In academia, a very hot topic now is Brown University’s response to criticism of Lisa Littman’s PLOS One paper on rapid onset gender dysphoria (see here and here). Brown initially promoted Littman’s paper which reported on her survey of 256 parents of children with late onset gender dysphoria. However, when transgender activists raised criticisms, the school pulled their press release about the study from distribution.
One of the key criticisms is that Littman posted her call for respondents on three websites which are frequented by parents who describe rapid onset gender dysphoria in their children. Critic Julia Serano called this “begging the question.” Diane Ehrensaft was quoted in the Economist as saying Littman’s recruitment “would be like recruiting from Klan or alt-right sites to demonstrate that blacks really are an inferior race.”
If Littman was trying to generally study gender dysphoria in adolescent or make a claim that the onset of all gender dysphoria in adolescence was rapid, then these criticisms might be more on point. However, Littman’s interest was more specific. She wanted to understand the relatively recent experience of rapid onset gender dysphoria in social groups where the prevalence is much greater than expected. Thus, she went where the subjects were.
The analogy offered by Ehrensaft is off because Littman wasn’t studying gender dysphoric teens in a general sense. She was trying to get a look at a subset of teens who reported gender dysphoria in the context of social groups where many such teens were reporting it. The analogy also fails because the websites Littman used for recruitment do not have negative attitudes toward transgender people in general. They do seem defensive in the face unrelenting attacks by transgender activists, but I can’t blame them for that.
Hidden Populations Are Hard to Reach
The history of research in sexuality is filled with studies of activist groups and websites. Early GLBT studies were populated by appeals to secret groups and it is still common to reach out to activist groups. In thinking about this study, I thought of the one by Ariel Shidlo and Michael Shroeder on harm done by conversion therapy. When they first recruited for subjects, they went to GLB activist groups with the following message:
Homophobic Therapies: Documenting the Damage
The National Lesbian & Gay Health Association is sponsoring an investigation of the outcomes of so-called treatments of the so-called disorder of homosexuality.
In the press release was this call for subjects:
You can be of help in the long process of getting the message out that these “conversion” therapies don’t work and do the opposite of healing *by informing your lesbian/gay/bi communities of our search for participants to be interviewed.* Please announce our project in any upcoming lesbian and gay community meetings and spread the word.
This study was a pilot study but helped to shine some light on the reactions of clients to sexual orientation change efforts. The study was widely criticized but it never claimed to be a representative sampling of all people who had tried change therapy. Therefore, the most careful interpretation of the work was focused on people who felt harmed. By analogy, that is what can be said about Littman’s study. One cannot generalize to all trans teens, nor does Littman do that. Anything that can be said can only be said about the parent reports and that is a valuable contribution at this stage of research.
Opponents Should Talk Less and Research More
Parents who see their children changing suddenly often feel struck by lightning and need empathy and support. They get some of that from talking to other parents via these websites. Critics do not help their cause by disregarding the experience of parents who know their children well and feel adrift.
For the record, I understand that the trans regret rate is less than one percent and I am not anti-trans. At the same time, I am pro-academic freedom and challenge critics to research more and criticize less. The answer to research you don’t like or disagree with is more research and academic inquiry.
Like this article and want to see more like it? Support this blog at Patreon.com.
[email-subscribers namefield=”NO” desc=”Subscribe to receive notification of new posts.” group=”Public”]
Image: Public domain
How many of those responding to the survey have been verified to be parents of children, trans or otherwise?
the websites Littman used for recruitment do not have negative attitudes toward transgender people in general.
As Madsen Zimbric pointed out at Quora:
Opponents Should Talk Less and Research More
A fine and noble sentiment … in an academic debate. But transgender people aren’t in a polite and and reasoned debate. They are locked in a life and death struggle with their opponents in a country where the president is trying to ban trans people from the military, has withdrawn guidelines to protect trans children from discrimination in schools, withdrawn guidelines to protect trans inmates in Federal prisons in ways to reduce rapes or other violence against them and/or insuring they get proper medical treatment, and is trying to restrict trans people’s access to healthcare insurance necessary to pay for their medically necessary transitioning. In Ohio, Republicans are trying to pass a law that would require teachers in public schools to “out” any child, who even “shows signs” of gender nonconformity, to their parents whether or not the child wants their parents told and forbidding any counseling of the child by school officials on pain of a felony conviction and 18 months in prison! And that is just the tip of the iceberg of the assaults, large and small, against the rights and very lives of trans people today.
