This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 29 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Rapid-onset gender dysphoria. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
@ Snokalok with this edit you reverted the addition of additional reading with the following comment:
The Manhattan Institute is not a reliable source to recommend on trans issues
The deleted source is "Archives of Sexual Behavior", and a specific response to the other listed item in "further reading", co-authored by Lisa Littman.
Please reinstate.
Void if removed ( talk) 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subjectper WP:ELYES. For further information, see WP:EXTERNAL. But if Fire isn't convinced, then it will be fine. Zenomonoz ( talk) 01:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. Is that the case here?
Why would a letter to the editor ever be included as a due weight source, especially as an EL or Further reading no context link? It's not a published study, what reason does it have to be included? Seems like a clear violation of MEDRS. Silver seren C 05:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
In a letter to the editor, Littman responded that her methodologies were consistent with those that had been used, without controversy, in widely cited studies supporting gender identity affirmation health care. [28- WP:UNDUE and WP:MANDY applies
Some clinicians state that an increasing prevalence of trans youth first presenting in early adolescence, as described in Littman's research, is consistent with their patient population, though they are uncertain as to causes or implications for clinical treatment. [50] [51] [52- A letter to the editor, a primary study saying ROGD might be a thing, but needs further research and could have other explanations, and a "Special Section" in the ASB written by Zucker.
We originally set out to study the phenomenon of adolescent- or rapid-onset GD (AOGD) and found an absence of literature, leading to our broader search strategy. There continues debate as to whether AOGD is a genuine phenomenon: Bauer et al. (2022) [61] provided data to suggest it is not, but faced strong rebuttal from both Littman (2022) [62] and Sinai (2022) [63] in terms of the way that AOGD has been defined and clinician experience. It is clear that we simply do not know enough about the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD, nor do we fully understand the huge increase in numbers of adolescents (and especially NF) presenting for GD intervention in recent years, nor the comorbidities and long-term outcomes.
neutralmaterial, a requirement for point three, being a piece of opinion published by someone with massive amounts of stake in the subject. ELs aren't a place to post dump every place people related to the article have expressed their personal opinions as to why they're right. I'm also extremely skeptical of the framing with which it was included (as a "response") - we're not required to include every possible academic response; that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. What matters is the relative weight given to each source in high-quality sourcing. A letter to the editor is obviously not equal in weight to a peer-reviewed paper and should never be weighed equally in an article by putting it on equal footing in terms of placement, focus, amount of coverage, etc. The fact that this was included via a think tank like the Manhattan Institute is telling because it shows that, beyond not going through peer-review, it has only really received attention from people who are literally "hired guns" whose job is to promote the perspective it advocates, which clearly indicates that it's WP:UNDUE to be weighted equally to the Turban paper. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Why would a letter to the editor ever be included as a due weight source… It's not a published study, what reason does it have to be included?
This seems a bit excessive. Serious methodological critiques and comments are at least as valid as the studies they critique, more so to the extent they disclose flaws that impact the validity of the study. Here are two that are currently included in this article:
The due weight evaluation is performed by the journal publishing the letter. If a study is relevant to this article then a critique of it serious enough to be published in a top journal cannot be irrelevant.
And it is obviously not neutral material, a requirement for point three, being a piece of opinion published by someone with massive amounts of stake in the subject. ...The fact that this was included via a think tank like the Manhattan Institute is telling because it shows that, beyond not going through peer-review, it has only really received attention from people who are literally "hired guns" whose job is to promote the perspective it advocates, which clearly indicates that it's WP:UNDUE to be weighted equally to the Turban paper.
Not all criticism of FRINGE-criticism is FRINGE, but it is when it's by the proponents of the FRINGE theory in the first place.
These are the classical ad hominem argument: attacking the characteristics or authority of the writer instead of addressing the substance of what is written. Surely it can't be true that a given technical critique will be fringe if written by author A but not if written by author B. What is it about the letter that shows an absence of neutrality?
I'm also extremely skeptical of the framing with which it was included (as a "response") - we're not required to include every possible academic response; that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE.
This is the purpose of reliable sources. We count on them to weed out the minority views, fringe theories, and extraordinary claims that are the gist of WP:FALSEBALANCE. This journal determined that this critique deserved some of its limited space. What better evidence could there be for relevance? Swood100 ( talk) 23:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Mathglot: in response to this revert, sorry I couldn't find any discussion in the archives specifically on why the lead sentence is structured like this. Do you have a link to where it was discussed? Just don't understand why it would have been decided to word it in such a roundabout way instead of directly stating what ROGD is to start with. Thanks! Shapeyness ( talk) 13:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I've removed undiscussed changes that added unsupported original research to the defining sentence of the article. This article is one of the most contentious topics in the already designated contentious topics area of gender-related topics. The change to the WP:LEADSENTENCE by LesbianTiamat is a complete no-go, with a edit summary that failed to mention the addition of wording that defines ROGD as pseudoscience, an explosive assertion in Wikipedia's voice which is unsupported WP:Original research. The article body makes no such statement, and there is certainly no citation for it in the body. As the lead summarizes the body, this is off-limits for the lead, much less the defining sentence.
