The Trump regime’s HHS report on treating gender dysphoria in adolescents is an unserious document for its anonymous authors, misrepresentation of the research, and suggestions of conversion therapy. NOTUS has revealed a new level of tomfoolery: citing a retracted paper.
The paper (“Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases” by Diaz and Bailey) was initially published in March 2023 by the Archives of Sexual Behavior. The study not only relies on the pseudoscientific concept of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD1) but also failed to receive informed consent from the study participants.
As NOTUS reported, the HHS report cites the Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 times, more than any other publication. The journal was founded in 1971 with the explicit goal of “the prevention of transsexualism.” Its current editor-in-chief, Kenneth J. Zucker, has practiced conversion therapy.
Soon after the Diaz and Bailey article was published, queer health professionals publicly lobbied the journal to retract the study for this giant lapse in ethical judgement, to correct the journal’s history of anti-queer bias, and to replace Zucker with a queer ally.
By June 2023 (three months after its initial publication), a retraction notice was published based on a determination from the parent publisher, Springer Nature and Zucker. The notice cited the lack of informed consent as their reasoning. Notably, the retraction was issued over the objections of the authors themselves (one of whom used a pseudonym) who remain confident in their unethical approach.
Upset, Diaz and Bailey republished their paper in The Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences (JOIBS). JOIBS was founded in 2023 by a Substack post complaining about traditional journals being liable to “social media mobs” and holding progressive bias. (Of course, long-time QSL readers will note that this is not true.)
To give you a sense of the caliber of research that JOIBS publishes, I read two of its more recent articles. The first suggests that DEI researchers have anti-white bias based off a made-up metric. The second explicitly argues for “conversion therapy” for trans people. Both articles are unhinged, unserious, and unsubstantiated.
Diaz and Bailey published survey data (again, without informed consent from the participants). The survey was found at parentsofROGDkids.com which provides support to parents who don’t want to believe or accept their trans child.
Diaz and Bailey purport to find evidence of ROGD from their survey data, and the HHS report cites it twice as evidence of social contagion. In the authors’ own words, ROGD would be supported by “an increase in gender dysphoria among adolescents."
Yet, the study is in no way designed to test this hypothesis. To demonstrate an increase in gender dysphoria, the authors would need to provide historical data to establish a trend line. A web survey on a random, transphobic site gives just a single snapshot into gender dysphoria in youth. Not to mention that the authors have no way to validate that their responses are from real people rather than bots and trolls.
Additionally, JOIBS publishes a peer review of all its papers. The reviewers of the Diaz and Bailey article were pretty clear in their analysis: “The data is almost completely descriptive rather than inferentially based on theory-driven tests derived from the stated alternative hypotheses.” This is jargon for “unscientific.”
The reviewers also suggested that the authors provide more historical data: “We are sure Professor Bailey should have some comparable statistics from his previous studies.” Despite this, the reviewers chose to agree with the authors’ conclusions instead of (justifiably) rendering the study uninterpretable garbage.
I certainly wish my peer reviewers were as forgiving.
Citing the retracted Diaz and Bailey paper is now the second major citation error made by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The report from HHS’ “Make America Healthy Again” commission cited 7 sources that did not exist, likely hallucinated by the AI used to write the report.
These instances emphasize how unserious these documents are. They aren’t rooted in “gold standard science” or even a bronze standard. They’re just politics dressed up in an ill-fitting lab coat.
It is imperative that we continue to push back against these charlatans and work to educate those around us. We are up against a propaganda machine, but there may be people in our local communities who haven’t yet internalized the ambient transphobia. We can still turn the tide of justice.
We are still awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision in US v. Skrmetti which will address the constitutionality of bans on affirming care for trans adolescents. A decision is expected by the end of June. Further, there is still time to call your senators to get them to kill the Medicaid ban on affirming care health coverage!