TLDR

An article was published to a medical journal suggesting that there may be a link between the rapid explosion of gender dysphoria and social factors, especially for young girls. Gender activists seethe and call for the resignation of the editor of the journal and retraction of the article. The activists get told they can't remove the article becuase they're mad it disagrees with them. Activists seethe and pressure the journal to remove the paper based on a technicality

Background Infomation

Littman walked so Chuds could run

Before we talk about the current paper being published we have to discuss how this whole event was set up, and that starts with Lisa Littman

Real chuds already know that Littman is a medical doctor that specializes in studying gender dysphoria and specifically those who detransition. She was even the individual that created the term "rapid onset gender dysphoria”. Littmans major controversy was when she published an article to PLos One titled "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports". The study surveyed parents of kids who had transitioned and seemed to hypothesize that there could be social contagion, especially among young females, that contribute to gender dysphoria.

While the study itself had several prominent weakness, it was an interesting report that had potential to be expanded on. But backlash from Gender activists led to Littman's university to retracting support for her:

Along with the journal being republished with several corrections to make sure its readers know that the article is VERY limited in it's scope and is a weak study.

Surely, journal publishers would always be this scrutinizing when deciding which research papers to publish.

But nonetheless that brings us up to date so we can discuss the similar issue that occured just recently but this time in [CURRENT YEAR]

The Controversy

Current Year Problems

The controversy began in Late March of this year when an article titled "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases" was published to the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior of Springer Nature by Suzanne Diaz and Michael Bailey.

The study explored the same ideas in the Littman study by to a greater extent. The original Littman paper surveyed 256 parents while Diaz and Baileys study surveyed 1655 parents. The paper was able to corroborate several of the findings in the original Littman Paper:

This data bolstered Littman’s findings about the onset of gender dysphoria after puberty, predominantly in girls, in conjunction with preexisting mental-health conditions, heavy social-media usage, and peer influence. They also corroborated Littman’s 2018 finding that an overwhelming majority (90 percent) of concerned parents are politically progressive, undermining the common narrative that criticisms and concerns about gender affirmation originate in conservatism.

As mentioned before, The Bailey and Diaz paper seeked to expand on Littmans original findings. And thats what they did:

Females are more than twice as likely to pursue social transition. However, among those who experienced gender dysphoria for at least one year, males were more likely to undergo hormonal interventions. Moreover, a majority of parents reported feeling coerced by gender specialists to affirm their child’s new identity and endorse his or her transition. Parents who facilitated their child’s social transition reported that the child’s mental health “deteriorated considerably after social transition,” and that their relationship with their child suffered.

The purpose of the paper was to provide evidence against the currently accepted approach of "gender affirmation" suggesting that "hey, maybe we should slow down and actually find more research before experimenting on the young kiddos". Obviously no one should have a problem with this.

REEEEEEEEEE THIS IS A PROBLEM

One day passes after the article is published, and Bailey and Diaz recieve a list of questions from the executive committee of the International Academy of S*x Research (IASR) about their Institutional Review Board (IRB) ethics-approval process and with the journal raising “significant concerns about the ethical conduct and integrity of the editorial process” .

For those unaware IRB boards are committees that review research studies to ensure that they comply with applicable regulations, meet ethical standards, follow institutional policies, and protect research participants. Basically they make sure you have consent from patients before you go probing their bussys in the name of science.

Keep this all in mind, because we're going to touch on this point again.

Bad Faith

News of the Baileys and Diaz article begins to circulate and a group of hundred plus scientists (on the right side of history) draft a lengthy open letter to Springer Nature and the IASR. The letter was seething about how Diaz and Baileys study was heckin bad faith and could hurt the homo community:

The publication also raises concerns over scientific integrity. Despite mentioning longstanding academic critiques of research around “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria,” it does not seriously engage with these critiques nor integrate insights drawn from those critiques into the study methodology, replicating the severe methodological and interpretive flaws of previous research

Publishing work on LGBTQ+ issues that does not meet the highest standards of academic and ethical rigor has caused a severe deterioration of the reputation of Archives of Sexual Behavior within LGBTQ+ research. By granting scientific legitimacy to articles that do not meet the highest standards of academic and ethical integrity, Archives of Sexual Behavior is not only undermining trust in science but also playing a distorting role in ongoing legislative and judicial debates over gender-affirming care in many countries including the United States. These actions impugn the respective reputations of Springer and IASR as a publisher and sponsoring organization.

NOOOOOOOO, If people don't trust the science we can't continue doing what we want to do

The aforementioned letter additionally demanded for the resignation of Springer Natures editor, Kenneth Zucker, and demanded for his replacement to be a person who understands the importance and has integrity on LGBTQ issues. The scientists threatened to withhold submissions to their journal if the journal didn't give into their pleas.

