A curious, if not bizarre, peer-reviewed paper has emerged, which said things like this: “The quantitative synthesis results suggested that sexual minority families may perform better in children’s psychological adjustment and parent–child relationship than heterosexual families”.
Now this is absurd on its face, especially since (their term) “sexual minority” families are incapable of having their own children. And thus it is impossible their children, of which they have none, could do better, or even do worse, than children from actual couples. So what could they have meant?
The peer-reviewed wonder is “Family outcome disparities between sexual minority and heterosexual families: a systematic review and meta-analysis” in BMJ Global Health by Yun Zhang—and ten other Chinamen, or possibly Chinawomen. All but one are from the “School of Nursing, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.” The lone exception has appointments at Duke.
China? The society which does not allow the sorts of, to put it nicely, “experiments in living” the West does? And they don’t allow it for the very good reason these experiments are destructive of society.
This little introduction risks poisoning the well, so you’ll have to take my word for it if you leave off reading early that the paper itself, and the papers (that I bothered to check) it references, are misleading. But I want to suggest first that the presence of this bizarre paper smacks of propaganda.
Not in the usual Expertocracy way that most Regime-friendly science is promulgated. Which is often propaganda, true, but sincere propaganda. The people who write the papers believe what they are pushing. I mean propaganda in the sense that this paper was planted. As in “Here, decadent West, is science showing your decadent desires are good. Use this science to further weaken yourself.”
By propaganda, I don’t mean the paper does not conform to the usual standards, such as they are, in “social science.” It does. But I can’t help wondering the impetus behind it. More on that below.
Let’s now look at the paper itself.
It’s a meta-analysis. They found 34 papers about children living under “sexual minority” adults, and some papers with children under couples. But only half the 34 papers were used in the study. And individual papers were further split, so that one, “Farr (2010)” for example, appears as four separate papers, so that it contributes to total meta analysis sample size four times. All of the 16 eventual papers used, save one, were at least double counted.
Let’s examine Farr (2010). It, too, is peer-reviewed. It’s “Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?” in Applied Developmental Science by (ta da) Farr and others. From the Abstract:
This study investigated child development and parenting in 106 families headed by 27 lesbian, 29 gay, and 50 heterosexual couples (80% White, M = 42 years) with young adopted children (41% White, M = 3 years). Parents and teachers reported that, on average, children were developing in typical ways. Measures of children’s adjustment, parenting approaches, parenting stress, and couple relationship adjustment were not significantly associated with parental sexual orientation.
Adopted? So this isn’t a comparison with natural children and those acquired into experiments in living after all. It’s a snapshot of a small group shortly after adoption: this was not looking at kids some piece down the road.
And did you notice that this result is based on parents’ self report? You have to dig into the paper to find teacher contribution was slight; and anyway these were mostly preschoolers. How many adopting parents, especially experiments in living parents, would answer negatively about their adoptees?
Judging by the other papers included, this seems to be the pattern. Self-reports by parties interested in the outcomes, which were scores on simple questionnaires (so common in sociology).
The one mostly objective measure was the kids’ “gender identity/sexual orientation”. From the Chinese (main) paper:
These studies found that compared with the children who lived in heterosexual parent families, the children who lived in sexual minority parent families had a lower expected likelihood of developing as heterosexual.
One of the papers they cited (ref. 29 in Table 1) said:
Children in lesbian families felt less parental pressure to conform to gender stereotypes(1.46 (0.53) vs 1.69 (0.65)), were less likely to experience their own gender as superior(2.15 (0.49) vs 2.51 (0.64))and were more likely to be uncertain about future heterosexual romantic involvement.
And so we return to the propaganda. A big headline announcing this paper said, “Children of same-sex parents see outcomes as good or better than heterosexual couples: study“. Well, exaggeration in service to the narrative is, after all, the purpose of “news.”
They said “The researchers, who were based in the U.S. and China”, which is true, but not so accurate, as we saw. They end their story with this, which I’ll let be the last word:
“The next step is to integrate multiple aspects of support and multilevel interventions to reduce the adverse effects on family outcomes with a long-term goal of influencing policy and law making for better services to individuals, families, communities and schools,” the study reads.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. For Zelle, use my email: firstname.lastname@example.org, and please include yours so I know who to thank.
I guess the takeaway is they want us to be trannies or something?
So they plant this paper, hoping Briggs picks it up and runs with it?
So that things will get “worse” here in the US?
And we’ll lose the war?
Chinese and Soviet propaganda aimed at the West has always been crude and ineffective.
Without the “Globalists” to guide them, they both flounder at this sort of thing, IMHO.
Alfred, If they planted it, they’d scarcely like anybody to criticize it. Even apart from that angle, which is only a guess, we have the crude, and quite silly, methods sociologists use to “prove” their theories. That’s the main take away.
I searched “does China allow same-sex marriage’ and it looks like it’s just a matter of time; two of China’s island states, Taiwan and Hollywood, have already legalized it, and China doesn’t want its vassals co-opting the youth on this issue.
