Disfigured Texas Woman Allowed To Sue Therapist For Transgender Medicine Fraud
Patients harmed by the atrocities of transgender 'medicine' may not experience the full effect for years, especially those coerced into treatment as minors.Patients harmed by the atrocities of transgender 'medicine' may not experience the full effect for years, especially those coerced into treatment as minors.Mental illness has become a political identity — and SURPRISE, it's on the left: Study
There have been numerous studies in recent years highlighting correlations between political affiliation and mental health.
A 2021 study published in the journal SSM-Mental Health, for instance, concluded — on the basis of an analysis of depressive attitudes among conservative and liberal 12th graders from 2005 to 2018 — that "conservatives reported lower average depressive affect, self-derogation, and loneliness scores and higher self-esteem scores than all other groups."
'These findings have far-reaching consequences.'
A 2023 study conducted by Gallup on behalf of the Institute for Family Studies found that adolescents with "very conservative parents are 16 to 17 percentage points more likely to be in good or excellent mental health compared to their peers with very liberal parents."
A 2025 study published in the journal PLOS One found that "even after accounting for a variety of other factors, there is a clear propensity of conservatives to provide more positive assessments of their mental health in comparison to liberals" — although the researchers ultimately attempted to credit this tendency to stigma or survey terminology.
The American left's mental health issues show no signs of clearing up. In fact, while conservatives continue to enjoy relatively superior mental health, the sickness on the other side appears to be attracting sufferers into a political identity all its own.
In a study strongly recommending "replication and further exploration" that was recently published in the journal Political Behavior, Lauren Van De Hey of Utah State University found that "mental health identity has begun to function as a political identity for some individuals," particularly among "younger (Gen Z) and more liberal Americans."
RELATED: Actress Elliot Page mocked ruthlessly after trying to define 'healthy masculinity'
Utilizing data from the national Cooperative Election Study administered by YouGov in 2022, the Utah researcher determined that a great many people now "categorize themselves as having had a mental illness, the vast majority of whom view mental illness identity and mental illness alienation as important to their sense of self."
"People who have experienced mental illness feel close to others who have experienced mental illness," wrote Van De Hey. "They are also likely to self-categorize as having or having had a mental illness, share a sense of group consciousness with others who have or had mental illness, and recognize the need to work together to change laws that are unfair to people with mental illness."
This obviously has political implications, explained the researcher, as it correlates with "support for increased state spending on health care, education, and welfare."
The study cited Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) as an example of a political elite for whom mental health appears to have become a "politicized identity."
Smith has on numerous occasions discussed her past experiences with depression, grouped herself with sufferers, and identified "mental health parity" as a legislative priority.
"Those more likely to categorize as having a mental illness are more likely to have a college degree; be a Democrat, liberal, and white; and have slightly lower family income," said the study. "For both the [Mental Illness] Identity and [Mental Illness] Alienation scales, the only consequential variable is ideology: Those with higher MI identification or MI Alienation are more likely to be liberal."
Van De Hey concluded, "These findings have far-reaching consequences for mental health advocacy and the role mental health identity will play in the political sphere — especially as Gen Z matures as a cohort."
Dealing with a sample of 860 respondents, Van De Hey found that 26% categorized themselves as having had a mental illness in their lifetime, 22% categorized themselves as having had a physical disability, and 168 categorized themselves as having had a serious chronic physical illness.
Of the 220 respondents who said they had mental illness in their lifetime, 70% identified as "liberal" or "very liberal," 24% identified as "moderate," and 32% identified as "conservative" or "very conservative."
Of the same 220 respondents, about half stated that their identity as a person with a mental health illness was "important" or "very important to them."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Actress Elliot Page mocked ruthlessly after trying to define 'healthy masculinity'
A decade after starring in "Inception," lesbian actress Ellen Page committed to her most challenging role yet: living her real life as an effeminate, short-haired transvestite named "Elliot Page."
Page had her healthy beasts surgically removed, then announced in a Dec. 1, 2020, social media post, "I am trans, my pronouns are he/they and my name is Elliot."
'Sure sounds a lot like femininity.'
Having now played the role of Elliot for over five years, the biological female — who divorced her "wife" and leaned into her LGBT activism following the "transition" — now apparently feels sufficiently qualified to define what constitutes "healthy masculinity."
As part of a broader media tour for her new LGBT propaganda film, "Second Nature," Page recently sat down with the eponymous host of "It's Open with Illana Glazer" for a heart-to-heart.