Littman’s methodology might have been fine if it was to identify for further study parents and children who supposedly fit within the thoroughly unsupported “diagnosis” of ROGD, which is somehow supposedly different from late-onset GD, which has been discussed for years in the literature and the DSM-V. Instead, she reached conclusions that, as has been pointed out by a number of people, including those you’ve linked to, simply do not follow from the data, including that ROGD is “plausible.” Again, in an academic debate that statement might be harmless but in the larger social/political debate, where logic and reason are not the measures, this paper is already being hailed by the forces of darkness as the next closest thing to gospel.
It’s not hard to see where this is going. The hard right already labels any steps toward transitioning for children before the age of 18 (such as social transitioning, puberty blockers and, with appropriate patients, hormone therapy) as “child abuse.” With this paper in their back pockets, we can expect campaigns to limit or outlaw any transitioning treatment for minor children, even with the consent of the parents.
If it succeeds, it will be a tragedy for at least a generation of kids whose only “crime” was being who they are.
While I do understand how transpeople may feel threatened by how this research could be misused, attempting to discredit the researchers or censor the research is NOT the appropriate response. That would actually hurt the cause more, because it gives the “hard right” the ammunition to say the LGBT movement is trying to suppress “the truth.” and in this case they would be right.
A more appropriate response would be to point out that it is just an initial study. There isn’t enough evidence to make determinations if rapid onset gender dysphoria is an indication of transgenderism or something else. Nor does it significantly effect the current understanding of early onset gender dysphoria and its relation to transgenderism. These suggestions are some of the ways how you can mitigate how the anti-trans types may inappropriately use this study. Further, I’m sure you could get the authors to emphasis such things in press releases, so their research isn’t misused. However, trying to censor or otherwise shutdown such research simply because you are worried how others may misuse it is something I could never condone. I don’t care if this is coming from the right or the left, straight or gay, cis or trans people, it is just as wrong to do.
Finally, rapid onset gender dysphoria is something that does exist. Although, I’m hardly an expert in transgender issues, I do understand enough that helping adolescents to deal with rapid onset gender dysphoria is quite likely going to be different than helping those with early onset. By attempting to stifle this research means delaying finding effective treatments for those suffering from rapid onset, something else I won’t condone either.
I certainly didn’t recommend discrediting the researcher (the way that the hard right constantly personally attacks trans people individually or as a group). Indeed, away from Twitter and the like, where rules of probity exist hardly at all, the response by the trans community has rarely, if ever, made personal attacks on Dr. Littman. But her methodology and conclusions are fair game and critics can be as scathing about them as they like, something that occurs regularly in academic debates.
First of all, there has been no “censorship” of Dr. Pittman or her work. The paper remains where it was originally published. People outside academia have no duty to abide no it’s rules. Person-in-thr-street calls for censorship should be accorded the same weight as similar calls to censor movies or burn books, and if all the reaction was of that sort, I’m sure that disdain would have been Brown’s reaction. But numerous substantive criticisms of the paper emerged even before the paper was published and were not addressed in the published version. Brown, recognizing that the criticisms were more serious than they knew and not wanting to actively tie themselves to what turn out to be a stealth pseudoscientific politically motivated attack on trans people, merely pulled back from the paper, removing a news release and a link to the paper on its website. That is not close to censorship.
[I’m away from home and my phone battery is nearly exhausted. I may comment more when I get home later tonight.]
I would view Brown pulling the press release as a form of censorship.
Further you state:
“what turn out to be a stealth pseudoscientific politically motivated attack on trans people”
but you are not trying to discredit Pittman?
Or perhaps your source (Zimbric) claiming it is a “shit methodology”. You consider that to be a mature, reasoned criticism of the paper?
where can I find these “numerous substantive criticisms”? And are they from anyone with a more scientific background than Zimbric? Anyone with a background in psychology, medicine, or gender studies?
what turn out to be a stealth pseudoscientific politically motivated attack on trans people
I was typing that on my phone, which lends itself neither to typing or editing. It should have been:
what may turn out to be a stealth pseudoscientific politically motivated attack on trans people
As to “shit methodology,” academics may use more refined language in formal responses … but they say it nonetheless. Also, I was not offering Zimbric as one of the serious critics. He merely was relevant to a point Warren made and said it in a graphic, understandable and somewhat entertaining way.
As to serious critics, in addition to the above links given by Warren, there is a further response by Julia Serano, one by Florence Ashley, one by Zack Ford and one by Zinnia Jones. Each of those may link to earlier criticisms.
