Talk:Littman 2018 ROGD study

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon gender.svg

This Gender related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


How Littman has subsequently defended her hypothesis[edit]

The idea seems to be, and from what I saw it was corroborated by the original paper, that "ROGD" was just supposed to be a synonym for "adolescent-onset gender dysphoria", and the "social contagion" bit was more tentative, as a proposed cause (though, it's kind of baked into the name "rapid-onset gender dysphoria", so this labeling strikes me as pretty dishonest via insinuation, i.e. kind of a baked-in motte and bailey gambit, but whatever).

The other idea here is supposed to be that adolescent-onset gender dysphoria is a new trend, based on the (purported, though I find it plausible) fact that in previous decades, people presenting to clinics with gender dysphoria usually stated that they knew from a very young (as Littman emphasizes, specifically and strictly pre-puberty) age that they wanted to be (or were actually/were supposed to be/whatever) a girl/boy (nonbinary was probably gatekept away). The thing here is that lying to doctors was very, very common among trans people in those days, because the doctors had absurd gatekeeping standards, so trans people seeking care had to present themselves as whatever the doctors wanted (heterosexual, gender-conforming, conforms to the conventional ideas about a "true transsexual" that such doctors would have). One such aspect would be stating they realized from a very young age whether or not they actually did.

As a very clear example demonstrating how adolescent-onset gender dysphoria is not at all new: here's a paper with an entry that was excerpted from Psychopathia Sexualis, which was published in 1886 (not a typo), with a case-study whose gender incongruence was realized at age 12/13 (since the patient was born in 1844, that would be 1856 or 1857): And that's just one case from that book I stumbled across; perhaps there are more (this specific one is called "Case 99"). Chillpilled (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)