Some of you may be interested in this new study, which is now recruiting adolescents and young adults with gender dysphoria and parents of gender-dysphoric adolescents and young adults.
I hope that there are plans in the study to ensure that, in 5 years after baseline, each and every case can be accounted for. EVERY study in GD has terrible rates of drop-out - 30%, 40%. These make the studies completely worthless.
As a Northwestern alumnus, I am delighted to see that these two pioneer researchers are forging ahead under the aegis of the university. Their work is a tribute to the school's motto, "Quacumque sunt vera", "Whatsoever things are true".
It is terrible to have to say this, but as veterans of vicious attacks on their scholarship and integrity, Bailey and Littman would be well advised to plan and fund an aggressive defense as early in their project as possible. Fiercely tenacious trans activists and their allies will stop at nothing - and I mean nothing - to discredit and censor their work. It is not an exaggeration to say that their scholarship has the potential to be an existential threat to the entire rotten edifice of gender ideology.
In the past, the harassment has included challenging the ethics of Bailey's methods. Enemies of the truth can also be expected to target Bailey and Littman personally as well as the university and any journal that has the temerity to accept their work for publication. It would not surprise me if the usual credulous undergrad activists join in the attack in the name of "trans kids."
In an ideal world, the two researchers would have a benefactor who would cover the cost of suing their detractors for defamation, tortious interference with contract when they try to quash the publication of their research or any other cause of action that would support the imposition of confiscatory money damages.
I had my qualification interview today and the student told me that because of Dr. Littman's experience the students conducting the interviews are prepared to deal with being brigaded by activists who hope to disrupt the process. So I suspect /hope that they have taken other measures too.
I'd feel more comfortable about this study if Bailey and Zucker adopted the approach that the better and more appropriate diagnostic term for cross-sex ideation is Identity-Based Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Developed recently by Dr. Elliot Kaminetsky as a result of working with hundreds of "gender dysphoric" youth, it more accurately puts cross-sex ideation in the OCD category. The obsessive quality these patients express after treatment with wrong sex hormones and dangerous sex trait modification surgeries demonstrates that "affirmative care" is not successful and the search for needle in a hay stack "true trans" is futile. I hope they at least save some kids.
A longitudinal study was proposed in Australia to follow 600 kids who started hormone treatment between February 2017 and February 2020. They are to be followed for 20 years and given surveys every 2 years. We're now nearly 4 and 7 years into the study. Where's outcome data for the first few years post treatment? All that's been published is baseline data of the kids before they started treatment. It makes me wonder if they're sitting on some unfavorable results, perhaps similar to the unreleased data from the Chen 2023 study.
Sounds promising.
I hope that there are plans in the study to ensure that, in 5 years after baseline, each and every case can be accounted for. EVERY study in GD has terrible rates of drop-out - 30%, 40%. These make the studies completely worthless.
As a Northwestern alumnus, I am delighted to see that these two pioneer researchers are forging ahead under the aegis of the university. Their work is a tribute to the school's motto, "Quacumque sunt vera", "Whatsoever things are true".
It is terrible to have to say this, but as veterans of vicious attacks on their scholarship and integrity, Bailey and Littman would be well advised to plan and fund an aggressive defense as early in their project as possible. Fiercely tenacious trans activists and their allies will stop at nothing - and I mean nothing - to discredit and censor their work. It is not an exaggeration to say that their scholarship has the potential to be an existential threat to the entire rotten edifice of gender ideology.
In the past, the harassment has included challenging the ethics of Bailey's methods. Enemies of the truth can also be expected to target Bailey and Littman personally as well as the university and any journal that has the temerity to accept their work for publication. It would not surprise me if the usual credulous undergrad activists join in the attack in the name of "trans kids."
In an ideal world, the two researchers would have a benefactor who would cover the cost of suing their detractors for defamation, tortious interference with contract when they try to quash the publication of their research or any other cause of action that would support the imposition of confiscatory money damages.
I had my qualification interview today and the student told me that because of Dr. Littman's experience the students conducting the interviews are prepared to deal with being brigaded by activists who hope to disrupt the process. So I suspect /hope that they have taken other measures too.
I'd feel more comfortable about this study if Bailey and Zucker adopted the approach that the better and more appropriate diagnostic term for cross-sex ideation is Identity-Based Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Developed recently by Dr. Elliot Kaminetsky as a result of working with hundreds of "gender dysphoric" youth, it more accurately puts cross-sex ideation in the OCD category. The obsessive quality these patients express after treatment with wrong sex hormones and dangerous sex trait modification surgeries demonstrates that "affirmative care" is not successful and the search for needle in a hay stack "true trans" is futile. I hope they at least save some kids.
A longitudinal study was proposed in Australia to follow 600 kids who started hormone treatment between February 2017 and February 2020. They are to be followed for 20 years and given surveys every 2 years. We're now nearly 4 and 7 years into the study. Where's outcome data for the first few years post treatment? All that's been published is baseline data of the kids before they started treatment. It makes me wonder if they're sitting on some unfavorable results, perhaps similar to the unreleased data from the Chen 2023 study.
Sources:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31690608/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36729456/