WHAT IS THE REGNERUS Â STUDY SCANDAL?
The anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute longÂ cultivated a relationship, with Regnerus before approaching him to commission a study that would demonize gay people and be available in time for pernicious exploitation during the 2012 elections.
The study — published onÂ June 10, 2012 — was ostensibly, but not actually, on gay parents’ child outcomes.
And, it was purpose-designed and booby trapped against real-life gay parents in the present day, though it did not study them.
Top officials of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute also have positions of authority over the anti-gay-rights National Organization for MarriageÂ (NOM).
NOM’s founder and mastermind Robert P. George, moreover, is a senior fellow with the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, as well as a board member of the Family Research CouncilÂ (FRC), a Southern Poverty Law Center–certified anti-gay hate group known for spreading malicious falsehoods against its umpteen millions of victims, the entire LGBT community and heterosexuals supportive of LGBTers’ equality.
Since the publication of the fraudulent Regnerus study, enemies of gay rights — led by Robert George‘s anti-gay-rightsÂ Witherspoon Institute, NOM and FRCÂ — have been using the “study” as a basis for their anti-gay fear-and-hate-mongering disinformation campaigns.
In response to these anti-gay hate groups’ disinformation campaigns based on the fraudulent Regnerus study, responsible scientists have taken action to correct the scientific record to the public.
A Golinski-case amicus brief analyzing the Regnerus study as scientifically invalid,Â for example, was jointly filed by 1) the American Psychological Association; 2) the CaliforniaÂ PsychologicalÂ Association; 3) the American PsychiatricÂ Association; 4) the National Association of Social Workers; and 5) its California Chapter; 6) the American MedicalÂ Association; 7) the American Academy of Pediatrics; andÂ 8)Â the AmericanÂ PsychoanalyticÂ Association.
Separately, over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s sent a letter to the journal Social Science Research, which published the fraudulent Regnerus study, complaining of its lack of intellectual integrity and its suspiciously rushed publication schedule. An audit revealed that the Regnerus submission had only gotten published through corrupt peer review.
In an echo of when the American Sociological Association banned Paul Cameron and declared that he is not a sociologist, due to his intentional distortions of the scientific record, the ASA is poised to take action against the Regnerus study.
Authorities of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon, NOM and FRC are notorious for wieldingÂ Cameron’s distortions of the scientific recordÂ as a weapon against their gay victims.
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE REGNERUS STUDY IS FRAUDULENT?
Though the Regnerus study is an avalanche of anti-gay — and other — fraudulence, individual aspects of its fraudulence can be isolated and accurately described as fraudulent.
And, one element of fraudulence in the Regnerus study can easily be grasped through an analogy to shopping for stereo loudspeakers.
Once you have determined that you are going to buy one of two pairs of stereo speakers, you want to listen to them carefully — in an A/B comparison test — to know what acoustical qualities each pair of speakers has.
In order to judge the acoustical qualities of each pair of speakers in an A/B comparison test, you have to listen to them in the same listening environment.
If you listened to the one pair of stereo speakers up in a penthouse, but to the other pair on a busy subway platform, you would not have any rational basis for understanding how the one pair sounds compared to the other pair.
And obviously, the penthouse stereo speakers would benefit from insurmountable acoustical advantages over the subway speakers, even though in reality, that second pair of speakers might actually sound equally good — or better — were it heard up in the penthouse.
Now, here is the question Regnerus alleges he wanted to answer with his study:
“Do the children of gay and lesbian parents look comparable to those of their heterosexual counterparts?”
To answer that question, Regnerus did the equivalent of a stereo speaker A/B test, but he did it by comparing children of heterosexual parents to children of Â (improperly labeled) “gay” parents.
And, in his study, Regnerus did the equivalent of putting all of his heterosexual “control group” up in a luxurious penthouse while throwing all of his gay “test group” down onto a busy subway platform.
