![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Should we describe "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" as pseudoscientific in the lead? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 19:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I consider how ROGD rhetorics draw from ableism, racism, and heteronormativity to fuel transphobia and vise versa.pulled from abstract as I can't access the article)
ROGD is an Adultist, cissexist, pseudodiagnostic label that stems from widespread panic concerning recent shifts in youth culture
the pseudo-psychiatric condition of rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD)and
ROGD uses manufactured, pseudoscientific language to spread misinformation about the evidence that transition is beneficial)
a pseudoscientific diagnostic category for young people who supposedly believe mistakenly that they are transgender.
politicised pseudo-diagnostic category of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD)
we detect in claims about ROGD the return of a silent history of psychology that collapses development with normativity. Going deeper, the language of contagion and changing back may harbor a repressed history of eugenics underlying modern sexology: the logic being that if transgender is changeable and contagious, then so too should it be disappeared.)
trans-youth-panic material similarly “raises concerns” about trans youth in more or less alarmist way.)
This article explores a quasi-diagnosis, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria”, which constructs the pathologized untimeliness of trans youth. ... Critics argue that the study is “poorly designed,” “specious,” “bad science” (Ashley and Baril, 2018; Barasch, 2018; Serano, 2018) – highly biased, containing significant methodological flaws, and failing to represent the perspectives of trans people. Restar (2020) argues that a number of choices in the “study design, sampling, recruitment, and survey construction” demonstrate a priori bias on the part of the researcher, essentially stacking the deck to empirically validate ROGD as a real pathology and a potential diagnosis. In addition, the study treats parents’ assessments of the personal histories and mental health of the study’s research subjects as unmediated rather than biased and limited (Brandelli Costa, 2019). Further, the study pathologizes trans identification with its diagnostic language while failing to recognize its de-pathologization by the American Psychiatric Association, the World Health Organization, and other official bodies (Restar, 2020; WPATH, 2018).)
The main critique of Littman’s article is its apparent lack of scientific rigor; Littman only spoke to parents, not the children themselves. Furthermore, the parents interviewed appeared to be recruited through websites frequented by transphobic parents, pointing towards a problematic selection bias (Wadman 2018).)
This reflects international anti-trans propaganda of “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” which was explicitly raised in opposition to a gender-affirmative model for therapists to support children in exploring their gender identity. The argument is that affirmation encourages children who are experiencing some kind of gender dysphoria to develop a trans identity when they may have remained (default) cis. In this, it relies “on the idea of ‘contagion’ in order to invalidate marginalized identities,” (Baril 2018) much as charges of a “gay agenda” do.)
the fabricated pseudodiagnosis of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, caused by teens learning about the existence of other trans people on social media)
The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a medical entity recognized by any major professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Therefore, it constitutes nothing more than an acronym created to describe a proposed clinical phenomenon that may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed scientific investigation. ... WPATH also urges restraint from the use of any term—whether or not formally recognized as a medical entity—to instill fear about the possibility that an adolescent may or may not be transgender
There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. Further, there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents. ... CAAPS supports eliminating the use of ROGD and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of empirical support for its existence and its likelihood of contributing to harm and mental health burden.
Rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is a concept used largely by people who question rather than affirm young people’s gender. The term was developed by parent communities who felt that their children’s disclosure that they were transgender or non-binary was sudden; the claim being that their children had been influenced by peers or by the media. In many ways this account of disclosure frames being transgender or non-binary as a form of social contagion. ... To date only one study has examined ROGD, and this drew upon samples from the same parent communities who developed the concept. In other words, it was a biased sample. Since being published, this study has been significantly revised due to community feedback, now indicating more clearly that while certain parents may have views about reasons for disclosure, this is not reflective of a ‘new’ clinical phenomenon (i.e., ROGD). Given the lack of evidence and the founding of the term in communities that may be less than affirming of transgender and non-binary young people, the use of ROGD as a clinical concept or tool would be counter to the APS statement on affirming approaches. ... Both clinicians and researchers should be aware that no professional organisation endorses this pseudo diagnosis, and that organisations such as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health have categorically refuted the use of the term, especially when it is used to create fear or to limit pathways to care.
When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views.
Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.should work, but "kids are suddenly turning trans because of the internet" is apparently a valid position. More than that,
Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.There is no academic debate, some loud voices keep insisting it's real while the majority of the worlds health organizations have said it isn't.
The rise of anti-trans sentiment among anti-LGBTQ groups has fueled a cottage industry of anti-trans research that in turn is promoted by anti-LGBTQ groups, including ACPeds, which has become a go-to for expertise in anti-trans pseudoscience. One such study ACPeds has promoted is one published in August 2018 that makes unfounded claims about so-called “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” which posits that gender dysphoria seemingly appears abruptly during or after puberty as a result of peer pressure or “social contagion.” That is, youth are “pressured” into being trans and can therefore “change” into not being trans.
Anti-LGBTQ+ activists often use concerns about internet safety in order to spread harmful rumors about the LGBTQ+ community. You may see opponents of trans people specifically use junk science by Lisa Littman at Brown University to falsely claim that access to social media and the internet has created a “contagion” that causes many youth to mistakenly identify as transgender. Littman’s paper contained so many erroneous statements that one of her colleagues in her same academic department, Arjee Javellana Restar, published a critique of the study looking at fundamental errors in Littman’s paper. Restar explains Littman’s bias by the way the paper falsely treats transgender identity in a pathology framework, in which identifying as transgender is wrongly treated like a disease. Restar also explains how Littman’s paper was based on data in which responses were given information that skewed Littman’s results to meet her own personal goals to confirm her theories.
Far from a lone voice, Shrier's Irreversible Damage emerges from growing disquiet about "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" (ROGD), a pseudoscientific term that has driven much of the social panic surrounding trans children—and that has stoked open transphobia across the political spectrum.on page 1, and
The first two pseudoscientific studies about ROGD—Lisa Marchiano's "Outbreak: On Transgender Teens and Psychic Epidemics" and Lisa Littman's "Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Young Adults" —both relied heavily on these three webpages.on page 3. The three webpages in the second quote are those mentioned in Littman's 2018 paper; 4thWaveNow, Transgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals. While I recognised Kbabej's point regarding using pseudodiagnostic, I feel like as a term that would be unfamiliar to our readers ( Google ngram of the two words), whereas pseudoscientific is far more recognisable, and I think it's acceptable to use that more familiar word in this instance. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
assistant professor in the Department of Rhetoric and Writingis a reliable source for whether something is (or is not) pseudoscientific. Tewdar 15:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Digression concerning epistemology
|
---|
|
Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community(emphasis added). The "scholarly sources" being used to justify "pseudoscientific" are not scientific WP:MEDRS sources, as this topic requires, but are mostly humanities journals (rhetoric, feminism, gender studies) or are sociology (which is not a medical field). So the requirements of MEDRS and FRINGE/PS are not met here. For example, one of them is about
theoriz[ing] masc4masc t4t erotics as a type of contagious gendering.The WPATH and CAAPS sources are MEDRS and scientific, but both of them quite conspicuously do not go so far as to call ROGD "pseudoscientific". WPATH says that it
may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed scientific investigationand CAAPS focuses on
clinical and diagnostic application. Reading "pseudoscience" into this is WP:Original research.Lastly, WPATH's Standards of Care Version 8, released just this year, very conspicuously does not refer to Littman's hypothesis as pseudoscientific. Rather, it says (emphasis added):
One researcher attempted to study and describe a specific form of later-presenting gender diversity experience (Littman, 2018). However, the findings of the study must be considered within the context of significant methodological challenges, including 1) the study surveyed parents and not youth perspectives; and 2) recruitment included parents from community settings in which treatments for gender dysphoria are viewed with scepticism and are criticized. However, these findings have not been replicated. For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider (Kornienko et al., 2016). However, caution must be taken to avoid assuming these phenomena occur prematurely in an individual adolescent while relying on information from datasets that may have been ascertained with potential sampling bias(Bauer et al., 2022; WPATH, 2018). It is important to consider the benefits that social connectedness may have for youth who are linked with supportive people (Tuzun et al., 2022)(see Statement 4). Crossroads -talk- 00:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
the scientific communityin the sense meant by WP:FRINGE/PS seems to be entirely original with Crossroads, representing yet another example of him accepting only certain sources as reliable because he approves of them. Read in context, there is certainly no requirement in FRINGE to find MEDRS sources stating that palm reading to predict longevity and phrenology to predict criminality are pseudoscientific practices, for them to be labelled as such, so the requirement - imagined only by Crossroads - that MEDRS sources (in the narrowest sense possible) are required to evaluate pseudoscience is, in the words of FRINGE/PS,
obviously bogus. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
reasonable amount of academic debate still existsabout the validity of the ROGD hypothesis. At the time I write this, not even the No !votes in this discussion have proposed that to be the case.
academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers, which these fall under; when a topic falls at the intersection of biomedical and sociological sciences, it is completely inappropriate to suggest that high-quality sources from within the social sciences cannot be used for basic summaries. But second, much more importantly, MEDRS sourcing is not required to call something pseudoscientific - per WP:PARITY, all that is needed is that the sourcing that it is pseudoscientific be higher-quality than the sourcing presented that advances it. That is clearly the case here - given the extreme controversy surrounding Littman's paper, it cannot be considered a high-quality source itself, and the article contains essentially no other sources of any quality that support her thesis. That means that per PARITY we have to go with the consensus of the sources we have. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
is still publishedin a prestigious journal. The fact that many subsequent studies have provided evidence to refute the main hypothesis of ROGD
supports the idea that ROGD is a falsifiable hypothesis, a key distinction between science and pseudoscience. Furthermore, the provided RS, only one explicitly uses the term "pseudoscientific" to refer to ROGD specifically, and others use it as an adjective to other terms. My emphasis below:
No mention of the word pseudoscientific. Citations: 1
pseudodiagnosticlabel that stems from widespread panic concerning recent shifts in youth culture).
Uses pseudodiagnostic, meaning it is not fit for diagnosis. Citations: 2
pseudo-psychiatriccondition of rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) and ROGD uses manufactured,
pseudoscientific languageto spread misinformation about the evidence that transition is beneficial)
Uses pseudo-psychiatric, and specifically "pseudoscientific language," but does not assert ROGD is pseudoscientific. Citations: 0
pseudoscientificdiagnostic category for young people who supposedly believe mistakenly that they are transgender.)
