#transgender

Gillette – from toxic masculinity to transgender & morbid obesity

Gillette is free to advertise how it wishes. After the monster backlash against the toxic masculinity campaign which wiped 6% in value from the brand and caused a 22% fall in the following quarter’s profits, it is hard to see how the radical social justice warriors in the marketing department have not been fired. To shareholders, it was a massive fail. A YouGov poll of household grooming products before the campaign saw Gillette fall from 7th out of 45 brands to dead last after it. Yet the company has chosen to bet the house on more virtue signalling hoping it will eventually cut through to the masses. Get woke, go broke.

While there is absolutely nothing wrong with a transgender kid shaving for the first time, most will likely see this ad as nothing more than Gillette doubling down on the roulette wheel of “identity politics”. What point is Gillette trying to prove? The bulk of society is growing tired of being told how to think and what to say.

Yes, there are serious transgender issues in America. 130 transgender people have been murdered since 2013. It is a damning statistic. However, it is unlikely that anyone small minded enough to commit such a heinous crime will be swayed by a Gillette ad featuring a trans actor. Why does Gillette seek to force feed its version of socially acceptable behaviours on the 99.9% of its clientele that does not require it? It is patronising in the extreme. It is like attacking NRA members as murderers.

The only company in the world that can treat its customers with disdain is Ferrari. It wields so much power that it selects customers if they are deemed worthy of owning some of its limited edition offerings. Sadly Gillette is not Ferrari.

Gillette is rife with double standards. It has brazenly sponsored a Dutch racing car series with the brand embossed across the backsides of supermodels.

Chick-fil-A, on the other hand, was established on its Southern Baptist principles. It has never hijacked a social movement to boost sales.  That is why it has seen sales treble on a doubling of stores to become the third largest fast-food chain in America. It never rams its beliefs down the throats of others.

The toxic masculinity campaign should have been a big enough lesson for the marketing team to stay in its lane. The consumer spurned Gillette at the supermarket cash register. It would have been better coming out and apologizing and praising men for all the good things they do, like the Egard Watch company.

Virtually no customers will see that trans ad and think to buy Gillette razors out of a sense of moral guilt at the treatment of this minority. Consumers buy razors to groom – period. When will the company get it?

Related image

It wasn’t so long ago that Gillette promoted a morbidly obese woman to push female shaving products. There is a difference between standing against fat-shaming and being realistic about the many chronic health issues and massive costs related to obesity.

The American Medical Association (AMA) wrote, “the nation’s obesity rate is approaching 40% after holding around 34–35% between 2005 and 2012, according to data in The State of Obesity: Better Policies for a Healthier America 2018. No state has had a statistically significant drop in its obesity rate in the past five years...the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) showed that 39.6% of adults and 18.5% of children ages 2 to 19 in America have obesity, the State of Obesity report noted that “these are the highest rates ever documented“…the AMA is working to prevent and control chronic diseases, many of which are associated with obesity…”

We covered obesity in the previous post. Obesity increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, arthritis, sleep apnea, liver disease, kidney disease, gallbladder disease, and certain types of cancer yet Gillette wants to celebrate it as something to be proud of.

Corporations that pursue woke marketing risk alienating their customers. There is no upside to it. Consumers are not stupid and the more companies run campaigns that fly in the face of their intelligence, will only get a backlash at the point of sale.

Don’t forget that the toxic masculinity campaign had a 10:1 negative response ratio on the millions of views it had. One can be sure Gillette will try to massage a positive response on this latest campaign. Yet, like most polls, the most accurate measure is consumer response. If sales aren’t arrested, no matter how many positive clickbait statistics they can show their bosses internally, the sales and profit figures won’t lie. That is all that ultimately matters to P&G shareholders.

And so the lunatics try to legislate

Well done the 235 Democrats and 2 left wing Republicans looking to sponsor a bill that will make it law to allow transgender students to be able to play on the team of their chosen gender. The bill is being called the Equality Act. Yes, the identity politics of the left want to defy basic biology. This is not to deny their rights to be regarded as their chosen identity but to stop this nonsense of men playing women’s sports.

The US Army conducted a study on the physical differences between men and women.

It found:

1) women had 60-70% of the isometric force of men.

2) women had 60% of the weight lifting power of men

3) women had 78% of the power/body weight of men

4) blood pumps through a woman’s heart at 30% less than a man

5) women have 6% fewer red blood cells and 10-14% less hemoglobin than men meaning recovery rates are slower because males have more oxygen in the system.

