(Them Before Us) — The story of the week has been a viral video of two men kissing their surrogate baby every month during the child’s first year. Before we even knew one of them was a convicted pedophile, normies were objecting. And I saw Grok, X’s AI bot, grossly misleading those who wanted to understand the harms of same-sex parenting.
Now I’m no tech genius, but even I understand that AI is not an original thinker. It simply pulls from what’s already online. And when it comes to same-sex parenting studies, what’s online is saturated with political bias.
So I decided to take Grok on a little journey. And so far, over a quarter of a million people have found it helpful.
First, I had the algorithm narrow the field of studies down to those that have reliable methodologies.
Once it excluded the studies that used inadequate controls, recruited participants, and used small sample sizes, it immediately computed that the circumstances weren’t as rosy as previously indicated.
Then I raised older studies conducted before the rush of “no difference” studies hit the headlines. Grok hadn’t considered these before. Grok acknowledged that these studies had flaws that precluded them from inferring population-wide conclusions about same-sex parenting. Now that it concluded that some studies simply are not valid, I turned the tables.
Grok concluded that if we were going to throw out the older studies due to poor methodology, the vast majority of studies and supportive same-sex parenting would also need to be thrown out.
READ: Homosexual pedophile obtains baby boy through surrogacy
So, which large random studies were trustworthy? Grok listed only three and did not even include the two strongest studies – Sullins and Regnarus.
Once it acknowledged that there really is no scientific consensus on same-sex parenting, it was time for a new tactic. What was the scientific consensus prior to the rise of same-sex parenting studies?
Grok had to admit the married, biological mother and father family was best for children.
Then I asked what the studies showed about parental loss, complementary in parenting, and the importance of biology. Grok could not refute these sociological truisms.
Things everyone agreed on until two seconds ago:
- Biological parents are statistically the safest, most connected to, and most invested in kids
- Maternal or paternal loss inflicts long-term trauma
- Mothers and fathers offer distinct and complementary benefits
If that’s the case, dear Grok, how on earth could these same-sex parenting studies conclude that children fare no differently? Did human nature suddenly change?
Look at its answer:
Even Grok had to admit that these studies had more to do with peer pressure and financial incentives than genuine science. Artificial intelligence seems to have more common sense than many in academia. And, at least in this case, it has come to the correct, child-centric conclusion. Whether you’re an advocate, a skeptic, or simply someone who cares about scientific rigor, this conversation makes one thing clear: the quality of the methods, the studies, and the evidence matters. When it comes to children’s lives and their natural rights, we owe it to them to examine the methodology, not just the message.
Reprinted with permission from Them Before Us.