After claiming that the "gender binary ... just doesn't exist" and alluding to testosterone's transformative impact on her baseline aggression, Page stated that healthy masculinity is "leaning away from whenever there is some sort of impulse or expectation you've put on yourself to, like, shut down or conform in a way that usually feels like this — like I am closing off."
Page cited the reluctance among some men to smile in photos as typical of such emotional closure.
"To me, healthy masculinity would be, well, you know what — healthiness for anyone to just, you know, love themselves; be able to care for themselves; ideally get rest when they can, you know, like, just the practical basic — drink water, like, eat a banana. You know?" said Page.
RELATED: 'Why don't men go to therapy?' It all comes down to one very good reason
Page, 39, added in her rambling definition that healthy masculinity is "also just, you know, doing what you can to be intentionally and mindfully not letting yourself get, like, swayed or twisted by the rules that I feel like end up, like, leading to so many of the problems that we see that are, you know, do get inflicted by toxic masculinity, violence and abuse, just general cruelty."
The actress, whose memoir details her history of depression and self-mutilation, padded her tortured definition by adding, "Healthy masculinity could just mean a really good cry."
Critics relentlessly have mocked Page's definition, which went viral on social media over the weekend.
Chris Elston, the anti-gender-ideology activist better known as Billboard Chris, quipped, "This is the most female conversation ever."
Not the Bee, the non-satirical news companion to the Babylon Bee, wrote, "Wow, the healthy masculinity she’s talking about sure sounds a lot like femininity."
"It’s so interesting that she embodies every female stereotype while trying to do her best impression of a man," tweeted author and homeschooling advocate Rachel Wilson.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
GOP-Run Indiana City Considers Democrat-Run, California-Style Homeless Center
Hundreds of billions spent nationwide on homeless services have only resulted in more homelessness. Councilman Russ Jehl says Fort Wayne should try a third option besides doing nothing or enabling addicts.Why leftism as a mental illness is a ‘comforting fiction’
As the divide between the right and the left continues to deepen, BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre explains that Americans are writing off what they don’t understand about each other as a “form of mental illness.”
“This is understandable when it comes to horrific crime. Someone like a serial killer is so violent and twisted that it's hard for us to comprehend their actions, and there is certainly a fair amount of mental illness that plays a factor,” MacIntyre says. “But today people often use this explanation when it comes to political disagreements.”
“Abortion, hatred for Christians and white people, the mutilation of children to turn boys into girls — these beliefs are so horrible that they can only possibly be explained by a malfunctioning brain,” he continues. “Of course, that's not the only explanation.”
“The other option is that some people have a very different set of values that drive them to pursue goals that we view as evil. The average American would like to avoid this truth, because it comes with an unnerving conclusion: Your political enemies aren't crazy; they are sane people who hate you and want to hurt you,” he adds.
MacIntyre explains that believing that a radical leftist who wants to mutilate children is mentally ill “is far easier than addressing the alternative.”
“The idea that half of America is crazy because they don’t share your political views is obviously absurd," he says. "The truth is much darker. We’re at least two societies, with mutually exclusive understandings of morality and purpose, trapped in one country.”
“The theoretical neutrality of the liberal system allowed this drift to occur under the surface, but the differences have become too extreme to ignore. Both sides have their own internally consistent understanding of the world, but they’re entirely incompatible with each other,” he explains.
“One side is going to win and one side is going to lose, and the winning side is going to impose its way of life on the other. There is no way to avoid this reality,” he continues. “And obscuring the truth with comforting fictions about mental illness only ensures that you’ll be on the side that loses.”
Want more from Auron MacIntyre?
To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist's commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Your enemies aren't mentally ill. They apparently just want to kill you.
In our modern world, it is very common to conflate motives we do not understand with some form of mental illness. This is understandable when it comes to horrific crime. A serial killer is so violent and twisted that it is hard for us to comprehend his actions, and there is certainly a fair amount of mental illness that is a factor.
Today, however, people often use this explanation when it comes to political disagreements. Abortion, hatred of Christians, the mutilation of children — these beliefs are so horrible that they can only possibly be explained by a malfunctioning brain. But that is not the only explanation. The other option is that some people have a very different set of values that drive them to pursue goals we view as evil.
Our differences are not based on mental illness but fundamental beliefs about right and wrong.
