Conservatives Are Really, Really, Really Upset That People Have Noticed That Lisa Littman’s Anti-Trans Propaganda Is Just The Latest Generation of Trans-Exterminationist Junk Science

From Think Progress:

Opponents of LGBTQ equality are in a tizzy this week, claiming Brown University is “censoring” a study about transgender kids. That research, however, is pure junk science designed to make parents feel justified in rejecting their children’s gender identity.

There is nothing that distinguishes ROGD [rapid onset gender dysphoria, so-called] from the diagnostic criteria that already exists for gender dysphoria in children except parents’ perception that it has come about quite suddenly. Not coincidentally, it is only parents who wish to disabuse their children of the possibility that they are transgender who have observed ROGD and insist upon its validity.

One might think that a researcher looking to understand or substantiate ROGD would actually find ways to work directly with the children who supposedly experienced it to document their experiences. Or perhaps one could simply reach out to a large swath of families with transgender kids to try to assess what distinguished supposed cases of ROGD from others. But [Lisa] Littman did none of that. All she did was anonymously survey parents from the exact same anti-trans online parent groups that invented the concept (4thwavenow.com, Transgendertrend.com, and Youth YouthTransCriticalProfessionals.org), codifying their totally bogus myth in the guise of a scientific study.

Doubtlessly, TERFs, Alice Dreger and Michael Bailey (as if there is any real daylight between all of them and other right-wing conservatives) are in a tizzy as well.

And lets not forget the neo-Bailey herself:

PLOS One and Brown have backed away from her study, [but] Littman has stood by it. She has insisted that it’s a “descriptive study” consistent with other such studies that are “a first description of a new condition or population.”

I guess “descriptive study” is the latest euphemism that will allow someone clothed in the raiments of academic tenure that trans women are never considered for no matter our qualifications to get away with describing a handful of anecdotes derived from a few trips to Chicago-area drag bars as “The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism.”

Lisa Littman: The Woman Who Would be Michael Bailey.

Advertisements

Joe McCarthy Called – He Wants His Face Back

Both of them.

Seen recently on Twitter:

CruzTwit

Who the hell made Facebook the arbiter of political speech, you ask?

Well, you personality-devoid buffoon, you attempted to be hip by using the #1A hashtag, but I’ll go ahead and give you a full answer: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution – you know, the Supreme Law of the Land (that’s right – THAT’S the Supreme Law of the Land, NOT your Bible!) – makes all private entities masters of their own decisions as to whether or not to speak.

And wasn’t that YOUR position when it came to christian-owned Hobby Lobby?

I guess a different standard applies to entities controlled by people with names such as Zuckerberg.

Yes, on a sleepy Sunday morning in July, I discovered yet another reason to hate Sen. Rafael “Ted” Cruz (R-Calgary): He forced me to say something in defense of Mark Zuckerberg.

Again I Ask: Was Barney Frank Ever Right About Anything?

Almost two years prior to the Dec. 15, 1976 issue of The Advocate in which St. Barney promised that the Massachusetts state gay rights bills would pass in 1977, he had this to say about the 1975 session.

Advocate - 19750312 - Barney

No link, of course, but that is from page 5 of the March 12, 1975 edition of The Advocate.  In case the image is fuzzy, this is the money shot (paragraph spilling over from the bottom left column to the top right):

Rep. Frank has stated that because of the new and important differences between the 1974 and 1975 local political climates here, the general anti-discrimination measure’s chances of passage are “pretty good” this year.  Frank, who did not think the bills would pass during 1974, is considered one of the most astute political observers in Massachusetts.

I wonder what happened between 1974 and 1975.

Did the Democrats get 15-20 more seats?  Because we all know that that will guarantee passage of even a trans-inclusive anti-discrimination bill (and we all know that St. Barney did not even pretend to support one of those until 2007 – and we all know how little he really supported it.)

#sarcasm (but not as to The Advocate excerpt; that’s totally real.)

“Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement”

AlabamaDogs

Where the Issue is Whether Trans Women are Women, Debate IS Hate

Trans women are women.

TransWomenAreWomenYesTheyAreYesTheyAre

That settles it.

TERF is not a slur – and TERFs know it.

If I Could Have the New York Daily News’s Baby, I Would

TrumpForBrains

To No One’s Surprise, The Roseanne Revival Will be TERF TV

From EW:

Darlene’s son Mark (Ames McNamara) likes to dress up in girl’s clothing. But it would be wrong to assume the 9-year-old character is transitioning or is gay. We asked executive producer Sara Gilbert (Darlene) to explain why she created the role of Mark….

SARA GILBERT: He doesn’t. That’s something that got out in the press that’s not true. He’s not a transgender character. He’s a little boy. He’s based on a few kids in my life that are boys who dress in more traditionally feminine clothing. He’s too young to be gay and he doesn’t identify as transgender….

So, to recap: An obnoxious, Trump-worshipping Roseanne Barr allows lesbian Sara Gilbert to create a 9-year-old character and defining said character in a way that insults LGBs (maybe Gilbert didn’t realize she was gay at nine – and I am not criticizing her if she claims that she didn’t; some people don’t but plenty – and probably far more – do) and erases trans people (most of whom realize that they are trans long before nine) in a way that only TERFs truly love.

One truly has to wonder if the character was not concocted in some sleazy law office in Maryland.

What made you want to create this character?
It represents the world.

No. It represents the obnoxious, Trump-worshipping Roseanne Barr’s TERF-on-steroids view of trans women.

At this point I’ll just pass along Toni D’Orsay’s response:

It is extremely bad. It means that we are going to have to go after this representation by attacking the thoughts and ideas that support it, especially since it will rely, in part, on the desistance myth, and will function in direct opposition to all the science…

… while still allowing folks for whom this is real to exist.

Yes, they explicitly say he isn’t a trans character, but do you think the media will be able to project that nuance, and do you you expect the very subtle transphobia of Barr to not be involved?

The only part of that I disagree with is her description of Barr’s transphobia.

It is anything but subtle.

#TERFismIsTerrorism

#TERFIsNotASlur – never has been, never will be.