Read on Twitter
Since Abigail Shrier is promoting the unsupported hypothesis of ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria’ in her new book, let’s talk about why it’s wrong. I will be basing this off my recent peer-reviewed paper on the topic:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038026120934693
1/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038026120934693
1/
The term ROGD appeared in 2016 when Lisa Littman began recruiting for her study on anti-trans sites like 4thWaveNow, which are dedicated to opposing trans rights and access to affirmative care, especially for youth. 2/
It very quickly spread once the abstract of a conference presentation was published in 2017. Conservative journalists began publishing on it in droves before it was even peer reviewed and published in full. 3/
People like @BrynnTannehill, @ZJemptv, @lizduckchong, and I began writing on it and pointing out its major theoretical flaws. Namely, it posited social contagion without causal evidence, and all its data was consistent with what we know of trans youth. 4/
My work with Alexandre Baril published on The Conversation was endorsed by many leading trans health experts including the current Canada Research Chair on trans youth, heads of major clinics serving trans youth, and past/current CPATH board members. 5/ https://theconversation.com/why-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-is-bad-science-92742
Despite this detailed critique, the published study failed to address any of the significant theoretical and methodological points raised. As a result, it had to undergo post-publication review and was published with language clarifying that it merely generates a hypothesis. 6/
Let me repeat, to be clear. The paper now states that it only generates a hypothesis using parental reports (by largely transphobic parents) and does not validate or confirm the hypothesis. Nevertheless, the author continues to claim that it provides evidence for it. 7/
Going through the details of why ROGD is wrong would take a long time and I recommend reading my full paper, which is linked in this summary. 8/ https://www.growkudos.com/publications/10.1177%25252F0038026120934693/reader
But flaws include that (1) it fails to distinguish social contagion from seeking peer support during questioning and before coming out, (2) it doesn’t explain why poor parent-child relationships and child mental health aren’t caused by parents rejecting youth’s gender... 9/
And (3) very few of the youth claimed to falsely believe they are trans actually ceased to identify as trans to their parents, despite parental hostility to their gender. 10/
In other words, ROGD adds nothing to our knowledge. We know trans & questioning people go on the internet for support. Stephen Whittle wrote about that back in the 90s. We know parental rejection of gender is bad for mental health and family relationships. 11/
We also know parents are often clueless about gender stuff. Hell, I’m a professional trans person/scholar and even my parents were completely clueless. Nothing new here. 12/
Epistemic violence is a useful lens to understand ROGD. Epistemic violence occurs when you have two competing interpretations of data, and you pick the interpretation that perpetuates stigma and oppression against a marginalized group. ROGD is a great example of that. 13/
There’s nothing special about more and more trans youth coming out in an era characterized by visibility. But ROGD prefers the ideological spin of anti-trans movements, and chooses to turn being trans into a psychic epidemic. 14/
I won’t mince my words. ROGD is an attempt at weaponizing scientific-sounding language to legitimize opposing gender affirmation. It asks for more evidence that we’re not harming youth, masking transantagonism as ‘legitimate concern’. 15/
Want to oppose gender-affirmative care despite all the evidence in favour of it? Just suggest that there’s a new social contagion and that the old data doesn’t cover it. 16/
These critiques were all laid out well ahead of Littman’s publication but she didn’t bother addressing them head on in the full study. The journal did well to correct it and say it’s just generating a hypothesis, but that doesn’t change the core theoretical flaws. 17/
Why were the critiques not addressed? I’d venture a guess: ROGD is not a bona fide scientific theory. It was never meant to further science. Instead, it serves to advance a transantagonistic agenda by putsuing the legitimacy of scientific language. 18/
‘Rapid-onset gender dysphoria’ sounds like a serious clinical term and gives people pause. But we shouldn’t fall for it. What it is, is epistemic violence. What it is, is pushing for new engagements with conversion therapy. 19/
Because it’s Twitter, I didn’t delve into numbers and data but if you’re interested in that, you should read my article, which I had linked up top. Here’s a link to a non-paywalled version. 20/
https://www.florenceashley.com/uploads/1/2/4/4/124439164/ashley_a_critical_commentary_on_rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria.pdf
https://www.florenceashley.com/uploads/1/2/4/4/124439164/ashley_a_critical_commentary_on_rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria.pdf
To borrow my own concluding words: “Reports of an epidemic have been greatly exaggerated. Upon closer examination, ROGD reveals itself to be a construct mired in unfounded and prejudiced assumptions. It should be enthusiastically rejected.” 21/
