Jump to content

Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Another source

    [edit]

    New paper out last week: Gender dysphoria in adolescence: examining the rapid-onset hypothesis. Some highlights:

    Once again the sex ratio shift, contra Turban.

    In recent years, specialized clinics have witnessed an unprecedented surge in adolescent patients seeking treatment for gender dysphoria [1,2,3,4]. Contrary to earlier trends where young natal boys displayed gender dysphoria from an early age, a marked shift has occurred, with significantly more natal female adolescents seeking treatment [3, 5,6,7,8]. Adolescents receiving clinical care for gender dysphoria are characterized by a considerable prevalence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders [9,10,11,12].

    That criticising inflation of the significance of Littman's study is valid:

    Despite the limitations and speculative nature of Littman’s findings, her theory of ROGD gained significant traction and sparked discussions that at times overlooked the scant evidence supporting it [22,23,24]. Even before the publication of Littman’s article, and thus before the results of the study were available, the phenomenon was discussed [25] and treated as established knowledge by prominent figures in the field such as Ray Blanchard and J. Michael Bailey [26]. This discrepancy between the significance of empirical findings from a single study and the far-reaching conclusions drawn from them is a valid point of criticism.

    That Littman's use of parental surveys was valid:

    While the limitations of the study are clear, the use of parental surveys about their children is a longstanding and valid method within various fields of research for gathering preliminary data, informing hypotheses, and tracking behavioral trends. Therefore, the use of such surveys for hypothesis-generating studies should not be discouraged in clinical research, provided that one acknowledges their inherent limitations and potential for bias, especially in areas that involve very personal issues of identity.

    That peer contagion is a legitimate hypothesis:

    The processes of peer contagion, particularly noted among adolescent natal females with psychiatric disorders, alongside the accumulating evidence of social media’s detrimental impacts on young people in general, give cause for consideration of the evidence emerging from Littman’s study. If it can be said that social contagion processes have been shown to play a role in certain disorders [67,68,69], and that social media can potentially exacerbate these processes [83], it is reasonable to assume that this may also be the case for some adolescents with gender dysphoria. This gives reason for closer study and, crucially, the direct involvement of adolescents themselves.

    That this is a subject that requires more study:

    In our view, it is imperative to investigate the phenomena described in Littman’s research regarding a subgroup with distinct phenomenology. From our clinical experience in the medical care of affected children and adolescents, we observe at least a subset of patients with significant co-occurring psychopathology. It is not uncommon for these adolescents to describe an increase in gender dysphoria with the onset of puberty, often coinciding with the Covid-19 lockdowns and accompanied by an increase in social media use. In order to validate the theory and document the core clinical phenomenology, attempts must be made to replicate her observations using multiple sources of information (youth, parents, clinicians) and diverse methodology [85]. If forthcoming research substantiates the existence of this clinical phenomenon, the development of explanatory models will become crucial to enhance our clinical insight into the distinct needs of these patients.

    That neither lauding Littman's findings nor condemning them is appropriate, callis it an important contribution, and also cautioning that even though some people may seize upon this as an explanation that allows them to argue against medical transition, that should not be a reason not to research further:

    This article aimed to examine the controversial theory of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) in light of the existing evidence base. In summary, it becomes clear that neither prematurely adopting ROGD as a valid explanatory model nor its hasty condemnation as transphobic is an appropriate response. It is hard to deny that Littman’s research has made an important contribution to the discourse. It is now the task of the scientific community to take up this contribution and build on it with further research. We have to face the fact that ROGD may provide a convenient pathogenic explanatory model for those who are fundamentally opposed to medical transitioning of adolescents. In our opinion, however, the correct response to such possible tendencies is not to suppress research in this direction, but to strengthen it, so that evidence-based judgments of its validity are possible.

    So, add this to Thompson et al. and Elkadi et al. as sources that should be cited in balancing out this article. Also further questions any claims this is WP:FRINGE or WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Void if removed (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is entering WP:RGW levels of disruptive behavior on this topic. Your crusade to personally smash Turban's cite here is depressingly repetitive. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I said at the end was: sources that should be cited in balancing out this article
    Any comment on how we might add this new source to balance out the content in the article, which is what this topic is about?
    At the very least a paragraph in "further research", no? Void if removed (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The TLDR of this paper was 1) There continues to be no evidence that ROGD exists 2) many people have claimed it exists despite the lack of evidence and 3) we should research it so we can more definitively say it's true or false. You said it should be cited in balancing out this article - I don't oppose citing it but you haven't laid out how the article is supposedly imbalanced. This paper is clear, claims that ROGD is definitely a real thing as opposed to a hypothesis based on shaky data continue to be WP:FRINGE. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a rather slanted interpretation of the paper, which stated that "neither prematurely adopting ROGD as a valid explanatory model nor its hasty condemnation as transphobic is an appropriate response" and "It is hard to deny that Littman’s research has made an important contribution to the discourse". This is hardly declaring ROGD to be "fringe", but simply a hypothesis that as of yet has not gained sufficient data to prove or disprove, but has enough plausibility that further study is desirable. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed change to the lead section

