Is no one aware of Dr. Mark (now Marci) Bowers' conflicts of interest in this action? Dr. Bowers, who "transitioned" after the third child he fathered was born, has a surgery racket dominating the town of Trinidad, Colorado. Dr. Bowers rakes in the profit from the enterprise and is glorified for turning a sleepy small town into a bustling "gender" center. A true publicity hound, Dr. Bowers appeared in the reality show centering the child transition of "Jazz" Jennings, in which the surgeries failed the first time. For a deep dive, behavioral analysis for the coincidental neurological and emotional mechanisms in play for men when they ideate female personae and cross-dress, which may give the false impression of a "cure" for body dissociation:
Too many people stand to lose too much money if the public starts questioning gender ideology...think of all that lost revenue from prescribing hormones and performing surgeries!
*They* need the kids so,so badly - they can't risk ROGD receiving *any* credence at all, otherwise their entire "it's innate" argument completely face-plants .
That Springer have been terrorised to this extent is horrific,quite frankly ... What can we do about it ?
I have sat on Research Ethics Committees, and been a reviewer for papers sent (amongst others) to Springer for several years. I can state with total confidence that what Springer are using as an excuse is total claptrap. I can think of only one or two projects out if the hundreds I've reviewed that was in any way granular in the consent to publishing, and none were this specific.
Of course, Springer are completely entitled to put any restrictions they wish in place with regard to publishing - and on their own heads be it - but they are not entitled to do it ex post facto. Retroactive rules are inherently unjust, and never speak to good faith. No one, whether government of private organisation, who does it can be trusted again due to certainty being lost.
What is missing, though, from this and almost every other (very good, very needed) article of this type is something I know you don't want to say. But I believe you have a duty to say it.
Dr. Marci Bowers is a man who had a sex-change surgery. He is one of the most biased, self-serving proponents of transing.
This is not a "personal attack." It's basic journalistic duty. It's the elephant in the room. And I'm guessing if the level of conflict of interest Bowers has had to do with *anything* other than transgenderism, you would have pointed it out.
Tell the whole truth. Put it in whatever respectable or diplomatic language you find necessary, but tell it, please. The whole truth is that a mentally unwell man who calls himself a woman is trying, and succeeding, at supressing the truth of what the horror he did to himself does to other people. And he's attacking Ken Zucker and trying to get him fired.
Imagine how many more minds would change if your article hadn't hidden that.
I daresay most of the papers claiming that transition improves mental health would fail this new standard from Springer. Especially the ones based on retroactive data analyses of the anonymous online 2015 Trans Survey.
Who is at the very top making the calls, enforcing these decisions - is it the WHO, the UN, the WEF. Who ultimately is in control, who has all authority, all power
At one point, didn’t it seem like Bowers was prepared to be more reasonable, at least admit that this was all going too fast and that some young people are harmed by transition?
Isn’t that what Bowers told Abigail? Is it just me or did Bowers just claim to have been misquoted and then double down on this madness?
All of the major, traditional professional associations in the U.S. for healthcare clinicians and research are corrupted. The peer reviewed journals are revealing themselves to be similarly corrupted. In the past we relied on them to present the research results and analyses we needed to move the science and practice of healthcare forward. Now we can't.
It is time for scientists to begin publishing their papers on places like Substack, or to create their own platforms for the purpose. That is not so much of a problem. A much more important problem is that research is expensive, and is paid for nowadays by places like NIH and NIMH in response to proposals submitted from scientists working for universities and foundations. Without this funding, it will be very challenging to conduct any unbiased research, and the NIH has been ideologically captured.
Wow, the authors caught a major publisher with its proverbial pants pulled down. The power of cancellation culture remains fervent and ideas that question the essential tenets of transgender ideology are being baldly suppressed. This is so sad and the opposite of what science should endorse. If a paper presents data that is in dispute, encourage discussion but do not suppress especially when one uses previously unused criteria. Could there be lawsuits pending?
Is no one aware of Dr. Mark (now Marci) Bowers' conflicts of interest in this action? Dr. Bowers, who "transitioned" after the third child he fathered was born, has a surgery racket dominating the town of Trinidad, Colorado. Dr. Bowers rakes in the profit from the enterprise and is glorified for turning a sleepy small town into a bustling "gender" center. A true publicity hound, Dr. Bowers appeared in the reality show centering the child transition of "Jazz" Jennings, in which the surgeries failed the first time. For a deep dive, behavioral analysis for the coincidental neurological and emotional mechanisms in play for men when they ideate female personae and cross-dress, which may give the false impression of a "cure" for body dissociation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vF3Epdesl0&t=1s
Too many people stand to lose too much money if the public starts questioning gender ideology...think of all that lost revenue from prescribing hormones and performing surgeries!
