Transgender symbol. Trans gender sign. Abstract night sky background

A Professor at Brown Uncovers a Transgender Inconvenient Truth

More than 4,000 people have signed a petition supporting a Brown University social scientist who is under fire from activists and her own university for research raising questions about whether social factors, rather than biological ones, could influence young adults’ transgender identities.

Lisa Littman, an Assistant Professor of Behavioral and Social Sciences, in a peer-reviewed published study based on anonymous survey responses from 250 parents of teens and young adults who had abruptly expressed gender dysphoria, concluded that “further research” is needed to determine if social factors are contributing to the dramatic increase in “rapid-onset gender dysphoria.”

Yielding to political pressure from the trans community and its allies, Brown University issued a statement indicating that it decided to withdraw its press release about the Littman study after learning about “concerns over the study’s methodology.”

A letter from Bess Marcus, the Dean of the School of Public Health, claimed that she has “heard from the 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.” Brown University has not specified the “methodological concerns” in the peer-reviewed study, but it is more likely that the concerns were more political than procedural.

Some of the criticisms of Littman’s study were the “lack of a control group.” This is a spurious criticism considering that she never claimed that her study was anything but a qualitative or descriptive study. Besides, even psychological studies with control groups can be problematic. An article published a few years ago in the August 2015, issue of Science revealed that in an analysis of 100 studies from some of the most prestigious journals in social psychology found that nearly two-thirds of the quantitative – highly controlled – experiments described “did not replicate.”

This means that when scientists attempted to repeat these experimental highly controlled studies—using the same techniques, the same conditions, and analysis—they could not obtain the results described by the original researchers. The authors of the Science study concluded, “This project provides accumulating evidence for many findings in psychological research and suggests that there is still more work to do to verify whether we know what we think we know.” At least in her survey, Littman interviewed real subjects – real parents dealing with the real gender dysphoria of their own children. It would be difficult to find a more valid study.

Besides, PLOS One—the Public Library of Science, a highly regarded journal that “accelerates the publication of peer-reviewed science”—published the Littman study after a rigorous peer review process. The study never pretended to be the “final statement” on the contributors to gender dysphoria. But, the transgender community will not allow anyone even to suggest that transgender identity could be anything other than a biologically determined fact—and it’s certainly not a “fad.” Professor Littman never suggests that it is a fad. She is simply describing what large numbers of the 250 respondents to her survey have told her.

Littman found that the surveyed parents who had been supportive and understanding of their child’s sexual confusion drew the line when their children declared they were transsexuals and wanted to physically change their sex through surgery and/or hormone therapy. The parents believed the children’s quick transition was being influenced by social media and other trends.

  • 64.4% of the female children (the majority) expressed a non-heterosexual orientation prior to disclosing a transgender-identification.
  • 69.3% of children had been part of a group where one or more friends had come out as transgender when they did.
  • 60.7% of children found their popularity increased within their group after declaring their transgender preference.
  • 55.9% of children had high expectations that transitioning would solve their problems in social, academic, occupational or mental health areas.

These observations could never be allowed to stand in the ideologically charged GLBTQ culture at Brown University. Although Brown University’s Dean Marcus claimed that she personally “affirmed the importance of academic freedom and the value of rigorous debate informed by research,” removing the article from the University’s website sends a clear message that there are some research areas that are “off limits” for scholars at Brown University. Faculty know that one cannot question the prevailing GLBTQ orthodoxy.

Alice Dreger, a historian of science and medicine at the Medical and Humanities and Bioethics Program at Northwestern University, and author of Galileo’s Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science, asked on the pages of Retraction Watch—a website that “tracks retractions as a window into the scientific process:”

“What researcher would want to work at Brown when the value of your work is determined by political pressure? Is Brown a research institution or a marketing company that accidentally rolled out New Coke?”

The Littman sudden onset gender dysphoria study fiasco is not over yet. The petition in support of Littman’s research has been signed by more than 4100 people—including some of the parent participants in her study. It asks Brown University and PLOS One to “resist ideologically based attempts to squelch controversial research evidence” and informs readers of the following:

Littman’s study offers, for the first time, a glimpse into families who hold space for their dysphoric children while also seeking out mental health care that focuses on underlying conditions. Consider some of her findings:

  • 204 out of 256 youth reported on in the study claimed alternative sexualities to their parents prior to coming out as transgender
  • Over 200 were supported in changing their presentation in terms of hairstyle and dress
  • 188 had changed their names
  • 175 had changed their pronouns
  • 111 told their parents they wanted to see a gender therapist; 92 were taken to see one

The parents in the Littman study provide the kind of reality that Brown University seems to want to deny. They are simply asking Brown to continue to support the research of Dr. Lisa Littman because her recently published paper “explores the possibility that social contagion may cause some teens and young adults to incorrectly conclude they are transgender, and thereby undertake irreversible medical interventions that they may eventually regret.” It is not likely that Brown will comply. But, it is possible that such strong support for Littman’s research may encourage her to continue to her research.

