Academic freedom grifters rally around a new anti-transgender "disease"

I promise not to do that… unless you’re in a space suit about to do a space walk, that is!

Yes, that. Also, things like some of the hormonal effects of aging on women. Many women begin to take hormone supplements once they hit menopause, but menopause itself is not a disease, it’s just a stage in a person’s life.

[ETA] Also, it sounds like these people who are writing this work are getting together to plan strategy specifically aimed at pathologizing trans people. We should be moving the other way, in trying to understand natural human variation in gender identity. The binary mode has never been accurate.


I have published in PLoS ONE: the review there has been among the more stringent I have experienced, compared with, for example, Elsevier and other for profit publishers.



Seems to me that lots of aspects of being human have medical roles in place.

I object to the term as a descriptive because of the inherent negative connotation of the word “disease.”

Just as you can’t catch or ‘cure’ “being Black,” you can’t ‘catch or cure’ being Transgender.


His look when the drink finally gets there is so pure!


So are we all going to start referring to ‘puberty’ as ‘rapid onset gender euphoria’ now?

It’s just totally inexplicable why someone might find a dissonance between their physical and their identified gender much more salient relatively rapidly. We don’t have an example of that in the cisgendered case so commom that it’s pretty much an expected event or anything. Must be deviant.


Strong emphasis for both of us in the use of “some” and not all :slightly_smiling_face:


I thought that was my special time in the shower? TMI?


Hey, I’m the Hubble Telescope, you insensitive clod.



PLoS asks reviewers to check correctness, but not significance; for that reason it is hard to compare it with other journals. This makes it easier to publish papers outside the orthodoxy, which is usually a good thing.

While PLoS is technically not-for-profit, it is an incredible cash cow: the page charges are almost $1500, and they publish 20-30,000 papers/year. I can’t even imagine what they are doing with all that dough.

Most authors do not pay the page charges at PLoS ONE, so your accounting is inaccurate.

As someone who has both reviewed and published at PLoS ONE (and PLoS Medicine), your characterization is more or less semantic bunk.

1 Like

I’m generally sympathetic to your points.
And yet you provide no evidence.

Page charges are usually paid by grants and institutions, not authors, but if that is not what you mean then maybe you can clarify with some better numbers.

As someone who has both reviewed and published at PLoS ONE (and PLoS Medicine), your characterization is more or less semantic bunk.

The exact wording of their instructions is:

Unlike many journals which attempt to use the peer review process to determine whether or not an article reaches the level of ‘importance’ required by a given journal, PLOS ONE uses peer review to determine whether a paper is technically rigorous and worthy of inclusion in the published scientific record.

(They the list “seven editorial criteria”, which anyone can read here.) You might disagree with PLoS One as to what the PLoS One guidelines are, but that’s what they claim they are.


Neither do you for your contention that


Frequently waived.

Like I said: semantic bunk. For profit journals typically ask reviewers to rate how important a prospective article is to their readership, and some will also ask the reviewers to rate how big of an impact they expect the research to make. That is a minuscule component of a competent review, and has more to do with editors assessing a manuscript’s fit with the specific journal. It has about zilch to do with the substantive merits of the submission, which are addressed, and contested in the substance of a review.


I love how Zinnia Jones had been involved in the take down of this ROGD crap and now all the TERFs are obsessing over her porn photos and stuff. Like I never seen this level of analysis done on porn like… ever. :laughing:


To paraphrase Enrico Fermi, ROGD isn’t even wrong. It doesn’t even address dysphoria at all.


The scientists most involved in this area released a statement:


They’ve been “studying” her porn for years. Rather exhaustively. I wonder if Alex Jones is one of their researchers.