Only one to explicitly use pseudoscientific. Citations: 114
pseudo-diagnosticcategory of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD))
Again uses pseudodiagnostic. Citations: 43
five papers, of which three have 0-2 citations, seem hardly enough to reflect scientific consensus on a topic. Five divided by 200 is ~2.5%, hardly enough to establish scientific consensus. Theheezy ( talk) 06:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight. Litmann is in the Department of Behavioral and Social Science; the academic sources that have been linked are in Linguistics and Language, Gender and Sexuality studies, Cultural Studies/Gender Studies, and 2x Sociology and Political Science, respectively. Theheezy ( talk) 05:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight. And Behavioral and Social Science is not Gender and Sexuality studies. Theheezy ( talk) 05:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
seeking to redefine pseudoscience based onthe two articles to which you refer. At least I am not. I am also weighing in the "pseudoscientific" and "pseudodiagnostic" references and for that matter other references supporting "fringe". Your refusal to count these - coupled with your insistence, against the clear explanations of other editors, that we are not counting these - is, to give the most possible WP:AGF, not reassuring. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your textbook example of conflation) would be appreciated, if you can manage it. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
misinterpretinganything, much less FRINGE which explicitly operationalizes "pseudoscience" differently. This matters insofar as you (and Tewdar) refuse to accept other terms as functional equivalents to "pseudoscience" even when authors clearly suggest that this is what they mean. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
you (and Tewdar) refuse to accept other terms as functional equivalents to "pseudoscience"- this is completely false, I said above that
if you had sources saying "outside the scientific method" or similar, I'd accept that as a synonym of pseudoscientific. You have a pathetic collection of two sources, one of which is from the notorious Journal of Whatever Wherever, and a big sack of WP:OR, which you are using to claim that the so-called
functionally equivalentlanguage of the other sources supports your label of pseudoscience. This sort of disgraceful cherry-picking behavior is certainly
not adhering to the scientific method. Tewdar 09:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
RS support, here's page one of the book you linked (which I presume you have not read):
On the imagined scale that has excellent science at one end and then slides through good science, mediocre science (the vast majority of what is done), poor science, to bad science on the other end, it is not the case that pseudo-science lies somewhere on this continuum. It is off the grid altogether.Tewdar 09:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
off the griddoes not make that a requirement for all definitions of those two terms. I was simply producing a source that uses them to mean the same thing: the idea that only theories relying on literal eliptons - or equivalent - are covered by either term is not only ORIGINAL but absurd.
Wikipediaguidelines pages cannot overrule relevant reliable sources, which overwhelmingly do not describe ROGD hypothesis as pseudoscience. You appear to be running out of arguments. Tewdar 12:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)policies
the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight. Last I checked, Litmann is in the Department of Behavioral and Social Science; the academic sources that have been linked are in Linguistics and Language, Gender and Sexuality studies, Cultural Studies/Gender Studies, and 2x Sociology and Political Science, respectively.
spectrumof the scientific method. Pseudoscience is not. This is the difference, and the reason why you can only find two (just about) sources describing ROGD as pseudoscience is because the ROGD hypothesis is not pseudoscience, it is merely bad science. They are not the same thing. Tewdar 20:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.It is that "incompatible with the scientific method" that is key. Pretty sure that is the point User:DrKC MD is making too. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 16:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
[Homeopathy] is pseudoscience when it *delibeartely* cherry picks data, misreports or mischaracterises studies. It's interesting you say that, because that's what Littman has done regarding her online surveys of parents. To wit, from the article: "an online survey, which was not randomly distributed, but rather targeted at parents recruited from three anti-transgender websites where she had seen parents describe what they believed were sudden gender transitions in their adolescents" and employs so-called snowball sampling. Indeed, Littman already believed social contagion was a motivating factor in transitioning teens. She cherry-picked her data, to support her pre-determined conclusion.
I think you're really missing the point here.Yeah, I don't know if you realise that what you think you said about what you thought I thought I said was not the same as what I thought that I said about what I think. See:
bizarre ontological claims incompatible with natural scienceand
practitioners take aim at the very epistemological foundations of the scientific method. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 21:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
extremely criticalmainstream view? "Fringe", perhaps? Newimpartial ( talk) 21:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
extremely criticalmainstream view. And it has been explicitly argued that the RfC here should be the basis for mentions of ROGD in other articles. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
...which endorses the concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria. ROGD is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution and is not backed by credible scientific evidence.-- Trystan ( talk) 14:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
reliablestatements about Covid-19 were made in the first half of 2020 because they were in Nature. Newimpartial ( talk) 10:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
fatally flawed conclusionbased on
faulty experiment designbut can still fall within the realm of the scientific method. However, we consider it pseudoscientific rather than scientific because it was based in a worldview that a priori pathologizes queer people and makes a mockery of the scientific method to advance political agendas and discrimination under the guise of "science".
nonsense claiming to be scientific, which captures ROGD perfectly. From WP:FRINGE/QS, questionable science crosses the line into psuedoscience when no
reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.The medical consensus on it being discredited and flawed is clear. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 01:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist
the functional difference between bad science [...] and pseudoscience, which is a whole barrel of WP:OR, we should probably look at how relevant academic commentary critiques Littman's hypothesis, e.g. this, this, this, and this. None of these articles, even the ones that are extremely critical, describe the hypothesis as pseudoscience, or use any sort of synonymous language. We cannot categorize every study which features bias, methodological flaws, and unwarranted conclusions which do not follow from the data as pseudoscience, and we would require strong sourcing for this label, such as exists for the conversion therapy article, not two sources from journals of sociology and rhetoric. Tewdar 08:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. The theory is not accepted, the theory is not portrayed as accepted within the page.
We cannot do WP:OR to interpret the criticism of other works as equivalent to ROGD being pseudoscientific.
the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight. Litmann is in the Department of Behavioral and Social Science; the academic sources that have been linked are in Linguistics and Language, Gender and Sexuality studies, Cultural Studies/Gender Studies, and 2x Sociology and Political Science, respectively. Please feel free to verify this yourself by going to the journal pages of the linked sources.
What is the reasoning behind regarding these works in vastly different subareas as the authority for judging a work in Behavioral and Social Science?
racist pseudoscience about human intelligence published by physical anthropolistsshould be refuted by an
assistant professor in the Department of Rhetoric and Writingin the
Rhetoric Society Quarterlyjournal. If that was their intention, then I couldn't give two hoots about anything else in that guideline. Tewdar 16:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Ill-tempered digression concerning humanities scholarship
|
---|
|
ROGD is a clearly observed phenomenon but is not currently a recognized medical condition. (You might not think much of this source, and perhaps I'd be tempted to agree if I had not been asked to accept the judgement of an
assistant professor in the Department of Rhetoric and Writingin this discussion). So, how to describe it? "A controversial hypothesis, originally proposed in a study which has since been heavily criticized, has never been recognized as a diagnosis, and unsupported or contradicted by subsequent studies...", perhaps? If you want a single word descriptor, I'm not sure. But certainly not 'pseudoscientific', anyway... Tewdar 17:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience(emphasis added). Do you believe ROGD has a "substantial following" (after discounting as irrelevant what FRINGE calls
amateurs and self-published texts)? That's a pretty strong claim for you to base your !vote on, and it runs contrary to pretty much all of the sources included in the article itself or presented on Talk, to date Newimpartial ( talk) 21:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.I'm not sure if WP:FRINGE considers the
Department of Rhetoric and Writingto be part of the
scientific community, but if it does, whoever helped write it needs to be immediately permaTBANned from all science articles, broadly construed. Tewdar 22:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
questionable science? "Questionable science" and "bad science" are not synonyms. ("Bad science" being a judgememt made of the ROGD studies, in reliable sources in the same domain as that in which the original papers were published, so no need to rant and roar about
Rhetoric and Writing.) Newimpartial ( talk) 00:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
substantial- and this has been addressed, at length, and over a period of years, by numerous editors on this page and elsewhere. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
ROGD has been described as pseudoscientific by some authors in the humanities.to somewhere in the academic responses section? I’m against saying pseudoscientific in Wikipedia voice, or in the lead due to weight issues. But I think it makes sense to point out that it is a legitimately held minority opinion. It is also a must have to mention that the unifying field of these authors is in the humanities due to the large discrepancy between their subarea of expertise not matching the area that ROGD is under lest we have another Sokal affair. Theheezy ( talk) 11:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
[that these papers are] fully refereed paper published within the domain of Sociology.I highlight that The Sociological Review monograph is focused on,
publishing monographs which push at the boundaries of sociology and related disciplines – that ‘undiscipline’ the social sciences – and those which reinvigorate and renew established aspects of international sociological traditions.With the "TERF Wars," monograph specifically is interested in,
[bringing] together a range of peer-reviewed interventions into complex debates over trans inclusion within (and beyond) feminism. As editors, we intentionally sought contributions from a diversity of perspectives. On some points, contributors take different approaches, use different language to one another, or draw different conclusions. We did not request that authors adhere to any given ideology or worldview, other than a commitment to recognising trans people’s stated experiences as worthy of respect and recognition. Rather, what unites the essays in this collection is a commitment to evidenced critique, and an interest in building genuine solidarity within and between trans and feminist movements.I suggest you read WP:CIR. Theheezy ( talk) 15:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC) Theheezy ( talk) 13:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
introductionto the Sociological Review Monograph "TERF Wars" by Pearce (A Lecturer in Community Development) et. al. and "A critical commentary on ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria’" by Florence Ashley (A PhD student in Law and Bioethics) . I would like to acknowledge this opinion and move on from the WP:Bludgeon. Theheezy ( talk) 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
We consider a sociological understanding of this phenomenon to be vital. Lots of papers in Sociology Review are written by academics working in disciplines other than Sociology, but that doesn't mean that they cease to be Sociology papers.
