.
By Dr. Emily Helder
Statement Against Heterosexual Marriages Only
Statement
The HSR misuses research on gender dysphoria having used a study that has been withdrawn due to methodological flaws.
Dr. Helder is a pediatric clinical neuropsychologist and is a professor of psychology at Calvin University.
Helder lists three main objections to the Human Sexuality Report.
The first objection is that the report ignores or misrepresents the conclusions of recent research. She says, “. . . in discussing the cause of gender dysphoria the report relies on a single study to conclude that children and teens are strongly influenced by media regarding gender identity . . .”
.
Response
The above statement of what Helder presents in the video is very brief. The reason for that is explained at the end of this response.
On page 69 of the Human Sexuality Report we read:
“This sort of widespread attention to gender identity in popular media and entertainment has raised the question of the extent to which this is influencing children and teens to identify themselves as gender nonconforming as a solution to complex problems of depression, suicide, bullying, and anxiety. The possible influence of media publicity on the onset of gender identity raises questions about the causes and prevalence of gender dysphoria.” Emphasis added.
At the end of this section of the report (page 71) we read,
“At the very least the lack of evidence from long-term studies and the developmental flexibility most children exhibit suggests using caution before entering into any treatment option that is irreversible.” Emphasis added.
Do these quotes from the report indicate, as Helder claims, that the report concludes “. . . that children and teens are strongly influenced by media regarding gender identity . . .”? It would appear that the report states the verdict is out, it is still a question that needs to be resolved. The four phrases in the above quotes point in that direction.
Helder places heavy emphasis on her claim that the report relies on “a single study” when it comes to it’s conclusion. She then proceeds to claim that report is not based on sound science.
When the Human Sexuality Report refers to the report Helder questions we have the following quote:
“On the one hand, many professional groups and academics now advocate transition treatments for children and youth. Many others, however, point out that there is insufficient scientific evidence for the effectiveness and safety of these transitioning treatments.”
The second sentence is footnoted to the study Helder claims is deficient. The first sentence above refers to the fact that many professionals today support transition treatments. The report here is referring to the two opposing views. It is not concluding the second view is correct, and it is not using a single study to arrive at such a conclusion.
Is this an honest, objective critique of the report, or is it a misrepresentation?
This point is a key part of Helder’s response to the HSR as it is the subtitle of her video.
Taking a relatively quick look at this first objection Helder has raises serious concerns about what she claims in the other two objections. At the very least one would want her to document specifically the statements in the report that she is referring to so that they can be checked out.
In listening to the video if you arrive at a different conclusion that what is given here, please let us know. We are very open to providing different views on this page. The blog is also present below for comments to be made on this matter.