"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." 3/
-
Show this thread
-
"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." 4/2 replies 6 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
"But 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, codifying their totally bogus myth in the guise of a scientific study." 5/
1 reply 9 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
"As Julia Serano points out in her detailed debunk of Littman’s study, all available guidelines for treating trans children already account for the possibility that teens might present with gender dysphoria despite having no prior history of gender-nonconforming behavior." 6/
1 reply 4 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
"It’s not social contagion, as the
#ROGD parents claim, but social acceptance for trans people that easily explains the growth. The same exact thing happened with left-handedness. There used to be intense stigma against being left-handed." 7/4 replies 7 retweets 34 likesShow this thread -
"All Littman did was prove that anti-trans parents believe that their own anti-trans views are legitimate. Unfortunately for the scientific merit of her paper, she also believed them. Her study presents the results as somehow validating the legitimacy of
#ROGD." 8/1 reply 4 retweets 32 likesShow this thread -
"Notably, PLOS One does not have a standard peer-review process. Rather than requiring articles to be assessed by a group of other experts in the field, a single PLOS One editor assesses only the technical aspects of the study, ignoring subjective or interpretative aspects." 9/
2 replies 3 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Katja_Thieme @o_guest
That’s not true at all. PLoS ONE had a standard peer review process albeit one in which reviewers are asked to not evaluate novelty (source: published in and reviewed for it)
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
That’s good to know. The journal’s descriptions of its review process is indeed built with external reviews solicited by the academic editor. But there are also these sentences which sound like the academic editor can decide that no external reviews are needed.pic.twitter.com/tzQ6rJviNO
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
I think that clause is meant for cases in which the article is desk rejected - for example, a paper that is complete gibberish is not sent out to reviewers but immediately rejected by the editor. I don't know any cases of acceptance by the editor only, without reviews.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ Retweeted Esther Mondragón
See this side-thread, as IMHO otherwise it's going to become too split to have a coherent discussion. Twitter drives me mad when people accidentally/purposefully reply in a non-linear way — hope this helps us!https://twitter.com/twitemp1/status/1036560103200178177 …
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ added,
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.