The LGBTQ+ lobby has held society hostage for the last few years with a new phobia. No, it is not the “homophobia” or “transphobia” labels cast upon its enemies. This phobia might be called “factophobia.”
Factophobia’s symptoms are easy to spot. It is a simple refusal to deal with facts, even when scientifically determined.
Rational creatures use new facts to reassess old and faulty assumptions. However, the LGBTQ+ lobby sees certain inconvenient facts as threatening its power. To give them up means abandoning the influence painstakingly built up over the last decade. That is intolerable.
Underlying Assumptions of Transsexuality
Before sharing the facts that the “transgender” absolutists fear, it makes sense to list the threatened tenets of their worldview.
- Being “transgender” is another kind of normality; it does not indicate a mental disorder.
- “Transgender” tendencies are biological and present at birth.
- The “transgender” condition is permanent.
- There is no treatment for being “transgender;” the only realistic reaction is acceptance.
- Transitioning is a temporary process whereby sufferers adopt the characteristics of their “true” gender. Once the transitions are over, the patients’ health and mental state improves.
- Those who do not accept “transgender” people do so through fear and hatred.
The Internal Contradictions of Transsexuality
Without intending, Suzanna Diaz and J. Michael Bailey are blowing all these beliefs out of the water. Their dynamite is a study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. As its title implies, this journal is very much in league with the Sexual Revolution. Its first issue was published in March 1971, which was still early enough to share the white-hot fervor of transformations then taking place. Its premiere issue contained the article “The Bisexual Identity of Transsexuals: Two Case Examples.” While supportive of transsexuals, that early article pointed out an inherent contradiction.
“Unfortunately, for the adult transsexual the balance of the ‘two-sexed’ awareness cannot be tipped to a willingness to live as a man; despite treatment aimed at making them more manly, adult transsexuals retain their wish to be female—and their secret knowledge that, after all the operations and female hormones, a male part remains untouched within.”
That 1971 statement would ignite controversy today. However, revolutionaries, firmly anchored in their utopian future, are seldom retrospective. There is little doubt that the “transgender” tyrants didn’t expect what they found when they received their May 2023 issues and turned to Diaz and Bailey’s “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases.”
Does “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” Exist?
“Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” (ROGD) is a tricky topic among “transgenders” and their advocates. It applies to those who act according to their sex until adolescence or even later. The study’s authors describe ROGD sufferers as having the first manifestations of a desire to act as the opposite sex between ages eleven to twenty-one. As children, the boys dress and act as boys, and the girls dress and act as girls. Then, suddenly, they announce their new belief that they are of the opposite sex and proceed to operate under this new belief.
The article states that the “experts” paint two hypotheses to explain ROGD.
The first—and more radical—hypothesis is that ROGD does not really exist. Its adherents say that “transgender” tendencies are present in the child but go unrecognized. This may be because the parents resist having “transgender” children. It may also be that society keeps these children in “sexual straight jackets” and provides no opportunity for them to express their “true genders.” Only society’s recent transformation of thought, belief, and acceptance allows them to live as transsexuals.
The second hypothesis is that ROGD is an error in judgment. Adolescents today grow up in a society whose “common cultural beliefs, values, and preoccupations” are so skewed in favor of being transsexual that they mistakenly adopt these now-fashionable characteristics. As these beliefs have become more common, there has been an “epidemic” of ROGD—especially among adolescent females.
The study aimed to determine which hypothesis was more likely to be correct.
The method was interesting—and controversial. The study’s authors used websites created and used by parents who suspect their children have ROGD. One of the authors then sent these parents a detailed survey asking them to relate their children’s experiences.
The authors received 1774 responses. They excluded 6.7% of these because the children first manifested characteristics before age eleven or after age twenty-one.
In another article, one of the co-authors (Dr. Bailey) summarized the results that made the article controversial.
“First, we identified 1,655 cases of ROGD—a significant number for activists to ignore. Second, parents said these youth had a high proportion of pre-existing mental health problems, predating gender dysphoria by four years on average. Third, youth with higher preponderance of emotional problems were especially likely to have socially or medically transitioned. Fourth, the best predictor of transition was consulting a gender specialist, and parents who did so tended to feel they were pressured to transition their children. Finally, parents said their children’s general functioning deteriorated after they socially transitioned.”
The authors admit that their findings are “limited.” The parent-respondents might have biases themselves or might misreport events. Collecting online responses does not have the scientific credibility that a double-blind study has.
A Flaming Hot Reaction
However, the transsexual “community” was offended that the study was published in the first place. A short excerpt from an “open letter”—with 100 signatories—conveys the tone of this pseudo-intellectual criticism.
“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.”
The letter does not define the “highest standards of academic and ethical rigor,” but it seems likely that the actual definition must agree with the activists’ preconceptions. The signatories falsely claimed that the parents who freely filled out the surveys did not consent to the results being published. They further demanded the study be retracted from the journal and the editor responsible be fired. Several scholars signing the letters threatened to “no longer submit, act as peer reviewers or serve in an editorial capacity” until the editor is replaced.
“Woke” Ideologies are Not Scientific Facts
The journal retracted the study as demanded and is investigating the editor.
It seems that only some kinds of science are acceptable. An unbiased reading of the study indicates that Gender Dysphoria often arises from events, not biology. Yet, these advocates are highly invested in the idea that it is biological. Yet, despite intensive study, no biological link has been found.
Such statements are evidence of an agenda, not scientific facts. One has to ask why are they canceling the scientists who “followed the science?”
Photo Credit: © everythingpossible – stock.adobe.com