Continuing …
As to PLOS reviewing the paper after criticisms by serious critics, including scientists like Julia Serano (linked to in the OP), you first need to know that it does not conduct peer review of the papers it publishes in the way most scientific journals do. Instead of having a panel of experts familiar with subject review all aspects of the paper, as few as one PLOS editor, who may have no expertise in in the area, reviews the paper only for the rigor of experiments and data analysis. The idea is to allow the scientific community as a whole to do the peer review. This is a workable model when the subject is, say, hox genes in crustaceans, where nobody outside biology, and certainly not the public at large, politicians and ideologues, gives a damn. PLOS has published some good papers but has also published some real embarrassments, including one, discussing hand coordination, that concluded that such coordination was evidence of God. They are justified to look at it further to make sure they haven’t published a political/sociological screed. This review was not triggered by people spitting venom over Twitter but by serious criticisms by serious critics … and, after all, isn’t that how science works?
In discussing a socially volatile subject, such as transgender people, that puts a greater duty on the author to be absolutely clear what the research does and does not do. Assuming Dr. Littman is an honest researcher, the nature of the public’s reactions, on both sides, demonstrated she failed in that regard.
Who has called for research in this area to be “shut down”?
As to pointing out that it is just an initial study, one needs only to read the hard right’s bloviating, even at this early date, to see that will have even less chance of penetrating than than water on a duck’s back. As noted above, they have already anointed this paper as scientific gospel and, in their usual fashion, they will ride it into the ground.
rapid onset gender dysphoria is something that does exist.
Please cite to one or more other scientific papers that supports such a diagnosis or where in the DSM-V it can be found.
Thats simply false.
That’s false. PLOS One does have peer review–I;ve been on both ends of it (as reviewer and reviewed). And I should point out that its the DSM-5 not V. Those familiar with it tend not to make this mistake, while those cutting and pasting opinions tend to.
You are right about the DSM-5 … it was earlier versions, such as the DSM-IV-TR, that used Roman numerals. My mistake.
I did not say PLOS One had no peer review, I said they did not do a peer review “in the way most scientific journals do.” Surely you’re not claiming that its system of review is the standard among scientific journals, are you?
You’re incorrect about the peer review.
https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPLOS_One%23Publication_concept%3A-faLFCSXQi2YqoaxNLPMVK2s_uE&cuid=5511795
As as been pointed out PLOS One does peer-review the works it publishes. In fact, John Bohannon submitted a bogus paper to several journals to test their review process, PLOS One was one of the journals that properly rejected the paper.
While it may be the case that for SOME of the works it publishes, only a single editor makes the decision to publish, you have presented no evidence that is the case for this paper.
“Who has called for research in this area to be “shut down”?”
Everyone who protested (and pressured) Brown to pull the press release about the study. Everyone who denigrates and attacks Littman by suggesting she is “trans-phobic” or claims her study is a “shit study.”
“Please cite to one or more other scientific papers that supports such a diagnosis or where in the DSM-V it can be found.”
I can’t, because this is the FIRST peer-reviewed study to broach the subject. Nowhere did I claim that rapid onset gender dysphoria was a “diagnosis”, only that it exits. To determine the extent it exists and whether or not it should have a separate diagnosis requires more research. Research that people like you try to stifle by attacking those who try to study it.
While it may be the case that for SOME of the works it publishes, only a single editor makes the decision to publish, you have presented no evidence that is the case for this paper.
Why would I have to? It is stated PLOS policy to have as few as one editor review a submission and not to have a panel of independent scientists, with expertise in the particular subject area, review it, as is standard practice in scientific journals. Under those circumstances, if you want to claim the prestige of being “peer reviewed” for this paper, you have the burden of proof to show it underwent the kind of review usually associated with that phrase.
One also has to wonder, if PLOS has conducted a full “peer review,” why would they would say:
Surely, if they had done a standard peer review, they’d be confident in their original results. Oh, if you want to play the standard hard right card that they are just bowing to “political correctness” or some such, why would you trust PLOS’s scientific integrity anyway?
And as to their having found one phony paper? So what? Does that single example prove the overall effectiveness of their review process? On the other hand, letting one paper through that said in the text that the study was proof of God certainly calls it into question.
As to calls to “shut down” research, again, people who are not in academia are not bound by its rules. Goodness knows, the hard right makes those same attacks on research that supports transgender identity, indeed on the whole scientific community on subjects ranging from evolution to climate change. They will also attack the integrity of the scientists. That’s going to happen.