Whatever one thinks of the Equality Act, Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps could have easily identified as a woman and cleaned up gold in all the same Olympic events they swept in the men’s equivalents. Would the world have been happy with that? Heavyweight boxing perhaps?

While we are littered with examples of men identifying as women competing in women’s sports there are next to no examples of the reverse. If the Democrats did their homework they’d realize there are numerous women who identify as women compete against men. Some winning without distorting biological reality.

21yo Spanish rider Ana Carrasco became the first woman to win a world championship in motorcycle racing. She won the World Supersport 300s crown. If there was ever a better display of rising to a challenge in a sport dominated by males, this was it!

CM wrote in January about her first ever race win last year on equal machines with the boys. Shows that grit, determination and skill can make the difference without this recent desire to throw handicaps to even it out. Great job indeed to win on identical bikes. CM remembers seeing her in 2015 on the RBA Racing Moto3 bike in Motegi. Impressive.

We shouldn’t forget the performance of Michele Mouton who finished runner up in the 1982 World Rally Championship against an all male field with zero free kicks? She won four races in the season. Call it raw talent. She didn’t require complex formulas, spreadsheets and laws to give her a handicap. She won on her own merits.

Isn’t that the thrill of competition? To compete on equal terms even if the underdog?

Spare a thought for the poor girls who train hard that may never achieve what they were rightfully owed because of gender based identity politics supported by government.

Why are the 99.6% required to opt in for gender on birth certificates?

7D3A8E2F-A916-4B8E-B9EF-3CA73B95674D.jpeg

So Tasmania’s lower house has passed the motion to remove gender from birth certificates allowing people to choose what they identify with from age 16. Apart from the biological and genetic implications, one question is why must the majority opt in as opposed to the minority opting out? It can only be viewed as a form of constructed  re-education.

According to the ABS Census of 2016, only 0.4% identify as other than male or female. 10,000 out of 24 million. Therefore 99.6% are comfortable with traditional biologal gender.

What are the risks? At what point will legislation be tied to the use of puberty blockers? We can’t rule out some parents might try to encourage their young child to associate with the opposite gender?  It has already happened in the US. Parents will know that it is not hard to manipulate a 10yo. It is not to rule out completely that a child may truly identify as the opposite of biological gender but statistically it would be improbable to suggest it is a majority or all. So to dispense puberty blockers under false pretenses is a dangerous risk. Assuming a 10yo is of sound peace of mind to take such drugs, why not give them the ability to vote?! Effectively that is the decision making process being put forth. It is ludicrous.

Assume a child is coerced by guardians/parents (even if a small subset) into believing they are the opposite sex than biological gender and get government permission to take puberty blockers. We do not have enough empirical evidence to know if terminating these drugs will automatically lead to a natural resumption of puberty.

Scientific research has noted that side effects of puberty suppression hormones can lead to arrested bone growth, decreased bone accretion, can prevent full organization and maturation of the brain, cause sterility, coronary/cardiovascular disease, elevated blood pressure and lead to breast cancer. Hey, it is worth it for inclusion, right?

That’s a horrible set of risks to put on a child who might potentially grow out of gender dysphoria. That child’s life could be irrevocably ruined for the sake of ideology determined by those who shouldn’t be in a position to enforce such directives.

The Gender Identity Development Service in the United Kingdom saw a 2,000% increase in referrals over seven years—from 94 children in 2009/2010 to 1,986 in 2016/2017. Is this a case of creating a market to allow people to file for  gender dysphoria? Note this is not to cast aspersions on those who may properly suffer from the condition.

Hruz, Mayer, and McHugh wrote in a Supreme Court brief filed in the Gavin Grimm case that most-cited studies conclude most children with gender dysphoria come to embrace their birth sex but caution hormone therapy often solidifies a child’s gender dysphoria.

800 children in the UK aged as young as 10 are taking puberty blockers. Are we buying time or merely arresting development? The risks seem more like a concerted  push for institutionalized child abuse.

Ultimately who is the arbiter to determine between whether a child might be confused or properly gender dysphoric? Get it wrong and that life might be irreparably damaged. But hey, as long as it was done for the sake of progressive goals, such sacrifices are all in the name of diversity, no?