*They* need the kids so,so badly - they can't risk ROGD receiving *any* credence at all, otherwise their entire "it's innate" argument completely face-plants .
That Springer have been terrorised to this extent is horrific,quite frankly ... What can we do about it ?
We are Chairman Mao’s Red Guards,
We steel our red hearts in great winds and waves.
We arm ourselves with Mao Zedong Thought
To sweep away all pests.
We are Chairman Mao’s Red Guards,
Absolutely firm in our proletarian stand,
Marching on the revolutionary road of our forbears,
We shoulder the heavy task of our age.
We are Chairman Mao’s Red Guards,
Vanguards of the cultural revolution.
We unite with the masses and together plunge into the battle
To wipe out all monsters and demons.
Refrain:
Dare to criticise and repudiate, dare to struggle,
Never stop making revolutionary rebellion.
We will smash the old world
And keep our revolutionary state red for ten thousand generations!”
I have sat on Research Ethics Committees, and been a reviewer for papers sent (amongst others) to Springer for several years. I can state with total confidence that what Springer are using as an excuse is total claptrap. I can think of only one or two projects out if the hundreds I've reviewed that was in any way granular in the consent to publishing, and none were this specific.
Of course, Springer are completely entitled to put any restrictions they wish in place with regard to publishing - and on their own heads be it - but they are not entitled to do it ex post facto. Retroactive rules are inherently unjust, and never speak to good faith. No one, whether government of private organisation, who does it can be trusted again due to certainty being lost.
As a publishing academic, I agree that this is very troubling.
Thank you for exposing this.
What is missing, though, from this and almost every other (very good, very needed) article of this type is something I know you don't want to say. But I believe you have a duty to say it.
Dr. Marci Bowers is a man who had a sex-change surgery. He is one of the most biased, self-serving proponents of transing.
This is not a "personal attack." It's basic journalistic duty. It's the elephant in the room. And I'm guessing if the level of conflict of interest Bowers has had to do with *anything* other than transgenderism, you would have pointed it out.
Tell the whole truth. Put it in whatever respectable or diplomatic language you find necessary, but tell it, please. The whole truth is that a mentally unwell man who calls himself a woman is trying, and succeeding, at supressing the truth of what the horror he did to himself does to other people. And he's attacking Ken Zucker and trying to get him fired.
Imagine how many more minds would change if your article hadn't hidden that.
I daresay most of the papers claiming that transition improves mental health would fail this new standard from Springer. Especially the ones based on retroactive data analyses of the anonymous online 2015 Trans Survey.
Great work exposing this corruption in the halls of academia!
"did not obtain Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for the study"
Thereyago. Just make it so that the woke can forbid even studying heretical ideas and there won't be any further trouble.
Who is at the very top making the calls, enforcing these decisions - is it the WHO, the UN, the WEF. Who ultimately is in control, who has all authority, all power
At one point, didn’t it seem like Bowers was prepared to be more reasonable, at least admit that this was all going too fast and that some young people are harmed by transition?
Isn’t that what Bowers told Abigail? Is it just me or did Bowers just claim to have been misquoted and then double down on this madness?
So how do we go about forcing the retraction of tens of thousands of papers? They will never learn until it hurts them.
All of the major, traditional professional associations in the U.S. for healthcare clinicians and research are corrupted. The peer reviewed journals are revealing themselves to be similarly corrupted. In the past we relied on them to present the research results and analyses we needed to move the science and practice of healthcare forward. Now we can't.
It is time for scientists to begin publishing their papers on places like Substack, or to create their own platforms for the purpose. That is not so much of a problem. A much more important problem is that research is expensive, and is paid for nowadays by places like NIH and NIMH in response to proposals submitted from scientists working for universities and foundations. Without this funding, it will be very challenging to conduct any unbiased research, and the NIH has been ideologically captured.
Wow, the authors caught a major publisher with its proverbial pants pulled down. The power of cancellation culture remains fervent and ideas that question the essential tenets of transgender ideology are being baldly suppressed. This is so sad and the opposite of what science should endorse. If a paper presents data that is in dispute, encourage discussion but do not suppress especially when one uses previously unused criteria. Could there be lawsuits pending?
Does this jeopardize the progress that’s been made in European countries that have blocked gender procedures on kids?