The question here is whether there are serious questions about the paper, its methodology (including whether it is “shit” or any more polite euphemism you want to choose) and its conclusions. Those are always fair game in academic debate.
Nowhere did I claim that rapid onset gender dysphoria was a “diagnosis”, only that it exits.
You have lost me here. If it exists, as what? Teens exhibiting late-onset GD has long been known and are discussed in in the DSM-5 (2013). What about this paper convinces you that there exists some other “rapid” condition separate and apart from that? The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” exists, created by anti-trans activists, but so what? If this paper is sufficient to convince there is a phenomenon in the world separate and apart from late-onset GD, you have a very low threshold of convincing.
Research that people like you try to stifle by attacking those who try to study it.
Show me where I have attacked Dr. Littman. I have said there is the possibility that this or indeed any paper in this socially volatile area is politically, socially or religiously motivated … we’ve seen enough attempts by the hard right to do that (the Regnerus anti-same-sex marriage “study” is just one notorious example) … but I never tried in any way to demonstrate that Dr. Littman was doing that and will freely admit I have no reason to think so. But Dr. Littman’s methodology and conclusions from the data she gathered are always open to the severest questioning, That’s how science works!
While it may be the case that for SOME of the works it publishes, only a single editor makes the decision to publish, you have presented no evidence that is the case for this paper.
Why would I have to? It is stated PLOS policy to have as few as one editor review a submission and not to have a panel of independent scientists, with expertise in the particular subject area, review it, as is standard practice in scientific journals. Under those circumstances, if you want to claim the prestige of being “peer reviewed” for this paper, you have the burden of proof to show it underwent the kind of review usually associated with that phrase.
One also has to wonder, if PLOS has conducted a full “peer review,” why would they would say:
Surely, if they had done a standard peer review, they’d be confident in their original results. Oh, if you want to play the standard hard right card that they are just bowing to “political correctness” or some such, why would you trust PLOS’s scientific integrity anyway?
And as to their having found one phony paper? So what? Does that single example prove the overall effectiveness of their review process? On the other hand, letting one paper through that said in the text that the study was proof of God certainly calls it into question.
As to calls to “shut down” research, again, people who are not in academia are not bound by its rules. Goodness knows, the hard right makes those same attacks on research that supports transgender identity, indeed on the whole scientific community on subjects ranging from evolution to climate change. They will also attack the integrity of the scientists. That’s going to happen.
The question here is whether there are serious questions about the paper, its methodology (including whether it is “shit” or any more polite euphemism you want to choose) and its conclusions. Those are always fair game in academic debate.
Nowhere did I claim that rapid onset gender dysphoria was a “diagnosis”, only that it exits.
You have lost me here. If it exists, as what? Teens exhibiting late-onset GD has long been known and are discussed in in the DSM-5 (2013). What about this paper convinces you that there exists some other “rapid” condition separate and apart from that? The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” exists, created by anti-trans activists, but so what? If this paper is sufficient to convince there is a phenomenon in the world separate and apart from late-onset GD, you have a very low threshold of convincing.
Research that people like you try to stifle by attacking those who try to study it.
Show me where I have attacked Dr. Littman. I have said there is the possibility that this or indeed any paper in this socially volatile area is politically, socially or religiously motivated … we’ve seen enough attempts by the hard right to do that (the Regnerus anti-same-sex marriage “study” is just one notorious example) … but I never tried in any way to demonstrate that Dr. Littman was doing that and will freely admit I have no reason to think so. But Dr. Littman’s methodology and conclusions from the data she gathered are always open to the severest questioning, That’s how science works!
While it may be the case that for SOME of the works it publishes, only a single editor makes the decision to publish, you have presented no evidence that is the case for this paper.
Why would I have to? It is stated PLOS policy to have as few as one editor review a submission and not to have a panel of independent scientists, with expertise in the particular subject area, review it, as is standard practice in scientific journals. Under those circumstances, if you want to claim the prestige of being “peer reviewed” for this paper, you have the burden of proof to show it underwent the kind of review usually associated with that phrase.
One also has to wonder, if PLOS has conducted a full “peer review,” why would they would say:
Surely, if they had done a standard peer review, they’d be confident in their original results. Oh, if you want to play the standard hard right card that they are just bowing to “political correctness” or some such, why would you trust PLOS’s scientific integrity anyway?
And as to they’re having found one phony paper? So what? Does that single example prove the overall effectiveness of their review process? On the other hand, letting one paper through that said in the text that the study was proof of God certainly calls it into question.
