Trans Joy
Even Watson's Got it
Got ‘trans joy’? Everyone else does. Snapchat and PinkNews. Campus Pride. Yale. Equality Ohio and Trans Ohio. They got it so bad they are in the midst of their longest-running and most engaged initiative ever called “Notes for # TransJoy.” In South Florida, Trans joy is revolutionary says NBC 6. In 2022 Joy and Liberation Centers opened in the area. “Transition Generated Confidence and Joy at Every Age,” say the plaintiffs in a famous ACLU amicus brief. ‘Trans joy’ is being mapped in Louisiana. Some do not just have ‘trans joy’ but have got black ‘trans joy’ or deaf trans joy. Those are ‘marginalized intersectionality’ kinds of ‘trans joy.’
‘Trans joy’ comments are collected on Google forms by NPR’s WUSF. The indie game hosting marketplace hosted the “trans joy jam.” Trans Joy KC (Kansas City) organizes gatherings like Trans Joy in the Park and Trans Joy Camp. College students are writing papers on ‘trans joy’.
How about ‘gender euphoria’? “Gender euphoria is defined as satisfaction or joy caused when one’s gendered experience aligns with their ‘gender identity,’ rather than with the gender they were assigned at birth,” say these researchers. Who knew? ‘Queer joy’? Outright Vermont has that. ‘Pride joy’? Macy’s got that.
Trans cult catchphrases populate culture, media, politics, NGOs and more moving industry towards the goal of deconstructing the human body for synthetic sex markets. ChatGPT informs that ‘trans joy’ has been around since at least the mid-70s. By the 2020s ‘trans joy’ has become Thing enough that the academic elite are studying the Thing. Those of sounder mind might find the idea of studying ‘trans joy’ inconceivable but academia’s engine is the corporate global elite. They are not of sound minds or ethical principles but dystopian transhumanist ideals lusting for markets.
Efforts to undermine already unreliable psychological diagnoses currently required for cross sex affirmative medical interventions are well underway. A patient guided model of belief leads the charge. Instilling false beliefs is required. That there is a new way to be human apart from male and female (aka transgender) has been seeping like an evil vapor through culture for decades. Propaganda like ‘trans joy’ influences believers. The medical class is outfitted with pharmacopeia, research grants, medical programs, surgical apparatus, and more to carve ‘trans joy’ into human flesh. In the end there is no ‘trans joy’ to be found but only industrial wealth feeding off the human body itself.
Tech and Top-Down Control
“Every form I fill out forces me to identify as either male or female, “ claimed University of Iowa doctoral student Steph Shuster in 2012. Shuster considers herself ‘nonbinary’ and ‘transgender’ and was forced to make her, “own little transgender box.” The young woman had no words to describe her identity back in the dark ages of 2012. Look what she had to do:
This article may have come across as insignificant in 2012 but in hindsight an agenda emerges. Shuster was referring to forms required by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) charged with reviewing applications for graduate student research. The focus of her own research was ‘transgender’ communities and identities. ‘Transgender’ itself was making its transformation from installation of the problem (that people have ‘gender identities’) to implementation of the solution via a widespread system of medical programs. The medical system needed an overhaul for this new paradigm. Classifying people by identity was key. Technology was an important tool.
Common law name changes, such as a ‘preferred name,’ are federally recognized. They count as “legally effective informed consent” even though a legal name change has not occurred. ‘Transgender’ is a lie and ‘transition’ impossible but the lax acceptance of ‘preferred names’ in research is telling. UCSF provides the example below:
Example: A transgender person would like to consent to a study using their preferred name, though their “deadname” is still currently their legal name. When they sign their consent, they can sign with the name they currently use. They do not need to use their dead/legal name.
The Iowa article does not mention that by 1996 the university was among a small army of law schools in the fight for the legal recognition of the Thing they were after -transgender humans. It also does not mention that in 1996 MTF transactivist Genny Beemyn was pushing the university to include ‘gender identity’ in its nondiscrimination policy. By 2007 ‘gender identity’ was recognized in the state’s Civil rights code.
Alas, in 2025, Iowa is awakening to the horror of it all. They are removing gender ideology from state civil rights code and attempting to recapture truth. The systemic capture of sexed reality lives beyond state borders though. The orchestrators have been pushing the agenda for decades. Gender ideology exists in the universal integrated healthcare system and in the digital realms that increasingly operate and connect those systems.
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
IRBs were born from past medical abuses such as Nazi experimentation and the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Efforts to centralize IRBs have occurred throughout the years. While not addressing other fields of medicine, it is fair to say that centralization for the gender confused does not protect human research subjects.
IRBs review research topics and its components like informed consent based on federal guidelines. Boards can deny research and require modifications. Adherence to the Common Rule protecting human research participants (PHRP), in place since 1991, is a requirement. The FDA does note that conflicts of interest can render lax oversight, but as readers will see far worse than lax oversight is underway. The IRB system today is rigged to produce gender ideology foot soldiers.
