Closing It Down

Sometimes you see the light and you realize that you made a big mistake, you then have a decision to make which o the two choices will you make; the right one or the wrong one.

Brown University made the right one.

Last week I wrote about a horrible study that looked in to the causes of “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” [You can read the study here] there is no such thing as ROGD it is fake and is being pushed by Republicans and conservative think tanks to discredit us. Well Brown University shut down the study.

Brown statement, community letter on gender dysphoria study
August 27, 2018

Following the decision to remove a news article on "rapid-onset gender dysphoria," the University issued the following statement, and the School of Public Health dean wrote to Brown's public health community.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — On Aug. 22, 2018, Brown University published a news story detailing a study in the journal PLOS ONE on "rapid-onset gender dysphoria." On Aug. 27, Brown removed the article from news distribution and issued the statement below regarding the decision to remove the article.

The dean of Public Health issued a statement…

In light of questions raised about research design and data collection related to Lisa Littman’s study on “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” Brown determined that removing the article from news distribution is the most responsible course of action.

As a general practice, university news offices often make determinations about publishing faculty research based on its publication in established, peer-reviewed journals considered to be in good standing. The journal PLOS ONE on the morning of Aug. 27 published a comment on the research study by Lisa Littman, who holds the position of assistant professor of the practice of behavioral and social sciences at Brown, indicating that the journal “will seek further expert assessment on the study’s methodology and analyses.” Below is the comment posted on the study in the journal PLOS ONE:

“PLOS ONE is aware of the reader concerns raised on the study’s content and methodology. We take all concerns raised about publications in the journal very seriously, and are following up on these per our policy and COPE guidelines. As part of our follow up we will seek further expert assessment on the study’s methodology and analyses. We will provide a further update once we have completed our assessment and discussions." — PLOS ONE August 27, 2018

Translation from the language of academia: We goofed! The study was biased.

They also sent out a letter to the students,

Dear Members of the Public Health and Brown Community,
As you may be aware, Brown late last week posted a news announcement regarding research on gender dysphoria published by a faculty member in the School of Public Health. In light of questions raised about research design and data collection related to the study on “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” the University determined that removing the article from news distribution is the most responsible course of action.

The research had been published in the scientific journal PLOS ONE, which stated in a comment posted on the study August 27 that the journal “will seek further expert assessment on the study’s methodology and analyses.” Independent of the University’s removal of the article because of concerns about research methodology, the School of Public Health has heard from Brown community members expressing concerns that the conclusions of the study could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.

The University and School have always affirmed the importance of academic freedom and the value of rigorous debate informed by research. The merits of all research should be debated vigorously, because that is the process by which knowledge ultimately advances, often through tentative findings that are often overridden or corrected in subsequent higher quality research. The spirit of free inquiry and scholarly debate is central to academic excellence. At the same time, we believe firmly that it is also incumbent on public health researchers to listen to multiple perspectives and to recognize and articulate the limitations of their work. This process includes acknowledging and considering the perspectives of those who criticize our research methods and conclusions and working to improve future research to address these limitations and better serve public health. There is an added obligation for vigilance in research design and analysis any time there are implications for the health of the communities at the center of research and study.

The School’s commitment to studying and supporting the health and well-being of sexual and gender minority populations is unwavering. Our faculty and students are on the cutting edge of research on transgender populations domestically and globally. The commitment of the School to diversity and inclusion is central to our mission, and we pride ourselves on building a community that fully recognizes and affirms the full diversity of gender and sexual identity in its members. These commitments are an unshakable part of our core values as a community.

In an effort to support robust research and constructive dialogue on gender identity in adolescents and youth, the School will be organizing a panel of experts to present the latest research in this area and to define directions for future work to optimize health in transgender communities. We believe that more and better research is needed to help guide advances in the health of the LGBTQ community. We welcome input from faculty, staff and students about the composition of this panel and scope of the discussion.

Sincerely,

Bess H. Marcus, Ph.D.
Dean, Brown University School of Public Health

I think one comment by “bschuman” says it all better than I can.

This article introduces a new diagnostic category, Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD), for which it purports to support with evidence. However, the article makes many assumptions based on correlation, and fails to engage key points that make it deeply flawed and biased.

1) The term ROGD has its roots almost exclusively in known biased opinion websites, discussion boards, Twitter discussions, etc where the prevalent discussions are viewpoints that do not affirm transgender people. This is not meant to be a critique of that opinion, but it is, nonetheless, a biased point of view which makes this a suspect new diagnosis that should be examined with above average scrutiny.

2) The term ROGD has no current clinical recognition or other supporting clinical evidence outside of the above mentioned circles. Therefore it is imperative that this article address why this new diagnosis category is necessary over other diagnoses currently available. It fails to do this spectacularly as it fails to engage any of the currently existing materials that already discuss this topic.

3) This paper mentions the diagnostic categories in the DSM-V for Gender Dysphoria, yet then ignores key diagnostic information that appears to already cover almost all of the elements of ROGD that engage parental reporting of the "Rapid Onset" namesake. The DSM-V, under the Gender Dysphoria subsection titled "Development and Course" (pp.454) states in part:
[…]
4) If we remove the Rapid Onset portions of this paper in light of the fatal flaw mentioned above, the paper is then left only describing social contagion as a unique method of "catching" Gender Dysphoria. Without engagement of control groups, the children themselves, and other important information, the paper draws correlation data into the realm of specious speculation. There is no new evidence presented to differentiate how these correlations are anything more than happenstance or purposeful actions of the child, nor is there evidence beyond 3rd hand reporting of behaviors noticed by other people involved in the subject's lives.

In light of all of the above, it is my opinion that this paper is exceedingly flawed, and does not meet the standards of an academic paper purporting a new diagnosis category.

As I said in my post last week that this study didn’t look in to the reason why we hide our gender dysphoria, the societal pressures and the change in attitude toward trans people.

So I am glad that they pulled the paper, however, I don’t think it will go away. I think we are about to hear from the Alt-Right and the Republicans on how this is censorship and the “liberal press” and the LGBT agenda forced the university to cave-in to our demands.