A Professor at Brown Uncovers a Transgender Inconvenient Truth

Transgender symbol. Trans gender sign. Abstract night sky background

More than 4,000 people have signed a petition supporting a Brown University social scientist who is under fire from activists and her own university for research raising questions about whether social factors, rather than biological ones, could influence young adults’ transgender identities.

Lisa Littman, an Assistant Professor of Behavioral and Social Sciences, in a peer-reviewed published study based on anonymous survey responses from 250 parents of teens and young adults who had abruptly expressed gender dysphoria, concluded that “further research” is needed to determine if social factors are contributing to the dramatic increase in “rapid-onset gender dysphoria.”

Yielding to political pressure from the trans community and its allies, Brown University issued a statement indicating that it decided to withdraw its press release about the Littman study after learning about “concerns over the study’s methodology.”

A letter from Bess Marcus, the Dean of the School of Public Health, claimed that she has “heard from the Brown community members expressing concerns that the conclusions of the study could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.” Brown University has not specified the “methodological concerns” in the peer-reviewed study, but it is more likely that the concerns were more political than procedural.

Some of the criticisms of Littman’s study were the “lack of a control group.” This is a spurious criticism considering that she never claimed that her study was anything but a qualitative or descriptive study. Besides, even psychological studies with control groups can be problematic. An article published a few years ago in the August 2015, issue of Science revealed that in an analysis of 100 studies from some of the most prestigious journals in social psychology found that nearly two-thirds of the quantitative – highly controlled – experiments described “did not replicate.”

This means that when scientists attempted to repeat these experimental highly controlled studies—using the same techniques, the same conditions, and analysis—they could not obtain the results described by the original researchers. The authors of the Science study concluded, “This project provides accumulating evidence for many findings in psychological research and suggests that there is still more work to do to verify whether we know what we think we know.” At least in her survey, Littman interviewed real subjects – real parents dealing with the real gender dysphoria of their own children. It would be difficult to find a more valid study.

Besides, PLOS One—the Public Library of Science, a highly regarded journal that “accelerates the publication of peer-reviewed science”—published the Littman study after a rigorous peer review process. The study never pretended to be the “final statement” on the contributors to gender dysphoria. But, the transgender community will not allow anyone even to suggest that transgender identity could be anything other than a biologically determined fact—and it’s certainly not a “fad.” Professor Littman never suggests that it is a fad. She is simply describing what large numbers of the 250 respondents to her survey have told her.

Littman found that the surveyed parents who had been supportive and understanding of their child’s sexual confusion drew the line when their children declared they were transsexuals and wanted to physically change their sex through surgery and/or hormone therapy. The parents believed the children’s quick transition was being influenced by social media and other trends.

  • 64.4% of the female children (the majority) expressed a non-heterosexual orientation prior to disclosing a transgender-identification.
  • 69.3% of children had been part of a group where one or more friends had come out as transgender when they did.
  • 60.7% of children found their popularity increased within their group after declaring their transgender preference.
  • 55.9% of children had high expectations that transitioning would solve their problems in social, academic, occupational or mental health areas.

These observations could never be allowed to stand in the ideologically charged GLBTQ culture at Brown University. Although Brown University’s Dean Marcus claimed that she personally “affirmed the importance of academic freedom and the value of rigorous debate informed by research,” removing the article from the University’s website sends a clear message that there are some research areas that are “off limits” for scholars at Brown University. Faculty know that one cannot question the prevailing GLBTQ orthodoxy.

Alice Dreger, a historian of science and medicine at the Medical and Humanities and Bioethics Program at Northwestern University, and author of Galileo’s Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science, asked on the pages of Retraction Watch—a website that “tracks retractions as a window into the scientific process:”

“What researcher would want to work at Brown when the value of your work is determined by political pressure? Is Brown a research institution or a marketing company that accidentally rolled out New Coke?”