    [edit]

    In my view, the first sentence of the article should refer to ROGD as a "controversial hypothesis" because it is more suitable than alternative descriptors:

    • The article currently calls it a "controversial, scientifically unsupported hypothesis", which is false. As demonstrated in the section above, there is at least some evidence in favor of the hypothesis.
    • Another option which has been discussed previously is to call it a "controversial, scientifically unproven hypothesis", which is technically true but demonstrates a lack of understanding of scientific terminology because the term "proof" is reserved for math and formal logic and is not applicable in science.

    Therefore the best option is just to omit both of those terms. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We could move the initial sentence of the second paragraph detailing the original source up to the first paragraph. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see past discussions for WP:RS that I believe support your proposed wording. Void if removed (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources were dismissed in that discussion, and for good reason. ROGD has no support outside of WP:FRINGE believers. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From memory, the reviews (at their kindest) say that there is not evidence to dismiss or support rogd. As far as I can tell (from reading our article to find studies and reviews about this topic), there is no published study claiming to support this phenomenon actually existing. Given this it seems like scientifically unsupported is the fair way to describe this. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because "controversial" is what WP:RS like the European Academy of Paediatrics say, but they don't say "scientifically unsupported", which appears to be over-egging things needlessly. Void if removed (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is plenty of sourced content in the article body about how this hypothesis isn't supported by research. We are supposed to summarize sources, especially in the lead, so saying it's unsupported seems completely fine given the article text. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, "scientifically unsupported" is probably too nice, even. We could easily say "pseudoscientific" and be fully justified in it. Loki (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As with every other time we've discussed this, there continue to not be any scientific papers supporting this existing, *including the original paper* which was corrected to make it very clear that it doesn't prove or show anything—blindlynx 16:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the paper in the previous section says that ROGD has at least some evidence behind it. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The paper directly calls littmans paper as "scant evidence" and that rogd is "a relatively unsupported theory". It only mentions 2 unretracted papers on rogd, littmans and buar et al. Given littmans says nothing about it existing (apart from in the mind of some parents) and Buar et al found no support for the hypothesis, scientifically unsupported seems like the only way to describe this. LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Relatively unsupported" seems both a fine compromise and an accurate reflection of the source. Void if removed (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's not the only source though. Loki (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems vague and far too generous to advocates of ROGD. Pseudoscientific is probably the best word. HenrikHolen (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another option would be: "critics contend it is scientifically unsupported". I think pseudoscientific could be mentioned if attributed e.g. "which critics contend it is pseudoscientific". Zenomonoz (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "critics" becomes too vague and risks creating a false balance. A better choice could be to specify a medical organization or authority and write e.g. "the APA describes it as…" HenrikHolen (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yeah you’re probably right about false balance. I think the other option makes more sense. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    far too generous to advocates of ROGD
    Can you explain?
    Pseudoscientific is probably the best word
    Do you have a source? Void if removed (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My main concern is that "relatively unsupported" is open to interpretation and might lead people to wrongly assume there is some basis for this theory in medical literature.
    I see your point that, however we choose to describe it, the choice should reflect the wording used in the source. I propose we write "there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents", citing the 2021 letter from the APA et al.
    https://www.caaps.co/rogd-statement HenrikHolen (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can paraphrase sources, there's no need to stick exactly to the wording of the source. Loki (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The correction to the Littman paper makes it bends over backwards to clarify there is no scientific evidence provided in it!!!—blindlynx —blindlynx 13:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the more contentious articles in a contentious topic area under WP:ArbCom constraints involving blocks, bans, and revert restrictions. I am opposed to changes to the lead without concomitant changes to the body which very clearly support such a change. Mathglot (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd oppose this change -- MedRS places us into territory of increased scrutiny. Particularly for overall characterizations such as the ones proposed, we must exclude primary sources, and follow the consensus of major medical organizations. The three sources you reference [1] , [2] , [3]  don't seem to provide the evidence we would need to, contrary to the consensus of major professional organizations [4] [5], imply that the theory is scientifically supported or validated. I agree that "unproven" is meaningless in this context -- it should not be used. Srey Srostalk 19:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I think that the lead is already as kind to this hypothesised topic as is permissible. We are (rightly) avoiding terms like "discredited", "pseudoscientific" and "conspiracy theory" but we can't go further than that. It is not for us to sugarcoat the situation or introduce an illusion of doubt where there is none. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Shifting consensus

    [edit]
    WP:DENY - this user was indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE behavior and has been globally blocked for cross-wiki vandalism/pov-pushing in favor of these conversion therapy orgs.

