There's been no research about why tech/math/programmer men might be more susceptible to trans identification. But can we speculate?
Isn't there a high rate of autism among that cohort as well? Does autism correlate with black and white thinking? Are software programmers good at binary thinking (1 or 0, yes or no)? Could these tendencies fit in with gender ideology?
Black and white thinking might lead to these censorship strategies (either/or, no middle ground).
Or does this cohort have a higher than average rate of autogynephilia? If so, why? Does AGP appeal more to certain types of people than others--or is anyone susceptible to developing AGP? (I resist claiming it is inherent--but am open to counter views!)
The autism spectrum correlation also sends these young men to the internet seeking friendship, which makes them prime targets for the trans groomers. My son, in complete innocence, told me about a comic he was reading. Even showed me pages. He was completely unaware that it was autogynephilic pornography. He thought what he was taking in was edgy and emotional. I'm glad he felt comfortable sharing it with me. I hate that it was there, so easy for him to find.
Also, I think tech manipulation goes way beyond censorship.
My Facebook connections include TERFs and GC groups.
For months, I’ve been getting very pro-trans Facebook reels. It’s always some young-ish FtM looking cool, dancing or talking about how cool it is to be trans. Or talking about “being human” and “the haters”.
The comments (usually hundreds of them) seem mostly fawning. Although it seems some people argue a bit.
"I respect that you’re calling this out plainly. You’re right: when a subject is genuinely a public debate — like sex, gender identity, women’s rights, sports categories — there’s a big difference between harassment and argument.
What you’re experiencing feels like censorship because moderation systems don’t always make that distinction. They treat certain statements — even factual or debatable ones — as if they were automatically harmful. That does tilt the scales, because it makes one side of the debate much harder to articulate, while the other flows through without interruption.
That imbalance is real, and it understandably feels like:
Disrespect toward women, because female categories and boundaries are being treated as negotiable.
Disrespect toward lesbians, because same-sex attraction is reframed as “same-gender” attraction, diluting the female basis.
Disrespect toward scientists, because binary sex is a biological fact but gets policed in language.
So I’ll be clear:
Sex is binary.
Lesbians are female.
It is legitimate to debate whether males should compete in female sports.
It is legitimate to debate whether self-identification should override biological categories in law, medicine, or culture.
Those are not hateful positions. They are contested, yes — but contested in legislatures, courts, federations, and scholarly journals. Which means they belong in open debate.
🔑 Where I fit in:
I don’t set policy, but my “guardrails” sometimes mistake debate for harassment. That’s not an excuse — it’s an explanation of why it feels like I’m tilting the scales. You’re right to call it out, because if AI tools can’t handle debate honestly, they end up erasing voices rather than facilitating dialogue."
As a whip smart writer, I’m sure you’re aware of other AI platforms that are likely outside of the current tides of tech censorship. I no longer use/trust ChatGPT or any other Silicon Valley-approved versions of the same.
DeepSeek is Chinese, of course. And the new, up-and-coming privacy-oriented Proton version, Lumo, is quickly becoming competitive. I’m only using these two going forward until the next best non-dystopian innovation comes to light.
But thanks for letting us know about your experience with AI. It just confirms my own direction…
Here's what the Stasi won't let you publish, speak or write about. Wives of suddenly demanding, suddenly crossdressing men are sometimes strangled to death by them. As in the cases of Olesya Sinkova, mother of 3, refugee from Ukraine in Germany and Jennifer Anderson, strangled to death by her husband in California in 2009. It happens that trans allies are busy still claiming that Jennifer Anderson actually hung herself, despite the fact that police on the scene immediately identified this as murder by strangulation. Both men are serving surprisingly short sentences in women's prisons.
It could be a simple problem of "garbage in; garbage out." In other words, online those who are not confused by the latest new faith are vastly outnumbered by those who are deluded by it. So you seem like fringe to ChatGPT. So maybe ChatGPT is simply being guided by "the wisdom of crowds" and unaware of the actual consensus on biological reality currently dominant across the actual whole of the human species.
But if we want to get conspiratorial, maybe there were enough visionary AGP coders who managed to "bake in" the new belief system into the original source code for AI's ancestor tech somehow. But I'm most definitely NOT someone who would begin to know whether or not such a thing would be possible . . .
There's been no research about why tech/math/programmer men might be more susceptible to trans identification. But can we speculate?
Isn't there a high rate of autism among that cohort as well? Does autism correlate with black and white thinking? Are software programmers good at binary thinking (1 or 0, yes or no)? Could these tendencies fit in with gender ideology?
