On 2016 Jun 04, H Horvath commented:

Many questions arise.

Did you obtain human subjects research approval for this study (and its interview questions and questionnaires) from your institutions? Did the school district's Board give approval? How did you come up with your interview questions and questionnaire? How did you validate them? It would also have been useful to see the consent form these parents signed -- I wonder whether they really understood that you would be introducing such disorienting, disturbing concepts to young children. Two year study -- Over how many cumulative hours, days, weeks were the interviews and "guided group questionnaire" sessions conducted?

You present only year 2 results, simply saying that "outcome measures were not included in the 1st year." Do you mean to say that the first year was a complete waste of everyone's time and that you have no data to report? Or do you mean that you are planning to report year one results for different outcomes in a separate paper? As formulated, your explanation for the absence of year one outcome data in the current paper suggests selective outcome reporting.

What possible good could come from making small children endure these confusing interviews and "group questionnaire" sessions with "trained researchers"? Who were these "trained researchers"? What proportion of parents didn't consent for their children to participate? What were characteristics of consenting vs. non-consenting parents? What proportion of consenting parents did not further respond? What were parents told of their children's specific responses? What happened with kids whose parents didn't consent? Were they included in the study anyway, filling out questionnaires in groups and being interviewed? You do not describe other activities given to non-consented children, and there is no indication that these activities took place outside ordinary school hours -- which suggests that non-consented children were brought along for the ride. What were children's thoughts and concerns about the interviews and questionnaire sessions? What clarifying questions did they ask of the "trained researchers"? What measures did you take to protect child privacy? Did children benefit from this study, and if so, how? Did you follow up to learn of any harmful effects on children? What were these effects?

What does any of this have to do with reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, history etc.? Never mind biology, in which kids still might learn that in humans, there is a male sex and a female sex, with very few exceptions (i.e. in the case of disorders of sexual development). "Gender" is merely sex role stereotyping. It is not good to instill in young children the false notion that performing stereotypes of appearance, behavior and mannerisms normally used by the opposite sex will somehow enable them to change sex. This wasn't the "goal" of your study, I know, but the children no doubt are now a lot more confused about themselves. You can't conduct "gender" programming like this in small children and expect that the world will applaud it, despite ethical sloppiness or actual lapses. Children are not mere guinea pigs for social programming research. To be fair to your paper, most other "gender" studies in children are ethically-challenged, to say the least.

On 2016 Jun 04, H Horvath commented:

Many questions arise.

Did you obtain human subjects research approval for this study (and its interview questions and questionnaires) from your institutions? Did the school district's Board give approval? How did you come up with your interview questions and questionnaire? How did you validate them? It would also have been useful to see the consent form these parents signed -- I wonder whether they really understood that you would be introducing such disorienting, disturbing concepts to young children. Two year study -- Over how many cumulative hours, days, weeks were the interviews and "guided group questionnaire" sessions conducted?

You present only year 2 results, simply saying that "outcome measures were not included in the 1st year." Do you mean to say that the first year was a complete waste of everyone's time and that you have no data to report? Or do you mean that you are planning to report year one results for different outcomes in a separate paper? As formulated, your explanation for the absence of year one outcome data in the current paper suggests selective outcome reporting.

What possible good could come from making small children endure these confusing interviews and "group questionnaire" sessions with "trained researchers"? Who were these "trained researchers"? What proportion of parents didn't consent for their children to participate? What were characteristics of consenting vs. non-consenting parents? What proportion of consenting parents did not further respond? What were parents told of their children's specific responses? What happened with kids whose parents didn't consent? Were they included in the study anyway, filling out questionnaires in groups and being interviewed? You do not describe other activities given to non-consented children, and there is no indication that these activities took place outside ordinary school hours -- which suggests that non-consented children were brought along for the ride. What were children's thoughts and concerns about the interviews and questionnaire sessions? What clarifying questions did they ask of the "trained researchers"? What measures did you take to protect child privacy? Did children benefit from this study, and if so, how? Did you follow up to learn of any harmful effects on children? What were these effects?

What does any of this have to do with reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, history etc.? Never mind biology, in which kids still might learn that in humans, there is a male sex and a female sex, with very few exceptions (i.e. in the case of disorders of sexual development). "Gender" is merely sex role stereotyping. It is not good to instill in young children the false notion that performing stereotypes of appearance, behavior and mannerisms normally used by the opposite sex will somehow enable them to change sex. This wasn't the "goal" of your study, I know, but the children no doubt are now a lot more confused about themselves. You can't conduct "gender" programming like this in small children and expect that the world will applaud it, despite ethical sloppiness or actual lapses. Children are not mere guinea pigs for social programming research. To be fair to your paper, most other "gender" studies in children are ethically-challenged, to say the least.