Emmys – baloney without cajones

7AD63D3F-7551-4935-B601-4F7292101006.jpeg

When the content is so predictable it stands to reason that ratings drop. Neilsen noted the 2018 Emmys awards show pulled in 10.172 million viewers (-4%) and a 2.4 rating among adults 18-49, it’s lowest ever. The 2000 Emmys drew in 21.8mn by comparison. Some may talk to modern day luxuries of streaming which would boost these dreadful numbers but the reality is Hollywood’s obsession with shaming is the more likely culprit. The Oscars are down 40% on five years ago. It’s no surprise.

In recent years, self absorbed celebrities think the formula is hypocritically chastising their audiences. Whether the topic is climate change, #MeToo, white privilege, Republicans, Trump and now Christianity, the event is less about self appraised back slapping but almost entirely about identity based political grandstanding.

Such was the high level of comedy that one of the MCs stated, “The only white people that thank Jesus are Republicans and ex-crackheads.”  Here’s a challenge to Hollywood – would they dare say “The only black people that thank Mohammed are Democrats and ex-crackheads”? After all it’s just comedy, right? Of course they wouldn’t dare. They are the very racists they condemn.

At another event Anne Hathaway made her psychobabble statement about white privilege,  how transgender doesn’t circle around cisgender and other races don’t circle around whites to rapturous applause.

The irony is that behind all of the public self loathing, the same actors and actresses who cheered  happily collect their millions, live behind gates mansions with armed body guards, protest the NRA, turn a blind eye to sexual harassment but protest on the red carpet by wearing three fabric postage stamps held together with dental floss and tell us how out of touch we are. Really?

Their audience figures should tell them they are indeed the out of touch ones.

Cinema attendance in the domestic US market is back at 1993 levels. In the 1990s Hollywood made 400-500 films annually. It now pumps out more than 700. The average revenue per film continues to head south.

It is interesting that $100m box offices were a cert for an Oscar Best Picture award til 2004 after which it has been hit and miss since. 9 films in the last 13 Best Pictures have failed to breach $75mn. The 4 that didn’t miss were all about real life stories – Titanic, The King’s Speech, Argo and A Beautiful Mind. Funny that.

Instead of realizing that their interpretation of identity driven art isn’t sinking in with the public, Hollywood is now prepared to blot the history books – such as deleting the flag planting on the moon scene in ‘First Man’ – to destroy the very formula that seems to resonate with audiences.

No, in the fight for equality we must disparage innocent, hard working citizens by questioning their faith and mocking their intelligence. Hollywood can keep up the performances at these awards ceremonies. Doubling, tripling or quadrupling down on a formula that continues to fail only shows where the lack of insight lies. Too much time in rehab?

By all means many may be willing to listen to celebrities if they practiced what they preached. Say, where are all those celebrities that threatened to leave the country if Trump became president? That’s right 99% are still here. Let’s not forget Leo DiCaprio flying his eyebrow stylist half way around the world on a private jet whilst telling us climate change is the most pressing issue of our day. Actions not words. In today’s society virtue signaling on social media is deemed enough.

 

Trudeau pushes for more compelled speech

98A8538A-3D24-4B8B-9B18-B23DB06116B4

You can’t make this stuff up. The Trudeau government plans to ban front-line public service workers from saying Mr., Mrs., Mother, and Father. In what can only be seen as another push toward more compelled speech legislation,  the majority have to put up with more political correct nonsense for the benefit of peoplekind.

Seriously though, if someone is going to be so irreparably mentally damaged by the misuse of a pronoun that it requires legislation to protect he/she/xie, the victim has far bigger issues that require immediate help. How fragile can one be?

The beauty is that for the 99% of us that identity with our biological make-up must make way for the 1% of which it’s actually only 1% of that who would benefit from this legislation. Take the same sex marriage debate in Australia. The 2015 Census showed that only 0.03% of all couples identified as a traditional marriage and same sex. It isn’t questioning equal rights but most campaigners had next to no idea how many it truly impacted. Yet don’t step in the way, else be shot down as a bigot or homophobe.

To put the shoe on the other foot, shouldn’t our rights to be addressed Mr. or Mrs. be equal to that of those who don’t?  Like Bill C-16 the apparatchiks in charge of introducing these laws are by far and away the least appropriate people to enforce it. What are civil rights if legislation only applies in favour of certain groups? Surely Canada’s social service systems can field and burn in requests on which people wish to be called what without having to blanket ban language.

The laughable fact with respect to Bill-16 (which is designed to protect gender identity and expression), is that the Trudeau government did not consult transgender people widely. The sheer fact that they clump all transgender people as “one” distinct group just shows how ignorant Trudeau’s cabinet is. There aren’t individuals within the trans community who think differently from other trans? Who’d had thought?