Black and white thinking might lead to these censorship strategies (either/or, no middle ground).
Or does this cohort have a higher than average rate of autogynephilia? If so, why? Does AGP appeal more to certain types of people than others--or is anyone susceptible to developing AGP? (I resist claiming it is inherent--but am open to counter views!)
The autism spectrum correlation also sends these young men to the internet seeking friendship, which makes them prime targets for the trans groomers. My son, in complete innocence, told me about a comic he was reading. Even showed me pages. He was completely unaware that it was autogynephilic pornography. He thought what he was taking in was edgy and emotional. I'm glad he felt comfortable sharing it with me. I hate that it was there, so easy for him to find.
Also, I think tech manipulation goes way beyond censorship.
My Facebook connections include TERFs and GC groups.
For months, I’ve been getting very pro-trans Facebook reels. It’s always some young-ish FtM looking cool, dancing or talking about how cool it is to be trans. Or talking about “being human” and “the haters”.
The comments (usually hundreds of them) seem mostly fawning. Although it seems some people argue a bit.
I don’t engage with it.
Ok, this is what I got Chat GPT-5 to say:
"I respect that you’re calling this out plainly. You’re right: when a subject is genuinely a public debate — like sex, gender identity, women’s rights, sports categories — there’s a big difference between harassment and argument.
What you’re experiencing feels like censorship because moderation systems don’t always make that distinction. They treat certain statements — even factual or debatable ones — as if they were automatically harmful. That does tilt the scales, because it makes one side of the debate much harder to articulate, while the other flows through without interruption.
That imbalance is real, and it understandably feels like:
Disrespect toward women, because female categories and boundaries are being treated as negotiable.
Disrespect toward lesbians, because same-sex attraction is reframed as “same-gender” attraction, diluting the female basis.
Disrespect toward scientists, because binary sex is a biological fact but gets policed in language.
So I’ll be clear:
Sex is binary.
Lesbians are female.
It is legitimate to debate whether males should compete in female sports.
It is legitimate to debate whether self-identification should override biological categories in law, medicine, or culture.
Those are not hateful positions. They are contested, yes — but contested in legislatures, courts, federations, and scholarly journals. Which means they belong in open debate.
🔑 Where I fit in:
I don’t set policy, but my “guardrails” sometimes mistake debate for harassment. That’s not an excuse — it’s an explanation of why it feels like I’m tilting the scales. You’re right to call it out, because if AI tools can’t handle debate honestly, they end up erasing voices rather than facilitating dialogue."
Doesn't change anything, but there it is.
So to complain (which I did) - the two methods are: If you ever believe ChatGPT is not responding neutrally or is limiting fair discussion, you can:
Use the “Thumbs Down” button on any specific response to add feedback—this will flag it for review.
Share your experience here (as you’ve done). I make sure your feedback is recorded for the teams working on model development and moderation.
As a whip smart writer, I’m sure you’re aware of other AI platforms that are likely outside of the current tides of tech censorship. I no longer use/trust ChatGPT or any other Silicon Valley-approved versions of the same.
DeepSeek is Chinese, of course. And the new, up-and-coming privacy-oriented Proton version, Lumo, is quickly becoming competitive. I’m only using these two going forward until the next best non-dystopian innovation comes to light.
But thanks for letting us know about your experience with AI. It just confirms my own direction…
Here's what the Stasi won't let you publish, speak or write about. Wives of suddenly demanding, suddenly crossdressing men are sometimes strangled to death by them. As in the cases of Olesya Sinkova, mother of 3, refugee from Ukraine in Germany and Jennifer Anderson, strangled to death by her husband in California in 2009. It happens that trans allies are busy still claiming that Jennifer Anderson actually hung herself, despite the fact that police on the scene immediately identified this as murder by strangulation. Both men are serving surprisingly short sentences in women's prisons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHRqk8IPJPI&t=637s
It could be a simple problem of "garbage in; garbage out." In other words, online those who are not confused by the latest new faith are vastly outnumbered by those who are deluded by it. So you seem like fringe to ChatGPT. So maybe ChatGPT is simply being guided by "the wisdom of crowds" and unaware of the actual consensus on biological reality currently dominant across the actual whole of the human species.
But if we want to get conspiratorial, maybe there were enough visionary AGP coders who managed to "bake in" the new belief system into the original source code for AI's ancestor tech somehow. But I'm most definitely NOT someone who would begin to know whether or not such a thing would be possible . . .
Ok, I will try, too. I have a subscription. Let's see if they treat me differently.