Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) Censorship

This is a follow up to my last post. Evolutionary Biologist and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, Colin Wright, weighs in on the recent retraction of Michael Bailey’s peer reviewed article about ROGD.

Bailey’s paper, “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” was a significant contribution to the ongoing debate about transgender identification among youth. The paper’s retraction was the result of a months-long campaign by activists who disagreed with its findings.

Those findings suggested that social factors might be contributing to the surge in cases of gender dysphoria among adolescents and young adults who had previously shown no gender-related issues. This hypothesis contradicts the prevailing “gender-affirming” model of care, which posits that children can know their “gender identity” from a very early age and will rarely, if ever, change their minds about it.

The retraction of the paper was not due to any flaws in the research itself, but rather to a technicality regarding the consent process for the study’s participants. The authors were accused of not obtaining written informed consent from the participants to have their responses published in a peer-reviewed article. However, Bailey argued that the participants were well aware that their anonymized results would be published online.

This retraction has far-reaching implications. It not only removes a significant contribution to the scientific debate on transgender identification among youth, but also signals the ideological capture of a scientific publishing giant that controls hundreds of journals that shape our knowledge base.

Wright raises important questions about the integrity of scientific publishing, the influence of ideology on scientific discourse, and the potential consequences of suppressing research that contradicts prevailing narratives.

Wright’s Full Article in City Journal.

+++

Undesired Research on Gender Dysphoria Censored

J Michael Bailey one of the foremost experts in the field had his published paper about Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria retracted. He’s written a rebuttal in The Free Press.

I am a professor of psychology at Northwestern University. I have been a professor for 34 years, and a researcher for 40. Over the decades, I have studied controversial topics—from IQ, to sexual orientation, to transsexualism (what we called transgenderism before 2015), to pedophilia. I have published well over 100 academic articles. I am best known for studying sexual orientation—from genetic influences, to childhood precursors of homosexuality, to laboratory-measured sexual arousal patterns. 

My research has been denounced by people of all political stripes because I have never prioritized a favored constituency over the truth. 

But I have never had an article retracted. Until now.

On March 29, I published an article in the prestigious academic journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. Less than three months later, on June 14, it was retracted by Springer Nature Group, the giant academic publisher of Archives, for an alleged violation of its editorial policies.

Retraction of scientific articles is associated with well-deserved shame: plagiarismmaking up data, or grave concerns about the scientific integrity of a study. But my article was not retracted for any shameful reason. It was retracted because it provided evidence for an idea that activists hate.

The retracted article, “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” was coauthored with Suzanna Diaz, who I met in 2018 at a small meeting of scientists, journalists, and parents of children they believed had Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD). 

ROGD was first described in the literature in 2018 by the physician and researcher Lisa Littman. It is an explanation of the new phenomenon of adolescents, largely girls, with no history of gender dysphoria, suddenly declaring they want to transition to the opposite sex. It has been a highly contentious diagnosis, with some—and I am one—thinking it’s an important avenue for scientific inquiry, and others declaring it’s a false idea advocated by parents unable to accept they have a transgender child.

I believed that ROGD was a promising explanation of the explosion of gender dysphoria among adolescent girls because these young people do not have gender dysphoria as usually understood. Until recently, females treated for gender dysphoria were masculine-presenting girls who had hated being female since early childhood. By contrast, girls with ROGD are often conventionally feminine, but tend to have other social and emotional issues. The theory behind ROGD is that through social contagion from friends, social media, and even school, vulnerable girls are exposed to the idea that their normal adolescent angst is the result of an underlying transgender identity. These girls then suddenly declare that they are transgender. That is the rapid onset. After the declaration, the girls may desire—and receive—drastic medical interventions including mastectomies and testosterone injections. 

There is ample evidence that in progressive communities, multiple girls from the same peer group are announcing they are trans almost simultaneously. There has been a sharp increase in this phenomenon across the industrialized West. A recent review from the UK, which keeps better records than America, showed a greater than tenfold increase in referrals of adolescent girls during just the past decade. 

But there have been virtually no scientific data or studies on the subject.

Read the whole thing.

+++

Open Inquiry and Intellectual Freedom

Transgender Medicine: Europe & America Part Ways

A recent article by Leor Sapir explores the diverging paths taken by Europe and America in the realm of transgender medicine for youth. Europe is veering towards a more cautious approach, prioritizing psychotherapy and reserving hormonal interventions for extreme cases. This stands in stark contrast to the American model, which advocates for early affirmation of a patient’s gender identity, often through hormonal treatments and, in some cases, surgeries.

The crux of the disagreement lies in the application of evidence-based medicine (EBM). European health authorities, guided by EBM principles, are making decisions based on systematic reviews of the best available research. These reviews have highlighted significant gaps in the evidence supporting sex modification in minors. In contrast, American medical associations, while claiming their treatments are “medically necessary” and “life-saving,” often rely on studies that EBM experts consider flawed or of low quality.

Sapir’s article further criticizes the American approach for its lack of comprehensive mental health assessments and differential diagnosis in pediatric gender clinics. It suggests that the U.S. healthcare system’s susceptibility to profit motives, activist doctors, and political pressures may be contributing to this divergence from European practices.

We are medicalizing gender diversity in children without sufficient evidence-based backing. Sapir calls for a more cautious, evidence-based approach, akin to the one adopted by many European countries.

FULL ARTICLE in The HILL


Companion Posts

+++