The Sociological Review is home to a long-running Monograph Series, edited by Dr Cath Lambert and Dr Karen Throsby, that publishes collections of outstanding and original scholarly articles on issues of general sociological interest.[12] That is, it publishes within the domain of Sociology. Also note that
All articles published within the monographs are fully refereed and have dual status as journal articles, which should answer your previous question about review standards.
diversity of perspectivesmakes a paper no longer part of Sociology as a domain, then I suspect you don't read much Sociology. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Antiquated and erroneous are not synonyms- sure, I should have said that solely defining pseudoscience based on Popper's falsifiability criterion probably wouldn't get a lot of support nowadays. Tewdar 10:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology, as WP:FRINGE/PS puts it. In any event, my position was not based on that, but on an assessment that the sources as a whole are more supportive of "unsupported" and "discouraged". My own conception of what is and is not pseudoscience is irrelevant to that process of canvassing of the sources.-- Trystan ( talk) 18:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. Further, there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents. ... The available research is clear that transgender people are subjected to marginalization, stigmatization, and minority stress, which have significant detrimental effects on health and well-being. Terms, such as ROGD, that further stigmatize and limit access to gender-affirming and evidence-based care violate the principles upon which CAAPS was founded and public trust in clinical science. CAAPS supports eliminating the use of ROGD and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of empirical support for its existence and its likelihood of contributing to harm and mental health burden. CAAPS also encourages further research that leads to evidence-based clinical guidelines for gender-affirming care that support child and adolescent gender identity development. CAAPS opposes trainings that encourage others to utilize this concept in their clinical practice given the lack of reputable scientific evidence to support its clinical utility.Lisa Littman's study was forced to publish a clarification that the methodology was flawed and prone to bias, and reliable sources have thoroughly pointed out the flaws. Common sense states that the existence of transgender teens is not a social contagion. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 19:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
additional studieshave been done, and have disproved the theory. The consensus of the RS is that ROGD is not a valid hypothesis (except for a few fringe figures associated with Genspect, etc.) - the differences among the RS have to do only with how to describe this lack of validity, whether that is "no empirical evidence" or "no scientific basis" or "bad science" or "fringe" or "pseudoscientific" - what have you. But the idea that there is any relevant professional support for the hypothesis is pretty much laughable. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
There is still no consensus on the rise of transgender cases- which is true; indeed, there is no consensus on whether or not there actually is a "rise in transgender cases" (sic.).
Lisa Littman has a peer-reviewed study that held up- that is an egregiously false statement. The methodology of her research has been taken apart within the relevant field, and none of the attempts to test her hypotheses under more rigorous circumstances have found any supporting evidence for ROGD.
On the imagined scale that has excellent science at one end and [...] bad science on the other end, it is not the case that pseudo-science lies somewhere on this continuum. It is off the grid altogether.If you have sources stating that the ROGD hypothesis is 'off the grid altogether', or 'outside of the scientific method', or any sort of similar language, they can be understood as describing ROGD as pseudoscience. If they describe ROGD as 'terrible science (but still science)' then it is Original research to attribute to sources claims which they do not themselves make. Tewdar 12:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Pseudoscience does not mean "outside the scientific method."- citation needed.
The scientific methodrefers to contemporary science, not that of the 18th-19th centuries. Else we'd never get anywhere, would we now? Who knows, future physicists (and Wikipedians) might declare the Standard Model to be pseudoscience... Tewdar 15:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
pseudosciencedoes not necessarily mean
outside the scientific method(or
off the grid altogether. Do we need to have this digression again, just because you don't feel you got your point across the first time? High dudgeon isn't an argument. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
universal scientific view [...] thatROGD hypothesis
is impossible, nor does it appear to be
generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. I think we should use the relevant HQRS to determine whether ROGD is pseudoscience or not, instead of WP:FRINGE. Tewdar 19:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, it looks like WP:FRINGE would prefer to call ROGD hypothesis an
alternative theoretical formulation. You don't want that, do you? Tewdar 20:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Check.Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes.
Pseudoscience usually ... relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy).
Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality.✅
Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature❌
Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself❌
relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence✅
indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy).um, "~" (meh). Doesn't really seem comparable.
strong, puzzling evidencethen maybe that is the problem? The relevant scientific community just doesn't see it that way.
basic laws of natureare somewhat elusive in this context, but ROGD supporters certainly advocate social contagion - which is not known to exist in the context of gender identity -
to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, namely, young people who are not trans identifying as trans. It seems quite obvious from the "work" of Littman, Shrier and other ROGD supporters that they really want to believe that non-trans kids are identifying as trans in significant numbers, for some reason, even though the evidence for that is largely of their own imagining. It is that motivation, inter alia that marks pseudoscience in this passage of FRINGE, and I am
1) Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. 2) Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; 3) reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; 4) lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; 5) absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; 6) and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited. (Numbers added)
Some forms of pseudoscience have as their main objective the promotion of a particular theory of their own, whereas others are driven by a desire to fight down some scientific theory or branch of science. The former type of pseudoscience has been called pseudo-theory promotion, and the latter science denial(ism) (Hansson 2017)(emphasis added). It then says
The most prominent difference between pseudo-theory promotion and science denial is their different attitudes to conflicts with established science. Science denialism usually proceeds by producing false controversies with legitimate science, i.e. claims that there is a scientific controversy when there is in fact none.(emphasis added) as is the case of ROGD, making it an example of both pseudo-theory promotion and science denialism. It also quotes the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of Pseudoscience as
A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have(emphasis added).
questionable scienceand should be labelled (in Wikipedia voice) pseudoscientific since reasonable academic debate no longer exists on the topic. What qualifies as academic debate?
Littman’s study received both supportive and non-supportive comments, leaving space for further future studies on this new clinical phenomenon.Along with multiple letters to the editor e.g., Costa, Angelo "Formal comment on: Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria", and Hutchinson A, Midgen M & Spiliadis A. "In support of research into rapid-onset gender dysphoria." How quickly should we decide that no reasonable academic debate exists when the study and its correction was only published three years ago? I can already sense several editors warming up their typing fingers now to leave a scathing rebuke questioning my reading comprehension.
according to some academic scholars. However, describing it as pseudoscientific in wikipedia voice still sounds like OR to me. As an aside, I will not be responding to the expected WP:Bludgeon comments that will soon follow this one. I've said my point of view, other editors have said theirs. There is no fruitful debate to be had here and I'll happily let the closer decide which arguments have more weight. Theheezy ( talk) 17:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The term is heavily loaded with contempt and, plastered over an article, is making an assertion about the subject, which needs to be supported by more than an anonymous Wikipedian's considered judgment.Tewdar 10:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
It has never been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and its use has been discouraged by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and other medical organizations due to a lack of reputable scientific evidence for the concept.That seems just right to me. Sometimes less is more y'all. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
A scientific critique of this study is that it violates principles of research methods by using a pathologizing framework and language. For example, Littman uses terminology (e.g., cluster out-breaks) that promotes the conceptualization of gender dysphoria and identification as trans as a contagious disease or disorder. The aims provided in the article are as follows: “(1) to describe an atypical presentation of gender dysphoria occurring with sudden and rapid onset in adolescents and young adults; and (2) to generate hypotheses about the condition, including the role of social and peer contagion in its development.” Likening trans identities to a disease is in conflict with national and international organizations whose positions clearly state that identifying as trans is not a mental disorder (e.g., the American Psychiatric Association, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and the World Health Organization). As such, bias appears to be present from the basic premise of the study and continued through each stage of the research process. In addition to what was summarized from it and added to the lead as "
ROGD has been criticized as anti-trans propaganda and bad science.
Through this review, the study and results were deemed a valid contribution to the scientific literatureand
Of note is that some authors do support additional research investigation into ROGD as a distinct clinical presentation. And perhaps you could remove Smith (2018) from your sources list now, that's a master's thesis and hence not a reliable source. Tewdar 09:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
anti-Newimpartial POV- I mean... it probably doesn't have to be like that. Probably quite easily fixed, actually. The SAGE source was presented as supporting the claim that ROGD is pseudoscience. By stating that the review summarized the ROGD study and results as "a valid contribution to the scientific literature", with no further discussion, the source quite clearly does not support this claim, whatever else it might say. Tewdar 11:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I for one have not used it to support "pseudoscience"- I never said you did. That is how it was presented here, however.
the !vote here- it wasn't a vote...
I don't know whose it is- oh come on! Take a wild guess! 😂
Do you really believe these two points carry equal weight in the text?- the way it is done currently in the lede, with attribution, yes. Personally, I think "crappy science" or similar can be put in the lede without a citation. I am yet to be convinced about putting 'anti-trans propaganda' in the lede however.
Since Littman’s original publication, the editor-in-chief of PLoS One has offered a written apology to the trans and gender-diverse community, along with an explanation that a postpublication review of the Littman article was conducted. Through this review, the study and results were deemed a valid contribution to the scientific literature, and Littman revised the paper to address concerns regarding the study’s title, abstract, purpose, methodology, and conclusions.is followed by
However, leading international trans and psychological health associations (e.g., World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the Australian Psychological Society, and the Australian Professional Association for Transgender Health) published official statements noting that ROGD is not currently recognized as a clinical phenomenon. These statements also emphasized that ROGD should not be used to limit appropriate gender-affirming care that follows existing standards of care and clinical guidelines. The Australian Psychological Society further challenged the notion that social media or peer pressures influence a person’s gender and noted that this narrative may be harmful to young people’s well-being. Of note is that some authors do support additional research investigation into ROGD as a distinct clinical presentation.
flawed scienceis still science. Not pseudoscience. Start another RfC for the
Anti-trans propagandaassertion. Thanks for striking the master's thesis. Tewdar 15:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
This theory may be wrong, but as long as it is pursued scientifically it is not pseudoscience.
Some see it as a victory that Lisa Littman, the creator of the term “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD), is referenced in the new guidelines. However, this inclusion does not legitimize Littman’s pseudoscience nor give credence to social contagion theory. Littman is also a member of both the Gender Dysphoria Alliance and GenSpect. ROGD is not an actual medical diagnosis recognized by any major professional associations and has no good evidence to support its existence.-- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Medical Director of Anchor Health’s Gender and Life-Affirming Medicine (GLAM) Program, and Assistant Clinical Professor of Family Medicine at Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University, is exactly the same as a random self-published blogspot. Good thing we also have many a
peer-reviewed article published in a reputable journaldescribing it as "psuedoscientific" (as does the SPLC, with the added "anti-trans" descriptor) or "pseudodiagnostic" paired with near universal condemnation of the original study inventing it as bad science and intrinsically flawed and counter to the scientific method.
