“It’s the New Lobotomy” – Black Markets and Children’s Hospitals | Dr. Jared Ross

So let's talk about the surgeries because that's such fun. If you want to have it, it's the new lobotomy. I mean, really, it's worse than lobotomy, I think. And when we talk about 12, we've selected our Dirty Dozen children's hospitals. And don't quote me on the number, but I believe there's over 60 Children's Hospitals across the country that are performing this care, these hormones and surgeries. What we realized is that less than 10% of this is actually happening at the Children's Hospital. They're shifting this out into the private surgery centers and out into the community to try to get the spotlight off of the children's hospitals. So we want to highlight those absolutely right.

Well, and there's also something else too that with regards to the puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, there's an active movement online to provide black or gray market prescriptions to young people so they can get the cross-sex hormones without having to undergo the interference of the parents who don't care or the physicians who have enough sense not to do it. So God only knows how extensive this really is.

All right, so let's say, what do you have to do to build a penis for a woman? Well, you have to close up her vagina for starters, which is, I would say, a rather brutal thing to do. Then you have to remove the skin and the flesh of an arm or a leg, which leaves essentially a skin-wrapped bone—a hideously mutilating procedure. Hideous. You know, worn as a badge of pride, let's say, by the children who've been sacrificed to this movement. Then they make this tube of flesh that hypothetically constitutes a penis but has like none of the function. That produces exactly the kinds of terrible complications you would presume: internal hair growth—that's a fun one—plus the ever-present, not risk, but almost certainty of infection. And then, of course, the vaginoplasty is the reverse.

So the boys are castrated, their penises are inverted, or they take a section of the colon, and oh yeah, there's a wise choice. There's a wise choice. So now you have abdominal surgery to boot, and that's the tissue that you use, right? And then we're supposed to believe somehow that what you produce as a consequence of this utter butchery is something approximating, let's say, a vagina, a vulva, which is utterly preposterous. That's a very, very complex organ—very complex, very sophisticated—and the idea that it's somehow replaced by a surgical wound and that the creation of a surgical wound now means that a man or a boy has been transformed into a girl or a woman is a lie in so many dimensions that it's a kind of miracle that it's... I just can't believe we've got here.

And it's very clear that it's a surgical wound because these boys then have to maintain that by dilating, inserting larger and larger plastic dildos into these vaginas for hours upon hours for days and weeks and months. It's a lifelong commitment. And if they don't continue that commitment, strictures start developing, the body rejects this foreign orifice, and they start closing up on them, right? Or healing, as it's often put.

Right, right, right. Okay, so let's take stock here. Well, it's not happening, and it's actually not rare, right? So you've documented 14,000. 14,000 is a lot. We turned the country upside down five years ago for lesser crimes for the Black men who are being shot by policemen, let's say, in nowhere—bloody well nowhere near those numbers, I can say. And the idea that this is a moral crime of lesser magnitude is... The only way you can harbor that delusion is if you've been unwilling to actually look at what's going on. And I can see why people don't, because who can believe it? But you documented it, right? And, as we said, you've only shone a light on the tip of the iceberg because you could only get access to a certain number of these surgeries.

And now they are happening, and in the thousands and tens of thousands, yes. Right, and not only are they happening, they're super profitable. Right? And not only are they happening to minors who cannot provide this kind of informed consent, so that's a violation of the Nuremberg Code as far as I'm concerned. I truly believe these are crimes against humanity. I truly believe that, and that the people who are involved should be tried like the perpetrators of the Nazi horrors were tried at Nuremberg. And I don't think it'll stop till that happens.

And you also said now that you're starting to shine light on this, they're going underground, which is exactly what you'd expect. So, all right, all right, so tell me more about Do No Harm. Who are you, and why shouldn't someone be suspicious of your data, your credibility? Who are these 12,000 people who are involved, and how did they get going? Yes, so Do No Harm started just over two years ago. Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, who was a very well-known professor at the University of Pennsylvania, a nephrologist and involved with the medical school, also an editor of the go-to reference guide for physicians, started to push back on this encroachment of DEI into medical school, into the selection of students and residents and doctors. We had this erosion of meritocracy that we were no longer selecting.

And again, I'm speaking in the past, but I should be speaking in the present tense—that we have this erosion in medicine of ideology of skin color and melanin content over merit.

Okay, so let's take that apart a little bit because skeptical listeners might say, "Well, merit is just the imaginary construction of an oppressive patriarchy." Let's say you screen for SATs to let people into medical school or the MCAT. Okay, the MCATs are basically tests of general cognitive ability. Okay, there's no difference between that and intelligence. And so intelligence isn't merit in relationship to doctors if you think it's okay for doctors to be stupid, right? It's as simple as that. And the data on such prediction shows clearly this is the most powerful statistical result in the social sciences. There is nothing that predicts long-term success in complex jobs better than general cognitive ability.

It predicts five times better than the next best predictor, which is conscientiousness, which also these pikers don't assess. To generate a contrary proclamation, you have to presume that there's no such thing as intelligence and that intelligence has no bearing on the performance of physicians. So that's preposterous. And then you also have to overlook the fact that cognitive tests themselves were first used, early used, on a broad level by socialists in the UK, who believed that if you could screen alienated populations, poor populations for general cognitive ability, you could open the door to their advancement in the school system in the UK, and you could give the deserving poor their opportunity to move upward and benefit society by doing so, which happened.

The same thing happened in the armed forces in the United States, so that general cognitive tests were actually a means of social mobility for the very oppressed that the bloody leftists are always clamoring about, right? And so then the third thing you have to accept, if you're going to swallow this DEI nonsense, is that if you dispense with merit—objectively assessed—then what you get is greater equity. But the historical data show that there are three standard means of providing access to desirable jobs in any society: there's merit, there's dynasty (so family membership starts to become important), and there's nepotism—who you know. That's it.

Dispense with merit, you get nepotism and dynasty. Okay, so what does Harvard do to elide this system? They use false measures of so-called personality to racially gerrymander their selection criteria. That's that far away from nepotism, right? Because someone in that organization is making a subjective judgment about fit, and as soon as you have subjective judgment instead of objective data, you open the door to corruption, and you destroy the universities, the medical system, the psychological training system, and then children’s lives and then patients' lives, right? So that's where we are.

Yeah, I love that phrase "racially gerrymandering." And we've seen the devastation that this has had on the UCLA Medical School, where the shelf exams—these standardized exams that are taken throughout the course of medical school—their pass rates have just plummeted. At UCLA, they're waving their hands saying, "You know, we need to get rid of these shelf exams." Of course we do, of course we do. You get rid of merit. Well, look, one of the ways of understanding this practically and psychologically is that this is actually an assault on merit itself. You might ask yourself, "Well, who wants to launch an assault on merit?"

And the answer is people who lack merit because they can get access to the storehouses of value that were merit defined in the absence of merit, especially if they're in a position to pull the levers of power and decide who gets in and who doesn't, right? So it's an inversion of the merit structure, and the universities are to blame for this. I saw my own psychology department at the University of Toronto suspended the GRE for selection of students for a couple of years because then that fed out. What the hell happened, right? Even though, like, if you're a psychologist and you're so daft that you don't know that there's a higher correlation between general cognitive ability and performance in complex tasks, then you know nothing, right? That's a psychometrically unassailable fact.

And if you dispute that, it was discovered by the statisticians who established all the statistics that the social and medical sciences had. So if you deny that elementary fact, you pretty much have to throw the whole bloody enterprise out the window. And of course, they're perfectly willing to do that.