's simply not possible. It's witchcraft, witch doctors deciding based on the sacred science of queer theory, who's veridically trans and who's not. If you said, I yawn for the next five minutes, I'm trans, they'd say you're lying. They can tell somehow through the magic of queer theory, because they know you don't accept the doctrine. But if you committed your life to it and made sacrifices to the cult well then you're probably really doing it as I was preparing for this talk which I very

much appreciate you both being here with me I was given this report of a group of students basically kind of walking out of their school because furry identified children were basically harassing them, pouncing on them, biting them. This actually happened. And, you know, I can't help but think about queer theory. Final, final thought? Yeah, final, final thought. When I saw the same report, I went to Google Scholar and a couple places I like to go to find the literature and the most updated forms. And it took me less than one minute to find a whole suite of furry literature about children adopting fursonas, their furry persona, and identifying not as human, explicitly underwritten by queer theory and the doctrine.

There are no brakes on the train. Yesterday's radical is today's conservative. It has to keep moving towards the direction of completely dissolving normalcy, boundaries, legitimacy. So don't be surprised if it gets a bit crazier than even children biting other children while they're dressed as dogs and cats and wearing tails, which is, I laugh because of the absurdity, but it really is sad because those children should be learning in school. I mean, what Logan said is the big point. There are no breaks on the queer theory train, or as I like to phrase it,

queer theory is opposed to limiting principles on principle. And people need to understand that. So to be very blunt about it, will queer theory eventually go into defending pedophiles? Yes, absolutely. Will it eventually go into defending bestiality? Yes. Will it go into any perversion that anybody can possibly think of? Yes, 100%. Yes. Why? Because it must. Because the second somebody thinks of it and claims that it's essential to their identity, nobody's allowed to tell them no and is a bigot for saying that you draw that line there. You can look now at the way that the radical feminists are being

destroyed by the trans activists, and it's the exact same progression. Gender criticality went into sex criticality, and there's nothing they can do to stop the train from going to the species criticality. Take, for example, as a very last example, there's a pair of books written by Martine Rothblatt, who is the creator of Sirius XM Radio, therefore a billionaire, sits on the board of the Mayo Clinic now. And these two books are called The Apartheid of Sex. That's the first book. And it explains that the idea that there are men and women is identical to apartheid in South Africa as a moral injustice. But then the second book is From Transgender to Transhuman. It says if it turns out the body's

not relevant to who we are in terms of gender, in other words, transgender ideology, then why does it matter what the body is at all? Maybe we could be silicone bodies. Maybe we could be digital uploads. Maybe we don't need a body in any regard at all. So we can move from transgender to transhuman. The book is properly awful. It's very poor. It's very superficial. It's insane. But I bring it up because this person has tremendous wealth and tremendous power and is pushing these ideologies very vigorously. And like I said, now sits on the board of the Mayo Clinic, which is a very important medical institution and maybe the most important in some regard in North America. So will it go to any perversion or even into outright transhumanism? Yes, 100%.

There's nothing in the logic that can prevent it. Well, Logan Lansing, James Lindsay, it's such a pleasure to have had you on. Thank you so much. Thanks, Jan. Thank you all for joining Logan Lansing, James Lindsay, and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Jan Jukielek.