In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journaland
Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia.It's not as if ROGD has long been considered junk by most major medical orgs who have more important things to do than repeatedly disprove it and is primarily touted by far-right anti-LGBT organizations to attack transgender people's right to healthcare, a social rather than purely scientific observation... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 21:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
many ayou shouldn't have any trouble achieving 'victory' in this RfC, then.peer-reviewed article published in a reputable journaldescribing it as "psuedoscientific"
cannot possibly be a reliable source for a definition of pseudoscienceand
needs to be burned to the ground and rewritten from scratchsince it seems to pretty clearly lean towards supporting ROGD is pseudoscience and should be treated as such. In the end, up to the closer to decide. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
not MEDRS-compliant? They already have a higher level of MEDRS than Littman's primary study, and they represent the professional consensus, which is supposed to lower the MEDRS standard for inclusion. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science.A paraphrase of this is easily fit for inclusion. Meanwhile, observe the current Further research section; it provides non-trivial biomedical information cited only to two non-reviews: a large survey of adolescents in the US, and a study of 173 Canadian trans people. These are trivially not WP:MEDRS-compliant. Ovinus ( talk) 19:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia makes no attempt to keep out incorrect information. That is not correct. See WP:MAINSTREAM. Wikipedia does have a remit to be mainstream. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgmen. But that's irrelevant.) Why do the medical guidelines even exist? We don't report preliminary studies, even cautiously, on, say, some miracle new antidepressant, because it's irresponsible and intellectually dubious. I'm not aware of a carveout in the guideline for medical disputes between primary sources. We report the bogus study, then we report that it was rejected by countless professional organizations; we don't try to juxtapose it with contradictory primary-source information. To be more silly about it, "two wrongs don't make a right."
facts of disease(e.g. mechanisms, treatments, incidence, prevalence) but also to include the additional category of
how we talk about the disease. I think @ Mathglot hit the nail on the head with this one, it's about how MEDRS meets MEDRS-adjacent society aspects.
I would apply that analogy like this: The definition of ROGD is MEDRS. The incidence/prevalence (how often it happens e.g. a specific number) of ROGD is MEDRS. But the controversy surrounding ROGD is not strictly a scientific or medical topic. It involves lots of other stakeholders (activists, controversy-mongers, politicians, patient advocates, parents, clergy, etc.) who all have opinions about the topic. The question of "does it exist" is in some sense a medical/scientific question. And you're right, we should use our WP:BESTSOURCES (e.g. academic review articles, books, meta-analyses, medical org statements, etc.) for that question. And luckily, we already have. But in discussing how the disease has been described, how it has generated controversy among the public, all of these things, we absolutely do not need MEDRS-compliant sources. WP:PARITY applies. Meaning we should use our best available sources, but failing that, we should use whatever reliable sources we have available, and make sure we are keeping parity between cranks and skeptics. We should not have higher standards for ROGD-favorable sources than ROGD-skeptical ones. And it's okay if we have to dig deep to less-reliable (but still WP:RS) places to find that parity.Another analogy would be to Anti-vaccination. We do need MEDRS sources to say that vaccines are effective in preventing disease and do not cause autism. We do not need MEDRS to discuss the fact that another crank whackjob at some random medical school was sanctioned by his/her medical society for promoting these views. We do not need MEDRS sources to talk about the latest developments in Andrew Wakefield's saga. We only need MEDRS when it comes to talking about the disease itself (e.g. symptoms, definitions, mechanisms thereof, incidence/prevalence).Does that make sense? Your focus on MEDRS is admirable, but it is a bit short-sighted to be so broad in our definitions. And it's clear the wikipedia community does not agree with such broad definitions.Medicine and science are important (as a guy with a PhD in viruses and who is about to complete a second doctorate (in medicine), I of course agree), but there's also disciplines in the humanities such as " history and philosophy of science", " epistemology", " medical sociology", etc. for which we absolutely do not need to (and should not only) rely on MEDRS. To do so would be to shut out entire disciplines of study with reams and reams of research worth talking about. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[Suppose] [a]n 80-year-old grandpa dies in his bed and his GP comes out and says it looks like yet another heart-attack got him this time. We are happy that medical science, a qualified doctor, and a cursory investigation provides an answer, to which only his friends and relatives care much about. But consider instead there is a big knife sticking out of his chest and blood splattered all over the walls. Now we want a coroner/pathologist, we want forensics, we want detectives, and a court with a judge and jury, and the press are interested, and the case is national news.
unpopular and boring scientific papersare the best sources on a topic. Breitbart is indeed on the link blacklist where it belongs. Crossroads -talk- 19:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
the only other positive coverage I can find for them based on a quick search are all from sources we consider unreliable. The same is broadly true for O'Malley herself. This is I think a feature and not a bug, as both Genspect and O'Malley regularly take positions that run counter to what mainstream medical sources state about trans and non-binary healthcare.Sadly we can't really point it out unless a reliable source does because WP:OR, but I tried to make some progress by noting the far-right groups that use it as reported in reliable sources. Best bet is to keep on the lookout for sources which state the connections to right wing media more specifically. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 23:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Best bet is to keep on the lookout for sources which state the connections to right wing media more specifically.Yes. I'm with that. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
to keep on the lookout for sources which state the connections to right wing media more specifically", they need to also be on the lookout for those that state connections to left wing media. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
In a contentious topic such as this article which is under ArbCom sanctions ( WP:ARBGS), with a Rfc question which is contentious in its own right and *also* subject to ArbCom sanctions ( WP:ARBPS) it is fundamental that we keep our eye firmly on Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy which is crucial to proper resolution of this Rfc. This means that we must represent
NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, and is non-negotiable.
The principle of WP:DUE WEIGHT is part of NPOV, and is the determining principle in how this Rfc question should be resolved. We should address the question of whether the term pseudoscientific is the majority view of reliable sources in describing ROGD, a significant minority view, or the view of a tiny minority. Everything else is just personal opinion, and is irrelevant here.
Since pseudoscience is a loaded term covered by specific ArbCom sanctions, we should try to assess what proportion of reliable sources use this specific term and not some other term to describe ROGD, because WP:NPOV policy states that "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such". Peer-reviewed books and trade journal articles use careful language that passes various level of editorial control, and if a word is present, it's not by accident, and if it's absent, it's not because they forgot to include it.
Accordingly, below I'll run some unbiased searches and resport the results, to attempt to determine if there's a trend in the data. If this Rfc doesn't get closed first, I'll do that in follow-up messages. Any help appreciated; I'd only request that we keep raw data and results in a separate subsection from conclusions and analysis. As for the timing, I'm sorry it's so late, but I've had little wifi access lately. Thanks. Mathglot ( talk) 20:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Regex to check for alt terms
|
---|
The following regex looks for two words within 30 characters of each other, consisting of any word in the first group (bad...wrong), near any word in the second group (analysis...undertaking):
|
The raw tally for a scholar search for
"rapid onset gender dysphoria"
(excluding citations) is around 417 (your results may be different based on your location, search history, and other factors). The actual count is smaller. By "nexting" through the results (or jumping ahead), by
page 37 of results fewer than half the results on the page have the bolded term in the context snippet.
Page 43 is the last page of results.
Note on methodology: content at the url returned by Google was examined, and as much text as available at that page is matched against the § regex pattern and any hits are listed after the label alt terms in each result. If the full text of the article or book is not available at the given url as rendered, but on-page links or buttons are present with a label clearly intended to provide the full text such as, 'Download', 'Full text', 'Access article', and so on then I followed the link to access the page containing full text, and used that content to match against. In cases where an on-page link or button clearly intends to provide full access but requires institutional login or registration or a fee, I would attempt to gain access to the full content however I could get it: in several cases through TWL, in some cases through my home library article database, in a couple of cases via assistance from another editor by passing them the complete citation (or link) of the content blocked to me. In cases where the originally rendered SRP (search result page) did not contain a direct link clearly intended to provide the full text (whether paywalled or subscription-protected or not) then I did not attempt to gain access to the full text by a separate search or other retrieval methods.
Results 1 – 10
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Results 11 – 20
| ||
---|---|---|
Search results: 11 – 20
|
Results 21 – 30
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Search results: 21 – 30
|
One more round of scholar data might be worth it from the middle of the result set around result page 21 (results 201-210) to eliminate ranking algorithm-related bias, but switching first to books, then may come back to it. Mathglot ( talk) 02:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Insufficient data to conclude anything so far; the top ten results in particular are biased away from the term pseudoscience because they include the original paper and corrected version. A few more rounds of data are needed before we can assess it. Mathglot ( talk) 03:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Google doesn't give a total tally for book search, but limiting the time range to 2014 to present, and looking for bolded query terms in the result snippets on continuation pages shows that there are about 36 mentions in books: based on search options of 50 results per page, there are 27 hits on the first page of 50 results (including 7 of the top ten), 9 hits on the second page of 50 results, and none on the 3rd page, for query
"rapid onset gender dysphoria"
(limited to 2014-present). Your results may be different, based on your location, search history, language options, and other factors.
Note on methodology: full text regex search of an entire book (or whatever pages Google exposes) is not practical. Each book found to contain the term "rapid onset gender dysphoria" or "rogd" was then individually searched for the terms "pseudo", "pseudoscience", "misdiagnosed".
Book search results 1 – 10
| ||
---|---|---|
search books (2014-present) for: 1. Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our ... by Abigail Shrier · 2020
2. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies by Abbie E. Goldberg, Genny Beemyn · 2021 - Page 39 in chapter/article "Anti-Trans Theories" (39-42)
3. Embodied: Transgender Identities, the Church, and What the ... by Preston M. Sprinkle · 2021
4. Case Studies in Clinical Practice with Trans and Gender ... by lore m. dickey · 2021 - Page 81
5. Inventing Transgender Children and Young People by Heather Brunskell-Evans, Michele Moore · 2019 - Page 237; chapter 15: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, by Michelle Moore p. 238 (only viewable page in chapter)
6. When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment by Ryan T. Anderson · 2018
7. Diversity, Oppression, & Change: Culturally Grounded Social Work by Flavio Francisco Marsiglia 2021
8. The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and ... by Debra Soh · 2020
9. The Sociological Review Monographs 68/4: TERF Wars: Feminism ... by Ben Vincent 2020
10. Understanding Transgender Identities: Four Views by James K. Beilby · 2019
|
More coming... Mathglot ( talk) 09:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Should we describe "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" as pseudoscientific in the lead? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 19:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I consider how ROGD rhetorics draw from ableism, racism, and heteronormativity to fuel transphobia and vise versa.pulled from abstract as I can't access the article)
ROGD is an Adultist, cissexist, pseudodiagnostic label that stems from widespread panic concerning recent shifts in youth culture
the pseudo-psychiatric condition of rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD)and
ROGD uses manufactured, pseudoscientific language to spread misinformation about the evidence that transition is beneficial)
a pseudoscientific diagnostic category for young people who supposedly believe mistakenly that they are transgender.
politicised pseudo-diagnostic category of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD)
we detect in claims about ROGD the return of a silent history of psychology that collapses development with normativity. Going deeper, the language of contagion and changing back may harbor a repressed history of eugenics underlying modern sexology: the logic being that if transgender is changeable and contagious, then so too should it be disappeared.)
trans-youth-panic material similarly “raises concerns” about trans youth in more or less alarmist way.)
