The manifesto of the transgender terrorist who shot up a Christian school in Nashville has finally been released, despite the efforts of the Biden administration and the ERLC.

Here’s the latest from the UK Daily Mail:

Transgender killer Audrey Hale wrote about her ‘imaginary penis’ and how she would ‘kill’ to get puberty blockers in the weeks before her horrific attack on the Covenant School in Nashville last year.

The Tennessee Star obtained some four dozen pages of Hale’s writings that shed light on her female-to-male transition and why she shot and killed six people at the elementary school in March 2023.

Hale wrote about anger toward her parents, how she hated her conservative Christian upbringing, and how she had suffered because hormone blockers were not available when she was as a child.

The explosive writings, sometimes referred to as Hale’s ‘manifesto,’ have been a source of controversy, with many accusing officials of keeping them secret because they would hurt the trans community.

Now released, they help explain why the 28-year-old artist, who identified as a male named Aiden, shot her way into the Tennessee school, killing three adults and three nine-year-olds, before responding officers killed her.

A big Democrat city and the Democrat Biden federal law enforcement opposed the release of the shooter’s manifesto:

After the shooting, Nashville’s Metropolitan Police Chief John Drake said his force had recovered the shooter’s manifesto, as well as hand-drawn maps in her car, and said they would eventually be made public.

But both city police and the FBI later said the material shouldn’t be released because it could hurt the investigations.

But they could not escape the investigative efforts of the conservative Tennessee Star:

The Star and others have been part of a lawsuit seeking to compel the Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD) and the FBI to release Hale’s writings.

The FBI reportedly advised the MNPD not to release them and other ‘legacy tokens’ in the wake of mass shootings.

Daily Wire had more to say: (archived)

So there’s nothing political in the manifesto, according to the director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. There’s nothing coherent at all, except maybe a desire to emulate school shooters. That’s what they told us, and if you asked questions — as you just saw — the media labeled you a conspiracy theorist. But at the same time, they wouldn’t let us see the manifesto for ourselves. That was a pretty big clue that they were lying to us. And indeed, once again thanks to the Tennessee Star, we have the proof.

[…]You know that’s a lie because the FBI’s failure to release the manifesto is what led to false narratives, as you just saw. Without the manifesto, the media was free to lie to us — and pretend that there was no relation whatsoever between the shooter’s transgender identity and the killings. But in fact, there was a clear relationship. This shooter was clearly enraged about the fact she couldn’t be a man. Joe Biden’s DOJ understands that this kind of revelation might be a set back for the White House’s narrative, so they just covered it up. They told you that the “trans community” was in danger instead.

In a country where the government actually cared about the well-being of its own citizens, and felt the slightest need to be honest with them, this would be a national scandal. The FBI director and the senior leadership of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation would all be fired immediately, at a minimum. But our government instead lies as a matter of course — and they’re not subtle about it. That’s why the government’s narrative about the Tennessee shooter is just one of several mainstream lies, cooked up by the government and promoted by the media, that we’re only learning about this week.

If you’re looking for a good conservative news source, you might want to check out the Tennessee Star. They stayed on the case and finally got us the information, despite the efforts of the secular leftists to cover up the details of a terrorist attack against conservative Christians.

Welcome to episode 50 of the Knight and Rose podcast! In this episode, Wintery Knight and Desert Rose discussing how your “identity in Christ” helps you to leave behind your old self and do useful work for Boss. If you like this episode, please subscribe to the podcast, and subscribe to our YouTube channel. We would appreciate it if you left us a 5-star review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Podcast description:

Christian apologists Wintery Knight and Desert Rose discuss apologetics, policy, culture, relationships, and more. Each episode equips you with evidence you can use to boldly engage anyone, anywhere. We train our listeners to become Christian secret agents. Action and adventure guaranteed. 30-45 minutes per episode. New episode every week.

Episode summary:

Wintery Knight and Desert Rose discuss the concept of “identity in Christ”. We discuss how your identity in Christ changes your desires, capabilities, priorities and goals. We contrast your identity in Christ with non-Christian ways of viewing yourself. We discuss the ways that a stronger identity in Christ helps you to resist the culture and have an active, productive relationship with God.

Outline and transcript

Here is a transcript of the show (with timestamps) provided by TurboScribe AI. TurboScribe AI allows you to translate the transcript into many, many different languages. You can also export the transcript into many different formats, with optional timestamps.

Episode 50:

Speaker biographies

Wintery Knight is a black legal immigrant. He is a senior software engineer by day, and an amateur Christian apologist by night. He has been blogging at winteryknight.com since January of 2009, covering news, policy and Christian worldview issues.

Desert Rose did her undergraduate degree in public policy, and then worked for a conservative Washington lobbyist organization. She also has a graduate degree from a prestigious evangelical seminary. She is active in Christian apologetics as a speaker, author, and teacher.