In 2019 the Common Rule was revised. Revisions required updating computer software to document the informed consent process. What if tech platforms, like the medical institutions and boards, are also entrenched in gender ideology? In the digital realm the move to wither away sexed reality had already begun. In 2011 NAM began recommending SOGI data collection in federal surveys. In 2019 HL-7 initiated the Gender Harmony project for interoperability standards across digital platforms.
In 2020 NIH began to require researchers take PHRP training classes through Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative Program (CITI). CITI was formed as a collaboration between the UMiami and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in 2000. In 2016 it was acquired by Biomedical Research Alliance of NY (BRANY).
CITI claims to, “Enhance the integrity and professionalism of medical, healthcare, technology, and higher education communities, staff, and students conducting research or other compliance-related activities in the United States and globally.” BRANY launched in 1998 at NYU School of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and what is now Northwell Health. “BRANY is a national organization providing a continuum of research support services to investigators, hospitals, universities and academic medical centers,” claims its website. The medical centers have programs in synthetic sex. Associated schools teach it. If there is a conflict of interest, this is it. What BRANY and CITI do not do is protect human research subjects seduced by the gender lie. They work for industry.
As if right on cue, in 2022 the nonprofit National Academy of Science Education and Medicine (NASEM) released a report titled Improving Representation in Clinical Trials and Research: Building Research Equity for Women and Underrepresented Groups. Alongside women and racial minorities is found the growing diversity group LGBTQ as well as “pregnant and lactating individuals.” Of course this latter group are women, but NASEM has other plans. CITI followed right along offering a webinar titled Gender and Sexuality Minorities in Human Research Subjects.
The class instructor is Moore Rhys from UCLA’s Human Research Protection Program. UCLA is home to a booming gender program with the prolific gender doc Joanna Kennedy Olsen. Olsen even has a laboratory in her name to execute her dirty work. Rhys and her partner are lesbians who appear to find joy in everything rainbow including paychecks.
CITI’s Campus Gender Podcast
In 2023 CITI launched a higher education podcast titled On Campus. Several episodes cover LGBTQ topics. Kritstin Renn, associate dean of Undergraduate Studies for Student Success Research at Michigan State (MSU) joined the podcast for a discussion on LGBTQIA Individuals in Higher Education. Renn considers herself ‘queer’ and suggests youth role models, data collection, public awareness, and political engagement to further the LGBTQ agenda. She claims, “… there’s a lot of queer joy in higher education.” Renn is right. Markets are lusting for it.
Justin Gutzwa, also from MSU, an assistant professor of higher, adult, and lifelong education, joined the podcast to discuss “Trans and Nonbinary Students on College Campus.” Gutzwa is male and uses ‘they/their’ pronouns. He rambles on about “intersections of domination and minoritization” and claims things like website management and Zoom identification can help. But can specialized identities lead to specialized markets? Gutzwa was featured in cosmetic brand Glow Recipe’s “Dew You” marketing campaign.
Bryce Hughes of Montana State University joined CITI to discuss “LGBTIQA Students and Stem Majors.” The podcast is a sales pitch for SOGI data collection and the ‘diversification’ of STEM fields. Hughes recommends the NGOs Out to Innovate and oSTEM as resources.
OUT to Innovate grew out of LGB activitism in the late 70s. Over the years it has taken on healthcare initiatives like AIDS and broadened its scope to include more identities. Why would they not? STEM markets explode with ‘diversity and inclusion.’
OSTEM is the largest STEM LGBTQ+ organization with over 150 chapters on US colleges and abroad. It launched in 2005 when IBM sponsored LGBTQ+ students to attend a Human Rights Campaign conference. NGO status was secured in 2015 and by 2017 they extended membership to professionals. oSTEM is holding its 15th annual conference in the fall of 2025. A photo from the 2022 conference shows the extensive number of previous corporate and institutional sponsors.
Shuster Grows Up
Back in 2012 while a young Iowa doctoral student, FTM Steph Shuster was just getting started. Shuster is now at MSU. In 2021 she published a book titled Trans Medicine: The Emergence and Practice of Treating Gender.
Shuster’s own book review states:
From genital reconstructions to hormone injections, the practice of trans medicine charts new medical ground, compelling medical professionals to plan treatments without wide scale clinical trials to back them up. Relying on cultural norms and gut instincts to inform their treatment plans…
In 2022 her research titled Reducing the Joy Deficit in Sociology: A Study of Transgender Joy was published. In 2023 her work was cited by FTM Brendan T. Holloway in a piece titled, “Highlighting Trans Joy: A Call to Practitioners, Researchers, and Educators.” It asks readers to “move beyond seeing trans and nonbinary communities as primarily social and political issues to be addressed and to see and embrace the complex and nuanced humanity…”
Artificial Intelligence or Sheer Deception
In 2020 researchers at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital used AI to search for ‘trans joy.’ They claim to have found plenty of it. In a study titled, “Analysis of Chest Masculinization Surgery Results in Female-to-Male Transgender Patients: Demonstrating High Satisfaction beyond Aesthetic Outcomes Using Advanced Linguistic Analyzer Technology and Social Media,” researchers used AI to analyze 50 Instagram posts of young women after ‘top surgery’ and the posts comments. IBM Watson’s tone analyzer was used to determine the presence of ‘joy.’ 3 plastic surgeons experienced in gender surgery, rated the images based on aesthetic quality.