  1. Whether attitudes are right or wrong is determined by the degree to which atttitudes are harmful to human beings.
    The mere discussion of ‘transgenderism’ is harmful to the extent that it has real effects in real ‘communities’, and all of this verbal posturing in support of this or opposition to that reinforces the notion that what is being discussed is rational and worthy of consideration. Whether or not a given posture is valid is irrelevant. To what extent are people being harmed by this narrative that is being propogated is the only relevant issue.
    Trans people are a small minority within a small minority, they are the queer’s queers, and trans people propogating the narrative do so at their own expense, because I don’t think that any of us who are deviant are comfortable drawing attention to our deviance, life is too difficult, why make trouble for yourself by advertising your opposition to prevailing attitudes. All queer people are harmed by the transgenderism narrative, regardless of whether or not the discussion is useful or meaningful. Transgender people are queer, whether or not that is their preferance is not up for discussion, obviously. Perhaps the most meaningful metric for measuring deviance is the extent to which it inspires opposition, certainly, but also to how ‘flamboyantly’ it is opposed.
    I am infuriated that people assume that I am ‘conservative’ because I am passionately opposed to what they call ‘gender ideology’. I am opposed to their gender ideology because I believe, passionately, in a gender ideology of my own.
    I believe that I have been in quiet ways, unassuming ways, persecuted lifelong because of my ‘gender identity’. I am deviant. I am queer, and I have cultivated the belief, lifelong that, yes I am deviant, and my deviance is greatest with regard to issues of ‘sexual deviance’, but I have had a choice with regard to the way I perceive the world from the moment I was born, and my sexual deviance is an organic response to organic situations in the ‘real world’. Sexual deviance on my part is a choice that is the result of, the culminatioin of, an endless number of previous choices made in the way I percceive the world and how I choose to relate, organically, to my social surroundings, my cultural context.
    The world that we relate to when we establish the context of our interactions, our ‘personality’, is imaginary – it isn’t ‘out there’. It is a construct that is constantly refined and adjusted in response to fluid, organic situations, an organic expression of the state of our interaction with our cultural context. I could try to establish, at length, all of ‘reasons’ why I am this or that, but that really isn’t relevant, what is relevant to me is the opposition that my deviance has inspired, and the larger-than-life, flamboyant style in which it has been expressed.
    On the other hand, the ‘personality’ that we think we own and can provide specifcations for, is just as imaginary as the ‘world’ we relate to, is just as much an organic development within the context of organic situations, shifting and changing because the world is shifting and changing.
    I am not queer because that’s what I am, my nature, but because that’s what I do. My personality doesn’t inspire flamboyant opposition, it’s not who I am that has ever been relevant to the discussion. I have chosen, lifelong, to behave in ways that provoke flamboyant opposition whenever my behavior diverges from expectations with regard to what is appropriate for my gender. Those ‘provocations’ that my gender ideology inspired were the result of fundamental opposition to the prevailing gender ideology.
    I believe that gender is not more or less relevant than eye color. Some people tthink that blue eyes are better. Go figure. If you love someone the color of their eyes or the configuration of their genitalia should be accomodated, why ever not?
    The ‘trans narrative’ that is so wildly popular is much ado about nothing. I sincerely believe that ‘trans people’ should be allowed to sincerely believe whatever they like, but I would be remiss to not be concerned that doing something about it is the wisest move, whether that means calling attention to the slights that one suffers as a result of deviant views concerning gender, or doing something dramatic in response to flamboyant opposition from others – physically altering yourself by medical means to support your conception of gender.
    There are trends in the patterns of our transactions with the world that become described as characteristics, and which come together as a conception of ourselves as having a Character, specifications provided in small print, in inches and millimeters, below. Believing that something is real is the first step on a steep path- be careful. Cumulative effects of our choices are self-reinforcing, we establish the existence of something ultimately ineffable, we make it more real, by descibing it as real, because we are so focussed on descriptors that we pay insufficient attention to what is being described. When we begin to operate in the context of a world composed of discreet, definable and static objects crowding around us – words, colliding continually in convoluted relation to one another- we get lost in the crowd.
    It is foolish to believe that you are who you are in large part due to the configuarion of your genitalia, and to believe that you are who you are in large part due to the configuration of your ideas about gender as it relates to you is equally foolish. It is also, to some degree, flamboyant, a fierce devotion to your tribe that is patriotic – why are people choosing sides, declaring fealty to their football club, isn’t that rather childish?
    If people believe that trans people are not just deviant, they are flamboyantly deviant, and they oppose them flamboyantly, a circus atmosphere is invoked and people are hurt when the crowd goes crazy. Flag-waving and bible-thumping are not a solution, they are a problem that is organically generated by a self-reinforcing system that naturally generates narratives that divert attention from what is real and meaningful, that divert attention from the real problems.
    The focus on ‘the transgender agenda’ has resulted in meaningful change – it has resulted in very real, measurably real actions detrimental, not just to trans persons, not just to gender nonconforming people, queer people, but to all deviants whether the discussion concerns mental health, developmental and especially neurodevelopmental deviance, temperamental styles like political speech, or immigrants whose existence makes us uncomfortable. Brown people are deviant in this overly-regimanted culture, their eyes are the wrong color. Queers, communists, radicals, drag-queens, ‘artistic types’ and hipsters, foreigners, everyone is being rounded up or so it seems, we’re all getting tarred and feathered and run out of town.
    The lynchpin seems to be the transexual narrative, but of course it’s not. The situation defies east descriptors, but events are unfolding in the real world at the hands of ‘real people’ whose importance was clearly established, really it was, on Reality TV. Events are arising, organically, from the context of popular culture, that are reinforcing an ugly militarization in the terms in which power and influence are discussed. Foolish comparisons are made to mid-twentieth-century dramas with very unhappy endings. Cataclysmically unhappy endings with all the storm and stress of a night at the opera with Wagner presiding. Bring on the Valkyries, where are the Valkyries?
    We don’t have to allow ourselves to be violated as convenient scapegoats, but defendfing ourselves and the value of the lives of deviants is possible. ‘Resistance is futile’, the Borg Queen said, but she was defeated and they all lived happily ever after. We have to take hold of the means of production of all the ridiculous narratives that pin us down under the medical gaze, assert the perspective of the queer eye. In a random distribution happy endings are as likely as not because every possibilty is equally unlikely.
    Consider this – deviants of every description are being drained of our colorful quality and colorful Oz is being traded for a flat monochromatic Kansas of the mind – the fabulous nature of our artistic temperaments is being brutally suppressed in favor of Stalinist Russia as performed off-broadway. Set design by AI, the loyal, faithful companion. Speak Fido, speak – we await your pronouncements with bated breath. Lassy come home, please.