The severity of our scientific and ethical concerns calls for replacing Dr Kenneth Zucker as editor of Archives of Sexual Behavior. Until an editor who has a demonstrated record of integrity on LGBTQ+ matters and especially trans issues replaces Dr Zucker as editor, we will no longer submit to the journal, act as peer reviewers, or serve in an editorial capacity. We encourage our peers to do the same. If the situation is not remedied in a timely manner, we will consider terminating any involvement with the IASR and with members of Archives of Sexual Behavior’s editorial board.

While this letter makes the scientific community look like a bunch of cucks there was a counter protest to the letter that recieved over 2000 signatures telling the soycucks to shut up:

That same day, FAIR in Medicine, a nonpartisan professional network that advocates “the highest ethical standards in medical practice,” sponsored a counter-letter. This document underscored their support for Dr. Kenneth Zucker and called for an “academically robust and unbiased editorial process” at ASB and the “uninterrupted publication” of Diaz and Bailey’s study. Rather than capitulating to activists’ “censorious demands," FAIR in Medicine urged for an “open debate about the paper.” The counter-letter garnered over 2,000 signatures

Nice!

We're So Back!

Now back Diaz and Bailey.

It was stated earlier that Bailey and Diaz conducted their research with survey response answers from willing volunteers, but even in this case, anything that involves collecting data from study participants requires consent per IRB policy before research ever begins and the IRB can't retrospectively approve already collected data. But due to Diaz not being associated with the University he was able to circumvent these polices and just have Bailey be a coauthor on the paper.

For Nature and Springer their policy on IRB approval porcess states:

a study has not been granted ethics committee approval prior to commencing. . . . The decision on whether to proceed to peer review in such cases is at the Editor’s discretion.

Hence, you can underatand why the scientists before were calling for the resignation of Spingers current editor. But it appeared that the activists attempts to remove the article were futile and that Diaz and Bailey wouldn't have their article retracted

It's over

After a continuous pressure campaign from homo activists, Diaz and Bailey recieve an email from Springer telling them to get fricked and that they should have gotten EXPLICIT consent beforehand and that they have no choice but to remove the paper:

The participants of the survey have not provided written informed consent to participate in scholarly research or to have their responses published in a peer reviewed article. Additionally, they have not provided consent to publish to have their data included in this article.

At this point it's clear that the activists couldn't get the article removed on the basis of heckin wrong think but rather on this technicality.

Bailey and Diaz were going to have their article removed no matter what but they were provided an option to prepare a statement that disagreed or agreed with the decision that would be included with the retraction:

Bailey raised three major objections to Springer’s decision to retract the paper. First, he contested the grounds for retraction as an ever-changing “moving target.” Initially, Springer’s concern hinged on a potential ethics violation arising from the absence of IRB approval brought to its attention by activists. When this challenge proved to be without merit, the focus abruptly shifted to concerns about the informed consent of the study’s participants.

Second was Springer’s assertion that the study’s participants did not provide “written consent to participate in scholarly research or to have their responses published in a peer reviewed article.” As Bailey explained, the parents who took part in the survey were enthusiastic about contributing data related to ROGD, given the scarcity of information on this novel presentation of gender dysphoria. The introduction of the survey, taken by all participating parents, mentions the dearth of data on the topic and the need for parents to “seek out this information on our own” to “help us gain a better understanding” of this new phenomenon. Upon completion of the survey, parents were informed that their “answers will help us gain a better understanding of which children are more vulnerable to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria and what we can do to help them better.” The data, parents were told, would be made public online once a sufficiently large sample size was achieved.

And finally, the funniest point was Bailey pointed out that Springer’s "consent policy" wasn't even applied consistently:

Bailey pointed out Springer’s inconsistent application of their putative consent policy. He cited “a slew of ‘scholarly publications’ [by Springer] based on survey research in which the respondents did not provide explicit permission for ‘scholarly research’ use—and often apparently did not provide consent for any research purpose at all.” Examples included at least six publications using data from a health survey conducted by the American College Health Association that “included intensely personal questions relating [to] substance use, sexual behaviors, and other highly sensitive topics.”

It's never been more over

Link to tweet

Tragically, even with Baileys argument, Springer went ahead and retracted the article on the basis of Bailey and Diaz not receiving proper consent. But they did thank Bailey for making them aware of the other articles that didn't recieve proper consent and now they're being investigated was well (lmao)

While it does seem like a common L for the chuds, Bailey and Diaz are planning on submitting their manuscript to another journal that's (hopefuly) less ideologically driven.

In conclusion, never stop trusting the science and Thank you for reading!

Additional Readings

[Anatomy of a Scientific Scandal](https://www.city-journal.org/article/anatomy-of-a-scientific-scandal