Sfdebris.net

https://news.brown.edu/articles/2018/08/gender

"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."

your research doesn't count because transgender people said so.

The Left is not pro science. I never want to hear anyone even suggest that ever again.

That isn't why they pulled the study, though.

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.

They pulled the study because someone is crying foul about the methodology, not because someone is worried that feelings may be hurt.

The methodology will be reviewed. If Littman's work stands up to scrutiny, it will be republished. That's how science works.

LittleRaven wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:07 am That isn't why they pulled the study, though.

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.

They pulled the study because someone is crying foul about the methodology, not because someone is worried that feelings may be hurt.

The methodology will be reviewed. If Littman's work stands up to scrutiny, it will be republished. That's how science works.

“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."

It already appeared in a peer reviewed journal. It's only do to reader feedback that it is being reassessed. This is activist brigading. Social Science got away with a lot of stuff. Why did so much go under the radar but this didn't.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... cade-fails

Antiboyscout wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:22 am“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."

This is publicese for "Yes, we hear you already, please stop writing us." Don't read too much into it. The science here is going to be VERY new (it's only in the last couple of years that there's been enough people identifying as trans to even make a study like this feasible) and the methodology is going to be open to criticism. But if the phenomenon exists, the data will show it.

This is activist brigading. Social Science got away with a lot of stuff. Why did so much go under the radar but this didn't.

Activists brigade. That's what they do. But don't worry...organizations that are infinitely bigger, richer, and more politically connected than trans activists have spent years and years and billions upon billions of dollars to try and suppress scientific findings they didn't like...only to ultimately fail. No amount of kvetching can silence actual findings. Just be patient...the truth will win out.

We still haven't even IDed the genes that create the brain structures that cause gender identification (but they almost certainly are on the sex chromosomes, given that XY physically female women typically identify as female and XX physically male men typically identify as male), the hard science on this is going to move a little slower than the social science.

That said, given that there are people who clearly identify as genders other than the one they were assigned at birth, and who clearly instinctively gravitate towards their actual gender and attempt to emulate peers of that gender as children, I don't see why we can't just accept trans people and do more to make their lives easier. Ain't their fault their parents fucked up meiosis.

For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

I'm reminded of what Huxley had Mustapha Mond monologue about the dangers of real science.

here is some science denialism from Slate:

https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/dn ... icity.html

Racial groupings match genetic profiles, Stanford study finds:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 012705.php

I find your Slate article frustrating because he never actually says what it is he's so worried about. The closest he'll come is sly hints about 'reinforcing discredited stereotypes.' It's like he's so afraid of these ideas that he won't even identify them. I have a hard time taking him very seriously, even though I'm pretty certain his concerns are justified.

LittleRaven wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:06 pm I find your Slate article frustrating because he never actually says what it is he's so worried about. The closest he'll come is sly hints about 'reinforcing discredited stereotypes.' It's like he's so afraid of these ideas that he won't even identify them. I have a hard time taking him very seriously, even though I'm pretty certain his concerns are justified.

Might be trying to appease the radfems? Some second-wavers, called TERFs, subscribe to weird hateful conspiracy theories about transmen being "brainwashed by the patriarchy" and transwomen being "men trying to sneak into our bathrooms and rape us" rather than regular, harmless people who risk lynching just by existing.

I doubt it. The Slate article is explicitly about racial issues, not transgender ones.

Basically, he's worried that mass use of genetic testing (such as 23 and Me) is going to lead to a resurgence of "racial stereotypes", although he never explicitly identifies any of them. This seriously weakens his argument in my eyes, even though I'm pretty sure he's right to be concerned, because I'm pretty sure that's exactly what's going to happen. I just don't see any way to stop it or anything to be gained in trying.