  2. The “control group” is all of human history.

  3. The problem with the methodology would seem to be a study based on surveys, surverys of 3rd party opinions of parents. Since the children themselves were not asked, it is all heresay at best. There is a glaring gap between the “observer” [ The Scientist ] and the observed observers of the observed [ Parents ] and the Observed of the Observed of the Observers [ The Subjects ]…it feels ridiculous even writing out the description of the framework of such a study, Does it feel silly reading it? How were the parents able to say how their popularity was affected, for instance? Or lumping together their expectations into helping resolve problems in social, academic, occupational or mental health areas…rather that individually? Would a belief in the improvement of their mental health also mean belief of same improvement socially? Too much lumped together to call “scientific meathod”. Parents are notoriously disconnected from the social lives of their children at school. Especially when comes to bullying of a boy with an effeminate nature trying to make sense of it and what it means while being beaten up in PE daily or a “tomboy” girl who is unpopular with “A-group” girls and victim of social estrangement…Parents give their opinion of the feelings of the children based on their own limited access outside of the school environment and mix it with their hopes, fears, and frustrations. Even a teacher poll would have been more telling. But, parents who are suffering and answer a poll thru the lens of trying to understand their teens decisions.There is too little objectivity, the information is 3rd party heresay and even the author of this article describing it seems to be less reporting something objectively and more cheerleading a group that could not care less about the actual source as long as it hurts the “deviant” children! Now that she covered the adults in her,”The Politics of Deviance” book, it appears the need to lead the angry mob toward the younger “deviants”. You can’t make a baised group more baised or resent whom they resent more…but it can sure sell a few more books! Especially to a crowd that could not care less if it’s pseudoscience, as long as it fuels their disdain! Amazing that the community that calls itself Christian feels no issue with ignoring the admonition of the one they supposedly stake their very soul on believing. When writing such articles with impure motives of money and joining in the disdain of a crowd towards a suffering minority of families to fuel their fame and load their bank account it is clear how far from the words of the Christ they have wandered.

    Matthew 5:22 ” whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca (a term of disdain or contempt), shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, “Thou fool”, shall be in danger of hell fire”

    Listen to the words of your savior and examine your heart and whom you serve, the words of Jesus or words of man and the adversary that lives there to drive you from the spirit toward the flames of his own rage and contempt.

