It seems research is only acceptable at Brown University if it’s also politically correct.
Brown University has come under fire after censoring its own study on transgender youth, which found that social media and friends can influence teenagers to change their gender identity.
The university removed an article about the study from its website five days after it was published, following community complaints that the research was transphobic, the Daily Wire first reported.
In addition, the findings “might invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community,” a university dean wrote.
The dean insisted, however, that it was still committed to “academic freedom,” noting that all studies should be “debated vigorously.”
The study examined what it called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” when a teen suddenly begins identifying as transgender despite never previously never questioning their identity.
The transition often happens after teens use social media and watch online videos about transitioning to another gender.
. . .
The parents described “a process of immersion in social media,” such as binge-watching “transition videos” and excessive use of social media, immediately preceding their child becoming gender dysphoric, the study claims.
The research goes on to suggest that teens could be influencing each other to promote certain behaviors through “peer contagion.”
In a statement posted online, Bess Marcus, dean of Brown’s School of Public Health, said the university “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.”
There’s more at the link.
This isn’t new, of course. Yale appears to be infected by the same scientific dishonesty.
If males and females are the same psychologically and physically before the patriarchy starts assigning sex roles, then medical research need not distinguish between males and females, either.
It turns out, however, that males and females differentially respond to stress, environmental risk factors, drugs, and disease, as an initiative called Women’s Health Research at Yale devotes itself to documenting … Such discoveries should be the death knell for social constructivism.
. . .And yet, feminist social-justice warriors are perfectly capable of proceeding on several contradictory fronts simultaneously. Even as the director of the Women’s Health Research at Yale initiative insists that it’s time to “stop treating women as a subgroup of the human population” (because women are biologically and psychologically distinct from males), the magazine and its sources carefully follow the conventions of social constructivism. “Sex” is always paired with “gender”—as in, Yale’s medical school needs to “include more instruction on sex and gender differences”—lest anyone think that sex is the same thing as gender and determinative of biological reactions. An assistant professor at the medical school suggests asking students how the prognosis of a disease changes “if the patient identifies as a woman or a man.” But if, as documented, females are not just a “subgroup of the human population,” but physiologically and psychologically different, how a patient “identifies” should not change the prognosis. What matters is the patient’s actual biological sex.
. . .Expect to see millions of taxpayer-derived research dollars directed toward the first reading—that someone’s self-declared gender identity should be taken into account in diagnosing disease—even as the evidence piles up that males and females are not a political construction, but a biological one. Given that we are now up to over 100 different gender identities, the diagnostic complications will be enormous. Nevertheless, the march of academic identity politics through the institutions continues.
Again, more at the link.
The frightening thing is, this academic, scientific and research dishonesty is in areas that directly and immediately affect human health. If we allow it to continue, we risk being treated, not for our actual diseases or health issues, but for those deemed politically correct. That could – literally – kill us, or lead to other, much more severe health complications. Why can’t the politically correct understand that?
Even worse . . . perhaps they do understand it, but they just don’t care.
Peter
Sigh, when the message contradicts agenda, guess which one is going to win.
OK. Putting my old professional hat on for a moment. What is poorly understood about research is that large mounts of it are largely unreplicable, which diminishes what can be taken away from the study's outcome. This is across the board, but it's not necessarily a bad thing.
So withdrawing a paper whose outcome might be used for political reasons is, in and of itself, not an indicator of an conspiracy or political correctness gone crazy.
However, as a former mental health professional, no one under the care of a multi-disciplinary team would be assigned a diagnosis without a full assessment, which would mean not just the opinion of one psychiatrist.
So, while I wouldn't deny that there are fads, and young people follow fads, and yes there should be safeguards, I doubt that any healthcare professionals are just diagnosing clients based on political ideologies.
Furthermore, while cases like this make the headlines when one looks at the actual numbers the problem is being magnified out of proportion to effect outrage in the reader.
With all due respect to our commenter who knows what they're talking about, given the suicide rates of transgender people, doing anything to encourage such behavior might well be considered accessory to a crime.
Before anyone goes down that road, they should get an extremely long period of therapy.
When are they building the monument to the first woman to die from prostate cancer?
And yet, feminist social-justice warriors are perfectly capable of proceeding on several contradictory fronts simultaneously.
Progressives do this all the time. The worst part is they want to act on all of them with no regard for the consequences. If it were not for double standards, the left would have no standards at all.
The left's constant insistence on so-called science that is plainly impossible would be laughable if it was not so destructive.