As to calls to “shut down” research, again, people who are not in academia are not bound by its rules. Goodness knows, the hard right makes those same attacks on research that supports transgender identity, indeed on the whole scientific community on subjects ranging from evolution to climate change. They will also attack the integrity of the scientists. That’s going to happen.
The question here is whether there are serious questions about the paper, its methodology (including whether it is “shit” or any more polite euphemism you want to choose) and its conclusions. Those are always fair game in academic debate.
Nowhere did I claim that rapid onset gender dysphoria was a “diagnosis”, only that it exits.
You have lost me here. If it exists, as what? Teens exhibiting late-onset GD has long been known and are discussed in in the DSM-5 (2013). What about this paper convinces you that there exists some other “rapid” condition separate and apart from that? The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” exists, created by anti-trans activists, but so what? If this paper is sufficient to convince there is a phenomenon in the world separate and apart from late-onset GD, you have a very low threshold of convincing.
Research that people like you try to stifle by attacking those who try to study it.
Show me where I have attacked Dr. Littman. I have said there is the possibility that this or indeed any< paper in this socially volatile area is politically, socially or religiously motivated … we’ve seen enough attempts by the hard right to do that (the Regnerus anti-same-sex marriage “study” is just one notorious example) … but I never tried in any way to demonstrate that Dr. Littman was doing that and will freely admit I have no reason to think so. But Dr. Littman’s methodology and conclusions from the data she gathered are always open to the severest questioning, That’s how science works!
“Why would I have to?”
Because you are the one implying it is the case that the article was published based solely on the decision of a single editor without any other review.
“a full “peer review,””
what is a “full peer review” (i.e. what is the criteria for it)?
“why would you trust PLOS’s scientific integrity anyway?”
Because Brown University did when it issued its initial press release. Further, because people like you, bent on attacking Littman and PLOS, haven’t produced any evidence to justify those attacks. All you do it provide innuendo and speculation w/o any actual evidence.
” “Nowhere did I claim that rapid onset gender dysphoria was a “diagnosis”, only that it exits.
You have lost me here. If it exists, as what?”
As an observable phenomenon related gender dysphoria. Whether it is a sub-category of gender dysphoria (or something else entirely) needing a separate diagnosis requires further research. Simply because something is observable does not mean it is a “diagnosis”. Ex. observing a person’s height is not a “diagnosis.” However, dr.’s can use the observation of height as part of a diagnosis of having dwarfism.
“What about this paper convinces you that there exists some other “rapid” condition separate and apart from that?”
the fact that this paper REPORTS such conditions, further the DSM also makes a distinction between early-onset and late-onset gender dysphoria which does indicate there are distinct types of gender dysphoria. And yes I understand this reporting is done via 2nd hand observation, which is why followup studies would need to be done.
“Show me where I have attacked Dr. Littman.”
when you implied her study was a “stealth pseudoscientific politically motivated attack” on trans-people, again with no evidence to support it.
“I never tried in any way to demonstrate that Dr. Littman was doing that and will freely admit I have no reason to think so”
and yet you keep associating her with such behaviour (ex. by bringing up Regenerus). As I said, you keep implying impropriety with her work but with no evidence. You might be a pedophile. I’m not saying you ARE, just that you might be.
Your entire approach is to indirectly attack the article, the author, and the publisher based on nothing more than unfounded speculation and your dislike of what Littman published.
I did a rather long reply that was, for some reason, thrown into moderation (not because of excessive links or insults or language). I’ve emailed Warren about it and hopefully it will show up.
Okay, I haven’t heard from Warren but a recent experience reminded me that Discus can be sensitive about links, Let’s try this without the link:
While it may be the case that for SOME of the works it publishes, only a single editor makes the decision to publish, you have presented no evidence that is the case for this paper.
Why would I have to? It is stated PLOS policy to have as few as one editor review a submission and not to have a panel of independent scientists, with expertise in the particular subject area, review it, as is standard practice in scientific journals. Under those circumstances, if you want to claim the prestige of being “peer reviewed” for this paper, you have the burden of proof to show it underwent the kind of review usually associated with that phrase.
One also has to wonder, if PLOS has conducted a full “peer review,” why would they would say:
Surely, if they had done a standard peer review, they’d be confident in their original results. Oh, if you want to play the standard hard right card that they are just bowing to “political correctness” or some such, why would you trust PLOS’s scientific integrity anyway?
And as to their having found one phony paper? So what? Does that single example prove the overall effectiveness of their review process? On the other hand, a single example (letting one paper through that said in the text that the study was proof of God) certainly calls it into question.