Despite the ‘joy’ discovered in these posts, surgeon ratings on aesthetics were not so great. Nevertheless the conclusion from this strange and unethical study was:
Despite wide variety in surgical appearance, there is a high level of satisfaction and community support. This is in contrast to the low-quality ratings by plastic surgeons. The results demonstrate the strong psychological and functional underpinnings chest masculinization has for patients. However, surgical results can be improved through a variety of techniques such that patients have both excellent surgical results and high satisfaction.
It does not take a scientist to see how illogical and preposterous this is. Using what are called Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients or p values does not make this legitimate. In this case p values were assigned to what some machine algorithm determined approximated ‘joy.’ The study even found correlation between post ‘joy’ and nipple quality resulting in a discussion about surgical improvement.
Bernoulli’s fallacy is when the probability of data are conflated with the probability of hypothesis. Scientist William Briggs summarizes the book Bernoulli's Fallacy: Statistical Illogic and the Crisis of Modern Science by Aubrey Clayton calling it an “incoherent methodology” that has been proven “many times, in many places.” This study is compounded by fallacy after fallacy. ‘Trans’ is subjective. Joy is subjective. Surgeons ratings are subjective. Machine ‘joy’ is the programmed probability of a subjective belief. Human emotion is not static. The study is not about humans. It is about words and images in a digital medium. Human lives are not factored. Human relationships are not factored. Censorship is not factored. Medical agenda is not factored. Tech algorithms are not factored. The study relies on references full of similar fallacies. And on and on… the study should have never happened. But it did.
As for Georgetown and the experts performing this so-called ‘research,’ that is a story for another day but Georgetown is among the small army of laws schools seeking ‘trans’ justice alongside Iowa. Georgetown’s National Center for Cultural Competence (NCCC) also plays an important role in the scandal Traumatizing American Families.
It is easy to see this study is pure garbage. How did this study pass an IRB. Or did it? It is unclear but IRB changes in 2019 may provide clues. Minimal risk studies no longer require annual IRB reviews. Some categories now only have to go through a limited review process. “Broad consent” can now be obtained for future unspecified research. These young women who posted on social media though were not part of a formal research project. They are part of a widespread social engineering experiment. Their social media posts were snatched up to propel the master experiment along. No one asked.
These women may or may not have been joyful after top surgery. That does not matter. The idea that ‘trans joy’ is a thing is absurd. Time and reality are telling the real human story. These young women are suffering. They need actual care not surgical wizardry that can fix nothing. The scientific elite are making bold claims about human lives and applying it in broad measures for all citizens in the growing tyrannical medical technocracy.
Truth begins with the reality of human life as male or female and not what the scientific elite deem truth. The erasure of boys and girls, young women and men from families first began with words. Meaningful words attributed to flesh and blood and love and life. It is time to set the record straight before AI finds ‘joy’ in men with newfangled lady parts.
These two lines stood out to me: "In the end there is no ‘trans joy’ to be found but only industrial wealth feeding off the human body itself."
"The idea that ‘trans joy’ is a thing is absurd. Time and reality are telling the real human story. These young women are suffering. They need actual care not surgical wizardry that can fix nothing."
Yes, chasing the elusive "joy" may not be found at the end of the rainbow of the next surgery.
The relaxing of IRB review for minimal risk studies is a good thing.
The problem is not the level of risk assessment. The problem is that IRB does not work *at all* at any level of risk assessment to prevent unethical research. So, for example, remember the Duke University study inducing lactation in trans women?
https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2024/04/duke-university-duke-health-study-hormone-modification-transgender-woman-lactation-infant-therapy-gender-research#:~:text=Duke%20researchers%20published%20a%20study,the%20National%20Library%20of%20Medicine.
That research passed the most stringent of human subjects protocols. The reforms about minimal risk research were not relevant to that study. The most stringent review process allowed a man with a fetish to have a baby suck chemical gloop out of his body. That wasn't a surprise, that was the GOAL OF THE RESEARCH and the study was approved. And widely applauded! Duke was PROUD of this research and PROMOTED IT.
Ditto any of the studies that are done on sterilizing kids, mutilating kids, having girls wear breast binders, all of it.
The problem is NOT recent reform which pertains to journalistic-style interview research (just talking to people). The problem is that IRB, like the whole rest of the university, is completely, utterly, and fundamentally ethically lost.