Science researchers petition for a Gender Dysphoria paper to be retracted

[ArranUpsideDown]

Scientists and researchers petition for a GD paper to be retracted altho' they're not willing to lay out the scientific grounds for which they're arguing for a retraction. (I may be wrong about this - I'll post an extract of the petition in the following post.)

twitter.com/DrGlitterbear/status/1207355754447069184 (There's a thread.)

Extract from the petition:

We, the undersigned, call upon you to reconsider your decision concerning the recent publication "A New Theory of Gender Dysphoria Incorporating the Distress, Social Behavioral, and Body-Ownership Networks" (www.eneuro.org/content/6/6/ENEURO.0183-19.2019 and are demanding a full retraction.

Beyond the numerous scientific and theoretical short-comings of this manuscript, the clear intent of the paper was to do harm to the transgender community, one of the most vulnerable communities across the globe. This was not only evident in the section on clinical implications that was removed, but in the basic assumption that transgender people are a deleterious deviation with a disordered network of brain regions which pervades the entire manuscript. This is not merely an example of difference in scientific opinion, but a direct attack on a vulnerable community.

Publication of such perspectives...signals clearly to every member of the transgender community, every non-binary/genderqueer person, and every gender non-conforming young child that SfN and associated journals do not care about their safety or well-being, including those that are active scientists and members of SfN. You have done irreparable damage and given a false yet persuasive veneer of legitimacy to every anti-trans group, both secular and religious. In short, you have brought the society and, by association, the discipline into terrible disrepute.

www.change.org/p/call-for-eneuro-to-retract-gender-dysphoria-theory-paper?

Is it just me who is failing to see where they've laid out "the numerous scientific and theoretical short-comings of this manuscript"? There may well be many - but wouldn't it help if they explained these rather than asserted them and just made an appeal to emotion and indulged in hyperbole?

...the clear intent of the paper was to do harm to the transgender community...

Right, so not only will this academic paper cause people to cut themselves and jump off tall buildings, but it was written with that purpose in mind.

.....And where is this Transgender Community? (Is it like Poundbury?)

I freely admit that altho' I'm accustomed to reading clinical papers I don't read neuroscience. It doesn't strike me as a good paper but I don't know enough to know what I don't know about the content and why it should be retracted on demand.

These scientists and researchers could have explained why it's not a good paper or has shaky theoretical underpinnings. They haven't.

If people don't know about the paper can it still harm the community?

the transgender community, one of the most vulnerable communities across the globe

umm
Actually, one of the most influential and powerful, misogynistic "community" across the globe?

Easily and carelessly influencing laws that harm women is not how oppressed looks.

The trans lobby are always calling for papers to be retracted, people to lose their jobs, be de-platformed, it's their schtick.

Fascists gotta fascist.

Fascists gotta fascist

That's it in a nutshell, really.

In case it does get removed, it can be downloaded from here:

www.eneuro.org/content/6/6/ENEURO.0183-19.2019

Details of the correction can be accessed by clicking through the blue box and the original version is available here:

www.eneuro.org/content/early/2019/12/02/ENEURO.0183-19.2019?versioned=true

Have not had time to read it yet so cannot comment.