Yet the left see that such legislation is all about positive outcomes which judged by the complaints by the transgender community show the opposite. Many transgender people do not want to have their identity widely advertised. Yet this legislation seeks to disrupt others into compelled speech many trans people aren’t calling for.

Welcome to the slippery slope. At least one thing is for sure, if the polls are right and  Trudeau gets booted in the 2019 election, Qantas will happily put him in charge of the political correctness department so as to make sure all of the aircraft safety videos address gender equality over the more important safety aspects.

Twitter – why Stephen Fry quit

03D43709-298B-4FE0-8775-81009F0E3813.jpeg

Stephen Fry quit Twitter two years ago and so eloquently explained why:

What fun twitter was in the early days, a secret bathing-pool in a magical glade in an enchanted forest. It was glorious ‘to turn as swimmers into cleanness leaping.’ We frolicked and water-bombed and sometimes, in the moonlight, skinny-dipped. We chattered and laughed and put the world to rights and shared thoughts sacred, silly and profane. But now the pool is stagnant. It is frothy with scum, clogged with weeds and littered with broken glass, sharp rocks and slimy rubbish. If you don’t watch yourself, with every move you’ll end up being gashed, broken, bruised or contused … The fun is over…

…To leave that metaphor, let us grieve at what Twitter has become. A stalking ground for the sanctimoniously self-righteous who love to second-guess, to leap to conclusions and be offended – worse, to be offended on behalf of others they do not even know. It’s as nasty and unwholesome a characteristic as can be imagined. It doesn’t matter whether they think they’re defending women, men, transgender people, Muslims, humanists … the ghastliness is absolutely the same. It makes sensible people want to take an absolutely opposite point of view.

I’ll stick with my instincts rather than fall for a Harvard study because it is from Harvard

IMG_0858.JPG

Harvard University is without question one of the top schools globally. It has an enviable reputation and having that on one’s CV is hardly a hinderance. It is a status symbol.  In a discussion over global warming an individual was trying to legitimize climate alarmism by citing a Harvard University study. Harvard by the way is ranked top 5 worldwide in Environmental Science. The study as it turns out had been funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a US government agency responsible for allocating 24% of science funding that had been raked over the coals by the US Senate for gross mismanagement, fraud and waste. The National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope” paper from 2011 documented some of the misappropriation of funds as follows,

An $80,000 study on why the same teams always dominate March Madness”, a “$315,000 study suggesting playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships”, a study costing “$1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names”, a study costing “$50,000 to produce and publicize amateur songs about science, including a rap called “Money 4 Drugz,” and a misleading song titled “Biogas is a Gas, Gas, Gas”;” a study costing”$2 million to figure out that people who often post pictures on the internet from the same location at the same time are usually friends”; and “$581,000 on whether online dating site users are racist”.Ineffective management examples, cited in the report, included “ineffective contracting”, “$1.7 billion in unspent funds sitting in expired, undisbursed grant accounts”, “at least $3 million in excessive travel funds”, “a lack of accountability or program metrics to evaluate expenditures” and “inappropriate staff behavior including porn surfing and Jello wrestling and skinny-dipping at NSF-operated facilities in Antarctica”.

It is often a tactic to cite supposedly credible bodies to legitimize and seek to win an argument. However at what point do we view Harvard’s stance on climate change as balanced? On Harvard’s own climate change page it is littered with a predetermined view. It is not to doubt the intelligence of the professors and scientists within the university but intelligence and ethics do not have to be mutually inclusive especially when it comes to procuring funds.

One has to wonder that the  NSF, which dispenses 24% of all university grants (some $7bn) is best positioned to fulfill this role given its past. As the Harvard climate page reveals there does not seem to be much attention paid to the alternate view. The offshoot of that is if the NSF wants to get ‘green policy’ outcomes, best pour funds into those schools that will help give the results they’re after.

