this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
979 points (97.6% liked)
Science Memes
18599 readers
2840 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So Littman and Bailey are controversial. Not unethical. (Fyi Lisa Littman is herself a trans woman).
They do research on a specific sub group of trans women.
Bailey has done lots of other research on sexuality in the homosexual and bisexual area as well.
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink. That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
He never said it's true for all female trans people.
But his evidence is real.
And it's not really surprising because there are people who cut off body parts because of sexual kinks. There are people out there who get fixated on things and are obsessed. Sexual fixation is an incredibly strong motivator.
Many in the trans community don't like this research because it paints a picture that they are all just a bunch of perverts. Which is something that they already have to fight against. So many see it as smearing trans people or encouraging stereotypes.
And. Of course conservatives will absolutely use these types of studies to support their opinions on trans people. Weaponize it against them.
But I want to point out some things.
Baily says in every single one of the papers he is in, that the most effective way to treat gender dysphoria is to help the person transition to their preferred gender. He says this many times. He says it publicly. He advocates for it.
His intention is not to harm trans people but to understand them. Does he go about it in the most sensitive way. No. But intention does count.
Now bailey was also known for doing research on bisexual men. His controversial study found that self reported bisexual men actually showed a preference for men and weren't pure bisexual. His conclusion was that bisexuality in men was likely just homosexuality. This was met with a lot of backlash. He met with people, heard concerns. And re evaluated his study methods and has since done additional studies and showed his original was flawed. (Mostly caused by the fact that men that are bisexual but prefer women more, are more likely to be closeted bisexuals and not volunteers in his studies).
Now I have personally met the guy. He taught statistics. I also attended a seminar on his work.
I never took his sexually courses. But I had heard of his work before attending the uni he was at.
I've actually read the papers.
I think most people who don't like his work, have not. Or they are mis understanding statements.
Now his person is a different story and there is plenty to criticize in his past conduct.
He never makes negative statements about trans. And the last paper I read, was by one of his grad students who was herself, a trans woman.
Transvestite culture has been around for a very long time. Trying to pretend it's not real because you don't like the narrative is not the way forward.
Do I like bailys personality? Not particularly. I think he's one of those people who like to challenge things , sometimes just to see other people squirm. A bit pretentious . But I can't deny his research has merit to it. That's why it keeps getting published. The methodology and statistics are sound science.
As a last point. I don't care if the reason that people want to transition is because it's a sex thing. To me that does not change anything. Adults have a right to full autonomy over their own body. They are the only ones who get to decide such things like their gender. It's not up to me to decide if their reasons are valid or not.
I also couldn't care less what weird kinks other people have. As long as it's consenting adults, it's none of my business.
That said, I realize though that my easy acceptance of people transitioning for whatever reason won't be shared by the general public.
But I still say though that the people who will have a problem with it, currently have a problem with transitioning, even if the narrative is "I was born in the wrong body".
Even that won't satisfy them as a good enough reason.
So no point in pandering to them.
I do wish someone with more class and sensitivity was doing this line of research and not Bailey. But it is what it is.
I'm a cis woman and being a woman is very much a requirement for my sexual excitement.
Yeah a lot of people find stress to be a blocker for arousal. I imagine gender dysphoria very stressful. My first thought when reading that was how do they account for that?
Incorrect. They are both unethical.
Littman for example, when doing her study on rapid onset gender dysphoria, targeted only online spaces which were full of parents that were upset and angry at having a transgender child. Her sample was deliberately and knowingly biased towards supporting the hypothesis she invented. Her audience also didn't involve any trans people, only the parents of trans people, and parents who were, as a group, explicitly more likely to be strongly uncomfortable with the idea of having a trans child.
This wasn't a mistake, or an oversight. It was a deliberate choice she made to bias her results. That's not "controversial", that's outright unethical.
Similarly, Bailey regularly lies to his participant audience, and loads his studies with questions predisposed to get the results he wants to show.
The study linked to in this post is a classic example of that. None of the results of this will be designed to help people navigate dysphoria. The study is trying to draw trans people in to think that they're helping, when in fact, the results will be used to actively undermine their ability to seek transition care and support.
Even that's not true.
When you look at the definitions Bailey uses for autogynephilia for example, if you apply those same measures to cis women, it turns out, they too more often than not, meet the requirements for autogynephilia. It only becomes a paraphilia when the woman is trans though, and it only becomes an explanation for the woman's identity, when the woman is trans.
It's taking a real correlation, ignoring the fact that the correlation isn't unique to trans folk, and then using that correlation as an explanation for trans identity.