Then, Regnerus concluded that the children of gay people — whom he had thrown down onto the busy subway platform — looked worse and had less money than the heterosexuals he had put up in the penthouse.
For a more detailed explanation of how the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute and Regnerus booby trapped their study against gays, go here.
For an examination of the anti-gay Regnerus study as a one percenter’s dirty campaign trick, go here.
WHO IS BRAD WILCOX, AND WHAT DOES HE HAVE TO DO WITH THE REGNERUS SCANDAL?
W. Bradford Wilcox is Director of The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.
Wilcox holds positions of authority with many of the institutions caught up in the Regnerus scandal.
a) WilcoxÂ is theÂ DirectorÂ of Â the anti-gay-rightsÂ Witherspoon Institute‘s Program on Marriage, Family, and Democracy.
b) Wilcox’s anti-gay-rights Witherspoon InstituteÂ authorities — by coincidence — arranged for Regnerus’s $785,000 of study funding: Â Â Â
a) WilcoxÂ is Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and an associate professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia
b) Regnerus’s study says that “leading family researchers” including at least one from — by coincidence — Wilcox’sÂ University of Virginia designed his (booby trapped) study:
a) WilcoxÂ is on the editorial board of the journal Social Science Research
b) Â The fraudulent Regnerus study was published through corrupt peer review in — by coincidence –Â Social Science Research
a) WilcoxÂ is on the editorial board of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute’s publicationÂ Public Discourse
b) After Regnerus contacted and cultivated a relationship with the gay basher Robert Oscar Lopez, a gay bashing essay by Lopez in support of the Regnerus study was published — by coincidence — on Wilcox’s anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute’sÂ Public Discourse.
WILCOX’S BAD FAITH PROMOTIONS OF THE ANTI-GAY REGNERUS STUDY
Any trained sociologist would recognize the baseline scientific failures of the Regnerus study.
Regnerus compared a cherry picked heterosexual control group to a test group loaded up with confounding variables. Every Sociology 101 class teaches the necessity of eliminating lurking — to say nothing of glaring — variables.
By way of background on Baylor University:
On April 18, 2011, a New York Times articleÂ –Â Gay Rights at Christian Colleges Face SuppressionÂ — quoted Baylor University spokeswoman Lori Fogleman as saying:
â€œBaylor expects students not to participate in advocacy groups promoting an understanding of sexuality that is contrary to biblical teaching.”
Then in November, 2011, Baylor University was criticized for hosting a special sociology course of study titledÂ Homosexuality as a Gateway Drug.
The Baylor letterÂ tells lies about the Regnerus study.
For example, Â the letter compares the Regnerus study to another study on gay parents’ children’s outcomes by researcher Daniel Potter.
Like the Regnerus study, the Potter study relied on unscientific speculation on whether the children considered actually had gay parents. Coincidentally, Potter is a recent product of Brad Wilcox’s University of Virginia.
The Potter study actually found that differences between children of gay and heterosexual parents are “nonsignificant.”
But, 1) in talking about the Potter study’s findings; 2) Brad Wilcox and his fellow anti-gay propagandists; 3) cut the word “nonsignificant” out of Potter’s published wording, in order to; 4)Â falsely allege that Potter’s findings prove that Regnerus was; 5) correct to conclude that gay parents’ children do worse than heterosexual parents’ children.
In the Regnerus and the Potter studies, the failure properly to ascertain whether children’s parents were verifiably gay parents reduces the studies to vicious gossip against gay people.
ONE OTHER EXAMPLE OF A LIE IN THE BAYLOR LETTER IS WORTH DETAILING TO DEMONSTRATE HOW DEEPLY DISHONEST THE SIGNERS ARE:
A little background information is necessary:
Rosenfeld drew several very important conclusions. One is thatÂ “children raised by same-sex couples have no fundamental deficits in making normalÂ progress through school.”
Another of Rosenfeld’s conclusions involves the relative values of 1) sociological studies about gay parents based on “large sample nationally representative data” versus; 2) Â studies based on smaller “convenience” and/or “snowball” samples.
Though smaller studies on gay parenting consistently find that sexual orientation per se does not impact child outcomes, critics allege that the smaller tests are not adequate to making that determination. Â Crucially, then, Rosenfeld concludes his study by saying this:
“The analysis in this paper, using large sample nationally representative data for the first time, shows that children raised by same-sex couples have no fundamental deficits in making normal progress through school. The core finding here offers a measure of validation for the prior, and much debated, small sample studies.”
THE BRAD-WILCOX-SIGNED, BAYLOR LETTER IN SUPPORT OF REGNERUS DELIBERATELY MISLEADS ABOUT THE ROSENFELD STUDY
Rosenfeld’s study on gay parents’ child outcomes used data from the 2000 U.S. Census.
By contrast, Regnerus’s study used data collected through Knowledge Networks, a survey administering company.
In his audit of SSR’s publication of the Regnerus study, SSR editorial board member very strongly criticizes Regnerus’s sloppy, prejudiced abuses of data had through Knowledge Networks. Sherkat, moreover, questions whether the Knowledge Network survey respondent panel can truly be “nationally representative,” given that it is 67.3% female and 32.7% male, which obviously does not reflect gender distribution in the population.
Baylor, however, outrightÂ lies,Â by saying that Regnerus’s study comes “close to resembling the demographics” of Rosenfeld’s study.
The Baylor letter, though, does not state that Rosenfeld’s data came from the 2000 US Census, not from Regnerus’s Knowledge Networks.
Then, from talking about Rosenfeld’s gay parenting study not based on a Knowledge Networks panel, the Baylor letter immediately jumps to talking about a different Rosenfeld study — not on gay parenting — for which Rosenfeld used Knowledge Networks.
The idea Baylor is intending to convey is that 1) Rosenfeld did a gay parenting study and used Knowledge Networks, so that proves 2) that there is nothing wrong with Regnerus’s use of Knowledge Networks.
The criticism is not that Regnerus used Knowledge Networks, the criticism is that Regnerus was sloppy with the data had from Knowledge Networks.
The Baylor letter:Â 1)Â does not address, still less rebut, the substantive criticism made of Regnerusâ€™s misuses of his Knowledge Networks data; and the Baylor letter also;Â 2)Â deliberately misleads by associating Rosenfeld with Rosenfeldâ€™s gay parenting study, to allege that Rosenfeld and Regnerus had very similar approaches in their gay parenting studies, without mentioning that RosenfeldÂ did not use Knowledge NetworksÂ for his gay parenting study, and that in contrast to Regnerus’s haphazardly and slapdash labeling of people as “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” though they were not known to be that, Rosenfeld studied children being raised by gay couples known for sure to have been together for at least five years.
In other words, by means of suppressing crucial information about the Rosenfeld gay parenting study, the Baylor letter wrongfully alleges that the Regnerus and Rosenfeld studies are equally valid studies of gay parents’ child outcomes.
WILCOX’S CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN SIGNING THE BAYLOR LETTER IN SUPPORT OF REGNERUS
In signing the Baylor letter, Wilcox did not disclose the conflict of interest he had in signing it.
Because; 1) Wilcox is an official with the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, and because; 2)Â the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute funded the Regnerus study, and because; 3)Â the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute is very heavily promoting he Regnerus study in anti-gay rights political contexts; 4) Wilcox behaved unethically in signing the Baylor letter without; 5)Â disclosing his status as an official of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute.
Moreover, Wilcox was not the only official of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute who signed the Baylor letter with that same conflict of interest.
The lead signer of the Baylor letter, for example, was Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion Director Byron Johnson, who also is a senior fellow with the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute.
NOW ASK YOURSELF:
WHEN IT COMES TO EVALUATING STUDIES ABOUT GAY HUMAN BEINGS, WHO MERITS MORE SCIENCE-BASED TRUST?
I) A Baptist University in Texas that “expects students not to participate in advocacy groups promoting an understanding of sexuality that is contrary to biblical teaching;” (bolding added);
II)Â 1)Â the American Psychological Association;Â 2)Â the CaliforniaÂ PsychologicalÂ Association;Â 3)Â the American PsychiatricÂ Association;Â 4)Â the National Association of Social Workers; andÂ 5)Â its California Chapter;Â 6)Â the American MedicalÂ Association;Â 7)Â the American Academy of Pediatrics; andÂ 8)Â the AmericanÂ PsychoanalyticÂ Association.
WHAT EXACTLY DO WE KNOW ABOUT BRAD WILCOX’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE REGNERUS SCANDAL?
1)Â We know that at least one “leading family researcher” from the University of Virginia was involved in designing the booby trapped Regnerus study, and we know that Brad Wilcox is a “leading family researcher” at the University of Virginia;
2)Â We know that at least two of the Regnerus study’s peer reviewers were paid Regnerus study design consultants, meaning that it is possible that Brad Wilcox was one of the paid study design consultants who also peer reviewed the study and approved it for publication; (note that the journal that published Regnerus, Social Science Research, uses “blind” peer review and refuses to disclose the identities of its peer reviewers. Many scientific publications with reputations better than that of Social Science Research use open peer review, in which the peer reviewers’ identities are known.
3)Â We know that Brad Wilcox is a program director at the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, we know that the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute helps to fund Wilcox’s National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, and we know that Wilcox’s anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute has been heavily promoting the fraudulent Regnerus study in anti-gay-rights political contexts.
4)Â We know that Brad Wilcox is an editorial board member of Social Science Research, which published the Regnerus study, and we know that the Regnerus study got introduced to SSR’s editor James Wright by some currently mysterious means and then rushed into publication through corrupt peer review on anÂ unprecedentedlyÂ rushed publication schedule.
5)Â We know that without disclosing his conflict of interest in signing the Baylor letter, Wilcox signed the Baylor letter, which is crammed with distortions of information related to scientific studies, and that all of those distortions are used in attempt support of the (invalid) Regnerus study.
6)Â We know that Wilcox and Regnerus previously have collaborated professionally; see here for an example. That study co-authored by Regnerus and Wilcox, with others, in fact won the ASA’s 2001 Distinguished Article award in the Sociology of Religion category. (Ironically, though Regnerus in his gay parenting study was cavalier and reckless about his improper classifications of people as “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” his study with Wilcox consists of a proposed new scheme for classifying religious traditions, so that studies of religious traditions can be more accurate.
New York City-based novelist and freelance writerÂ Scott Roseâ€™s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His â€œMr. David Cooperâ€™s Happy Suicideâ€ is about aÂ New York City advertising executive assigned to aÂ condom account.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
Protestors in Idaho Bring Their Kids to Mask-Burnings Promoted by Far Right Extremist Lawmakers
Two far right Republican state lawmakers in Idaho recorded a video promoting coronavirus mask burnings, which subsequently took place across the state Saturday, including on the steps of the state capitol in Boise.
Despite what the two lawmakers say, Republican Governor Brad Little has instituted no statewide mask mandate, businesses are mostly open, and there are no stay-at-home orders, according to The New York Times.
The two GOP lawmakers are Rep. Dorothy Moon, whose husband belongs to the antigovernment extremist group the John Birch Society, and Rep. Heather Scott who reportedly supports white nationalism and according to a report is a leader in a group known as COWS, or the Coalition of Western States. Its founder was removed from the GOP caucus after a report stated he had engaged in domestic terrorism.
In April of 2020 Scott “compared Idaho Gov. Brad Little (R) to Adolf Hitler because she said that stay-at-home orders during the coronavirus pandemic are akin to Nazi extermination camps.”