The average American would like to avoid this truth, because it comes with an unnerving conclusion: Your political enemies are not crazy; they are sane people who hate you and want to hurt you.
As sophisticated and modern people, we tend to avoid language that implies some form of objective metaphysical truth. Evil is a concept that conjures up images of old churches, judgmental Sunday-school teachers, and medieval peasants trying to explain a drought.
We have the technology and understanding to explain everything in the world around us. Explanations that call on unseen forces or divine intervention are no longer required. In this thoroughly materialistic view, humans are simply animals with more sophisticated brains. Any undesirable behavior, therefore, can be understood as a malfunction of that brain.
There is no evil; there is only mental illness.
Modern Americans are universalists in a very strange sense. We assume that our values, beliefs, and customs are the default for all humans everywhere. Americans believe that all our assumptions about the way life ought to be lived are arrived at through individual human rationality, so if another person has a functioning brain, he will, of course, come to the same conclusion.
When we are confronted with someone who has very different understandings or goals, it is assumed that something has happened to his faculties of reason.
We try to argue with these people in hopes that rational debate will help them see the error of their ways. If debate does not work, we begin diagnosing the dissenting individual with all kinds of pathologies that explain why he doesn't see the world the way we do. The explanation for divergent morals or goals is always a defective mental process, never a genuine difference in how we view the world.
The obsession with material explanations accounts for half of this phenomenon, but the other half is explained by our desperate need to avoid real conflict.
One of the major selling points of liberalism was the reduced need for violent conflict by removing existential questions from the political arena. Who is right about God? What is the ultimate good? To what end should we orient our society? These are all important but dangerous questions. The answers are exclusive and all-encompassing.
These are the things that people are willing to kill and die for, so better to make them off-limits and focus on something everyone can agree on — making more money and increasing the standard of living.
RELATED: The liberal guide to committing national suicide
The desire to end the terrible wars that were fought over religion or identity is entirely understandable, and it is difficult to argue that the focus on economic cooperation did not produce significant benefits, but this was always a trade-off that could never last.
We may like to pretend that we are too advanced and sophisticated to get hung up on these primitive concerns, but under the surface, they continue to define us. Those conflicts do not disappear, and when they re-emerge, you have stripped your civilization of the tools needed to identify and address them, which is exactly what we are seeing now.
Americans no longer have the moral language to discuss good and evil, so they simply apply a clinical diagnosis to their opponents instead. Believing a radical leftist is mentally ill is far easier than addressing the alternative. If the progressive is a perfectly sane person and still wants to take your son if you do not chop off his genitals, then the calculus for what must be done changes radically.
Differences of opinion can be navigated as long as two parties share the same moral assumptions and the same goals. But if there is a fundamental difference in what is considered good or evil — if two groups seek radically opposed outcomes — then no amount of rational debate will ever resolve the core issue.
If our differences are not based on mental illness but fundamental beliefs about right and wrong, then a disturbing conclusion emerges. When rational debate is no longer an option, then the only solution left is the same one our unsophisticated ancestors came to for centuries — one group must win and the other must lose.
In the best scenario, this means an exercise of power from the winning side that allows it to rule over the other, forcing its way of life upon the defeated foe. In the worst scenario, this means violence and war until one side is no longer willing to fight to defend its way of life.
In either case, this is a return to an existential understanding of politics. The stakes are no longer higher taxes or lower taxes, but survival.
It should be said that mental illness is real and can be a factor in some political trends, but the idea that half of Americans are crazy because they do not share your political views is absurd. The truth is much darker: We are at least two societies, with mutually exclusive understandings of morality and purpose, trapped in one country.
The theoretical neutrality of the liberal system allowed this drift to occur under the surface, but the differences have become too extreme to ignore. Both sides have their own internally consistent understanding of the world, but they are entirely incompatible with each other.
One side is going to win, one side is going to lose, and the winning side is going to impose its way of life on the other. There is no way to avoid this reality, and obscuring the truth with comforting fictions about mental illness only ensures that you will be the side that loses.