The Littman sudden onset gender dysphoria study fiasco is not over yet. The petition in support of Littman’s research has been signed by more than 4100 people—including some of the parent participants in her study. It asks Brown University and PLOS One to “resist ideologically based attempts to squelch controversial research evidence” and informs readers of the following:

Littman’s study offers, for the first time, a glimpse into families who hold space for their dysphoric children while also seeking out mental health care that focuses on underlying conditions. Consider some of her findings:

  • 204 out of 256 youth reported on in the study claimed alternative sexualities to their parents prior to coming out as transgender
  • Over 200 were supported in changing their presentation in terms of hairstyle and dress
  • 188 had changed their names
  • 175 had changed their pronouns
  • 111 told their parents they wanted to see a gender therapist; 92 were taken to see one

The parents in the Littman study provide the kind of reality that Brown University seems to want to deny. They are simply asking Brown to continue to support the research of Dr. Lisa Littman because her recently published paper “explores the possibility that social contagion may cause some teens and young adults to incorrectly conclude they are transgender, and thereby undertake irreversible medical interventions that they may eventually regret.” It is not likely that Brown will comply. But, it is possible that such strong support for Littman’s research may encourage her to continue to her research.


  • Anne Hendershott

    Anne Hendershott is a professor of sociology and Director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio.  She is the author of Status Envy: The Politics of Catholic Higher Education (Transaction Books) and The Politics of Deviance (Encounter Books). 

    View all posts

8 thoughts on “A Professor at Brown Uncovers a Transgender Inconvenient Truth

  1. The problem with the methodology would seem to be a study based on surveys, surverys of 3rd party opinions of parents. Since the children themselves were not asked, it is all heresay at best. There is a glaring gap between the “observer” [ The Scientist ] and the observed observers of the observed [ Parents ] and the Observed of the Observed of the Observers [ The Subjects ]…it feels ridiculous even writing out the description of the framework of such a study, Does it feel silly reading it? How were the parents able to say how their popularity was affected, for instance? Or lumping together their expectations into helping resolve problems in social, academic, occupational or mental health areas…rather that individually? Would a belief in the improvement of their mental health also mean belief of same improvement socially? Too much lumped together to call “scientific meathod”. Parents are notoriously disconnected from the social lives of their children at school. Especially when comes to bullying of a boy with an effeminate nature trying to make sense of it and what it means while being beaten up in PE daily or a “tomboy” girl who is unpopular with “A-group” girls and victim of social estrangement…Parents give their opinion of the feelings of the children based on their own limited access outside of the school environment and mix it with their hopes, fears, and frustrations. Even a teacher poll would have been more telling. But, parents who are suffering and answer a poll thru the lens of trying to understand their teens decisions.There is too little objectivity, the information is 3rd party heresay and even the author of this article describing it seems to be less reporting something objectively and more cheerleading a group that could not care less about the actual source as long as it hurts the “deviant” children! Now that she covered the adults in her,”The Politics of Deviance” book, it appears the need to lead the angry mob toward the younger “deviants”. You can’t make a baised group more baised or resent whom they resent more…but it can sure sell a few more books! Especially to a crowd that could not care less if it’s pseudoscience, as long as it fuels their disdain! Amazing that the community that calls itself Christian feels no issue with ignoring the admonition of the one they supposedly stake their very soul on believing. When writing such articles with impure motives of money and joining in the disdain of a crowd towards a suffering minority of families to fuel their fame and load their bank account it is clear how far from the words of the Christ they have wandered.

    Matthew 5:22 ” whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca (a term of disdain or contempt), shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, “Thou fool”, shall be in danger of hell fire”

    Listen to the words of your savior and examine your heart and whom you serve, the words of Jesus or words of man and the adversary that lives there to drive you from the spirit toward the flames of his own rage and contempt.

    But, if it’s TRUE knowledge you are after, examine your biases and call bad science where bad science lies. If you truly serve the truth, you will discard bad science. If you serve Jesus you won’t care and will withhold judgement with humility as a man whom is not given all the answers. Much is left to Gods own knowing. For instance, God made Intersexed people, born with XYXY chromosomes and both genders perfectly formed in their body down to DNA…yet the word of God as best man could translate says He only created “Man and Woman”, obviously there are mysteries left only to His purview….and His sole judgement. Amen

    1. I’m sorry. You are eloquent in the use of scripture but ignore it’s basic and fundamental truths in the name of “mysteries”.

