After publishing a peer-reviewed article on rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), Brown University received criticism from transgender activists. Under pressure, the Ivy League university pulled the article and issued an apology. Activism won out over science.
For those unfamiliar with ROGD, it’s a label used to describe the observable experience of children who have previously never shown any gender dysphoria coming out as transgender, often after having recently been in contact with a transgender person or having been exposed to transgender propaganda at school, on social media, etc. The stories of families who have dealt with ROGD are scary and provide a warning beacon to society. Some of those stories can be read on the website for Parents of ROGD Kids.
Unfortunately, those who are suffering from the results of ROGD are not finding many allies in the academic world. Brown University’s actions provide a window into a world where subjective and ever-shifting agendas play a determinative role in what science is allowed to speak to and how.
In a statement, Brown University claims, “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.”
You can read Lisa Littman’s study by clicking here, and decide for yourself whether or not the questions about research design and data collection are a legitimate reason to pull the article. However, for many, including this writer, Brown University’s statement includes an admission that reveals their real motive for pulling Littman’s peer-reviewed study, and that undermines their claim that they’re concerned about correct research methodology.
In the statement, Brown University says:
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.
Right, “independent of the University’s removal of the article.” Except the next paragraph tips the university’s hand:
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.
Out of one side of their mouth, Brown University is claiming that the criticisms by the transgender community played no role in their decision to remove the article. Out of the other side of their mouth, they proudly acknowledge their “wokeness” in making sure that they hear out the concerns and fears of perspectives outside of the research team. Going further, Brown University demands that its researchers shape their methodology according to the desires of activist groups.
Brown University’s placing their researchers under the authority of activist groups reveals that their claim that they removed the article over methodology concerns is a sham. Brown University has chosen the transgender agenda at the expense of legitimate science.