    I just stumbled on this:

    The Shifting Scientific Consensus

    A fast-growing group of experts, including Hilary Cass, Jonathan Haidt, Gordon Guyatt (EBM), Richard Dawkins, Ray Blanchard, Stephen B. Levine, Michael Bailey, Ken Zucker, Marcus Evans, Michael Biggs, Riittakerttu Kaltiala and many other prominent researchers, support Littman’s analysis. Due to these experts’ academic credentials, ROGD deserves to be taken more seriously than gender clinics would have us believe. Their perspective no longer aligns with the increasing awareness in 2025 that social contagion likely plays a significant role in the extreme rise in cases.

    Source: https://genspect.org/resources/gender-dysphoria-support-tool/

    WPATH is not a reliable source anymore nowadays (WPATH Files (why is there no article on this?!) and Boe v Marshall courtcase (why is there no article on this?!) & Rachel Levine). Since the Soc8 authors are also the authors of the Endocrine Society protocol and heavily intertwined with APA and AAP, there is kind of a citation kartel going on. The above mentioned specialists stand away from that kartel and their numbers are growing as more dare to speak out. When is ROGD a hypothesis 'debated' instead of 'scientifically unsupported' as is now written in the intro text? I think the latter is misleading as if it is a fringe theory. It is not anymore. you cannot downplay the relevance of guys like Haidt and Guyatt (among the others like Blanchard, Levine, Bailey, Zucker, Evans, Biggs, Kaltiala. All of them are relevant professors, but not supporting the TRA view point. Also the constant dismissal on Wikipedia of SEGM and Genspect is questionable and concerning. 2A02:A443:5030:0:6814:A634:6242:742C (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact you come in talking about the TRA view point belies your bias. You're coming here from anti-trans groups and being upset that the scientific community overall views this as completely unsupported. You're also trying to use conspiracist claims ("WPATH files") to downplay the scientific consensus. This isn't going to persuade anyone. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WPATh Files is not conspiracist claims. They are leaked documents with shocking information. "Ah the dog is not doing it for you anymore, huh?". Or the doctor who thinks you can ask consent from a patient with a multiple personality disorder, by just simply asking all his personalities.
    But you don't want to read the doc, because it doesn't match your preference.
    It's all readable here with after page 73 the copies of the leaked documents.
    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56a45d683b0be33df885def6/t/6602fa875978a01601858171/1711471262073/WPATH+Report+and+Files111.pdf
    I am not the first one who brings up the problem of TRAs on Wikipedia being too promiment blocking anything to do with critique on GAC. While there is the WPATH Files, the Rachel Levine/WPATH scandal, Cass Review and yesterday this: https://www.nysun.com/article/new-research-raises-more-doubts-about-safety-and-benefits-of-gender-transition-treatments-for-minors?member_gift=CUZ5qwd3crq4pmz-xrd
    You cannot ignore Gordon Guyatt and Jonathan Haidt. That is just simply holding back proper sourced information. ROGD is not fringe anymore. ROGD is not as 'controversial' as it was anymore. In fact denying ROGD is becoming increasing controversial. The consensus is clearly shifting.
    Also yesterday this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/24/children-england-gender-dysphoria-diagnosis-rise
    Guardian refuses to mention the social contagion, but that is just a matter of time. Talk TV interviewed Stella and she mentioned it. People are not accepting anymore ROGD is not a thing.
    2A02:A443:5030:0:54C1:E080:D752:123 (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clear that you are advocating for us to join you in promoting conspiracy theories which you are personally invested in to the extent that you seem to be, or to believe yourself to be, on first name terms with the people involved. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We are not permitted to engage in Original Research or Original Synthesis. It is certainly not for us to help you incubate such conspiracy theories. The links you have provided are worthless. The only one that might have been any use at all was The Guardian but that one doesn't even contain any of the terms "rapid onset", "rapid-onset" or "ROGD". It is entirely off-topic. You are wasting everybody's time here. Please drop the matter. DanielRigal (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy&oldid=1271802795"