With Louisiana Homeless Bill, Democrats Once Again Smear Sensible Policy As ‘Jim Crow’
Lawmakers in Louisiana are weighing new policies that align with the vision for addressing America’s homelessness crisis outlined by President Donald Trump last summer. This approach breaks with a misguided, decades-old national practice of offering homeless people publicly funded support without also asking them to help themselves. In response, outraged activists have compared Louisiana’s proposals […]New York Magazine’s Latest Anti-Child Propaganda Misses The Point Of Parenthood
Maybe, just maybe, sacrificing self to cultivate a legacy and life that goes beyond LinkedIn and the landfill is the point.Austin’s ‘Property of Allah’ shooter is immigration failure made flesh
Being president of the United States is a job unlike any other. Wise leadership often goes unnoticed because the public never sees the disasters it prevented. Feckless leadership leaves a paper trail of avoidable tragedy — and nowhere does that trail run clearer than immigration.
The mass shooting over the weekend in Austin, Texas, offers a grim case study. Ndiaga Diagne opened fire at a popular bar near the University of Texas, killing two people and injuring 14 others before police killed him. The story of how he entered the country, stayed, and ultimately gained citizenship reads like a checklist of missed opportunities for enforcement and vetting.
A government that takes national security seriously screens more aggressively, removes violators faster, and treats immigration law as law — not as a set of suggestions.
Diagne, a 53-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Senegal, moved through an immigration system that repeatedly rewarded leniency and procedural box-checking over basic security judgment. As the U.S. hardens its defenses amid escalating conflict with Iran, the country should confront these shortcomings and adopt reforms that put Americans’ safety first.
A path to citizenship full of red flags
Diagne’s record raises questions that any serious system should have addressed long before he was granted citizenship.
He entered the United States on a B-2 tourist visa on March 13, 2000, during the Clinton administration. A year later, New York City police arrested him for illegal vending. That offense alone might not have warranted major action, but it marked the beginning of a pattern. Reports also suggest he overstayed his visa, since tourist visas for Senegalese citizens typically allow a stay of six months.
By 2006, during the George W. Bush administration, he adjusted his status to lawful permanent resident through marriage to a U.S. citizen. In April 2013 — during the Obama administration — he became a naturalized citizen, despite earlier signs of disregard for immigration rules and later arrests in New York between 2008 and 2016. Some of those matters remain sealed, and public reporting about the underlying conduct varies, but the volume alone should have triggered deeper scrutiny at every stage.
Reports also describe Diagne as emotionally disturbed. He reportedly applied for asylum years after becoming a citizen — a move that makes little sense on its face and raises further questions about stability, intent, and how carefully officials reviewed his file over time.
The attacker’s presentation added another disturbing layer. He wore a hoodie emblazoned with “Property of Allah” alongside an Iranian flag. Reports about images from his home also claim he kept pictures of Iranian leaders. Even if investigators ultimately draw a different conclusion about motive, the optics underscore the obvious point: When the system admits, legalizes, and naturalizes people with glaring warning signs, the country absorbs the risk.
None of this looks like a one-off error. It looks like a culture of permissiveness — a system that too often treats enforcement as optional and vetting as a formality.
RELATED: The great replacement, American style
We’ve seen this pattern before
Austin did not occur in a vacuum. The 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack left 14 people dead and 22 injured at a holiday party. One perpetrator, Tashfeen Malik, entered the U.S. on a K-1 fiancé visa during the Obama administration. Investigators later said she pledged allegiance to ISIS online before the attack.
San Bernardino revealed the same basic weakness: immigration pathways that assume good faith, overlook warning signals, and fail to connect the dots until bodies lie on the ground.
Now place those lessons in the current context. Iran’s regime has built its influence by exporting terror through proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. As U.S. and Israeli strikes pressure Tehran, the regime’s remaining options include asymmetric retaliation. Domestic security officials should treat that risk seriously, especially after reports that the Biden-Harris administration released more than 700 Iranian nationals into the interior. Even if only a tiny fraction pose a threat, the consequences could be catastrophic.
America cannot afford “sleeper” operatives posing as refugees or asylum-seekers from terrorist-sponsoring regimes. A government that takes national security seriously screens more aggressively, removes violators faster, and treats immigration law as law — not as a set of suggestions.
Democrats have opposed border security, tougher deportations, and reforms such as the SAVE Act. They dress up their opposition as compassion. In practice, permissive policies expand the pool of illegal residents, increase pressure for amnesty, and reshape political incentives through reapportionment and election machinery. Americans pay the price. The dead in Austin and San Bernardino paid the price.
Americans should say, with one voice: No more.
Viral Twenty One Pilots Song ‘Drag Path’ Offers A Christian Antidote To Gen Z Angst
What makes 'Drag Path' especially powerful is the way it resonates with young people who may not identify as Christian at all.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com