Also, it should be clear that Jeanette Jennings was one hundo percent a munchie mom who speedran through Jazz’ transition with a speed almost no other parent would’ve

Peter Visscher has published a commentary on my 'Behavioral Genetics and Human Agency' trilogy in Twin Research and Human Genetics. It's a great honor to have such a distinguished scientist describe this labour of love as "a necessary treatise" and "a scholarly piece of work". Peter's commentary is called 'In Defence of Behavioral Genetics' and uses my trilogy (which is itself an extended defence of behavioural genetics) as a springboard to address various criticisms the field has faced over the years. Highly recommended. doi.org/10.1017/thg.2026.100…

ANNOUNCEMENT: WE’RE SAVING SCIENCE! We’re often told that science is “self-correcting.” But that’s not really true. Science doesn’t correct itself like a thermostat adjusting the temperature in your house. Science is a human institution run by human beings. And human beings are vulnerable to career incentives, groupthink, moral fads, political pressure, and fear. And when those forces capture academic journals, peer review stops being a filter for bad ideas and starts becoming more of a credentialing system for fashionable nonsense. This isn’t exactly new. In 1996, the physicist Alan Sokal managed to publish a totally gibberish article in the journal Social Text full of trendy postmodern jargon. His point was simple: if you flatter the ideological commitments of certain academic editors, nonsense can pass as real scholarship. Two decades later, @ConceptualJames, @HPluckrose , and @peterboghossian pulled off the “grievance studies” hoax, placing over a half dozen absurd papers in peer-reviewed journals. One paper used dog parks to analyze rape culture and queer performativity. Another rewrote parts of Mein Kampf in the language of feminist theory. The problem wasn’t just that fake papers got published. It was that they were completely indistinguishable from the real thing. And today, the problem is even worse. We now have serious SCIENCE journals publishing papers about feminist lesbians marrying brine shrimp. We have disturbing papers that aim to “queer” and sexualize infants. We have scholarship on “lesbian-queer-trans-canine relationalities” and “trans-dog intimacies.” But while Clown World papers are concerning because it makes a complete mockery of academia, the same broken, ideologically captured system is also publishing research in legitimate science and medical journals that pushes sex and gender pseudoscience, relies on deeply flawed data, and influences policies on the medical transition of children and young adults. That’s not funny. That affects real people. It affects medicine. It affects law. It affects children. And when critics try to respond, they often discover there’s no serious mechanism for correction. Submitted Letters to the Editor often go completely ignored. Contrary evidence is rejected without comment. As a result, the best critiques are often relegated to personal blog posts, social media threads, or newspaper op-eds, while the original paper remains in the literature wearing the armor of “peer review.” That is untenable. So Kevin McCaffree, editor-in-chief of Theory and Society (@Theory_Society), and I decided to do something about it. Today, in the Wall Street Journal, we announced a first-of-its-kind article type called “Peer Review.” The idea is simple: publication should be the beginning of academic scrutiny, not the end of it. A Peer Review article can critique a paper from any scholarly journal. It can address problems with methods, evidence, logic, definitions, theory, or interpretation. But it has to focus on the claims and arguments, not personal attacks. Submissions are capped at 2,500 words and go through a straightforward merit review instead of endless gatekeeping and ideological screening. We ask just one basic question: Is this critique coherent, serious, reasonable, or even popular enough to deserve scholarly attention? If yes, it gets published. And the authors of the original paper get a built-in right of reply, so readers can see the critique and the response in a legitimate academic venue. That’s how science is supposed to work. Science becomes self-correcting only when real people build the mechanisms that allow correction to happen. That’s what we’ve done. Now it’s time for academics to use it. Read our announcement on the @WSJ below. 🔗wsj.com/opinion/a-way-to-cha…

I don't really care what pedophiles say they can remove or not. Nor do I care if what I say makes them sad. They absolutely must feel the pressure of stigma to keep they perversion in check. Just look at "trans community" and what acceptance of pedophilia did there. Social stigma and shunning is a powerful tool. It must be used against pedophiles, otherwise we not better than those who rape children.

When I was in my hardcore tradcath arc, what I was repressing was not an innate gender identity, but the desire to crossdress and engage in some kink stuff. My new arc is not about socially retransitioning to live as a trans woman again, or taking HRT again. My new arc is simply escaping the rigid masculine box I had placed myself in as the “conservative Catholic detrans man who healed his desire to crossdress, and if he ever does do it in secret, it’s a super shameful thing you should absolutely feel terrible guilt about and immediately go to confession and never openly admit because it conflicts with your publicly stated conservative gender role values about men being masculine and women being feminine.” THAT’S what is changing in my life. Nothing more. Nothing less. I’m quite happy in the male social role in my day to day life, and still have plenty of memories about how when I was trans I craved normality after years of sticking out like a sore thumb. My relationship with my family is 1000x more natural and authentic than it was vs when I was trans. I would never ask my family or anyone to use a new name and pronouns for me ever again, especially when it’ll never come naturally to them because I don’t even come close to passing and never will. Same goes for work. Work is so much easier when I’m not constantly worried about people accidentally misgendering me. I hated the feeling that others were walking on eggshells around me with something so basic as my name and pronouns. Massive anxiety around that constantly and each “mistake” was an emotional wound I inflicted on myself, all because I had used the social identity of “trans woman” to justify cross dressing 24/7 as I had once desired. Literally all I want is the freedom to (1) do what I want (2) when I want it (3) without crippling guilt and shame for something that’s not intrinsically physically harmful to myself or others and (4) not feel like I must trap myself in a rigid box in order to find love and happiness. But otherwise, I actually like being a man and feel good about myself when I dress nice. However, I’m also a kinky crossy and sometimes like to dress and have fun, and may have less body or facial hair than other men, and like crossdressing for its artistic and creative dimensions. And it’s just incredibly euphoric. But other than that, I’m just a pretty normal guy who happens to have a weird form of autosexuality.

I don't know why these people are so obsessed with denying me my right to self-identify as AGP. I've been pretty honest about the fact that I sometimes get aroused at the thought or image of myself as a woman, and that that was a factor that led me to crossdress and transition.