This article explores a quasi-diagnosis, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria”, which constructs the pathologized untimeliness of trans youth. ... Critics argue that the study is “poorly designed,” “specious,” “bad science” (Ashley and Baril, 2018; Barasch, 2018; Serano, 2018) – highly biased, containing significant methodological flaws, and failing to represent the perspectives of trans people. Restar (2020) argues that a number of choices in the “study design, sampling, recruitment, and survey construction” demonstrate a priori bias on the part of the researcher, essentially stacking the deck to empirically validate ROGD as a real pathology and a potential diagnosis. In addition, the study treats parents’ assessments of the personal histories and mental health of the study’s research subjects as unmediated rather than biased and limited (Brandelli Costa, 2019). Further, the study pathologizes trans identification with its diagnostic language while failing to recognize its de-pathologization by the American Psychiatric Association, the World Health Organization, and other official bodies (Restar, 2020; WPATH, 2018).)
The main critique of Littman’s article is its apparent lack of scientific rigor; Littman only spoke to parents, not the children themselves. Furthermore, the parents interviewed appeared to be recruited through websites frequented by transphobic parents, pointing towards a problematic selection bias (Wadman 2018).)
This reflects international anti-trans propaganda of “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” which was explicitly raised in opposition to a gender-affirmative model for therapists to support children in exploring their gender identity. The argument is that affirmation encourages children who are experiencing some kind of gender dysphoria to develop a trans identity when they may have remained (default) cis. In this, it relies “on the idea of ‘contagion’ in order to invalidate marginalized identities,” (Baril 2018) much as charges of a “gay agenda” do.)
the fabricated pseudodiagnosis of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, caused by teens learning about the existence of other trans people on social media)
The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a medical entity recognized by any major professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Therefore, it constitutes nothing more than an acronym created to describe a proposed clinical phenomenon that may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed scientific investigation. ... WPATH also urges restraint from the use of any term—whether or not formally recognized as a medical entity—to instill fear about the possibility that an adolescent may or may not be transgender
There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. Further, there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents. ... CAAPS supports eliminating the use of ROGD and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of empirical support for its existence and its likelihood of contributing to harm and mental health burden.
Rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is a concept used largely by people who question rather than affirm young people’s gender. The term was developed by parent communities who felt that their children’s disclosure that they were transgender or non-binary was sudden; the claim being that their children had been influenced by peers or by the media. In many ways this account of disclosure frames being transgender or non-binary as a form of social contagion. ... To date only one study has examined ROGD, and this drew upon samples from the same parent communities who developed the concept. In other words, it was a biased sample. Since being published, this study has been significantly revised due to community feedback, now indicating more clearly that while certain parents may have views about reasons for disclosure, this is not reflective of a ‘new’ clinical phenomenon (i.e., ROGD). Given the lack of evidence and the founding of the term in communities that may be less than affirming of transgender and non-binary young people, the use of ROGD as a clinical concept or tool would be counter to the APS statement on affirming approaches. ... Both clinicians and researchers should be aware that no professional organisation endorses this pseudo diagnosis, and that organisations such as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health have categorically refuted the use of the term, especially when it is used to create fear or to limit pathways to care.
When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views.
Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.should work, but "kids are suddenly turning trans because of the internet" is apparently a valid position. More than that,
Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.There is no academic debate, some loud voices keep insisting it's real while the majority of the worlds health organizations have said it isn't.
The rise of anti-trans sentiment among anti-LGBTQ groups has fueled a cottage industry of anti-trans research that in turn is promoted by anti-LGBTQ groups, including ACPeds, which has become a go-to for expertise in anti-trans pseudoscience. One such study ACPeds has promoted is one published in August 2018 that makes unfounded claims about so-called “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” which posits that gender dysphoria seemingly appears abruptly during or after puberty as a result of peer pressure or “social contagion.” That is, youth are “pressured” into being trans and can therefore “change” into not being trans.
Anti-LGBTQ+ activists often use concerns about internet safety in order to spread harmful rumors about the LGBTQ+ community. You may see opponents of trans people specifically use junk science by Lisa Littman at Brown University to falsely claim that access to social media and the internet has created a “contagion” that causes many youth to mistakenly identify as transgender. Littman’s paper contained so many erroneous statements that one of her colleagues in her same academic department, Arjee Javellana Restar, published a critique of the study looking at fundamental errors in Littman’s paper. Restar explains Littman’s bias by the way the paper falsely treats transgender identity in a pathology framework, in which identifying as transgender is wrongly treated like a disease. Restar also explains how Littman’s paper was based on data in which responses were given information that skewed Littman’s results to meet her own personal goals to confirm her theories.
Far from a lone voice, Shrier's Irreversible Damage emerges from growing disquiet about "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" (ROGD), a pseudoscientific term that has driven much of the social panic surrounding trans children—and that has stoked open transphobia across the political spectrum.on page 1, and
The first two pseudoscientific studies about ROGD—Lisa Marchiano's "Outbreak: On Transgender Teens and Psychic Epidemics" and Lisa Littman's "Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Young Adults" —both relied heavily on these three webpages.on page 3. The three webpages in the second quote are those mentioned in Littman's 2018 paper; 4thWaveNow, Transgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals. While I recognised Kbabej's point regarding using pseudodiagnostic, I feel like as a term that would be unfamiliar to our readers ( Google ngram of the two words), whereas pseudoscientific is far more recognisable, and I think it's acceptable to use that more familiar word in this instance. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
assistant professor in the Department of Rhetoric and Writingis a reliable source for whether something is (or is not) pseudoscientific. Tewdar 15:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Digression concerning epistemology
|
---|
|
Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community(emphasis added). The "scholarly sources" being used to justify "pseudoscientific" are not scientific WP:MEDRS sources, as this topic requires, but are mostly humanities journals (rhetoric, feminism, gender studies) or are sociology (which is not a medical field). So the requirements of MEDRS and FRINGE/PS are not met here. For example, one of them is about
theoriz[ing] masc4masc t4t erotics as a type of contagious gendering.The WPATH and CAAPS sources are MEDRS and scientific, but both of them quite conspicuously do not go so far as to call ROGD "pseudoscientific". WPATH says that it
may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed scientific investigationand CAAPS focuses on
clinical and diagnostic application. Reading "pseudoscience" into this is WP:Original research.Lastly, WPATH's Standards of Care Version 8, released just this year, very conspicuously does not refer to Littman's hypothesis as pseudoscientific. Rather, it says (emphasis added):
One researcher attempted to study and describe a specific form of later-presenting gender diversity experience (Littman, 2018). However, the findings of the study must be considered within the context of significant methodological challenges, including 1) the study surveyed parents and not youth perspectives; and 2) recruitment included parents from community settings in which treatments for gender dysphoria are viewed with scepticism and are criticized. However, these findings have not been replicated. For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider (Kornienko et al., 2016). However, caution must be taken to avoid assuming these phenomena occur prematurely in an individual adolescent while relying on information from datasets that may have been ascertained with potential sampling bias(Bauer et al., 2022; WPATH, 2018). It is important to consider the benefits that social connectedness may have for youth who are linked with supportive people (Tuzun et al., 2022)(see Statement 4). Crossroads -talk- 00:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
the scientific communityin the sense meant by WP:FRINGE/PS seems to be entirely original with Crossroads, representing yet another example of him accepting only certain sources as reliable because he approves of them. Read in context, there is certainly no requirement in FRINGE to find MEDRS sources stating that palm reading to predict longevity and phrenology to predict criminality are pseudoscientific practices, for them to be labelled as such, so the requirement - imagined only by Crossroads - that MEDRS sources (in the narrowest sense possible) are required to evaluate pseudoscience is, in the words of FRINGE/PS,
obviously bogus. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
reasonable amount of academic debate still existsabout the validity of the ROGD hypothesis. At the time I write this, not even the No !votes in this discussion have proposed that to be the case.
academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers, which these fall under; when a topic falls at the intersection of biomedical and sociological sciences, it is completely inappropriate to suggest that high-quality sources from within the social sciences cannot be used for basic summaries. But second, much more importantly, MEDRS sourcing is not required to call something pseudoscientific - per WP:PARITY, all that is needed is that the sourcing that it is pseudoscientific be higher-quality than the sourcing presented that advances it. That is clearly the case here - given the extreme controversy surrounding Littman's paper, it cannot be considered a high-quality source itself, and the article contains essentially no other sources of any quality that support her thesis. That means that per PARITY we have to go with the consensus of the sources we have. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
is still publishedin a prestigious journal. The fact that many subsequent studies have provided evidence to refute the main hypothesis of ROGD
supports the idea that ROGD is a falsifiable hypothesis, a key distinction between science and pseudoscience. Furthermore, the provided RS, only one explicitly uses the term "pseudoscientific" to refer to ROGD specifically, and others use it as an adjective to other terms. My emphasis below:
No mention of the word pseudoscientific. Citations: 1
pseudodiagnosticlabel that stems from widespread panic concerning recent shifts in youth culture).
Uses pseudodiagnostic, meaning it is not fit for diagnosis. Citations: 2
pseudo-psychiatriccondition of rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) and ROGD uses manufactured,
pseudoscientific languageto spread misinformation about the evidence that transition is beneficial)
Uses pseudo-psychiatric, and specifically "pseudoscientific language," but does not assert ROGD is pseudoscientific. Citations: 0
pseudoscientificdiagnostic category for young people who supposedly believe mistakenly that they are transgender.)