He said it's the only way to be a trans woman that is asexual, bisexual or gay.
The only trans women who don't fit his criteria of transitioning due to a paraphilia, are straight trans women. Who, by the way, he calls "Homosexual transexuals". He can't even recognise their gender... And speaking of that, even though he thinks that trans women who aren't straight should be able to transition, he doesn't think that they're women, and will repeatedly misgender them or talk only about their birth sex when talking about them.
Take a look at this, from his personal blog...
In this screenshot, you can see that whilst defending a woman who had nazis at her rally, he refers to trans women as "male" without ever referring to them as women, whilst also showing a diagram that says all trans activists are paraphillic (and thus, not really trans)
Bailey genuinely believes he is doing good science. But he's not. He's got a lens through which he perceives transgender identity, and he is absolutely not open to challenging that. That's not good science...
I struggle to understand how you can call anything the man does "ethical"
Holy shit that's horrible. Fuck.
I really wish I knew if the study authors were religious.
I have no idea if this is sloppy science with benevolent intentions (everyone makes mistakes) or religious devotion masquerading as science.
I'm leaning to the latter, or generally being an arsebum. You don't invite Nazis at a rally.
The study authors are not religious. They are progressivs. They have repeatedly stated in their papers and in other forms that they support transitioning.
. You are making a lot of completely fabricated claims here. Whereas I referenced actual peer reviewed published studies.
Also. Every single psychology study that exists has limitations.
There are always issues. Always.
That's the point of additional research. It aims to investigate things from multiple angles. Multiple populations.
People outside of research don't seem to understand this.
For example if I did a study on Latino women and plastic surgery. You would say" that's not a fair study, it's only on Latinos "
Whereas I would reply. Yes. That's what it says in the paper. It's on a specific group.
Participant information is always listed in published papers. The writers always address this.
This information was not hidden or anything.
You just have to read the papers and the limitations are always discussed in the conclusion section of papers.
Wouldn't it be more like if you were doing a study on Latino women and plastic surgery and you asked the women's parents?
Then the study was about their parents.
See. That's the point. The way that the data is collected is part of the study.
We don't claim that any data collection method is the one true prefer way to collect. Instead we collect data from multiple sources.
Often times the sources are chosen for the availability.
For instance. Online surveys are much easier to send out than finding individuals in real life if the thing you are researching is stigmatized or there is no register of these people.
Survey polls have many validity concerns. These are well known in psych research. No one takes them at face value.
The limitations and possible influence of survey data is always discussed in the paper.
Researchers do not ignore this fact.
autogynephilia is literally old debunked pseudoscience. some cis women get aroused from feeling sexy yet no one is questioning their gender based on that.
There is no "questioning" . The research is only intended to uncover mechanisms.
The research does not investigate the validity of being trans. None of their line of research does that.
If you see it that way, maybe actually read it instead of believing what other people say about it.
Can you explain more about this?
I mean that's sexuality, isn't it? You don't control what your kinks are. But you phrase it like it isn't so?
Hmm... So? Is it different than thinking of being a women? What's the line differentiating them from other trans women?
I mean attraction has a strong link to sexuality but phrasing it as a just a kink seems dubious to make it seem like a mental health problem.
I'm just trying to understand.
Evidence gathered from scientific research studies of reports from individuals.
As for your other questions. These are addressed in the paper.
This paper is from 2007, which means its 20 years old and means a lot of additional research has since been done. Some times terminology changes in science and I should add that a lot of researchers coin their own terms for things. so that can make it tricky when reviewing literature. but in studies, the terms are always defined. so those definitions will be in this paper.
https://share.google/G3ZWsS7Y3TPh9p9k9
So I also would suggest looking at this link which shows papers that have cited this 2007 paper to see what other researchers have said about the topic and what bailey or his grad students have added to it.
There are 55 of these. some more relevant than others to the topic than others.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=15898950914960057097&as_sdt=400005&sciodt=0%2C14&hl=en
Thank you for taking the time to write this
You shouldn't. The person your thanking is promoting bigoted Pseudoscience
I also forgot to mention Littmans more recent research on adolescent girls(biological) being trans boys.
She investigates the possibility that some are following trends and social conformity.
This has also been controversial in the trans community because some see it as trying to prove that adolescents are confused about their gender identity and don't deserve to have any autonomy over medical decisions like hormone treatments.
Now, as I said before. I believe that people have full autonomy over their own bodies. 100%. However, I don't extend this to children.
I think children don't understand the risks associated with hormone therapy.
And I , who was once a teenager myself, agree that many teenagers are prone to following fads and trends of their peers.