      First of all, it is clear that God created Adam and Eve. He created two distinct people with two distinct genders. It’s pretty basic and pretty simple. There are a myriad of other reasons that what you describe would have taken place including environmental factors and DNA degradation over millennia. If you take the Bible at it’s word, life expectancies were also much longer and genetic degradation plus environmental factors would help explain this as well as corruption of the same.

      As for the study, the study is stated as “observational” so there really aren’t issues with the study as you purport. Children having friends who are transgender is an observable condition. If a parent has a sound relationship with their child, they would also be aware of popularity as well as social concerns. It does not seem that the study reaches beyond it’s premise and does not state anything definitively but only as directionally pointing to concerns that are worthy of further investigation.

    2. There are defects in everyone, noones made perfect. You specifying God as if you have been in belief, is all mute. 2 genders period, to think otherwise is infected with social engineering, feeling has taken over understanding, and understanding only comes from God.

  2. So let’s get this straight.
    One can be biologically determined (or predetermined) to be transgender.
    But apparently one cannot be biologically determined to be a given gender at birth.
    It would appear that the only correct gender to adhere to then, is the one that is opposite of what you are.
    I doubt Orwell could have come up with anything more sensational than this!

  3. The inconvenient truth beneath all the diversity smoke and behind all the inclusivity mirrors, locked away in every social justice, “gender is fluid” closet… is that men cannot become women…and women cannot become men, no matter how much they wish it so….no matter how much body redesign they buy….no matter how many drugs they take. A full, utter, and complete transition to the other sex is simply impossible; it cannot happen.

    The question, of course, is whether or not that impossibility is being effectively communicated and understood by the desperately depressed adolescents who declare themselves (rapidly) ‘other’ gendered and demand so-called “reassignment” surgery… driven by the expectation that “transitioning would solve their problems in social, academic, occupational or mental health area(s).”

    Perhaps we cannot say with certainty that gender dysphoria is purely a psychological malady. Perhaps there is a biological basis for the ‘feeling’ that one is wrongly sexed. Perhaps this is, indeed, significantly different from the dysphoria we associate with body identity in which the reported ‘feeling’ is that a perfectly healthy limb is not really one’s own (even to the point of requesting amputation). But clearly what we are considering here is a recognized medical condition which is socially, culturally, emotionally, and psychologically disabling. From Littman’s study alone we learn that of the 250 teenagers completing the survey (average age 16): “62.5% … had been diagnosed with at least one mental health disorder or neurodevelopmental disability” prior to the self-declaration of dysphoria. Even worse, it is estimated that the attempted suicide rate within the transgendered/gender dysphoric population (particularly among adolescents) ranges anywhere from 30-50% (compared to 4.6% within the general population).

    This is horrendous.

    So if there is any chance at all that Ms. Littman’s study — indicating that there may, indeed, be a social/environmental driver (as in the stereotypical adolescent need to be peer-accepted) to this self-declared dysphoria – is correct, are we not absolutely obligated to the victims and their families to examine her hypothetical (with all its implications) to the very best of our ability?

    How could we not be?

    To short-circuit the pursuit of Truth because that truth may be ‘inconvenient’ or unpalatable to those who wish otherwise is wrong. And Brown should be embarrassed and ashamed to find themselves declaring that any area of academic inquiry is out-of-bounds and inappropriate, especially when that boundary is being drawn by dogmatic political activists

  4. Littman’s article should not have been removed from Brown’s website. Nonetheless, she has not discovered an inconvenient truth; she has merely opened up a line of inquiry that would take a good deal more research, and more direct research, in order to come up with any settled fact.

  5. “60.7% of children found their popularity increased within their group after declaring their transgender preference. 55.9% of children had high expectations that transitioning would solve their problems in social, academic, occupational or mental health areas.”

    I’d like to know if the same thing is true of declaring an alternative sexuality…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *