When Your Sources Prove You Wrong

Or: A Citation Story - How to Debunk Yourself in 40 Easy Steps

Remember in school when you'd cite Wikipedia for a paper and your teacher would give you that look? That "I'm not angry, just disappointed" look? Or for those closer to my age, when they realized you just copied your report straight out of the encyclopedia?

Well, today we're revisiting our favorite retired infectious disease guy who, so far, has only managed to contract a terrible case of being an Anti-Trans Scientific Sellout, or just an ASS. That’s right, today we are going to talk a little more about Dr. Torrance Stephens.

Last time he and I exchanged views, he left me a link to another article as a sort of response. I looked it over, and it reads like a paper where they started with the Encyclopedia Britannica and ended with InfoWars, and honestly? I'm both angry AND disappointed.

Stephens wrote a lengthy piece - over 4,000 words of recycled talking points, cherry-picked examples, and conspiracy theories. I could go through it line by line, claim by claim, like I did with their first article. I am not going to do that, because when someone cites two papers that completely demolishes their own argument, when they pivot from legitimate historical sources to Bohemian Grove conspiracy sites, when they've already ignored every substantive rebuttal from my first response? Well, sometimes the best approach isn't another comprehensive breakdown.

Sometimes it's better to show exactly how they played themselves.

So while I'll hit the highlights (or lowlights), today we're going to focus on the truly spectacular failures here. It will be a little different in that regard, and if you want the comprehensive biological rebuttals, brain structure research, and detailed trans history lesson, check out my first response - Stephens sure didn't.

A Lesson in Citation Whiplash

Let me paint you a picture. Stephens opens their latest response with what I'll admit is a genuinely solid historical breakdown of scientific racism. Morton's skull measurements! Galton's eugenics! Real academic sources! Archives! [Chef's kiss] Beautiful stuff.

The first 13 or so links? Pristine. Historical documents, peer-reviewed papers, the works. You could teach a college course with these sources.

Then we hit link 20 or so, and it's like watching someone have a stroke mid-bibliography:

• The Maine Wire (a blog so right-wing it makes Fox News look like NPR)

• Human Events (where journalism goes to die)

• A LITERAL CONSPIRACY WEBSITE ABOUT BOHEMIAN GROVE[1]

• YouTube videos of Ted Cruz (I cannot stress enough: TED. CRUZ.)[2]

• "Do No Harm" (an anti-trans group whose medical expertise rivals that of your uncle's Facebook posts)

It's like watching Gordon Ramsay prepare a beautiful beef Wellington, then top it with a Twinkie.

When You've Lost the Plot Entirely

And then, dear readers, we reach peak hyperbole. Stephens writes:

"No normal human believes a man is a woman because they speak it, unless they are under the control of some MK Ultra Bohemian Grove world of wizardry"[3]

Now, I don't think Stephens literally believes the CIA is mind-controlling people into supporting trans rights, or that you have to be able to believe that stuff to be a support of trans right. But look at the comparison they reached for. Accepting trans people is apparently so unthinkable, so beyond the pale, that only literal brainwashing could explain it.

This is what they think of us - that supporting our trans neighbors is equivalent to being in a cult or under mind control. Even as a "joke," it reveals exactly how extreme their position is.

Then they make this "joke": "Biological and genetic sex are not fluid by any definition based on Physics" - and link to a physics textbook definition of fluids.[4] Get it? Gender FLUID? Like water?

[Crickets]

This is what passes for scientific argument now - dad jokes about physics textbooks while suggesting that acceptance requires wizardry. And yes, I know the genderfluid folks make all sorts of great puns like this. They are punny.

The Citation That Destroys Everything

Or: When You Accidentally Cite Your Own Demolition

But here's where things go from bad to catastrophic. Remember those papers by Ashley and others that Stephens cited about rapid onset gender dysphoria?

Well, funny story.

THEY COMPLETELY DESTROY THE CONCEPT OF ROGD.

I'm not exaggerating. I'm not being hyperbolic. The papers Stephens cited - with broken links, naturally - systematically demolish everything Stephens is trying to argue.

Let me quote directly from the Ashley paper that STEPHENS THEMSELVES PROVIDED AS EVIDENCE:

"ROGD is best understood as an attempt to circumvent existing research demonstrating the importance of gender affirmation, relying on scientific-sounding language to achieve respectability"[5] (emphasis mine).

Did you catch that? The paper Stephens cited literally describes ROGD as pseudoscience dressed up in "scientific-sounding language."

But wait! There's more! Ashley continues:

"More panic than epidemic, proponents of ROGD paint themselves as a marginal group speaking truth to power."[5]

And here's the grand finale:

"ROGD reveals itself to be a construct mired in unfounded and prejudiced assumptions. It should be enthusiastically rejected."[5]

…

This. Person. Cited. A paper. That says. Their entire argument. Is. Bullshit.

But it gets EVEN BETTER. The paper also explains that Littman's ROGD study - the one Stephens keeps referencing, recruited parents from "trans-antagonistic websites" like 4thWaveNow, creating what Ashley calls "serious concerns about sampling bias."[5]

So not only did Stephens cite two papers that debunks their entire worldview, but that specific paper also explains why the study they're relying on is garbage.

This is like calling a witness in your murder trial and having them testify, "Oh yeah, they definitely did it. I saw the whole thing. Here's the video. Also, here's why all their other witnesses are lying."

The Old Switcheroo: Real Science Bad, Pop Science Good

Now watch this magic trick in real time. Stephens quotes another academic paper that explains how anti-trans activists work:

What the Paper Says Anti-Trans Activists Do:
"Channel other social anxieties into transphobia"[6]

What Stephens Immediately Does:

• Brings up anxiety about children: "children shouldn't be making life-altering decisions"[3]

• Invokes medical anxiety: "massive wave of medical malpractice lawsuits"[3]

• Stokes sports panic: Lists every trans athlete who ever won anything[3]

What the Paper Says:
"ROGD rhetorics draw from ableism, racism, and heteronormativity to fuel transphobia"[6]

What Stephens Does:

• Compares consensual trans healthcare to enslaving Black women [3]

• Calls it "mental health crisis" and implies trans people are mentally ill [3]

• Panic about "men in women's sports" [3]

What the Paper Says:
"Arguments about ROGD frame trans people as infinitesimally rare and as threats to all other communities"[6]

What Stephens Does:

• Claims trans women threaten cis women's sports[3]

• Warns about threats to children[3]

• Suggests trans people threaten society itself ("restore sanity")[3]

It's like they read the paper as an instruction manual rather than a warning.

But who does Stephens recommend instead of these "quacks and pseudo-scientists"? Debra Soh - who left academia, doesn't practice science, and wrote a book that actual scientists have systematically debunked.[7][8]

So to recap:

• Peer-reviewed papers in academic journals = "avoiding science"

• Pop-science book by non-practicing former academic = "A good read"

Not to beat this horse to death too much, but the book he has been citing and passing around as “a good read” has been criticized for:

• Misrepresenting current scientific understanding of gender and sex

• Cherry-picking studies while ignoring contradictory evidence

• Presenting fringe positions as mainstream science

• Using her former academic credentials to lend authority to positions that aren't supported by current research

It's particularly ironic that Stephens recommends a book that actual practicing scientists have thoroughly debunked in peer-reviewed journals, while dismissing those same peer-reviewed papers as "quackery." It is even more telling that he and Soh have the same bad habits. Birds of a feather, I guess.

The "Just Asking Questions" Gambit

Stephens claims there are two questions "the trans community cannot and will not answer."[3] Oh, we can answer them. We just recognize bad faith when we see it.

"What is a woman?"
You know what this is? It's the intellectual equivalent of "I'm not touching you!" while holding your finger an inch from someone's face. They don't want an answer. They want you to give an answer they can attack. It's the Ben Shapiro School of Debate: ask a question designed to generate a soundbite, not understanding. It is not that the trans community cannot and will not answer because they have. It is just always used as a distraction in bad faith.

"Do biological males have advantages in sports?"
[Deep breath] Okay. Yes. Sexual dimorphism exists. Congratulations on your middle school biology comprehension, Dr. Stephens.

But here is what they don’t tell you in their article: After 2 years of HRT, trans women often perform at a disadvantage compared to cis women.[9] The few advantages that remain? They're within the normal variance of cisgender athletes.[10]

You know what else is an advantage? Being 6'8" in basketball. Having Michael Phelps' mutant wingspan. Being rich enough to afford private coaches. But suddenly when it's trans people, NOW we care about "fairness"?

Give me a break.

The "No, YOU'RE the Real Racist" Defense

The crown jewel of Stephens' response is their attempt to flip the script. They spend 3,000+ words explaining scientific racism in meticulous detail - Morton's skull measurements, Galton's eugenics, the whole horrific history. Then they pivot and declare: "In this day and age, charlatans have returned, and represent the sociobiological construct of transgenderism. This could be described as scientific sexism."[3]

That's it. No connecting evidence. No parallel analysis. No demonstration of how accepting trans people resembles measuring skulls to justify slavery. He just... says it.

So, to be clear: Stephens’ just explained how:

• Scientists measured skulls to "prove" racial hierarchy

• Academics used pseudoscience to justify oppression

• "Experts" dressed up prejudice as objective truth

And Stephens’ conclusion is... to do exactly that to trans people?

This isn't an argument - it's projection. Cinema quality projection at that.

It's like writing a detailed exposé on pyramid schemes - the false promises, the manipulation tactics, the inevitable collapse - then launching your own MLM and calling your critics the real scammers.

The sheer audacity of using the history of scientific racism as a weapon against another marginalized group while claiming THEY'RE the ones doing pseudoscience? When the links on their site debunk their own arguments? That takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance. Or maybe just a Bitcoin wallet that needs filling?

Notice what is missing between Stephens' history lesson and their conclusion? Evidence. Any evidence at all. They spend thousands of words on skull measurements and eugenics, then just... declare that trans acceptance is the same thing. No parallel. No analysis. No connection. Just 'trust me, it's totally the same.

The Rest of the Nonsense: A Speed Round

Since Stephens apparently expects us to take seriously an article that cites Bohemian Grove conspiracy sites, let's quickly dispatch their other claims:

Archaeological "evidence": "Archaeologists can identify sex from bones!" Cool. They also found evidence of gender variance in virtually every ancient civilization. Ever heard of Elagabalus? The Roman Emperor who insisted on female pronouns? Guess those archaeologists 2000 years later better check their notes.[11]

The mammal thing: "Humans are mammals!" Yes, and? chromosomal sex doesn't match phenotypic sex due to genetic or hormonal factors. Some are hermaphroditic. Some have multiple sex chromosomes. Nature is wild, Dr. Stephens. Maybe read beyond 6th grade biology.[12]

Mental health claims: Trans kids with accepting parents thrive. Those with rejecting parents struggle.[13] This isn't complicated - it's what happens when you reject a fundamental part of your child's identity.

Prison panic: How did we go from sports to prisons? This is like discussing pizza toppings and suddenly screaming about tax policy. Also, this: Bang! to Rights by David Allsopp - The weaponising of prison statistics for anti-trans propaganda

The eternal lawsuit threat: Anti-trans activists have been promising a "massive wave of medical malpractice lawsuits" for at least five years now.[3] Still waiting. Maybe it's stuck in the same place as Trump's healthcare plan?

Let's Talk About What's Missing

You know what Stephens did not address from my original article?

• The evidence about intersex conditions (radio silence)

• Brain structure research (crickets)

• Actual suicide statistics (tumbleweeds)

• The medical consensus from EVERY major health organization (the sound of one hand not clapping)

Instead, they gave us hyperbolic comparisons to mind control and secret societies. Granted, this was published before my own article, so I understand this was not meant as a direct rebuttal. You just sort of lazily linked this to me as a response as if it was all you needed to prove me wrong. But when your scientific argument requires invoking the CIA and wizards - even as a "joke" or as an analogy - you're not doing science anymore. You're doing Coast to Coast AM.¹

The Grift Never Stops

And of course, at the bottom of this intellectual train wreck we see the usual suspects:

• Bitcoin wallet

• Venmo

• Dogecoin

• CashApp

• "SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - HELP ME GET 10 NEW SUBSCRIBERS THIS MONTH"[3]

Nothing says "I'm motivated by pure scientific inquiry" quite like holding our hand out for cryptocurrency after spreading debunked papers and vague conspiracy theories about vulnerable minorities.

The Inconvenient Truth

Here's what really happened: A person with a PhD in infectious disease decided they were also an expert in endocrinology, psychology, sports medicine, and apparently, shadow governments. They cited real sources about historical racism to give themselves credibility, then pivoted to citing the academic equivalent of bathroom graffiti.

And the bonus part? Their own sources prove them wrong.

This isn't just bad science, it's not even science. It's what happens when you start with a conclusion ("trans people bad") and work backwards, grabbing any link that seems to support you without actually reading it or without understanding it.

Dr. Stephens understands exactly how scientific bigotry works. They spent 4,000 words explaining it, then they did it anyway, and asked for donations for their trouble, and thought we wouldn't notice.

Sometimes the most dangerous misinformation doesn't come from ignorance. Sometimes it comes from people who know better, understand history, and choose to repeat it anyway.

For profit.

---

Citations

[1] Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). MK-ULTRA documents (Document No. 06760269). CIA Reading Room. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/06760269

[2] Cruz, T. & Kennedy, J. (2023). Trans rights hearing [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/qPDHh9YCfeY

[3] Stephens, T. (2025). From scientific racism to scientific sexism, the swindlers of science rear their ugly heads again. ThoughtCrime: Jones From PartsUnknown Banned From Twitter. https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/from-scientific-racism-to-scientific

[4] BYJU'S. (n.d.). Fluid. https://byjus.com/physics/fluid/

[5] Ashley, F. (2020). A critical commentary on 'rapid-onset gender dysphoria'. The Sociological Review Monographs, 68(4), 779-799. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120934693

[6] Hsu, V. J. (2023). Irreducible damage: The affective drift of race, gender, and disability in anti-trans rhetorics. Peitho, 25(3).

[7] Serano, J. (2020). Debunking "The End of Gender" - Part 1: A review of Debra Soh's book. Medium. https://juliaserano.medium.com/debunking-the-end-of-gender-part-1-a-review-of-debra-sohs-book-f5f75f3c3e4

[8] Ashley, F., & Domínguez, S. (2021). Debunking the "end of gender" and the return of 19th century sexology. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(3), 745-747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01899-1

[9] Harper, J., O'Donnell, E., Khorashad, B. S., McDermott, H., & Witcomb, G. L. (2021). How does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 55(15), 865-872. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-103106

[10] Roberts, T. A., Smalley, J., & Ahrendt, D. (2021). Effect of gender affirming hormones on athletic performance in transwomen and transmen: Implications for sporting organisations and legislators. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 55(11), 577-583. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102329

[11] Varner, E. R. (2008). Transcending gender: Assimilation, identity, and Roman imperial portraits. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Supplementary Volumes, 7, 185-205.

[12] Roughgarden, J. (2013). Evolution's rainbow: Diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people. University of California Press.

[13] Olson, K. R., Durwood, L., DeMeules, M., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2016). Mental health of transgender children who are supported in their identities. Pediatrics, 137(3), e20153223. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-3223

1. For those who did not know this, "Coast to Coast AM" is a late-night radio show that's famous for discussing UFOs, conspiracy theories, the paranormal, and other fringe topics. It airs from 1am-5am EST and is heard by nearly three million weekly listeners. I had no idea until I stumbled across it while researching for this article. Because bohemian grove. That opened up quite a few, let’s just say interesting search results.