In 2015 a claim was made against Harvard for not disclosing financial conflicts of interest. A press release entitled ‘Clean air and health benefits of clean power plan hinge on key policy decisions’ constituted a gushing praise of a commentary entitled ‘US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits’ by Charles T. Driscoll, Jonathan J. Buonocore, Jonathan I. Levy, Kathleen F. Lambert, Dallas Burtraw, Stephen B. Reid, Habibollah Fakhraei & Joel Schwartz, published on May 4, 2015, in Nature Climate Change

The claim (a letter to the Dean) suggested that “two of the co-authors of the commentary, Buonocore and Schwartz, are researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Your press release quotes Buonocore thus: “If EPA sets strong carbon standards, we can expect large public health benefits from cleaner air almost immediately after the standards are implemented.” Indeed, the commentary and the press release constitute little more than thinly-disguised partisan political advocacy for costly proposed EPA regulations supported by the “Democrat” administration but opposed by the Republicans. Harvard has apparently elected to adopt a narrowly partisan, anti-scientific stance…The commentary concludes with the words “Competing financial interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests”. Yet its co-authors have received these grants from the EPA: Driscoll $3,654,609; Levy $9,514,391; Burtraw $1,991,346; and Schwartz (Harvard) $31,176,575. The total is not far shy of $50 million…Would the School please explain why its press release described the commentary in Nature Climate Change by co-authors including these lavishly-funded four as “the first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind”? Would the School please explain why Mr Schwartz, a participant in projects grant-funded by the EPA in excess of $31 million, failed to disclose this material financial conflict of interest in the commentary?Would the School please explain the double standard by which Harvard institutions have joined a chorus of public condemnation of Dr Soon, a climate skeptic, for having failed to disclose a conflict of interest that he did not in fact possess, while not only indulging Mr Schwartz, a climate-extremist, when he fails to declare a direct and substantial conflict of interest but also stating that the commentary he co-authored was “independent”?”

While I do not pretend to be a climate scientist by trade or study, fraud is fraud. The supposed beacons of virtue such as NOAA, IPCC, the CRU of the UEA have all been busted for manipulation of data to fit an end cause. The lack of ethics in certain cases has been so profound that had many of these scientists been in financial services they’d have lost licenses, paid multi billion in fines and served jail time. One person commented that too few in financial services have been locked up. I replied name me one scientist busted for fraud and misuse of public funds has seen the inside of a jail cell, much less fined or barred from teaching? The answer – NONE

I don’t need to possess a degree in astrophysics or science to determine poor ethics generally mean the science papers put forward should be viewed with deep skepticism. Yet we’re constantly told that the science is settled. How so? If one has to lie and deceive in order to scare us into action, how can one say that it is legitimate work? In fact I have been at pains to mention that the scrupulous acts of a few only ends up undermining potentially credible work conducted by others. Yet climate change has become a purely political issue and there is no question that sourcing funding dollars is easiest met when supporting alarmism. After all why would people want to throw dollars at skeptics who may come out with an alternative view? Don’t debate it. Some have suggested sceptics are like pedophiles and even more extreme views have suggested jail sentences. When people think that the only way to win the argument is to jail non believers you can be absolutely sure that the data is completely flawed in that it can’t stand on its own as an argument. Hence the manipulation to try to bully the movement onwards. Some Aussie universities (state funded mind you) are refusing a climate think tank being established on their campus for possessing an alternative view. You have to worry if universities, the bedrock of free thinking, are trying to ban it. Then again if kindergarten schools are being taught they are gender fluid and cross dressing is acceptable then you know there is a more sinister movement at work.

It was no surprise that Hurricane Irma has become Trump’s fault. Alarmists drew any data possible to connect Global Warming and hurricane activity despite the IPCC claiming several years back it  has little supportive data to prove it. So expediency is put before principle. Hopefully if no one has seen the IPCC climb down perhaps we can still convince them we can save the planet. All the meantime the IATA forecasts air travel will double in terms of passenger numbers between now and 2030 and SUVs top most vehicle sales in major markets.

To add to the farcical care factor for climate change by the masses The Australian noted, “On June 30 2017, after 12 years of “advancing climate change solutions”, the Climate Institute is closing its doors in Australia, a victim of the “I’ll ride with you but won’t pay” industry. You would think that Cate Blanchett, so happy to appear in the institute’s ads, could have taken the hat around her Hollywood A-list mates, such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Bono, Emma Watson and Brad Pitt, to tip in a few hundred thousand a year for the cause….But alas, the caravan has moved on and the greatest moral challenge of our time is now the Trump White House. For celebrities who fly eyebrow groomers to the Oscars, climate change is kinda yesterday. Still, to humour the faithful and to keep the dream alive, the 10th anniversary of Earth Hour was celebrated last Saturday night. You didn’t notice?”

