Gender Dysphoria - GREAT article.

[edjr 5,568]

 

Quote

 

Trans activists forced the retraction of my paper. Their efforts have redoubled my commitment to the truth.

I am a professor of psychology at Northwestern University. I have been a professor for 34 years, and a researcher for 40. Over the decades, I have studied controversial topics—from IQ, to sexual orientation, to transsexualism (what we called transgenderism before 2015), to pedophilia. I have published well over 100 academic articles. I am best known for studying sexual orientation—from genetic influences, to childhood precursors of homosexuality, to laboratory-measured sexual arousal patterns. 

My research has been denounced by people of all political stripes because I have never prioritized a favored constituency over the truth. 

But I have never had an article retracted. Until now.

On March 29, I published an article in the prestigious academic journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. Less than three months later, on June 14, it was retracted by Springer Nature Group, the giant academic publisher of Archives, for an alleged violation of its editorial policies.

Retraction of scientific articles is associated with well-deserved shame: plagiarism, making up data, or grave concerns about the scientific integrity of a study. But my article was not retracted for any shameful reason. It was retracted because it provided evidence for an idea that activists hate.

The retracted article, “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” was coauthored with Suzanna Diaz, who I met in 2018 at a small meeting of scientists, journalists, and parents of children they believed had Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD). 

ROGD was first described in the literature in 2018 by the physician and researcher Lisa Littman. It is an explanation of the new phenomenon of adolescents, largely girls, with no history of gender dysphoria, suddenly declaring they want to transition to the opposite sex. It has been a highly contentious diagnosis, with some—and I am one—thinking it’s an important avenue for scientific inquiry, and others declaring it’s a false idea advocated by parents unable to accept they have a transgender child.

 

 

https://www.thefp.com/p/trans-activists-killed-my-scientific-paper

 

Read this on the train this morning. GREAT READ! The truth should not be silenced!

I have 2 nieces. 15 and 12. Both want to be called by male names and called he. They are both confused and depressed. The school they went to told them that this was okay and even promoted it. 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

9 minutes ago, edjr said:

 

 

https://www.thefp.com/p/trans-activists-killed-my-scientific-paper

 

Read this on the train this morning. GREAT READ! The truth should not be silenced!

I have 2 nieces. 15 and 12. Both want to be called by male names and called he. They are both confused and depressed. The school they went to told them that this was okay and even promoted it. 

Well, with an Aunt like you is this really that big of a surprise?

[BuckSwope 654]

Good read, thanks.  

Especially troubling that the social conversions also made matters worse and escalated the odds of permanent treatments according to the surveys.  

[edjr 5,568]

4 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Well, with an Aunt like you is this really that big of a surprise?

thtop it. 

[RLLD 3,455]

Well, this professor had to know that speaking truth which flouts liberal dogma is going to result in some nasty consequences, so I wish them well. 

[Strike 3,981]

Nothing some of us haven't been saying for years in that article, but good to see someone doing actual scientific research around this topic.  Thanks for posting  it Ed. 

[squistion 898]

Quote

My research has been denounced by people of all political stripes

And for good reason.

[edjr 5,568]

32 minutes ago, Strike said:

Nothing some of us haven't been saying for years in that article, but good to see someone doing actual scientific research around this topic.  Thanks for posting  it Ed. 

https://www.thefp.com/   is the only place I trust when it comes to articles. 

[TheNewGirl 1,031]

Wow, that was a great read, Ed. Thank you. 

[edjr 5,568]

44 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

Wow, that was a great read, Ed. Thank you. 

 

[League Champion 1,593]

No guidance in life for these confused kids. They need a therapist, not hormones and their junk cut off

[jerryskids 5,212]

4 hours ago, squistion said:

And for good reason.

What are those good reasons?

[jerryskids 5,212]

Quote

Disturbingly, those young people with more emotional problems were especially likely to have socially and medically transitioned. The best predictor of both social and medical transition was a referral to a gender specialist. Some 52 percent of parents in our study who had received a referral said they felt pressured by the gender specialist to facilitate some sort of transition for their child.

More than 1/2 of the parents felt pressured by the "gender specialist."  IIRC, @GutterBoy and others assured me that these clinics must be on the up and up.

Imagine supporting this.  Imagine having a kid, especially a daughter, and seeing nothing wrong here.   

[jerryskids 5,212]

Quote

But when parents are worried about their adolescent children, there is usually a good reason. And these were not parents with a political ax to grind: with few exceptions, all of the parents we surveyed were progressive.