As to calls to “shut down” research, again, people who are not in academia are not bound by its rules. Goodness knows, the hard right makes those same attacks on research that supports transgender identity, indeed on the whole scientific community on subjects ranging from evolution to climate change. They will also attack the integrity of the scientists. That’s going to happen.
The question here is whether there are serious questions about the paper, its methodology (including whether it is “shit” or any more polite euphemism you want to choose) and its conclusions. Those are always fair game in academic debate.
Nowhere did I claim that rapid onset gender dysphoria was a “diagnosis”, only that it exits.
You have lost me here. If it exists, as what? Teens exhibiting late-onset GD has long been known and are discussed in in the DSM-5 (2013). What about this paper convinces you that there exists some other “rapid” condition separate and apart from that? The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” exists, created by anti-trans activists, but so what? If this paper is sufficient to convince there is a phenomenon in the world separate and apart from late-onset GD, you have a very low threshold of convincing.
Research that people like you try to stifle by attacking those who try to study it.
Show me where I have attacked Dr. Littman. I have said there is the possibility that this or indeed any paper in this socially volatile area is politically, socially or religiously motivated … we’ve seen enough attempts by the hard right to do that (the Regnerus anti-same-sex marriage “study” is just one notorious example) … but I never tried in any way to demonstrate that Dr. Littman was doing that and will freely admit I have no reason to think so. But Dr. Littman’s methodology and conclusions from the data she gathered are always open to the severest questioning. That’s how science works!
It’s not a diagnosis; it’s a description, or a “symptom” if you will. It exists, and that is about as controversial as saying fever exists. A large number of teenagers, mostly girls, are suddenly inirecent years declaring themselves trans, instead of following the more familiar pattern of being a very overtly gender nonconforming kid, which everyone in the kid’s life can’t help but notice. This pattern doesn’t follow the familiar known narrative.
No one says the “cause” of dysphoria is ROGD, just as no one says the “cause” of influenza is fever. It’s just an observation.
Anyone who’s been around for longer than, say, the last 10 years, paying the slightest bit of attention to the trans community, can tell you that these patterns are wildly different than anything that’s been seen before. The “who” is different. The timing is different. The clustering among friend groups is different. The insistence on “transition or DIE!” is different.
If you know anything about the topic, it’s absolutely impossible to ignore these huge differences. And in my view, all Littmann did is (quite uncontroversially) gather some initial data from the parents who notice this pattern in their kids, and see if she could notice any similarities or trends to point the way to further research, to ensure that this new group of kids gets appropriate care.
It’s frankly bizarre to me that this is viewed as (1) controversial in any way; (2) a sign of malevolence, bigotry, collusion, or hard-core denial on the part of hundreds of parents; (3) in any way harmful to transgender people.
it’s a description, or a “symptom” if you will
No it isn’t (on a null hypothesis and this evidence). At best, it is a description of the possible rationalizations of some parents who (by the evidence of their presence on these websites} are likely desperately searching for reasons their kids ain’t trans.
Yeah, things have changed in the last 10 years. Trans people are more visible and more accepted in some parts of society but still not accepted in most of it. Along with that visibility has also come the constant drumbeat of trans people’s own histories of the sorrows and persecutions and disruption of their lives trans people endure … hardly a “selling point” for it being “cool.”
One constant narrative of trans people is, if they aren’t sure from a young age that they are the opposite gender from their natal sex, they have a long-term certainty that something is wrong but they have no vocabulary to explain it to themselves or others. The greater visibility of trans people has let that genie out of the bottle. Kids that have suffered a dysphoria for years now have a name for it. Julia Serano, at Warren’s link, has a highly instructive chart on the “explosion” of left handedness … after parents and society stopped trying to suppress the trait.
And I think the fact that the vast majority of supposed ROGD kids are natal girls is very significant. For the last 75 years or so in our society, natal girls have had much greater freedom in gender expression than natal boys. Girls who dress in boyish clothes, play rough and tumble games with boys and prefer the company of boys are smiled upon and called “tomboys,” with little familial or societal consequences. Natal boys who dress in “girl’s clothes,” play with dolls and prefer the company of girls may get short periods of indulgence from their parents (but none from society) but are quickly made (or tried to be made) to fit back into the “manly” box. There is more than sufficient scientific evidence that any amount of “social transitioning” can reduce gender dysphoria if not eliminate it, which would leave the subject with a sense that something is wrong but not enough to go out seeking a radical solution.