I don't see how anyone can deny that happens at a high rate in children and teenagers.
I also don't deny that a teenager is capable of knowing themselves. They can. They do.
But it's a time of development. It's a time of exploring oneself and Identity. It's not the right time to make permanent, life long, risky decisions, that someone who has only been alive for 15 years can actually understand what that means.
We don't let teenagers get plastic surgery, tattoos, buy alcohol, or even lottery tickets. Because we understand that they can't evaluate risks yet.
Are there (hormone injection) exceptions to be made for some teens. Absolutely.
Littmans research aims to discover which trans teens will continue being trans and which will flip back to their biological based gender. That way the kids who will benefit from hormones get the hormone intervention and those that it will harm, get supportive therapy instead.
It helps reduce the risk of kids taking hormone injections and permanently disrupting their sexual development because for 6 months they thought maybe they wanted to be in a different body.
I honestly would think the trans community would support this type of research because it's going to help reduce the risk of regret transitioners.
But as with all research on trans, it is often weaponized against the community. So their concern is valid on that front.
But if we ignore this type of research or try to stop it; What could happen is we get people who start suing medical doctors and maybe have bad relationships with their parents. Because as a teen who was exploring their identity, the adults in their life quickly suggested hormones and allowed that to start when it shouldn't have.
"I really wish my parents didn't let me take hormones when I was 15 and depressed, and thought transitioning would fix all my problems. Now I'm sterile and don't have the body I should have had".
-these stories are going to be way more damaging to trans rights and more specifically, adolescents trying to take hormones that do need them.
There already are such people on social media. And the number will grow if we don't find better ways to evaluate kids.
We have to find ways to determine which kids feel this way consistently and long term. And those following trends.
Especially young girls turning to trans guys. Because many young women see how women are devalued in our society and don't want to be on the oppressed side.
Lots of things may influence teenagers. We need research to better help them
This argument is the one that pisses me off more than anything any adult does (and I’m around 50): I made these mistakes when I was young so I think we need to stop you from making the same mistakes. It’s so patronizing.
I often hear it from conservatives explaining why young people are voting the wrong way. I’ve heard it from the religious when explaining why young people will eventually come (back) to Christianity. I’ve heard it from anti-drug people for why marijuana should be illegal.
We certainly could use studies on this sort of thing, but this statement alone makes me suspicious of your personal views on the subject because people I’ve heard make this sort of statement are always coming from a biased position and they never realize it because it’s so foundational to their opinion on the topic.
Hormone therapy has long term consequences like permanent sterility.
I don't think a 15 year old can understand what that risk is. I think an 18 still has limited abilities but even at that age, they have much more capability to understand these risks.
We need better tools to help identify and support kids at these times.
They are children. They have limits in their understanding of the world and long term effects and consequences of actions.
Adults should be there to help them, children do need guidance.
If adults didn't decide things for kids, they would eat junk food for every meal, never bathe, play on their tablets 24/7 and any number of other bad behaviors.
I like doctors who take decisions on my well being to have good research and experience in the topic to give me good advice. Even when the advice is: don't take the medicine even though you'll feel bad for a while. I don't think it is patronising to try and understand kids and advice them for their well being. Changing sex is not one of those little mistakes I'd like my children to make. If they want to do that I definitely don't want that to be a mistake, and I do want the therapist following them in the process to have evidence backed research to actually aid them in the process.
I understand that doing research can take a long time and costs money but publishing findings that partially confirm a pre-existing stigma of a vulnerable group of people, witnessing bigots leverage said research to voice oppression against said group, and wanting to do it all again is definitely in the realm of being unethical.
The pursuit of nuanced truth is a luxury that is being warped and tarnished by psychotic bigotry. Performing research for the sake of truth that might get real people harmed or killed is by definition unethical.
I have never seen or heard of a single example of a study that would be unethical due to true findings being predictably harmful to people.
These studies are not examples because their methodology doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. They are not seeking the truth in any way.
I think your first point contradicts your second.
I'm sure most people would consider it to be unethical if a study is published while knowing it is not truthful.
Also , your point is actually the argument used to make research inaccessible to the general public.
Basically it's that the general public doesn't understand how research is done and will apply it inappropriately and use it inappropriately.
It is why most pharmacology research is very difficult to get access too.
That and companies don't want other companies stealing their line of work. But in part, it's because people don't understand the research but might think they do. And try to use the information inappropriately.