So much for the "it's a bunch of transphobic Magatards$#@!" excuse.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

5 hours ago, RLLD said:

Well, this professor had to know that speaking truth which flouts liberal dogma is going to result in some nasty consequences, so I wish them well. 

This guy has been under criticism since he wrote his first book 20 years ago.  He's been arguing against trannys for a long time.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170124/

[GutterBoy 2,281]

20 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

More than 1/2 of the parents felt pressured by the "gender specialist."  IIRC, @GutterBoy and others assured me that these clinics must be on the up and up.

Imagine supporting this.  Imagine having a kid, especially a daughter, and seeing nothing wrong here.   

I never assured you of anything, jack ass.  If anything I just shared my opinion that I doubted that these clinics were trying to convince kids to get surgery.

[RLLD 3,455]

5 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

This guy has been under criticism since he wrote his first book 20 years ago.  He's been arguing against trannys for a long time.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170124/

But if he instead supported the tranny movement, he would be a hero....would he not?

[GutterBoy 2,281]

Just now, RLLD said:

But if he instead supported the tranny movement, he would be a hero....would he not?

hero?  to who? Why?

I assume he's a hero to whoever agrees with him.

[RLLD 3,455]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

hero?  to who? Why?

I assume he's a hero to whoever agrees with him.

I agree.  Depending on just what his position is he will likely arise as an authoritative source to either the extreme left or right.  So in this instance he has facts to support a position that tends to disagree with the dogma of transecualism.  Therefore, he should expect the standard array of personal and professional attacks.  

Perhaps that is not the way to do this though. 

[squistion 898]

41 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

What are those good reasons?

He apparently invented a new sub-category of gender dysphoria but didn't go about proving it in a scientific manner.. It seems he doesn't believe that most cases of gender dysphoria are real (which we have heard on this forum) and tried to prove it by talking just to parents who did not believe their children were trans after they told them that they were.

It was a horrible flawed study and retracting it was the correct move 

 

https://katjat.medium.com/the-road-to-retraction-j-michael-bailey-and-rogd-9b0e89b8ba7b

 

He asserts “rapid onset gender dysphoria” as a legitimate explanation for the fact that increased numbers of youth seek gender-affirming care. A strong criticism of both articles has been that, obviously, one cannot seriously propose to develop a diagnostic sub-category for gender dysphoria without engaging with gender dysphoric youth and their clinical files, and that taking one’s cues from parents who do not believe their children when they say they are trans makes one’s project distinctly biased.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

I agree.  Depending on just what his position is he will likely arise as an authoritative source to either the extreme left or right.  So in this instance he has facts to support a position that tends to disagree with the dogma of transecualism.  Therefore, he should expect the standard array of personal and professional attacks.  

Perhaps that is not the way to do this though. 

I don't think it was the facts people didn't like.  I linked a very long article that goes into great detail that I'm sure you didnt read.

From what I read, and I admittedly never heard of this guy before today, I'm sure same goes for you, but he interviewed a couple of trans women, and then concluded that they were just gay men who were turned on by pretending to be women and were also into focking kids and animals, when the subjects never said any of this.

My point is there is more than this then just this article released today.  He's been fighting against trans people for decades.

[edjr 5,568]

2 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I don't think it was the facts people didn't like.  I linked a very long article that goes into great detail that I'm sure you didnt read.

From what I read, and I admittedly never heard of this guy before today, I'm sure same goes for you, but he interviewed a couple of trans women, and then concluded that they were just gay men who were turned on by pretending to be women and were also into focking kids and animals, when the subjects never said any of this.

My point is there is more than this then just this article released today.  He's been fighting against trans people for decades.

Fighting? Or just trying to get to the truth?  SCIENCE!!c 

[RLLD 3,455]

5 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I don't think it was the facts people didn't like.  I linked a very long article that goes into great detail that I'm sure you didnt read.

From what I read, and I admittedly never heard of this guy before today, I'm sure same goes for you, but he interviewed a couple of trans women, and then concluded that they were just gay men who were turned on by pretending to be women and were also into focking kids and animals, when the subjects never said any of this.

My point is there is more than this then just this article released today.  He's been fighting against trans people for decades.

Perhaps he has an agenda as you suggest and that is flavoring his research.   

[jerryskids 5,212]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

He apparently invented a new sub-category of gender dysphoria but didn't go about proving it in a scientific manner.. It seems he doesn't believe that most cases of gender dysphoria are real (which we have heard on this forum) and tried to prove it by talking just to parents who did not believe their children were trans after they told them that they were.

It was a horrible flawed study and retracting it was the correct move 

 

https://katjat.medium.com/the-road-to-retraction-j-michael-bailey-and-rogd-9b0e89b8ba7b

 

He asserts “rapid onset gender dysphoria” as a legitimate explanation for the fact that increased numbers of youth seek gender-affirming care. A strong criticism of both articles has been that, obviously, one cannot seriously propose to develop a diagnostic sub-category for gender dysphoria without engaging with gender dysphoric youth and their clinical files, and that taking one’s cues from parents who do not believe their children when they say they are trans makes one’s project distinctly biased.

He acknowledges that in the paper, if you had read the link in the OP:

Quote

Our study had two obvious limitations: the way we recruited parents guaranteed that only those who believed their children had ROGD would participate, and we had only the parents’ perspectives. We clearly acknowledged and discussed these in our paper, beginning with the words “At least two related issues potentially limit this research” followed by three paragraphs laying out the limitations.

So there was no after-the-fact discovery of limitations, or new info that came to light on this point, to justify the retraction.

Also, your blogger is quite the trans activist it seems.  One of many examples:

 

 

 

[Fnord 1,141]

It would be cool to just have a frank discussion about this paper based on its merits, including pointing out potential bias on the part of the author.

But we have shown we can't. Not just among the degenerates in the GC, but societally. Pejorative and abusive terms will be thrown around, and accusations made. The end result is everyone digging deeper into their own ideological trench, even more convinced of how ignorant the idiots in the other trench are.

[Mike Hunt 154]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

He apparently invented a new sub-category of gender dysphoria but didn't go about proving it in a scientific manner.. It seems he doesn't believe that most cases of gender dysphoria are real (which we have heard on this forum) and tried to prove it by talking just to parents who did not believe their children were trans after they told them that they were.

It was a horrible flawed study and retracting it was the correct move 

 

https://katjat.medium.com/the-road-to-retraction-j-michael-bailey-and-rogd-9b0e89b8ba7b

 

He asserts “rapid onset gender dysphoria” as a legitimate explanation for the fact that increased numbers of youth seek gender-affirming care. A strong criticism of both articles has been that, obviously, one cannot seriously propose to develop a diagnostic sub-category for gender dysphoria without engaging with gender dysphoric youth and their clinical files, and that taking one’s cues from parents who do not believe their children when they say they are trans makes one’s project distinctly biased.

 

The more I read and research about trannies the less they should have to do with the gays.   There are not in the same league and should not be lumped together in a group.

They are distinctly different.

[FrancieFootball 65]

[squistion 898]

3 minutes ago, Mike Hunt said:

The more I read and research about trannies the less they should have to do with the gays.   There are not in the same league and should not be lumped together in a group.

They are distinctly different.

The LGBTQ community disagrees with this and has for decades since the T was added to the LGB. Every organization that talks about this minority community always mentions that trans are a part of it. 

[dogcows 1,029]

Why do so many people gravitate to the tiny number of crazy doctors who say the opposite of the overwhelming majority of the medical community? They did it during COVID, they are doing it again with gender-affirming medicine.

I guess it’s a part of human nature? Snake oil salesmen and quacks have been with us for centuries. I just wonder how we can explain it.

[Mike Hunt 154]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

The LGBTQ community disagrees with this and has for decades since the T was added to the LGB. Every organization that talks about this minority community always mentions that trans are a part of it. 

 

But sexually they are not, nor should be the same group as gays.

Why not add midgets and put an M on the end?

[dogcows 1,029]

3 minutes ago, squistion said:

The LGBTQ community disagrees with this and has for decades since the T was added to the LGB. Every organization that talks about this minority community always mentions that trans are a part of it. 

They are allies in the fight against discrimination… even though one group is about sexual preference and one is about gender identity.  They’ve both generally been discriminated against by society, and work together to help each other out.

[BuckSwope 654]

2 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Why do so many people gravitate to the tiny number of crazy doctors who say the opposite of the overwhelming majority of the medical community? They did it during COVID, they are doing it again with gender-affirming medicine.

I guess it’s a part of human nature? Snake oil salesmen and quacks have been with us for centuries. I just wonder how we can explain it.

Confirmation bias is a thing, of course.   We have become so hyper-partisan that now we even have to take sides about science.   Lots of things to blame, but it's sad, and now it's even harder to talk solutions because people can't agree on the core facts.  

 

[FrancieFootball 65]

11 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Why do so many people gravitate to the tiny number of crazy doctors who say the opposite of the overwhelming majority of the medical community? They did it during COVID, they are doing it again with gender-affirming medicine.

I guess it’s a part of human nature? Snake oil salesmen and quacks have been with us for centuries. I just wonder how we can explain it.

Yes, you are referring to America's Frontline Doctors, a far-right organization that propagated outrageously false information during the COVID pandemic. 

Not surprising that trans women have accused Bailey of sexual impropriety and ethics violations.

He's likely projecting the disdain for himself for his attraction to trans women. 

[jerryskids 5,212]

7 minutes ago, FrancieFootball said:

Yes, you are referring to America's Frontline Doctors, a far-right organization that propagated outrageously false information during the COVID pandemic. 

Not surprising that trans women have accused Bailey of sexual impropriety and ethics violations.

He's likely projecting the disdain for himself for his attraction to trans women. 

I think you nailed it.   

 

[FrancieFootball 65]

13 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I think you nailed it.   

 

It's not as uncommon as you would think. All too often men who are the loudest about their trans-women disgust are the ones tickling their pickles in secrecy while watching trans porn on PornHub.

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

8 hours ago, edjr said:

I have 2 nieces. 15 and 12. Both want to be called by male names and called he. They are both confused and depressed. The school they went to told them that this was okay and even promoted it. 

 

 

Thank you for sharing the article, I appreciate it. 

Something Greg Gutfield said a few months ago, that I found pretty interesting, was he raised the question of how history, both long term and short term, would see and receive those who are being celebrated right now for pushing for and profiting from these "surgeries and procedures" on children. 

A gross assumption made often by the activist radical left is that the "cancel culture" will perpetually stay in lockstep in one specific direction. 

What if it doesn't? What if it shifts? What if it flips a 180? 

If you are in the medical profession, and the "Court Of Public Opinion" eventually turns on you, for making permanent surgical changes to children, what happens then? A "new cancel culture" could create an entire new classification of who society wants to have purified. The radical left has no mercy for those who they want to cancel now, will they accept that same kind of merciless brutality when it happens to them? 

[dogcows 1,029]

7 minutes ago, Blue Horseshoe said:

 

Thank you for sharing the article, I appreciate it. 

Something Greg Gutfield said a few months ago, that I found pretty interesting, was he raised the question of how history, both long term and short term, would see and receive those who are being celebrated right now for pushing for and profiting from these "surgeries and procedures" on children. 

A gross assumption made often by the activist radical left is that the "cancel culture" will perpetually stay in lockstep in one specific direction. 

What if it doesn't? What if it shifts? What if it flips a 180? 

If you are in the medical profession, and the "Court Of Public Opinion" eventually turns on you, for making permanent surgical changes to children, what happens then? A "new cancel culture" could create an entire new classification of who society wants to have purified. The radical left has no mercy for those who they want to cancel now, will they accept that same kind of merciless brutality when it happens to them? 

So you think medical consensus is some kind of cancel culture BS? Uh, no. They want to help patients, and rely on well-established, peer-reviewed science to do so. Lunatic contrarians who harp on some fringe medical theory for 40 years are the ones you should be worried about. Do you think that this handful of crazy quacks is going to suddenly take over the medical profession, switch us back to leeches and voodoo, and CANCEL all the real doctors? Sure, sounds plausible.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

Leave the kids alone, freaks and their “ally’s”.  

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

Nearly 40 pct of students at Brown University identify as lgbtq. Groomed. 

[jerryskids 5,212]

19 minutes ago, dogcows said:

So you think medical consensus is some kind of cancel culture BS? Uh, no. They want to help patients, and rely on well-established, peer-reviewed science to do so. Lunatic contrarians who harp on some fringe medical theory for 40 years are the ones you should be worried about. Do you think that this handful of crazy quacks is going to suddenly take over the medical profession, switch us back to leeches and voodoo, and CANCEL all the real doctors? Sure, sounds plausible.

I'm interested in this "medical consensus."  And don't use political/lobbying groups like the APA, they don't do research.

This doctor's point is that there is no research out there but there should be, he knows the limits of what he did scientifically, so he wants to do a larger study.  Are you saying that isn't necessary?  To look at the explosion of "diagnoses," self or otherwise, in the past 10 years, in girls in particular, and not at least want to look into possible causes, defies not only comprehension but any idea that the  medical community cares at all.