In the video the two lawmakers, Moon and Scott, say they “fully support” the mask burnings.
“People are gonna be lining up [at] burn barrels to throw masks in, mandates, or emergency orders or replications there have, because I think everyone’s ready for this emergency order to be lifted,” Moon says. “And now we’re almost one year into this COVID lockdown and mandates and orders that it’s time to end the numbers aren’t there.”
Given that Idaho ranks 43rd in per capita coronavirus testing, it’s impossible to say accurately “the numbers aren’t there.”
Scott chimes in to say the mask-burnings will be “pretty fun,” and Moon adds that there will be “50 burn barrels set up around the state.”
And indeed, people did come out to burn masks, and brought their children with them. One speaker referred to Idaho residents as “political refugees,” apparently for living under mask requirements in Boise.
About 150 people are gathered in Boise, Idaho on the Capitol steps to “burn the mask” pic.twitter.com/bRoUy5bd86
— Sergio Olmos (@MrOlmos) March 6, 2021
Oregon Public Broadcasting reporter Sergio Olmos posted these photos and videos of the mask-burning at the Idaho capitol. Law enforcement officers asked the anti-science extremists, who are promoting the mask-burnings and including their children in them, to put out the fire.
Parents encouraging their children to burn masks pic.twitter.com/XQuS9qBGbC
— Sergio Olmos (@MrOlmos) March 6, 2021
A child says “here fire, you hungry? here’s another mask”
A mask burning rally in boise, Idaho pic.twitter.com/MqNnaEKBP0
— Sergio Olmos (@MrOlmos) March 6, 2021
Parents encouraging kids to burn masks on Idaho Capitol steps pic.twitter.com/VOYfOYqwwt
— Sergio Olmos (@MrOlmos) March 6, 2021
Idaho state troopers and Boise police tell organizers to put out the fire.
Protestors tell police to go away pic.twitter.com/06nwOeuecY
— Sergio Olmos (@MrOlmos) March 6, 2021
Expert Explains How Dems Just Brilliantly Forced Trump to Respond Under Oath for the Capitol Riot
On MSNBC Saturday, former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance outlined the legal problems that the new civil suits against former President Donald Trump will create for him.
“These civil cases are a very interesting aspect of the search for accountability,” said Vance. “We’ve seen the flawed impeachment procedure, which failed to hold him accountable despite evidence. We’re looking at the criminal process and criminal investigations ongoing, too early to conclude whether that would ultimately reach former President Trump and his inner circle. These civil cases are a direct and potentially more quick route for the American people to gain the truth.”
“Representative [Eric] Swalwell’s complaint is particularly interesting because it raises claims under the Ku Klux Klan Act, which talks about interference with Congress’ performance of official duties, and files suit in his individual capacity, arguing interference and interference with his well-being and the well-being of others,” said Vance. “Only one of the claims in this complaint have to survive a motion to dismiss, an early preliminary motion that the defendants will file in order to begin the discovery process, and that’s part of the legal proceedings in the civil case where a litigant like Representative Swalwell has the ability to take depositions to ask for documents where there’s actually an obligation that the defendants respond under oath.”
“This could get interesting relatively quickly,” concluded Vance, although she added, “It’s too early, I think, to assess whether the suit has a chance of success on the merits.”
“At the end of the day you serve at the pleasure of the president,” saidformer EEOC general council David Lopez. “I think the norm that was violated was that she decided to stay. I’ve never heard of that happening before.”
Image via Shutterstock
Sinema Slammed After Spokesperson Says It’s Sexist to Discuss Her ‘Thumbs Down’ Vote Against $15 Minimum Wage
Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) on Friday offered up a dramatic “thumbs down” vote on increasing the minimum wage to $15, which NCRM and other news outlets reported. While she was one of eight Democrats to vote against the legislation, she was the only one to mimic the late Republican Senator John McCain, also of Arizona, who famously stopped Republicans from killing ObamaCare.
