LGBTQIAP+ censorship of “gender dysphoria” study by Brown University’s Dr. Lisa Littman

symbols male and female.png

A study on LGBTQIAP+ youth by Brown University finds that “social media and friends can influence teenagers to change their gender identity.”[fn]Lukas Mikelionis, “Brown U. censors ‘gender dysphoria’ study, worried that findings might ‘invalidate the perspectives’ of transgender community,” FOX News


A study on LGBTQIAP+ youth by Brown University finds that “social media and friends can influence teenagers to change their gender identity.”[fn]Lukas Mikelionis, “Brown U. censors ‘gender dysphoria’ study, worried that findings might ‘invalidate the perspectives’ of transgender community,” FOX News

A Brown University Researcher Released A Study About Teens Imitating Their Peers By Turning Trans. The Left Went Insane. So Brown Caved: hilariously, the URL to this one is “…brown-university-researcher-released-study-about-ben-shapiro”

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria[/fn]

The study is by Brown University Assistant Professor in Behavioral Sciences Dr. Lisa Littman, was based on 256 surveys and peer reviewed by PLOS One which then subjected it to additional expert review after complaints: it is titled Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports

So, what has come of it? In a move that is right out of my book The Occult Roots of Postgenderism’s subtitle, “And a History of Changes to Psychiatry and Psychology” pillars of academia, promulgators of scholarship, open minded educators, Brown University censored the study and “removed an article about the study from its website.” Why? Because of “community complaints that the research was transphobic.”
Thus, as is the history of neo-LGBTQIAP+ research studies and psychiatry and psychology in general: it is not about science but about socio-political activism.

Dean of Brown U’s School of Public Health, Bess Marcus (you know, responsible for academia, scholarship, education, health, etc., etc., etc.) noted that the study (you know facts back by data based on research, etc., etc., etc.) stated that his own university’s study “might invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.” This is the death of true education and science. Note that Marcus is not even concerned that is will invalidate but that it “might” do so. But what “might” it invalidate? The “perspectives” as in beliefs and feelings—which are notoriously tentative.

Marcus also stated that the study “could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth.” Note that the concern is not that it is being used thusly but only that it “could.” Also, note the activist assertion being implied: the study “could…discredit efforts to support transgender youth” only if and when “support” means getting children to become LGBTQIAP+ and not when “support” means helping children through what is most likely a time of confusion.

symbols male and female.png

Jeffrey S. Flier, M.D., the Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor, Higginson Professor of Medicine and Neurobiology and former dean of Harvard Medical School, commented, “Why the concerns of these unidentified individuals should be accorded weight in the evaluation of an academic work is left unexplained. The idea that unnamed parties might apply conclusions from a study such as to cause some vaguely defined harm to other third parties is a spurious basis for the university’s actions.”

So, this is a case of some imaginary persons might, possibly, perhaps, maybe, could…therefore censor!!!

Marcus only paid lip service to “academic freedom” and “rigorous debate” (debate via censorship?!?!) which Jeffrey S. Flier refers to as “high-minded sentiments are then undercut by several qualifications.” Marcus then opined that it is “incumbent on public health researchers to listen to multiple perspectives and to recognize and articulate the limitations of their work.”
Of course all studies have limitations but the MO here is that when a study of 256 surveys comes to conclusions that are inconvenient to socio-political activists then all of the researchers and participants involved in the 256 surveys plus the study itself must “listen to multiple perspectives” because 256 surveys plus the study itself is not enough (since the conclusions are inconvenient) since the conclusions that are inconvenient to socio-political activists—round and round it goes.

Jeffrey S. Flier notes that Marcus’ statement, which also referred to “an added obligation for vigilance in research” actually “implies that Dr Littman is guilty of violating these principles in some specific way—an implicit accusation for which no evidence is evident or adduced.” In other words, there is no indication that Brown U’s activists who are in position of academic power give a care about the fact that they are joining those who besmirch Littman, giver her a bad name, question her scholarly work, etc.

Here is a noble idea: the like of Brown U should “listen to multiple perspectives” rather than censoring inconvenient perspectives (based on 256 surveys plus the study itself).

Flier notes, “Increasingly, research on politically charged topics is subject to indiscriminate attack on social media, which in turn can pressure school administrators to subvert established norms regarding the protection of free academic inquiry…free from control or harassment…harassment and political influence”[fn]https://quillette.com/2018/08/31/as-a-former-dean-of-harvard-medical-school-i-question-browns-failure-to-defend-lisa-littman[/fn]

He notes that in this case, “critics have not performed any systematic analysis of her findings, but seem principally motivated by ideological opposition to her conclusions…unnamed individuals with strong personal interests in the area under study…drew support from social media communities populated by lay activists…intense lobbying…social-media backlash…ideological actors”—what did I tell you?

He notes, “In all my years in academia, I have never once seen a comparable
reaction from a journal within days of publishing a paper that the
journal already had subjected to peer review, accepted and published.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.