It is also significant that (mostly natal girls) start to have serious GD right around puberty because that is precisely when parents and society stops indulging “tomboys” and starts demanding that they act “ladylike” and wear pretty dresses and start preparing for marriage with a man, a horrible thing for a trans boy to contemplate.
Now you may want to object that the above is just speculation by a layperson … but that is just the “data” collected by this “study” … the speculation by lay parents who, in addition, are motivated by their opposition to their children’s gender identity.
The study, in and of itself, is not harmful to trans people … it would have sunk quietly in the vast roar of scientific discovery without notice, weighed down by its own vapidness. But because it deals with the hard right’s current bête noire and major fund-raiser, coupled with Littman’s failure to adequately state its limitations in the paper itself and her reckless and speculative “conclusions,” it will now be used, in a country under an administration hell bent on depriving trans peopled of their rights, if not their very lives, as a bludgeon in their dark campaign. Scientists should be more forward thinking and more careful than that!
Just like an “explosion” of left-handed people — and everyone knew there were left-handed people before this “explosion” occurred, by the way; it was no surprise — there is an “explosion” of detransitioners, now that people are so rapidly fast-tracked into the awesome transgender solution: “Carey Callahan is a 36-year-old woman living in Ohio who detransitioned after identifying as trans for four years and spending nine months on male hormones. She previously blogged under the pseudonym Maria Catt, but “came out” in a YouTube video in July 2016. She now serves as something of an older sister to a network of female, mostly younger detransitioners, about 70 of whom she has met in person; she told me she has corresponded online with an additional 300. ” from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/when-a-child-says-shes-trans/561749/
Oh really? http://dirtywhiteboi67.blogspot.com/2016/09/maria-catt-aka-carey-callahan.html
There is no way the trans regret rate is less than 1%. The satisfaction rate for iPhones isn’t even that high.
I’m not sure the comparison you have chosen demonstrates a true grasp of the issue. That aside, rates of regret are one of the areas for which hard data does exist and was even recently referenced by Warren in a post.
Only 0.6% of transwomen and 0.3% of transmen who underwent gonadectomy were identified as experiencing regret.
/2018/03/08/sex-change-regret-research-amsterdam-gender-dysphoria/
If you want to attack the data, bring better data – not an easy task considering the scope of the research in that study. We definitely need more on this issue to help guide care, but so far the research comports with the anecdotal on bringing one’s physical characteristics in line with experienced gender.
“… not an easy task …”
That’s certainly true. In our culture, there seems to be very little appetite to look carefully at the full picture when it comes to gender identity. There is also, I think, in many quarters an assumption that gender realignment is the ‘obvious choice’ for transgender people; such an assumption is IMO misguided. I know people who just want to ‘be who they are’ – ie. transgender people – and have no wish to have ‘The Op’. And there are cultures that seem to understand this better than ours does …
See my reply above, re the easily found 200+ detransitioners. Less than 1% could possibly have been true “in the old days” when the bar was so high for getting these surgeries and people had to have years of therapy and of living as the other sex _beforehand_.
Now, people are rushed to the gender clinic and handed hormones, and girls as young as 13 are getting double mastectomies. It’s absolutely wrong-headed and insane to view that as appropriate “care” for a child and there is therefore GUARANTEED to be a higher regret rate than in the past.
In a few years, I suppose the lawsuits will start rolling in and then when money is at stake (instead of just, you know, kids’ lives, bodies and futures) people will finally take notice.
that’s because you can walk into any apple store and buy and iphone right on the spot (assuming you have the money sometimes even if you don’t). Not so with gender re-assignment surgery.
It is not like someone goes to the dr. claiming to be trans and that person is scheduled for surgery the next week. There is a long drawn out process a person has to go through before being allowed to go through surgery.
That is simply incorrect and that is part of the problem. There is little to no vetting anymore.
You are claiming someone can just go to a dr. claim they are trans and get scheduled for surgery in a couple of weeks? Can you cite any examples of something like this happening?
Read the information that I linked in your other request. 60-some percent of women who transitioned, and later detransitioned, had NO counseling before transitioning. They were just rubber-stamped along. Hm, do you suppose that might have something to do with 200+ women deciding they had made a mistake and wanted to detransition? Hm…
you claim:
“They were just rubber-stamped along.”
Rubber stamped by whom? I think you need to read your own source again. Note he where he mentions: “or bought hormones through unofficial sources.” ie. these were people “transitioning” on their own and not via treatment by licensed medical practitioners. That is a huge flaw in his reporting is that he doesn’t indicate how many people were actually attempting to transition w/o proper medical supervision.