Sinema was also the only one to bring cake to the Senate floor, giving her critics ample ammunition to compare her to Marie Antoinette.
But now Senator Sinema is fighting back.
According to HuffPost, Sinema’s spokesperson says it’s sexist to discuss her thumbs down act.
“Sinema’s office responded to a question about the gesture by making the absurd claim that the inquiry is sexist,” the news outlet’s Sara Boboltz reports. “‘Commentary about a female senator’s body language, clothing, or physical demeanor does not belong in a serious media outlet,’ Hannah Hurley, a spokesperson for Sinema, told HuffPost.”
On social media news of the “sexist” claim spread quickly, and did not go over well. Some responses:
They want everyone arguing about whether it’s sexist to criticize Sinema’s thumbs down and not focusing on why ALL of these assholes, and by extension the entire Democratic Party, belong in a garbage disposal. https://t.co/oSbpWeEG8M
— the good niko (@NikolasRage) March 6, 2021
Sen. Sinema really trying to say people are sexist for critiquing her thumbs down is the biggest white woman energy right now.
She is privileged. The VAST majority of those making below $15 are brown and Black women. Her enthusiasm to keep people oppressed SHOULD be critiqued.
— Kate Sánchez⁷ 🔜 SXSW2021 (@OhMyMithrandir) March 6, 2021
— melissa “cancel student debt” byrne (@mcbyrne) March 6, 2021
It’s not sexist. @SenBooker is my Senator. If he ever did that on a thumbs up or down vote I’d say the same thing. @kyrstensinema is regretting being sassy for herself, the cameras, or both. She created this moment.
— Talan (@TalanTweets) March 6, 2021
looking for suggestions: anyone know how to dunk on the disproportionate number of women and woc minimum wage workers without being sexist? i guess this whole thumbs down thing has been poorly received. thx, office of sen. sinema https://t.co/Aokh87BwDv https://t.co/8q4t35cfaG
— dino (@dinokadich) March 6, 2021
Criticizing Sinema for gleefully giving a minimum wage hike a thumbs down = not sexist https://t.co/VodHBV7e37
— Gracie Raw (@Gracie_Raw) March 6, 2021
Is it sexist if a woman thinks her little thumbs down dance was sickening? Asking for all the female minimum wage earners Sinema fucked over today.
— Nik (@nycnash) March 6, 2021
- 'MOST SECURE ELECTION IN US HISTORY'3 days ago
MAGA Senator’s Attack on Dems’ Voting Rights Bill Backfires Spectacularly: ‘Truest Thing You Have Said All Year’
- TRUMP WHO?2 days ago
WH Press Secretary Slams Reporter Who Masked Trump Attack: ‘We Don’t Take Our Advice or Counsel From Former President Trump’
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS3 days ago
North Dakota Expels Anti-Mask, Anti-Vaxx GOP Lawmaker for Alleged Sexual Harassment and ‘Bizarre’ Behavior
- News3 days ago
‘We’re About Facts Around Here’: Psaki Smacks Down Governor’s Claims After Abbott Attacks Biden for ‘Importing COVID’
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM2 days ago
Arrested: Trump State Dept. Appointee, a Former Anti-LGBTQ Hate Group Employee, in Connection With Capitol Riot
- PLAYING WITH FIRE2 days ago
‘Marie Antoinette’ Trends After Video of Sen. Sinema Giving Thumbs Down to $15 Minimum Wage Vote Goes Viral
- ANALYSIS3 days ago
‘You Don’t Have to Normalize Insurrection’: CBS News Slammed for ‘Complicit’ Jailhouse Interview of ‘QAnon Shaman’
- CORRUPTION3 days ago
Trump Official Spent Millions of Taxpayer Dollars on Legal Team to Dig Up Dirt on His Own Staff: Report