Flawed study of LGBT and trans people is pseudo-science

by Rob Howard
Associate Editor

If you wade into the steamy swamp of pseudo-science that  alleges that LGBT people are not “born that way,” or can change, and that transgender people, in particular are wrong in their “choice” of gender identity, you will find a lot of anti-LGBT whack jobs. You don’t generally expect to find respected professionals.

But that’s exactly what has happened in a recent “study” published, not in a peer-reviewed scientific journal where colleagues can discuss the issues, both pro and con, but in a conservative publication called The New Atlantis. Psychiatrist Paul McHugh, who served 26 years as the head of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and Dr. Lawrence Mayer, a statistician, have published their study – Sexuality and Gender –and it has taken fire from professionals and LGBT activists and advocates.

According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), “Psychiatrist Paul McHugh has described transgender people as caricatures, counterfeits, impersonators, confused and mad. Doctor and statistician Lawrence Mayer served as a $400-per-hour expert witness for North Carolina governor Pat McCrory’s defense of HB2. Now, the pair have teamed up to promote their anti-LGBTQ views in The New Atlantis, a publication its editor says is a platform for a ‘conservative way of thinking about...modern science and technology.’

“McHugh and Mayer take different tones in their efforts to marginalize the LGBTQ community. McHugh openly mocks transgender people, while Mayer couches his opinions in concern for ‘suffering’ LGBTQ youth and adults. But the pair have the same strategy: using scientific credentials to feign expertise on gender and sexual orientation.”

McHugh, in a 2015 article titled Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme, suggested that MTF transgender persons “sought sex-change surgery because they were erotically aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women.” He referred to early transgender women such as Christine Jorgenson and Renee Richards by putting quotes around their first names as if they were false, and says that Caitlyn Jenner, who he refers to as Bruce Jenner, is a man who like “some men” wanted to “display themselves in sexy ways, wearing provocative female garb.”

He refers to being transgender as a meme – “that your sex is a feeling, not a biological fact, and can change at any time.”

This is what passes for scientific fact in the right-wing community.

Mary Emily O'Hara, writing in The Daily Dot, says, “Though the John Hopkins study sought to authoritatively answer the nature vs. nurture debate regarding sexuality, the more I dug into the report, it became clear it was weighted heavily in bias—appearing, at times, desperate to avoid or reinterpret research that has shown evidence of biogenetic markers that predict homosexuality, among other things. The study makes some pretty shocking claims in other regards, too—claims that critics say could put LGBT people in danger.

“Then there are the detailed findings of the study. It claims that LGBT people suffer higher rates of childhood sexual abuse, that children and adolescents overwhelmingly “grow out of” same-sex attraction or gender difference, and that much of the scientific research on what makes people LGBT is wrong or misread. Those are some pretty loaded claims—and the way such findings could be utilized to suppress LGBT kids or pathologize LGBT identities as post-traumatic confusion is a dangerous prospect indeed.”

She continues, “One of the study’s fiercest critics is science historian and sex researcher Alice Dreger, author of the book Galieo’s Middle Finger. ‘McHugh clearly has a policy agenda,’ Dreger told The Daily Dot, who is acutely familiar with McHugh’s work. ‘There’s no one science community, but I will say, among the people who deal with the science of sexuality, McHugh is seen as someone with bad reasoning. McHugh’s reasoning is selective, and his data is selective.’”

The HRC’s press release said, “While the New Atlantis article mostly describes legitimate research, the claims it makes based on that research are not backed by experts in the field. The authors make much of elevated depression and suicide rates among LGBTQ people—a key issue for LGBTQ advocates—and acknowledge the substantial research showing that anti-LGBTQ stigma plays a crucial role. While these admissions may make the article seem neutral, readers should not overlook the lack of evidence backing key claims—like the notion that ending stigma ‘is unlikely to eliminate all of the disparities in mental health status’ or the insinuation that ‘children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior’ are ‘encouraged to become transgender.’ In reality, experts who support gender-affirming care are adamant that ‘gender-atypical thoughts and behavior’ don’t mean a child is trans—and that any decisions should follow the child’s lead, without pressure from adults.”

The danger of the type of pseudo-science perpetrated by McHugh and Mayer is that anti-LGBT and anti-trans zealots will use this study as “proving” that LGBT and  particularly transgender people, have no right to civil rights protections, or protection from medical malpractice. Mayer has, as HRC noted, already testified as an “expert witness” in defending North Carolina’s hateful, anti-LGBT and anti-trans HB2. Stay tuned – you’ll see them roll out this tainted study for years.

Copyright 2016 The Gayly – August 26, 2016 @ 12:10.