40
https://twitter.com/profjmb/status/1648837843001782273
You can still read the paper here at SpringerLink (open access) until they make their final decision.
Suzanna Diaz & J. Michael Bailey (2023). “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases.” Archives of Sexual Behavior.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02576-9
Archive: https://archive.is/lD4Pq
TRAs will claim that parent responses don’t matter because parents are completely ignorant about who their children “really are.” As if we didn’t create them, gestate them, birth them, and raise them their entire lives. Ironically, the same TRAs will say that trans kids know exactly who their parents really are: emotionally abusive bigots.
Time and again, within this stupid new movement, 'ethical concerns' is the go-to for any study that produces data that doesn't support their desired outcome. "Science" is only supposed to prop up what they already believe, not challenge it.
"significant concerns about the ethical conduct and integrity of the editorial process"
I don't know about the editorial process part but if the authors did not follow established data collecting methods, or did not properly disclose risk of participation, or somehow manipulated to recieve their data that would be an "ethical concern" to be investigated.
I hope they did not step one toe out of compliance and kept careful documentation proving it.
I can’t imagine this is anywhere near as bad as the poor quality research that the trans-cult has been using to justify butchering children and letting grown men swing their willies in front of little girls…
Doing good science, being objectve, and telling the truth are "ethical concerns".
This study doesn't even make any strong claims that actually go against what the gender police do, and the main statement by the author seems to be "maybe this issue is more complex than we think and collecting data from more various sources should be encouraged for the sake of helping young people". The genderists just refuse to see any opinion that isn't subservient bootlicking.
This is absurd. If people want to offer a rebuttal, there is a mechanism to do so by publishing their own response or commentary. If there is evidence that there was true research misconduct, then it needs to be made very clear what that is - not vague hints of "ethical conduct" and "integrity." We would need to see words like "significant data breach" or "falsification of outcomes" to even begin to take that charge seriously.
Bailey is likely having flashbacks.
Wasn’t aware of his story until I saw your comment and read about him.
From Wikipedia, in response to his book ‘the man who would be queen’ - “and Andrea James posted pictures of his children (taken when they were in middle and elementary school) on her website with sexually explicit captions”
Tell me again how the TRAs aren’t fucking perverts.
Yep. Sorry. I forget that everyone here doesn’t have information about stuff from the beginning of a lot of the public trans road show.
The book was about men with AGP. Can’t have that information out in the world. Alice Dreger wrote about this scandal in Galileo’s Middle Finger. I believe there’s a free PDF available.
I read this as "ROGD faces" and pictured 500 girls with septum piercings and the exact same "non-binary" haircut.
In the interest of transparency, shouldn’t they also tell us what the ethical concerns are? Did I just miss them in the thread?