Only one to explicitly use pseudoscientific. Citations: 114
pseudo-diagnosticcategory of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD))
Again uses pseudodiagnostic. Citations: 43
five papers, of which three have 0-2 citations, seem hardly enough to reflect scientific consensus on a topic. Five divided by 200 is ~2.5%, hardly enough to establish scientific consensus. Theheezy ( talk) 06:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight. Litmann is in the Department of Behavioral and Social Science; the academic sources that have been linked are in Linguistics and Language, Gender and Sexuality studies, Cultural Studies/Gender Studies, and 2x Sociology and Political Science, respectively. Theheezy ( talk) 05:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight. And Behavioral and Social Science is not Gender and Sexuality studies. Theheezy ( talk) 05:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
seeking to redefine pseudoscience based onthe two articles to which you refer. At least I am not. I am also weighing in the "pseudoscientific" and "pseudodiagnostic" references and for that matter other references supporting "fringe". Your refusal to count these - coupled with your insistence, against the clear explanations of other editors, that we are not counting these - is, to give the most possible WP:AGF, not reassuring. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your textbook example of conflation) would be appreciated, if you can manage it. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
misinterpretinganything, much less FRINGE which explicitly operationalizes "pseudoscience" differently. This matters insofar as you (and Tewdar) refuse to accept other terms as functional equivalents to "pseudoscience" even when authors clearly suggest that this is what they mean. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
you (and Tewdar) refuse to accept other terms as functional equivalents to "pseudoscience"- this is completely false, I said above that
if you had sources saying "outside the scientific method" or similar, I'd accept that as a synonym of pseudoscientific. You have a pathetic collection of two sources, one of which is from the notorious Journal of Whatever Wherever, and a big sack of WP:OR, which you are using to claim that the so-called
functionally equivalentlanguage of the other sources supports your label of pseudoscience. This sort of disgraceful cherry-picking behavior is certainly
not adhering to the scientific method. Tewdar 09:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
RS support, here's page one of the book you linked (which I presume you have not read):
On the imagined scale that has excellent science at one end and then slides through good science, mediocre science (the vast majority of what is done), poor science, to bad science on the other end, it is not the case that pseudo-science lies somewhere on this continuum. It is off the grid altogether.Tewdar 09:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
off the griddoes not make that a requirement for all definitions of those two terms. I was simply producing a source that uses them to mean the same thing: the idea that only theories relying on literal eliptons - or equivalent - are covered by either term is not only ORIGINAL but absurd.
Wikipediaguidelines pages cannot overrule relevant reliable sources, which overwhelmingly do not describe ROGD hypothesis as pseudoscience. You appear to be running out of arguments. Tewdar 12:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)policies
the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight. Last I checked, Litmann is in the Department of Behavioral and Social Science; the academic sources that have been linked are in Linguistics and Language, Gender and Sexuality studies, Cultural Studies/Gender Studies, and 2x Sociology and Political Science, respectively.
spectrumof the scientific method. Pseudoscience is not. This is the difference, and the reason why you can only find two (just about) sources describing ROGD as pseudoscience is because the ROGD hypothesis is not pseudoscience, it is merely bad science. They are not the same thing. Tewdar 20:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.It is that "incompatible with the scientific method" that is key. Pretty sure that is the point User:DrKC MD is making too. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 16:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
[Homeopathy] is pseudoscience when it *delibeartely* cherry picks data, misreports or mischaracterises studies. It's interesting you say that, because that's what Littman has done regarding her online surveys of parents. To wit, from the article: "an online survey, which was not randomly distributed, but rather targeted at parents recruited from three anti-transgender websites where she had seen parents describe what they believed were sudden gender transitions in their adolescents" and employs so-called snowball sampling. Indeed, Littman already believed social contagion was a motivating factor in transitioning teens. She cherry-picked her data, to support her pre-determined conclusion.
I think you're really missing the point here.Yeah, I don't know if you realise that what you think you said about what you thought I thought I said was not the same as what I thought that I said about what I think. See:
bizarre ontological claims incompatible with natural scienceand
practitioners take aim at the very epistemological foundations of the scientific method. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 21:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
extremely criticalmainstream view? "Fringe", perhaps? Newimpartial ( talk) 21:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
extremely criticalmainstream view. And it has been explicitly argued that the RfC here should be the basis for mentions of ROGD in other articles. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
...which endorses the concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria. ROGD is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution and is not backed by credible scientific evidence.-- Trystan ( talk) 14:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
reliablestatements about Covid-19 were made in the first half of 2020 because they were in Nature. Newimpartial ( talk) 10:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
fatally flawed conclusionbased on
faulty experiment designbut can still fall within the realm of the scientific method. However, we consider it pseudoscientific rather than scientific because it was based in a worldview that a priori pathologizes queer people and makes a mockery of the scientific method to advance political agendas and discrimination under the guise of "science".
nonsense claiming to be scientific, which captures ROGD perfectly. From WP:FRINGE/QS, questionable science crosses the line into psuedoscience when no
reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.The medical consensus on it being discredited and flawed is clear. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 01:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist
the functional difference between bad science [...] and pseudoscience, which is a whole barrel of WP:OR, we should probably look at how relevant academic commentary critiques Littman's hypothesis, e.g. this, this, this, and this. None of these articles, even the ones that are extremely critical, describe the hypothesis as pseudoscience, or use any sort of synonymous language. We cannot categorize every study which features bias, methodological flaws, and unwarranted conclusions which do not follow from the data as pseudoscience, and we would require strong sourcing for this label, such as exists for the conversion therapy article, not two sources from journals of sociology and rhetoric. Tewdar 08:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. The theory is not accepted, the theory is not portrayed as accepted within the page.
We cannot do WP:OR to interpret the criticism of other works as equivalent to ROGD being pseudoscientific.
the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight. Litmann is in the Department of Behavioral and Social Science; the academic sources that have been linked are in Linguistics and Language, Gender and Sexuality studies, Cultural Studies/Gender Studies, and 2x Sociology and Political Science, respectively. Please feel free to verify this yourself by going to the journal pages of the linked sources.
What is the reasoning behind regarding these works in vastly different subareas as the authority for judging a work in Behavioral and Social Science?
racist pseudoscience about human intelligence published by physical anthropolistsshould be refuted by an
assistant professor in the Department of Rhetoric and Writingin the
Rhetoric Society Quarterlyjournal. If that was their intention, then I couldn't give two hoots about anything else in that guideline. Tewdar 16:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Ill-tempered digression concerning humanities scholarship
|
---|
|
ROGD is a clearly observed phenomenon but is not currently a recognized medical condition. (You might not think much of this source, and perhaps I'd be tempted to agree if I had not been asked to accept the judgement of an
assistant professor in the Department of Rhetoric and Writingin this discussion). So, how to describe it? "A controversial hypothesis, originally proposed in a study which has since been heavily criticized, has never been recognized as a diagnosis, and unsupported or contradicted by subsequent studies...", perhaps? If you want a single word descriptor, I'm not sure. But certainly not 'pseudoscientific', anyway... Tewdar 17:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience(emphasis added). Do you believe ROGD has a "substantial following" (after discounting as irrelevant what FRINGE calls
amateurs and self-published texts)? That's a pretty strong claim for you to base your !vote on, and it runs contrary to pretty much all of the sources included in the article itself or presented on Talk, to date Newimpartial ( talk) 21:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.I'm not sure if WP:FRINGE considers the
Department of Rhetoric and Writingto be part of the
scientific community, but if it does, whoever helped write it needs to be immediately permaTBANned from all science articles, broadly construed. Tewdar 22:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
questionable science? "Questionable science" and "bad science" are not synonyms. ("Bad science" being a judgememt made of the ROGD studies, in reliable sources in the same domain as that in which the original papers were published, so no need to rant and roar about
Rhetoric and Writing.) Newimpartial ( talk) 00:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
substantial- and this has been addressed, at length, and over a period of years, by numerous editors on this page and elsewhere. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
ROGD has been described as pseudoscientific by some authors in the humanities.to somewhere in the academic responses section? I’m against saying pseudoscientific in Wikipedia voice, or in the lead due to weight issues. But I think it makes sense to point out that it is a legitimately held minority opinion. It is also a must have to mention that the unifying field of these authors is in the humanities due to the large discrepancy between their subarea of expertise not matching the area that ROGD is under lest we have another Sokal affair. Theheezy ( talk) 11:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
[that these papers are] fully refereed paper published within the domain of Sociology.I highlight that The Sociological Review monograph is focused on,
publishing monographs which push at the boundaries of sociology and related disciplines – that ‘undiscipline’ the social sciences – and those which reinvigorate and renew established aspects of international sociological traditions.With the "TERF Wars," monograph specifically is interested in,
[bringing] together a range of peer-reviewed interventions into complex debates over trans inclusion within (and beyond) feminism. As editors, we intentionally sought contributions from a diversity of perspectives. On some points, contributors take different approaches, use different language to one another, or draw different conclusions. We did not request that authors adhere to any given ideology or worldview, other than a commitment to recognising trans people’s stated experiences as worthy of respect and recognition. Rather, what unites the essays in this collection is a commitment to evidenced critique, and an interest in building genuine solidarity within and between trans and feminist movements.I suggest you read WP:CIR. Theheezy ( talk) 15:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC) Theheezy ( talk) 13:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
introductionto the Sociological Review Monograph "TERF Wars" by Pearce (A Lecturer in Community Development) et. al. and "A critical commentary on ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria’" by Florence Ashley (A PhD student in Law and Bioethics) . I would like to acknowledge this opinion and move on from the WP:Bludgeon. Theheezy ( talk) 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
We consider a sociological understanding of this phenomenon to be vital. Lots of papers in Sociology Review are written by academics working in disciplines other than Sociology, but that doesn't mean that they cease to be Sociology papers.