Exactly, about the 1% rate. No group is ever that satisfied with anything.
In 2016, a researcher wanted to gather some initial data on women who detransitioned (back to being women). In two weeks of a casual online search he found more than 200 women who filled out his very lengthy questionnaire filled with open-ended questions. He knew they existed but was surprised at how many were out there.
This is exactly why, by the way, we need research into this new phenomenon of ROGD. It’s the parents’ belief that these girls are pressured to get hormones and surgeries too quickly, lacking evidence that this is the most appropriate care.
Indeed the existence of 200+ women detransitioners who were so easily found, many of whom relate, looking back, the opinion that they were not given enough counseling or information beforehand, screams, “We have a serious problem here.”
By the way, unlike sexual orientation, which is innate, the large number of detransitioners, and the large number of kids who live the first 12 or 15 years of their lives seemingly content to be their natal sex, demonstrates that “gender identity” is NOT innate and therefore doesn’t necessarily need drastic “treatments.”
Also unlike sexual orientation, the “solution” to which is simply to let people live their lives and love and marry whomever they wish, “gender identity” seems to “require” life-long hormones and in many cases mutilating surgeries. Red flags anyone? Anyone?
The “T” in LGBT really does not belong there, actually.
“In 2016, a researcher wanted to gather some initial data on women who detransitioned”
Who was this researcher? where can. I get a copy of his data and/or citations to publications based on that data?
http://guideonragingstars.tumblr.com/post/149877706175/female-detransition-and-reidentification-survey
I would also like to see the source of this data. The only references I know of all stem from one blogger’s online “survey.” Such sweeping assumptions can’t be based on something like that, particularly when you make the alleged plethora of “detransitioners” a linchpin of your argument (“He knew they existed but was surprised at how many were out there”). I’ll wait for your cite to consider further.
You are conflating issues and making statements which you can’t possibly support. If we want to deal with facts, and not our own biases, we have to stick to the data and early theories based on that. You can’t mix in the possible issue of ROGD with durable adult GD and then make bold statements of fact like “gender identity is not innate.”
You are, in fact, using exactly the sort of arguments once employed by anti-gay organizations to combat recognizing sexual orientation awareness in teens. There are differences, yes. We are, in one instance, talking about the possibility of medical and surgical intervention to treat the discordance. The overwhelming results of the data (an expansive, voluminous number of cases) so far would indicate that, for those who have undergone this treatment, it has been successful at giving them happier, healthier lives – they do not regret the move.
In response to something you said in an earlier comment, I will agree that this data likely did not cover those whose transition began as a minor. Someone should check to make sure, but I don’t know that the practice has been around long enough to have been statistically significant to the results of that study. Again, this is a mixture of issues, i.e. consistent standards and qualifications for adult transition, more data on the propriety of early transition and investigation of whatever it is that is being described as ROGD. It should not be a general condemnation of GRS as a treatment.
This sort of overreaction in the direction of one’s own biases is exactly why Littman’s study has been so received. If we were dealing only with data and scientific study, there would be far less panic and fear that one will be hit over the head with misinterpretations and intentional distortions. Such apprehension often results in quick, pre-emptive strikes and sometimes truth is a casualty. In this respect the “T” issue is exactly like the LGB that come before it.
For the sake of informed, reasoned debate, please cite your source before arguing further based on that information. Other participants need to know what they are discussing.
“Opponents Should Talk Less and Research More”
I like this line, and I will undoubtedly be stealing it at some point. 🙂
Deploy at will.
Good comments, Warren. Stacking the informational deck is not helpful to anybody who cares to know the truth about academic issues.
I find the question of what causes folks/kids to be gay or straight (or in between, or not certain) to be academically interesting. Kind of like what causes identical twins to be politically different from each other. I am curious, but ……
I do not see the discussion as having any bearing on moral issues. If every gay person suddenly issued a true confession that they deliberately chose their sexual orientation I would be thankful that research money and energy can now go to more pressing matters. And I would think no less of those willfully gay people.
“I do not see … any bearing on moral issues.”
Neither do I! And I think it is really important to emphasize the fact that gender identity (or indeed any other identity) is not itself a moral issue, but simply a phenomenon to be better understood.
Personally, I am extremely sceptical of any model of gender identity that rigidly limits the number of ‘allowed identities’ to two! We know that there are more than two arrangements when it comes to sex chromosomes, and so we should not be too surprised that not everyone fits neatly into a male / female paradigm.