When I was a staunch opponent of Greenspan’s reckless monetary policy in 2001 and said his actions would lead to a financial calamity in 6-7 years, many laughed at me. I bought gold at under $300. People thought I was mad as did the Bank of England. Barbs were frequent – “how could you possibly possess the intelligence of Greenspan? Back in your box!” I was told. Of course as a contrarian by nature, speaking out against pervading group think was met with a constant wave of ever increasing vitriolic criticism. Of course the simplest thing would have been to roll over and join the band wagon but I stuck to my guns. GFC was the result. In all that time, people used to shame my thinking by citing Harvard or other Ivy League studies on new paradigms. Indeed many of the brains behind the CDOs which eventually brought the financial sector to its knees were brainiacs from the Ivy League. In the end my instincts were bang on. Nothing to do with education levels.

The same arguments were hurled at me during Trump’s presidential campaign. Many people defriended me because my data kept showing to me he’d win. I am not American, I can’t vote but casting my own instincts ended up being a no brainer. Not once were credible arguments made to counter why Trump could win. People would post NY Times polls, CNN polls and so forth to legitimize the argument. Then say I was blind, stupid, bigoted, racist and the usual leftist identikit used to demonise a view. Group think is so dangerous. What it is doing is suppressing real views which show up in the polling booth.

Everywhere I read, the media wants to throw Trump to the wolves and run the lunatic, racist white nationalist card. For 9 months now. To be honest I think he will comfortably do two terms because the media has learned nothing and anything he does is vilified. Most Americans aren’t looking to him for spiritual guidance. He is vulgar and his manner is far from conventional and sometimes not very fitting of the office he serves. However he gets no credit for anything. The latest UN sanctions on North Korea are in large part because Trump has told China to get on with it. Trump said on national TV that he wants “China to sort it out and to stop delaying otherwise we’ll do it for you”. Yet the media is drumming WW3 rhetoric.

Same goes for the Paris Accord. What a stroke of genius. Let France, Germany and other nations pick up the tab for their ‘green policy’ madness and make up America’s renewable shortfall. It is kind of ironic that none of these nations ever pick on China, India or Russia which make up 50% of CO2 emissions for their lack of adherence to actually doing meaningful things to abate climate change albeit signatories to the UN accord. I argue it is like NATO in reverse. US pays a way bigger share into NATO, why not collect a refund via other nation’s virtue signalling which actually helps America First by making other nations less competitive. Brilliant.

DACA – many Americans, including 41mn on food stamps, will welcome the removal of illegal immigrants from their country who in their view are siphoning their ability to get out of poverty. DACA to them isn’t about not being compassionate but realizing that a $20 trillion deficit and loading more onto an overcrowded system isn’t helping. Once again regardless of what people think of Trump he had the fewest white voters and largest share of black and Hispanic voters than Romney or McCain. Hardly the result for a white nationalist, racist bigot. At the current rate if the Democrats run Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Hilary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or any other identity politician against him in 2020 they’ll lose. The mid terms won’t be as bad as many calling. The one midterm already returned a Republican despite massive Hollywood support even ferrying voters to booths.

Transgender in the military. I spoke to two dozen US military personnel last month to ask their opinions. The 100% response was, “we think it is inappropriate for the taxpayer to fund sexual reassignment surgery while serving including several years of rehab and ongoing drug therapy…it is taking the p*ss…we serve our country because we love it and we don’t have room to support social experiments to protect freedom!” There was no real issue of transgender per se rather a problem of providing funds in n already tightly allocated budget for such medical expenditure. Several even spoke of the stupidity of LGBT pride day in the armed forces. What has the ability to fight got to do with what goes on in the bedroom? One said “if we had a heterosexual pride day” we’d never hear the end of it.

So when you communicate with the real people you find the truth if you are prepared to listen. The beauty of social media and indeed Google (which happily acts as a Big Brother on what it considers acceptable) is that many people reach for articles they probably haven’t read properly and use them as ways to ram home an argument because they carry a brand name. Harvard is a wonderful institution but as we’ve seen it has run into questions of conflicts of interest.

I happen to think that social media is having the opposite effect on brainwashing to tell the truth. 99.9% of what I see posted has little thought to it. The more people I speak to the more they are ignoring noise. Many people share articles without putting some basis of why they post it. In many cases people are too afraid to face a doxxing or backlash. Bring it on. To me if you post things in the public domain then be prepared to invite criticism. On my site I do not censor, cut off or delete readers. They are free to come and go as they please. I only request they keep profanity to a minimum.

So in summary, the idea that we bow down to venerable institutions to seek guidance is as flawed today as it ever was. I’ll gladly stick to gut instincts because to date they have worked so far. Having said that I should put a disclaimer that was always plastered on financial services product, “Past results are no guarantee of future performance”