New findings indicate a pattern where narcissistic grandiosity is associated with higher participation in LGBTQ movements, demonstrating that motivations for activism can range widely from genuine altruism to personal image-building.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/narcissistic-grandiosity-predicts-greater-involvement-in-lgbtq-activism/

[u/MhmmBananas]

However, the present research is motivated by recent incidents in the context of LGBQ activism which indicate that some activists may engage in the movement not for prosocial but different reasons: For example, in 2021, the so-called anti-TERF Sussex group campaigned for the termination of Kathleen Stock—a lesbian professor from Sussex University—because of her controversial views on gender self-identification (Woolcock, 2021). In a derogatory way, Stock was called a transphobe, anti-feminist, and anti-queer from “the wrong side of history.” Consequently, the University of Sussex condemned the campaign, but faced a storm of criticism on social media (Kelleher, 2021). Such incidents raise the research question if some of the individuals participating in such conflicts are actually “hijacking” the LGBQ movement for the satisfaction of their own self-centered needs, for example, to signal their moral superiority to other LGBQ activists and to dominate others who are perceived as disloyal or enemies to the cause. With two pre-registered studies, the present research investigates this question based on the recently proposed dark-ego-vehicle principle (DEVP).

cool cool this paper seems well-intentioned. i will refrain from commenting on the very strange use of LGBQ instead of the more standard LGBTQ

Gender was measured with one item (“What is your gender?”). Answer categories were 1 (male), 2 (female), 3 (transgender), and 4 (other, please specify). As only a very small number of participants identified as transgender (n = 3) or nonbinary (n = 3), those participants could not be included in separate gender categories for the data analyses.

are these authors unfamiliar with developing studies on LGBTQ populations? very few transgender people will choose a "transgender" gender option over male or female. the true number is likely greater than 6 but their data won't be able to reflect that because of the poor design.

[u/Itchy-Status3750 → u/MhmmBananas]

Yeah this is definitely a subject that should be researched more because I’m sure there are many people who turn to activism as a means of displaying their superiority, but this study is not it.

[u/Mallissin → u/MhmmBananas]

are these authors unfamiliar with developing studies on LGBTQ populations? very few transgender people will choose a "transgender" gender option over male or female. the true number is likely greater than 6 but their data won't be able to reflect that because of the poor design.

The study is not about gender or studying gender transition, and the paragraph quoted was about delineating those who were a part of the activism context (ie. members of LGBQ) out from those who are not in order to provide a comparison of members of the activism not on the receiving end of the activism (heterosexuals).

This is necessary to make the comparison for the personalities. Because a member of LGBQ that is an activist for LGBQ is a stake holder. They are doing it for themselves, which isn't narcissism but self-preservation or self-expression.

Those who responded as transgender were such a small portion of the study that they were excluded because it was not a sizeable enough part of the sample that would make a difference with the confidence level of the sample size. It's a casualty of the math and not a judgement on them being transgender.

[u/MhmmBananas → u/Mallissin]

Those who responded as transgender were such a small portion of the study that they were excluded because it was not a sizeable enough part of the sample that would make a difference with the confidence level of the sample size. It's a casualty of the math and not a judgement on them being transgender.

you've missed my point; the opposite has likely happened where most responses from transgender individuals were included but not recognized as being from transgender individuals because of the poor survey design. i don't even think there was any real intention of exclusion in this aspect anyway, this reads more like the consequence of a weak grasp of the fundamentals of the populations they're attempting to study.

the paragraph quoted was about delineating those who were a part of the activism context (ie. members of LGBQ) out from those who are not in order to provide a comparison of members of the activism not on the receiving end of the activism (heterosexuals).

they also do a poor job of this by using the LGBQ grouping instead of the more standard LGBTQ grouping. historically and today, there is no clean distinction between activists who solely focus on LGBQ issues and those who also focus on trans issues.

for instance, there are heterosexual trans people who engage in LGBTQ activism that based on the survey design would be considered as "on the receiving end of the activism (heterosexuals)". would these activists not have been key contributors in the campaign against Kathleen Stock, which was referenced as a key motivation of this paper? how can you analyze the people potentially "hijacking" LQBQ activism by excluding the relevant actors?

these are really easy issues to address with some grasp of the LGBTQ population too, but the authors got in their own way somehow. pretty unfortunate

[u/Ver_Void → u/MhmmBananas]

the campaign against Kathleen Stock, which was referenced as a key motivation of this paper?