According to Wikipedia, the Taiwanese Constitutional Court ruled in May 2017 that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional under the Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan version?). The next day, the People’s Daily, the CCP’s official newspaper, posted a celebratory tweet, “Local lawmakers in Taiwan, China, have legalized same-sex marriage in a first for Asia.”
“The tweet, which included a rainbow-colored GIF that read “love is love” angered Taiwan’s foreign minister, who retaliated, ‘WRONG! The bill was passed by our national parliament & will be signed by the president soon. Democratic #Taiwan is a country in itself & has nothing to do with authoritarian #China. @PDChina is a commie brainwasher & it sucks.'”
Ann, True, but Taiwan is a vassal state of the US Empire, or near enough. It’s not Chinese. Xi Who Must Be Obeyed is well known to be against “sexual minorities” and the like.
Just more CCP bs continuing to undermine truth. Just like their doctored photos of people falling down dead of Covid.
I was surprised to see that Taiwan’s constitution is called the “Constitution of the Republic of China”, and was written on the Chinese mainland in 1946. Apparently both Taiwan and the CCP believe in “One China”, they’re just quibbling over the “communist” part.
Some think that if Taiwan wants self-determination, it needs its own constitution:
Taiwan’s constitution challenge – Taipei Times
It’s even funnier. The railroads in Taiwan all have names like “Take back China” and the like. All belligerent.
Alas, that was from long ago. Taiwan now firmly aligned with USA, and our other occupied territory, Japan. We have troops in both places. More in Japan, of course (I spent three years living on one base in Japan).
Just got this reminder from Anon: “A Chinese man gave $350M to the Harvard School of Public Health some years ago, 2014 or so. It just so happens that HSPH is one of the leaders, if not the leader, in the ‘air pollution kills’ club. How better to put sand in the gears of capitalism? Of course, the EPA kicks in $$s as well. Also, there is plenty of air pollution in China so the money could have been used at home.”
Its a troll paper by the Chinese to make fun of the West, obviously.
As our perspicacious host has noted, propaganda works.
The CCP propagandists are getting a lot of help from their friends:
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm claimed that the world’s top contributor to climate change can teach the U.S. about how to deal with climate crisis:
Whistleblower Claims Chinese Communists Pay Vatican $2 Billion in Bribes:
“The Chinese Communist Party allocates 2 billion US dollars each year” to gain influence over the Vatican’s internal policy making and to pay for its silence on the CCP’s repression of religious freedom, said the controversial billionaire whistleblower.”
Yeah, well, you may make fun of the insightful Chinese research. But how about if we skip all the p-values and go right to anecdotal truth?
The Chinese hypothesis is conclusively demonstrated in several recent cases. Here’s a couple:
“TikTok Orthodox rabbi who adopted nine sons is charged with child sex abuse
Orthodox rabbi Rabbi Hayim Nissim Cohen, 38, from Texas, US, was arrested in February after his son phoned into a podcast to reveal a number of his brothers had been allegedly abused.”
“Gay couple charged with molesting their adopted sons also pimped them out to pedophile ring”
Lots more practical examples of the superiority of the lives of kids raised by “sexual minority” “parents.”
Get over it, bigots!
He wasn’t a rabbi, and he’s not Jewish:
HE WAS BORN JEFFREY VEJIL; CASE STOKES ANTISEMITISM ONLINE
Texan who posed as Hasidic Jew and adopted 9 boys charged with sexually abusing kids
Suspect changed name to Hayim Cohen, fabricated Jewish backstory, courted media attention and allegedly assaulted minors over years, raising questions about ignored red flags
The most interesting aspect is not whatever bogus research is being promoted
but the term ‘sexual minority’. I must admit this is brilliant and in one fell swoop
confers a layer of legalistic legitimacy to all aspects of sexual deviancy. Orwell warned
about this. This is a prime example of weaponized language the key term ‘minority’
is wet wired into both the conscious and unconscious hive mind of the population
and there’s a line there that can’t be crossed. In this way you are able to bend and
distort the psyche of entire populations until inevitably courts and litigation are used
to legitimize the distortion. Tampering in any way, including casual conversation, with
‘minority’ rights is the fifth rail.
His claimed religion wasn’t the point, just an interesting sidelight.
His status as a “sexual minority” (as confirmed by the Chinese research Dr Briggs details above) is what made him a superior parent. So superior that the state placed 9 young boys in his sexual minority care, in order to ensure the boys were raised in the best possible family configuration–a child-molesting single man.
“…children who lived in sexual minority parent families had a lower expected likelihood of developing as heterosexual.”
To me, that’s the key sentence. I’m all for acceptance and tolerance and all that, but who in their right mind would actually desire for children to develop as homosexual, and intentionally place them in a situation where that outcome was likely?
My impression from this is that…
Sexually-Liberal “parents” allow children to do whatever in Hell they want – liberte, equalite, etc. – no yelling, no discipline, very hands-off approach to raising kids.
Therefore… Children are naturally happy being spoiled without stricter oversight.
I believe Pinnochio had a lesson about this, where the bad kids left to their own devices in the Land of Toys turn into jackasses.
I encourage everyone to read it before the publisher censors the original text for modern day sensitivities.