Melissa Hines is a researcher affiliated with Cambridge University. She has co-authored several important studies delving into the influence of prenatal testosterone on childhood behavior, as well as the relationship between gender nonconformity and sexual orientation.
In February, along with first and second authors Li and Kung, Hines published a longitudinal study of nearly 5000 adolescents in Developmental Psychology, on the topic of gender nonconforming behavior in childhood and its correlation with adolescent homosexuality: Childhood Gender-Typed Behavior and Adolescent Sexual Orientation: A Longitudinal Population-Based Study.
It will come as no surprise to 4thWaveNow readers that the investigators found a consistent and strong relationship between gender nonconforming behaviors exhibited between ages 2.5 years – 4.75 years, and later homosexual orientation.
Of course, the link between a gender-atypical childhood and being gay or lesbian has been known for a very long time; this is not a new insight, neither in terms of published research, nor in the anecdotal but very common reports of gay and lesbian adults who reflect on their own childhoods.
This study is important, though, because it may have the largest subject cohort to date (2169 boys and 2428 girls), and because of its thorough and systematic methodology. Please take the time to read it, along with previous works by Hines and her colleagues.
Although this post will not go into detail about the study, we will point out the obvious:
- It is impossible to find a media account of a young “trans” child that does not repeatedly mention the child’s gender-atypical behavior, expressed via toy choices, playmates, play behaviors, and hair and clothing preferences. These celebrity trans kid stories now routinely appear in print and broadcast media on a daily basis in the United States and the UK in particular.
While trans activists and gender doctors take pains to claim that the diagnosis of trangenderism in young children is “much more” than these gender defiant behaviors, journalists (and the child’s parents), oddly enough, always and only focus on these behaviors as evidence that the child was “born in the wrong body.” Maybe that’s because they refuse to challenge the absurdity of a child claiming they “feel like” the opposite sex, for which there can be no actual evidence? How can one know what it “feels like” to be something they are not? But you won’t see a question like this posed by any of the “journalists” who create these puff pieces; “journalists,” after all, who have abdicated their duty of asking hard questions and actually informing the public so a nuanced debate can take place.
- With this large study pointing out that gay and lesbian people are much more likely to exhibit behaviors more typical of the opposite sex, it is painfully obvious that—even if embarked upon with the best of intentions—the contemporary practice of socially and medically transitioning young children leads inevitably and inexorably to the outcome of anti-gay eugenics.
It doesn’t ultimately matter if the practitioners of pediatric transition don’t intend to turn proto-gay children into sterilized facsimiles of the opposite sex; the impact of the practice of early transition leads to exactly that outcome.
Once you have read the Li, Kung, and Hines study for yourself, take a look at the latest slick bit of propaganda about “trans kids” and see if you can avoid the obvious implications.
A group of Canadian trans activists are manufacturing a “nesting doll” set, a “trans boy” named Sam. Sam, from toddlerhood, wants to play with trucks and have short hair, refusing the doll and pink dress Sam’s mom offers. The moments when Sam grabs the truck and gets a haircut are presented as obviously full of significance in the animated promo film (which was partially funded by the Quebec government).
With the daily onslaught of trans-kid propaganda, what chance will a girl who just happens to like trucks and short hair get to believe anything other than she is ‘really” a boy? This stuff is being actively and aggressively marketed to children and gullible parents.
With the financial supporter of the taxpayer.
The dollmakers want to “crush transphobia” before it starts. But what they are really crushing is the future of kids who once were allowed to grow up without tampering—many of them into healthy gay or lesbian adults. Now these kids are being transformed into sterilized, surgically and hormonally altered medical patients—living transgender dolls.