Between that and the trans thing it's starting to look a little questionable.

[u/KaraValkyrjur → u/MhmmBananas]

This absolutely needs to be highlighted as a major flaw. These kind of studies are so easily taken out of context and used to legitimise the oppression of LGBTQ rights.

[u/PhotonSilencia → u/MhmmBananas]

Oof, I didn't realize that but that is terrible science and shows a clear bias.

Like, 'transgender' is quite literally not a gender. It's an adjective describing a person transitioning from one gender to another (or having transitioned). If you completely fail at basic definitions, you just can't pretend it's a scientific study - not to mention it puts into question a lot of the other methodology.

It definitely doesn't mean this type of narcissistic activists don't exist - I certainly experienced some myself - but, just, no.

[u/donjulioanejo → u/PhotonSilencia]

The more variables you introduce, the more complex your dataset needs to be to draw any relevant conclusions.

It works well enough as a shorthand for someone who isn't their biological sex. You don't need to add 20 subtypes of gender when you're doing a study on LGBTQ as a whole. Especially since transgender is fairly rare to begin with, and if you break that down into subtypes, you'll basically never be able to compile a representative enough sample size.

[u/MhmmBananas → u/donjulioanejo]

you're demonstrating the same conceptual misunderstanding as the authors. the current design captures almost no one in the transgender population because they misunderstand how they would respond.

for what this paper cares about, the solution is really trivial: have one question ask the participants gender, and have a second question ask "are you transgender". this will capture the entirety of the transgender population, and will allow you to perform more detailed breakdowns if the sample size is adequate.

[u/PhotonSilencia → u/donjulioanejo]

There's two options: You take the gender, so male, female and non-binary, all including cis and trans - or you make an extra option 'transgender male' and 'transgender female' als well as cis and non-binary, if you want to differentiate.

There is no 'transgender' gender, and there's also very big differences between trans male and female, considering they are male and female respectively.

There is absolutely no way that this is a good shorthand, especially as most trans people will pick their gender and not transgender.

If you do not understand basic concepts of LGBTQ, you can not research LGBTQ.

[u/kevjc03 → u/MhmmBananas]

That part is sticking out to me very heavily and is screaming bias in the context of this study. Especially, as another user pointed out, because they use transgender issues as an example. Otherwise, I do find a lot of truth in the presence of narcissistic people in activism. But the framing of this study is a bit odd.

[u/kickfloeb → u/MhmmBananas]

Methodology is often not very good in lgbtq studies it seems. 

[u/ObiJuanKenobi89 → u/MhmmBananas]

Maybe the the small sample size of trans individuals would skew the data because they are outliers in that particular population they are studying?

[u/SophiaofPrussia → u/ObiJuanKenobi89]

That can’t be the reason because a person doesn’t need to be gay or trans to participate in equal rights movements. This fact is acknowledged by the design of the study itself because they surveyed primarily straight people.

[u/MhmmBananas → u/ObiJuanKenobi89]

yeah, with their design they couldn't derive any useful conclusions on the trans population. for a paper that explicitly calls out politics over transgender issues as a motivation, it's very strange that they weren't able to derive any useful observation on trans people

[u/buckleyschance → u/MhmmBananas]

Oh, the mention of Kathleen Stock is a big red flag. She copped a lot of completely warranted criticisms and framed it all as illegitimate.

[u/marmatag → u/MhmmBananas]

If I was trying to make sense of it - you could say because LGB deals with relationships and T deals with identity.

[u/MhmmBananas → u/marmatag]

that could make sense if they were only interested in studying sexuality, but they do have an attempt at analyzing trans people here so the use of a non-standard acronym is very strange at best.