The Sociological Review is home to a long-running Monograph Series, edited by Dr Cath Lambert and Dr Karen Throsby, that publishes collections of outstanding and original scholarly articles on issues of general sociological interest.[12] That is, it publishes within the domain of Sociology. Also note that
All articles published within the monographs are fully refereed and have dual status as journal articles, which should answer your previous question about review standards.
diversity of perspectivesmakes a paper no longer part of Sociology as a domain, then I suspect you don't read much Sociology. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Antiquated and erroneous are not synonyms- sure, I should have said that solely defining pseudoscience based on Popper's falsifiability criterion probably wouldn't get a lot of support nowadays. Tewdar 10:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology, as WP:FRINGE/PS puts it. In any event, my position was not based on that, but on an assessment that the sources as a whole are more supportive of "unsupported" and "discouraged". My own conception of what is and is not pseudoscience is irrelevant to that process of canvassing of the sources.-- Trystan ( talk) 18:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. Further, there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents. ... The available research is clear that transgender people are subjected to marginalization, stigmatization, and minority stress, which have significant detrimental effects on health and well-being. Terms, such as ROGD, that further stigmatize and limit access to gender-affirming and evidence-based care violate the principles upon which CAAPS was founded and public trust in clinical science. CAAPS supports eliminating the use of ROGD and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of empirical support for its existence and its likelihood of contributing to harm and mental health burden. CAAPS also encourages further research that leads to evidence-based clinical guidelines for gender-affirming care that support child and adolescent gender identity development. CAAPS opposes trainings that encourage others to utilize this concept in their clinical practice given the lack of reputable scientific evidence to support its clinical utility.Lisa Littman's study was forced to publish a clarification that the methodology was flawed and prone to bias, and reliable sources have thoroughly pointed out the flaws. Common sense states that the existence of transgender teens is not a social contagion. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 19:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
additional studieshave been done, and have disproved the theory. The consensus of the RS is that ROGD is not a valid hypothesis (except for a few fringe figures associated with Genspect, etc.) - the differences among the RS have to do only with how to describe this lack of validity, whether that is "no empirical evidence" or "no scientific basis" or "bad science" or "fringe" or "pseudoscientific" - what have you. But the idea that there is any relevant professional support for the hypothesis is pretty much laughable. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
There is still no consensus on the rise of transgender cases- which is true; indeed, there is no consensus on whether or not there actually is a "rise in transgender cases" (sic.).
Lisa Littman has a peer-reviewed study that held up- that is an egregiously false statement. The methodology of her research has been taken apart within the relevant field, and none of the attempts to test her hypotheses under more rigorous circumstances have found any supporting evidence for ROGD.
On the imagined scale that has excellent science at one end and [...] bad science on the other end, it is not the case that pseudo-science lies somewhere on this continuum. It is off the grid altogether.If you have sources stating that the ROGD hypothesis is 'off the grid altogether', or 'outside of the scientific method', or any sort of similar language, they can be understood as describing ROGD as pseudoscience. If they describe ROGD as 'terrible science (but still science)' then it is Original research to attribute to sources claims which they do not themselves make. Tewdar 12:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Pseudoscience does not mean "outside the scientific method."- citation needed.
The scientific methodrefers to contemporary science, not that of the 18th-19th centuries. Else we'd never get anywhere, would we now? Who knows, future physicists (and Wikipedians) might declare the Standard Model to be pseudoscience... Tewdar 15:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
pseudosciencedoes not necessarily mean
outside the scientific method(or
off the grid altogether. Do we need to have this digression again, just because you don't feel you got your point across the first time? High dudgeon isn't an argument. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
universal scientific view [...] thatROGD hypothesis
is impossible, nor does it appear to be
generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. I think we should use the relevant HQRS to determine whether ROGD is pseudoscience or not, instead of WP:FRINGE. Tewdar 19:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, it looks like WP:FRINGE would prefer to call ROGD hypothesis an
alternative theoretical formulation. You don't want that, do you? Tewdar 20:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Check.Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes.
Pseudoscience usually ... relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy).
Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality.✅
Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature❌
Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself❌
relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence✅
indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy).um, "~" (meh). Doesn't really seem comparable.
strong, puzzling evidencethen maybe that is the problem? The relevant scientific community just doesn't see it that way.
basic laws of natureare somewhat elusive in this context, but ROGD supporters certainly advocate social contagion - which is not known to exist in the context of gender identity -
to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, namely, young people who are not trans identifying as trans. It seems quite obvious from the "work" of Littman, Shrier and other ROGD supporters that they really want to believe that non-trans kids are identifying as trans in significant numbers, for some reason, even though the evidence for that is largely of their own imagining. It is that motivation, inter alia that marks pseudoscience in this passage of FRINGE, and I am
1) Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. 2) Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; 3) reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; 4) lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; 5) absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; 6) and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited. (Numbers added)
Some forms of pseudoscience have as their main objective the promotion of a particular theory of their own, whereas others are driven by a desire to fight down some scientific theory or branch of science. The former type of pseudoscience has been called pseudo-theory promotion, and the latter science denial(ism) (Hansson 2017)(emphasis added). It then says
The most prominent difference between pseudo-theory promotion and science denial is their different attitudes to conflicts with established science. Science denialism usually proceeds by producing false controversies with legitimate science, i.e. claims that there is a scientific controversy when there is in fact none.(emphasis added) as is the case of ROGD, making it an example of both pseudo-theory promotion and science denialism. It also quotes the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of Pseudoscience as
A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have(emphasis added).
questionable scienceand should be labelled (in Wikipedia voice) pseudoscientific since reasonable academic debate no longer exists on the topic. What qualifies as academic debate?
Littman’s study received both supportive and non-supportive comments, leaving space for further future studies on this new clinical phenomenon.Along with multiple letters to the editor e.g., Costa, Angelo "Formal comment on: Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria", and Hutchinson A, Midgen M & Spiliadis A. "In support of research into rapid-onset gender dysphoria." How quickly should we decide that no reasonable academic debate exists when the study and its correction was only published three years ago? I can already sense several editors warming up their typing fingers now to leave a scathing rebuke questioning my reading comprehension.
according to some academic scholars. However, describing it as pseudoscientific in wikipedia voice still sounds like OR to me. As an aside, I will not be responding to the expected WP:Bludgeon comments that will soon follow this one. I've said my point of view, other editors have said theirs. There is no fruitful debate to be had here and I'll happily let the closer decide which arguments have more weight. Theheezy ( talk) 17:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The term is heavily loaded with contempt and, plastered over an article, is making an assertion about the subject, which needs to be supported by more than an anonymous Wikipedian's considered judgment.Tewdar 10:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
It has never been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and its use has been discouraged by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and other medical organizations due to a lack of reputable scientific evidence for the concept.That seems just right to me. Sometimes less is more y'all. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
A scientific critique of this study is that it violates principles of research methods by using a pathologizing framework and language. For example, Littman uses terminology (e.g., cluster out-breaks) that promotes the conceptualization of gender dysphoria and identification as trans as a contagious disease or disorder. The aims provided in the article are as follows: “(1) to describe an atypical presentation of gender dysphoria occurring with sudden and rapid onset in adolescents and young adults; and (2) to generate hypotheses about the condition, including the role of social and peer contagion in its development.” Likening trans identities to a disease is in conflict with national and international organizations whose positions clearly state that identifying as trans is not a mental disorder (e.g., the American Psychiatric Association, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and the World Health Organization). As such, bias appears to be present from the basic premise of the study and continued through each stage of the research process. In addition to what was summarized from it and added to the lead as "
ROGD has been criticized as anti-trans propaganda and bad science.
Through this review, the study and results were deemed a valid contribution to the scientific literatureand
Of note is that some authors do support additional research investigation into ROGD as a distinct clinical presentation. And perhaps you could remove Smith (2018) from your sources list now, that's a master's thesis and hence not a reliable source. Tewdar 09:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
anti-Newimpartial POV- I mean... it probably doesn't have to be like that. Probably quite easily fixed, actually. The SAGE source was presented as supporting the claim that ROGD is pseudoscience. By stating that the review summarized the ROGD study and results as "a valid contribution to the scientific literature", with no further discussion, the source quite clearly does not support this claim, whatever else it might say. Tewdar 11:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I for one have not used it to support "pseudoscience"- I never said you did. That is how it was presented here, however.
the !vote here- it wasn't a vote...
I don't know whose it is- oh come on! Take a wild guess! 😂
Do you really believe these two points carry equal weight in the text?- the way it is done currently in the lede, with attribution, yes. Personally, I think "crappy science" or similar can be put in the lede without a citation. I am yet to be convinced about putting 'anti-trans propaganda' in the lede however.
Since Littman’s original publication, the editor-in-chief of PLoS One has offered a written apology to the trans and gender-diverse community, along with an explanation that a postpublication review of the Littman article was conducted. Through this review, the study and results were deemed a valid contribution to the scientific literature, and Littman revised the paper to address concerns regarding the study’s title, abstract, purpose, methodology, and conclusions.is followed by
However, leading international trans and psychological health associations (e.g., World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the Australian Psychological Society, and the Australian Professional Association for Transgender Health) published official statements noting that ROGD is not currently recognized as a clinical phenomenon. These statements also emphasized that ROGD should not be used to limit appropriate gender-affirming care that follows existing standards of care and clinical guidelines. The Australian Psychological Society further challenged the notion that social media or peer pressures influence a person’s gender and noted that this narrative may be harmful to young people’s well-being. Of note is that some authors do support additional research investigation into ROGD as a distinct clinical presentation.
flawed scienceis still science. Not pseudoscience. Start another RfC for the
Anti-trans propagandaassertion. Thanks for striking the master's thesis. Tewdar 15:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
This theory may be wrong, but as long as it is pursued scientifically it is not pseudoscience.
Some see it as a victory that Lisa Littman, the creator of the term “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD), is referenced in the new guidelines. However, this inclusion does not legitimize Littman’s pseudoscience nor give credence to social contagion theory. Littman is also a member of both the Gender Dysphoria Alliance and GenSpect. ROGD is not an actual medical diagnosis recognized by any major professional associations and has no good evidence to support its existence.-- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Medical Director of Anchor Health’s Gender and Life-Affirming Medicine (GLAM) Program, and Assistant Clinical Professor of Family Medicine at Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University, is exactly the same as a random self-published blogspot. Good thing we also have many a
peer-reviewed article published in a reputable journaldescribing it as "psuedoscientific" (as does the SPLC, with the added "anti-trans" descriptor) or "pseudodiagnostic" paired with near universal condemnation of the original study inventing it as bad science and intrinsically flawed and counter to the scientific method.