    But, if it’s TRUE knowledge you are after, examine your biases and call bad science where bad science lies. If you truly serve the truth, you will discard bad science. If you serve Jesus you won’t care and will withhold judgement with humility as a man whom is not given all the answers. Much is left to Gods own knowing. For instance, God made Intersexed people, born with XYXY chromosomes and both genders perfectly formed in their body down to DNA…yet the word of God as best man could translate says He only created “Man and Woman”, obviously there are mysteries left only to His purview….and His sole judgement. Amen

    1. I’m sorry. You are eloquent in the use of scripture but ignore it’s basic and fundamental truths in the name of “mysteries”.

      First of all, it is clear that God created Adam and Eve. He created two distinct people with two distinct genders. It’s pretty basic and pretty simple. There are a myriad of other reasons that what you describe would have taken place including environmental factors and DNA degradation over millennia. If you take the Bible at it’s word, life expectancies were also much longer and genetic degradation plus environmental factors would help explain this as well as corruption of the same.

      As for the study, the study is stated as “observational” so there really aren’t issues with the study as you purport. Children having friends who are transgender is an observable condition. If a parent has a sound relationship with their child, they would also be aware of popularity as well as social concerns. It does not seem that the study reaches beyond it’s premise and does not state anything definitively but only as directionally pointing to concerns that are worthy of further investigation.

    2. There are defects in everyone, noones made perfect. You specifying God as if you have been in belief, is all mute. 2 genders period, to think otherwise is infected with social engineering, feeling has taken over understanding, and understanding only comes from God.

    3. I was a tomboy. I grew up in the 1950s-60s. I didn’t look like one and I never wanted to be a man. I just liked doing things guys were able to do. And I pretty much did that. And then I got married and had a family, and I recognized the importance of Christian parents to love and discipline their children. I was never popular with anyone. I’m still not and I’m 72. I’m okay with that too. It wasn’t from being a tomboy. I was simply very shy. I was never “beaten up” either, unless you consider sibling conflicts in your flawed study.

  4. So let’s get this straight.
    One can be biologically determined (or predetermined) to be transgender.
    But apparently one cannot be biologically determined to be a given gender at birth.
    It would appear that the only correct gender to adhere to then, is the one that is opposite of what you are.
    I doubt Orwell could have come up with anything more sensational than this!

    1. See Abigail Schrier

  5. The inconvenient truth beneath all the diversity smoke and behind all the inclusivity mirrors, locked away in every social justice, “gender is fluid” closet… is that men cannot become women…and women cannot become men, no matter how much they wish it so….no matter how much body redesign they buy….no matter how many drugs they take. A full, utter, and complete transition to the other sex is simply impossible; it cannot happen.

    The question, of course, is whether or not that impossibility is being effectively communicated and understood by the desperately depressed adolescents who declare themselves (rapidly) ‘other’ gendered and demand so-called “reassignment” surgery… driven by the expectation that “transitioning would solve their problems in social, academic, occupational or mental health area(s).”

    Perhaps we cannot say with certainty that gender dysphoria is purely a psychological malady. Perhaps there is a biological basis for the ‘feeling’ that one is wrongly sexed. Perhaps this is, indeed, significantly different from the dysphoria we associate with body identity in which the reported ‘feeling’ is that a perfectly healthy limb is not really one’s own (even to the point of requesting amputation). But clearly what we are considering here is a recognized medical condition which is socially, culturally, emotionally, and psychologically disabling. From Littman’s study alone we learn that of the 250 teenagers completing the survey (average age 16): “62.5% … had been diagnosed with at least one mental health disorder or neurodevelopmental disability” prior to the self-declaration of dysphoria. Even worse, it is estimated that the attempted suicide rate within the transgendered/gender dysphoric population (particularly among adolescents) ranges anywhere from 30-50% (compared to 4.6% within the general population).

    This is horrendous.

    So if there is any chance at all that Ms. Littman’s study — indicating that there may, indeed, be a social/environmental driver (as in the stereotypical adolescent need to be peer-accepted) to this self-declared dysphoria – is correct, are we not absolutely obligated to the victims and their families to examine her hypothetical (with all its implications) to the very best of our ability?

    How could we not be?

    To short-circuit the pursuit of Truth because that truth may be ‘inconvenient’ or unpalatable to those who wish otherwise is wrong. And Brown should be embarrassed and ashamed to find themselves declaring that any area of academic inquiry is out-of-bounds and inappropriate, especially when that boundary is being drawn by dogmatic political activists

    1. Thank you. Brilliantly stated.

  6. Littman’s article should not have been removed from Brown’s website. Nonetheless, she has not discovered an inconvenient truth; she has merely opened up a line of inquiry that would take a good deal more research, and more direct research, in order to come up with any settled fact.

  7. “60.7% of children found their popularity increased within their group after declaring their transgender preference. 55.9% of children had high expectations that transitioning would solve their problems in social, academic, occupational or mental health areas.”

    I’d like to know if the same thing is true of declaring an alternative sexuality…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Donate Today

Will you help us continue our work to reform American higher education?