Podcast RSS feed:

https://feed.podbean.com/knightandrose/feed.xml

You can use this to subscribe to the podcast from your phone or tablet. I use the open-source AntennaPod app on my Android phone.

Podcast channel pages:

• Apple Podcasts / iTunes
• Spotify
• iHeartRadio
• Amazon Music / Audible
• TuneIn / Alexa
• PodBean
• PlayerFM
• Podcast Addict
• Listen Notes
• Podchaser
• BoomPlay

Video channel pages:

• YouTube
• Rumble
• Odysee

Music attribution:

Strength Of The Titans by Kevin MacLeod
Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/5744-strength-of-the-titans
License: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license

So, in response to yesterday’s post, I have been asked what are some of the other reasons that cause men to become disinterested in dating and marriage. I have a list as long as my arm. But here’s another one for today. Today’s reason is that the legal is system is biased against men. There many examples of the bias, but I’ll focus on sentencing.

The study I want to talk about today is called “Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases“, and it’s published in the peer-reviewed journal “American Law and Economics Review”.

The abstract says this:

This paper assesses and decomposes gender disparities in federal criminal cases. It finds large unexplained gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution, conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables. Decompositions show that most of the unexplained disparity appears to emerge during charging, plea-bargaining, and sentencing fact-finding. The approach provides an important complement to prior disparity studies, which have focused on sentencing and have not incorporated disparities arising from those earlier stages. I also consider various plausible causal theories that could explain the estimated gender gap, using the rich dataset to test their implications.

The key sentence there is “It finds large unexplained gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution, conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables.”

I also found this paragraph interesting:

The estimated gender disparities are strikingly large, conditional on observables. Most notably, treatment as male is associated with a 63% average increase in sentence length, with substantial unexplained gaps throughout the sentence distribution.

This anti-male discrimination becomes apparent to men when they are going through the divorce process.

About 70% of divorces are initiated by women, and most of them for frivolous reasons (reasons that were not recognized as valid in the law prior to “no-fault-divorce” being enacted). The reasons are also not recognized in the Bible. Throughout the divorce process, men encounter anti-male bias. This begins with the common use of false accusations against the man, in order to get sole custody, which provides the woman with greater child support payments from the man. These false accusations are usually not based on any evidence, such as police reports. They just emerge during the divorce proceedings and are used to eject the man from the home, and get the woman sole custody of the kids. In 90% of cases, the woman gets sole custody of the kids. And this is despite the fact that single-father homes have similar outcomes for children as married two-parents homes. The results of single-mother homes are disastrous for children in many areas, including poverty, crime, mental health,  sexual activity, etc. But the court system insists on doing what is worse for children by separating the father from the child. Even the meager visitation rights that fathers get are not enforced.

Failure to pay alimony and child support can land men in prison. And the laws are enforced very unfairly there, as well. Consider this case from Canada:

A wealthy businessman will have to pay more than $50,000 a month in spousal support for 10 years to a woman with whom he had a long-term romantic relationship even though they kept separate homes and had no children together, Ontario’s top court has ruled.

Seeing this, many men today have declined to participate in dating and marriage. And I could come up with dozens more reasons like this one. Based in peer-reviewed studies. It’s not one reason deterring men from marrying, it’s dozens of reasons. In every case, society has decided that men are expendable. And sadly, the church has largely ignored the root causes of men’s retreat from dating and marriage. The church simply has nothing at all to say to men who are faced with these risks, costs and disincentives.

When I explain these problems to pro-marriage conservatives, they confess to never having heard about any of these issues. They say “I just like the idea of people falling in love and having lots of cute babies”. They haven’t really bothered to think about the calculations that men run before deciding what to do with women. Maybe it’s time for Christian leaders to do a little more homework about these issues. Maybe there is something Christian churches can do to make marriage a bit more appealing to men.

We are already seeing this happening in conservative states like Florida and Tennessee. In Florida, there are new laws requiring that child custody be 50-50 in most circumstances. This acts as a deterrent against women who want to file frivolous divorces just to get child support from wealthy men. Florida also banned permanent alimony, which is another positive step to make marriage more fair for men. (Although many women in Florida were furious about it). In Tennessee, it is now a misdemeanor to claim child support payments from a man who is not the biological father of the child.

These are the kinds of policy solutions that will bring marriage back. But I’ve never heard Christians talking about these issues. All I ever hear from pious Christian leaders is that men need to “man up”, as if manning up makes the threats from feminist laws and courts disappear. It doesn’t work, but it does signal virtue, which seems to be the goal of many pious Christian leaders. We’re going to have to do better than virtue-signaling if we want to reverse the decline of marriage. It’s not going to be solved by shaming and blaming men.