In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journaland
Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia.It's not as if ROGD has long been considered junk by most major medical orgs who have more important things to do than repeatedly disprove it and is primarily touted by far-right anti-LGBT organizations to attack transgender people's right to healthcare, a social rather than purely scientific observation... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 21:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
many ayou shouldn't have any trouble achieving 'victory' in this RfC, then.peer-reviewed article published in a reputable journaldescribing it as "psuedoscientific"
cannot possibly be a reliable source for a definition of pseudoscienceand
needs to be burned to the ground and rewritten from scratchsince it seems to pretty clearly lean towards supporting ROGD is pseudoscience and should be treated as such. In the end, up to the closer to decide. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
not MEDRS-compliant? They already have a higher level of MEDRS than Littman's primary study, and they represent the professional consensus, which is supposed to lower the MEDRS standard for inclusion. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science.A paraphrase of this is easily fit for inclusion. Meanwhile, observe the current Further research section; it provides non-trivial biomedical information cited only to two non-reviews: a large survey of adolescents in the US, and a study of 173 Canadian trans people. These are trivially not WP:MEDRS-compliant. Ovinus ( talk) 19:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia makes no attempt to keep out incorrect information. That is not correct. See WP:MAINSTREAM. Wikipedia does have a remit to be mainstream. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgmen. But that's irrelevant.) Why do the medical guidelines even exist? We don't report preliminary studies, even cautiously, on, say, some miracle new antidepressant, because it's irresponsible and intellectually dubious. I'm not aware of a carveout in the guideline for medical disputes between primary sources. We report the bogus study, then we report that it was rejected by countless professional organizations; we don't try to juxtapose it with contradictory primary-source information. To be more silly about it, "two wrongs don't make a right."
facts of disease(e.g. mechanisms, treatments, incidence, prevalence) but also to include the additional category of
how we talk about the disease. I think @ Mathglot hit the nail on the head with this one, it's about how MEDRS meets MEDRS-adjacent society aspects.
I would apply that analogy like this: The definition of ROGD is MEDRS. The incidence/prevalence (how often it happens e.g. a specific number) of ROGD is MEDRS. But the controversy surrounding ROGD is not strictly a scientific or medical topic. It involves lots of other stakeholders (activists, controversy-mongers, politicians, patient advocates, parents, clergy, etc.) who all have opinions about the topic. The question of "does it exist" is in some sense a medical/scientific question. And you're right, we should use our WP:BESTSOURCES (e.g. academic review articles, books, meta-analyses, medical org statements, etc.) for that question. And luckily, we already have. But in discussing how the disease has been described, how it has generated controversy among the public, all of these things, we absolutely do not need MEDRS-compliant sources. WP:PARITY applies. Meaning we should use our best available sources, but failing that, we should use whatever reliable sources we have available, and make sure we are keeping parity between cranks and skeptics. We should not have higher standards for ROGD-favorable sources than ROGD-skeptical ones. And it's okay if we have to dig deep to less-reliable (but still WP:RS) places to find that parity.Another analogy would be to Anti-vaccination. We do need MEDRS sources to say that vaccines are effective in preventing disease and do not cause autism. We do not need MEDRS to discuss the fact that another crank whackjob at some random medical school was sanctioned by his/her medical society for promoting these views. We do not need MEDRS sources to talk about the latest developments in Andrew Wakefield's saga. We only need MEDRS when it comes to talking about the disease itself (e.g. symptoms, definitions, mechanisms thereof, incidence/prevalence).Does that make sense? Your focus on MEDRS is admirable, but it is a bit short-sighted to be so broad in our definitions. And it's clear the wikipedia community does not agree with such broad definitions.Medicine and science are important (as a guy with a PhD in viruses and who is about to complete a second doctorate (in medicine), I of course agree), but there's also disciplines in the humanities such as " history and philosophy of science", " epistemology", " medical sociology", etc. for which we absolutely do not need to (and should not only) rely on MEDRS. To do so would be to shut out entire disciplines of study with reams and reams of research worth talking about. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[Suppose] [a]n 80-year-old grandpa dies in his bed and his GP comes out and says it looks like yet another heart-attack got him this time. We are happy that medical science, a qualified doctor, and a cursory investigation provides an answer, to which only his friends and relatives care much about. But consider instead there is a big knife sticking out of his chest and blood splattered all over the walls. Now we want a coroner/pathologist, we want forensics, we want detectives, and a court with a judge and jury, and the press are interested, and the case is national news.
unpopular and boring scientific papersare the best sources on a topic. Breitbart is indeed on the link blacklist where it belongs. Crossroads -talk- 19:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
the only other positive coverage I can find for them based on a quick search are all from sources we consider unreliable. The same is broadly true for O'Malley herself. This is I think a feature and not a bug, as both Genspect and O'Malley regularly take positions that run counter to what mainstream medical sources state about trans and non-binary healthcare.Sadly we can't really point it out unless a reliable source does because WP:OR, but I tried to make some progress by noting the far-right groups that use it as reported in reliable sources. Best bet is to keep on the lookout for sources which state the connections to right wing media more specifically. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 23:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Best bet is to keep on the lookout for sources which state the connections to right wing media more specifically.Yes. I'm with that. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
to keep on the lookout for sources which state the connections to right wing media more specifically", they need to also be on the lookout for those that state connections to left wing media. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
In a contentious topic such as this article which is under ArbCom sanctions ( WP:ARBGS), with a Rfc question which is contentious in its own right and *also* subject to ArbCom sanctions ( WP:ARBPS) it is fundamental that we keep our eye firmly on Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy which is crucial to proper resolution of this Rfc. This means that we must represent
NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, and is non-negotiable.
The principle of WP:DUE WEIGHT is part of NPOV, and is the determining principle in how this Rfc question should be resolved. We should address the question of whether the term pseudoscientific is the majority view of reliable sources in describing ROGD, a significant minority view, or the view of a tiny minority. Everything else is just personal opinion, and is irrelevant here.
Since pseudoscience is a loaded term covered by specific ArbCom sanctions, we should try to assess what proportion of reliable sources use this specific term and not some other term to describe ROGD, because WP:NPOV policy states that "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such". Peer-reviewed books and trade journal articles use careful language that passes various level of editorial control, and if a word is present, it's not by accident, and if it's absent, it's not because they forgot to include it.
Accordingly, below I'll run some unbiased searches and resport the results, to attempt to determine if there's a trend in the data. If this Rfc doesn't get closed first, I'll do that in follow-up messages. Any help appreciated; I'd only request that we keep raw data and results in a separate subsection from conclusions and analysis. As for the timing, I'm sorry it's so late, but I've had little wifi access lately. Thanks. Mathglot ( talk) 20:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Regex to check for alt terms
|
---|
The following regex looks for two words within 30 characters of each other, consisting of any word in the first group (bad...wrong), near any word in the second group (analysis...undertaking):
|
The raw tally for a scholar search for
"rapid onset gender dysphoria"
(excluding citations) is around 417 (your results may be different based on your location, search history, and other factors). The actual count is smaller. By "nexting" through the results (or jumping ahead), by
page 37 of results fewer than half the results on the page have the bolded term in the context snippet.
Page 43 is the last page of results.
Note on methodology: content at the url returned by Google was examined, and as much text as available at that page is matched against the § regex pattern and any hits are listed after the label alt terms in each result. If the full text of the article or book is not available at the given url as rendered, but on-page links or buttons are present with a label clearly intended to provide the full text such as, 'Download', 'Full text', 'Access article', and so on then I followed the link to access the page containing full text, and used that content to match against. In cases where an on-page link or button clearly intends to provide full access but requires institutional login or registration or a fee, I would attempt to gain access to the full content however I could get it: in several cases through TWL, in some cases through my home library article database, in a couple of cases via assistance from another editor by passing them the complete citation (or link) of the content blocked to me. In cases where the originally rendered SRP (search result page) did not contain a direct link clearly intended to provide the full text (whether paywalled or subscription-protected or not) then I did not attempt to gain access to the full text by a separate search or other retrieval methods.
Results 1 – 10
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Results 11 – 20
| ||
---|---|---|
Search results: 11 – 20
|
Results 21 – 30
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Search results: 21 – 30
|
One more round of scholar data might be worth it from the middle of the result set around result page 21 (results 201-210) to eliminate ranking algorithm-related bias, but switching first to books, then may come back to it. Mathglot ( talk) 02:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Insufficient data to conclude anything so far; the top ten results in particular are biased away from the term pseudoscience because they include the original paper and corrected version. A few more rounds of data are needed before we can assess it. Mathglot ( talk) 03:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Google doesn't give a total tally for book search, but limiting the time range to 2014 to present, and looking for bolded query terms in the result snippets on continuation pages shows that there are about 36 mentions in books: based on search options of 50 results per page, there are 27 hits on the first page of 50 results (including 7 of the top ten), 9 hits on the second page of 50 results, and none on the 3rd page, for query
"rapid onset gender dysphoria"
(limited to 2014-present). Your results may be different, based on your location, search history, language options, and other factors.
Note on methodology: full text regex search of an entire book (or whatever pages Google exposes) is not practical. Each book found to contain the term "rapid onset gender dysphoria" or "rogd" was then individually searched for the terms "pseudo", "pseudoscience", "misdiagnosed".
Book search results 1 – 10
| ||
---|---|---|
search books (2014-present) for: 1. Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our ... by Abigail Shrier · 2020
2. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies by Abbie E. Goldberg, Genny Beemyn · 2021 - Page 39 in chapter/article "Anti-Trans Theories" (39-42)
3. Embodied: Transgender Identities, the Church, and What the ... by Preston M. Sprinkle · 2021
4. Case Studies in Clinical Practice with Trans and Gender ... by lore m. dickey · 2021 - Page 81
5. Inventing Transgender Children and Young People by Heather Brunskell-Evans, Michele Moore · 2019 - Page 237; chapter 15: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, by Michelle Moore p. 238 (only viewable page in chapter)
6. When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment by Ryan T. Anderson · 2018
7. Diversity, Oppression, & Change: Culturally Grounded Social Work by Flavio Francisco Marsiglia 2021
8. The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and ... by Debra Soh · 2020
9. The Sociological Review Monographs 68/4: TERF Wars: Feminism ... by Ben Vincent 2020
10. Understanding Transgender Identities: Four Views by James K. Beilby · 2019
|
More coming... Mathglot ( talk) 09:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)