Pharmacology is probably a bad example because of the amount of legal fighting done within the pharmaceutical industry to keep people using (sometimes addicted to) their product as long as possible and to downplay any side-effects. Of course limiting resources to anyone that could oppose their sales is going to be common. So I wouldn't say my point (which is that it is unethical to publish with no regard towards stochastic social harm on controversial topics) is the reason it's difficult to obtain research for that industry specifically but the nature of that industry itself to keep information proprietary.
Yeah for sure. I just was trying to come up with some example. A lot of people argue that since the majority of research (including medical and pharmacology) is funded by grants from tax payers money, that the research should be publicly available.
Some argue that even the research that's not funded by tax dollars should be available to the public in an easy free way because that promotes advances.
That's how scihub came to exist. Which is how you can get access to any paper behind a paywall.
It's not really theft like downloading a movie (which I actually still think is okay). Because the researcher does not get paid for that paper. And neither did the people who reviewed it.
You only are stealing from journals. And they are rich enough. They make a profit from existing. They don't actually produce or make anything.
I will say though that I have seen research used by lay people in dangerous ways. Not just to stigmatize or harm a group but actually applied individually to cause harm.
So have you heard of tdcs ? Transcranial direct current stimulation ? Basically you put two electrodes on someone's scalp in specific places. And you run a very low current though. Like 1amp. And in theory the electricity runs between the two electrodes and depolarize neurons in that region which will make the neurons more likely to fire.
I actually did tdcs research for my masters and I'll tell you it leaves a lot to be desired. It's a little bit questionable. Other forms of it might be more effective but this basic method I just described is not supported to do much.
But. People have read some studies on this. And think "I could make myself smarter by running a current through my own head".
And there are (or used to be) diy videos on YouTube on how to do this. How much amps. How often. And these people have no idea what they are doing and are just electrocuting their own brains.
It's insanity. And they will talk about research papers and reference parts for why they have it set up like they do. But they don't understand the research and are doing dangerous things.
There are serious side effects like seizures, mania, and vision problems from tdcs. But these people on YouTube think that the magic brain enhancement tech is being hidden and kept from them so they will make their own.
It's things like that , that make me think, maybe some research should be restricted from the public.
It can be tricky to conduct research that could be weaponized against a group. And I do think that researchers have a responsibility to do everything they can to make it clear, multiple times, what their study doesn't support.
There are similar problems with research investigating , as an example, crime of black men in the U.S. Such a group is already stereotyped as having high criminal activity. If you want to do a study on black men to determine common criminal traits, you have to be very sensitive about how that data could be used. Most of this type of research is conducted by other black people, in part because of that. And secondly, because their motives are in understanding the mechanism of why certain traits are higher or lower in black Americans. And never to further stigmatize.
Because we know that environment has a huge impact on personality and behavior. This is a given understanding.
But an outsider may see the research as supporting that blank men have more aggressive tendencies just because they score a little lower than average on agreeableness or something (this is a made up example and I have no idea of such a study or finding exist).
Whereas the intention of the research is to help determine which young black men are more likely to get caught up in criminal activity , not purely for this trait but the mechanisms from the environment that promote the trait also likely promote criminal behaviors.
Or maybe it's to uncover which combination of environment factors increase the risk.
It's trying to understand mechanisms. Not blame black men. Or say they have an innate higher tendency to be criminals.
Social research is confusing to people who don't do it. And there is a communication barrier between scientist and lay people that I think ultimately needs to be addressed by the scientist and researchers.
But I also understand why so many get frustrated with the outrage culture online.
They try to explain. People misinterpreted their work and accuse them of things they aren't doing. Things they never claimed. And use (to a scientist) weak arguments about how their data didn't include 5000 participants from various backgrounds so that means it's not valid.
It's basically impossible to collect that kind of level of data for most research.
The methodology of any study is always clearly listed in a paper a long with the limitations of those methods.
Also, it's more informative to collect it in multiple ways. Then you can compare those to each other.
"That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman."
Isn't this unspoken and inherently accepted for Cis people though? Why would a Cis woman or Cis man be 'sexually excited' by being what they are not? It seems to me that the base assumption is reversed from what it should be.
Also how could they have possibly conducted this is a rigorous manner? Fetishes and Sexual attraction are highly subjective. Ask this question of someone one day and you'll get a completely different answer than if you had instead asked it another day two months later. Exposure to new things (stimulus), Dietary changes (affecting hormones and libido), etc. Equating fetishes to the trans experience even tangentially is extremely transphobic.
Yeah it would be weirder if trans women were sexually excited by being a man. Like this isn't some revelation I'd expect it even.
Eat shit, get your pseudo-scientific nonsense out of here
^ This comment? Yeah, sure.