As far as the "Controversy surrounds" wording, it's possible that could be improved, and this page is the proper place to discuss that. I'm against fronting the term ROGD in the definition and pushing the term controversy after it, or out of the sentence entirey, as this whole topic is about the controversy. Fronting ROGD makes it appear that is a thing, or at least, a notable topic on its own, even if not settled science yet, as if maybe it just generated some controversy along the way worthy of discussion, like, say, in the way Einstein's 1905 special theory did. But there is no support for that syndrome-first view; this topic is all about the controversy, which is the central theme of the article, with people on all sides in high dudgeon on one side or another of the controversy, and all loudly declaiming their point of view. It is first and last a controversy; without the controversy, there is no article, as the controversy is the only thing that give the topic notability. Hundreds of "proposed diagnoses" or "syndromes" or what-have-you are coined and published on PLOS and in other journals; that's how a young researcher gets a name for themselves, if it catches on, so you can't blame them. But 99.9% of neologisms in academic articles either sink into obscurity, or retain some niche support within their own field but never get anywhere close to having a whole Wikipedia article about them, because they lack the notability for it.
There are probably thousands of articles on dysphoria-related topics; there is zero chance that this one, published in PLOS in 2018, would ever have a dedicated Wikipedia article about it, had it not provoked nationwide and international controversy. The lead sentence needs to reflect that, however we word it; pushing the term controversy to second billing is not the way to do that, in my opinion, although I'm open to any change that preserves the essential nature of this topic as a controversy. Mathglot ( talk) 04:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
far-right and anti-trans researchers have taken control of the narrative with pseudoscience like ROGD(emphasis mine). Now while that report on its own wouldn't be enough to support changing the lead, in conjunction with the array of sources presented in the September/October 2022 RfC that also describe it as pseudoscience, as well as any new papers that have been published in the last two years that also call it pseudoscience (there seems to be a couple from a quick Google Scholar search), and likely another RfC there may well be enough sources to actually change the lead and body content. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 04:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
More studies using both self and parent report measures would be needed to gain better insight in the existence of the ‘ROGD’ subtype.
ROGD uses scientific terminology and poses as science, while not being based on accepted scientific research. That is what pseudoscience is. Therefore, ROGD is pseudoscience.
explosive assertion, Mathglot is right that we currently don't have enough RSes for that to be inserted into the lede. ROGD is an unproven assertion not backed by any reliable studies, but we don't yet have enough sourcing for calling it pseudoscience directly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HandThatFeeds ( talk • contribs) 09:07, January 29, 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence should at the very least make it clear that there is no scientific or evidence based support for this thing. The term proposed makes it sound like there might be. Would anyone object to to changing 'proposed' to 'scientifically unsupported' in the first sentence?— blindlynx 20:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
We originally set out to study the phenomenon of adolescent- or rapid-onset GD (AOGD) and found an absence of literature, leading to our broader search strategy. There continues debate as to whether AOGD is a genuine phenomenon: Bauer et al. (2022) [61] provided data to suggest it is not, but faced strong rebuttal from both Littman (2022) [62] and Sinai (2022) [63] in terms of the way that AOGD has been defined and clinician experience. It is clear that we simply do not know enough about the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD, nor do we fully understand the huge increase in numbers of adolescents (and especially NF) presenting for GD intervention in recent years, nor the comorbidities and long-term outcomes.
the original one was retractedno, it was revised post-publication. That's different. Void if removed ( talk) 14:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
In the discussion above, I proposed a rough draft of a new lead that seemed to be met well. As the discussion has closed, I want to get people's thoughts on replacing the current lead with the following text.
Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is a proposed phenomenon where children identify as transgender and experience gender dysphoria due to peer influence and social contagion. 1 2 ROGD is not recognized as a valid mental health diagnosis by any major professional association, who discourage its use due to a lack of reputable scientific evidence for the concept, major methodological issues in existing research, and stigmatization of gender-affirming care for transgender youth. 1 2 3 4 The paper proposing the concept was based on a survey of parents on 3 anti-trans websites; 1 2 following its publication, it was re-reviewed and a correction was issued highlighting that ROGD is not a clinically validated phenomenon. 1 2 5 6 7 Since the paper's publication, the concept has frequently been cited in attempts to restrict or criminalize gender-affirming care for transgender youth. 1 2
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 07:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
ROGD is a discredited term referring to a proposed phenomenon where...to the first sentence of the proposed lead would alleviate those concerns? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 23:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
a sample of trans youthis misleading as one of the largest criticisms has been that parents, not trans youth, were surveyed. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 00:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello - this is a serious question - but can you not all see how incredibly partisan and biased you are all being with this piece? Just your user names alone are enough to show that you are in no way non-partisan and that you have a very clear and obvious agenda? If you really want to be of use to the world then you need to show some real effort into making an entirely balanced piece. The published page is currently terrible but the proposed edits are in some ways even worse. Who can be appealed to to actually look at this thing independently because you all quite clearly cannot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.58.36 ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Blindlynx, you've twice inserted your preferred wording into the WP:LEADSENTENCE of this highly contentious article. The sources do not support your version, and in any case, you shouldn't be reverting the article, the lead, and especially the definition against multiple editors. That means there isn't consensus about it. Please undo your last change. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
scientifically unsupportedor words to that effect. Just to take your three reasons:
scientifically unsupported.
fraudulent research paper,
discredited and deregistered Andrew Wakefield,
falsely claimed causative links,
fraud was exposedare all phrases that appear before the final sentence definitively saying
The scientific consensus on vaccines and autism is that there is no causal connection between MMR, or any other vaccine, and autism. In fact, these guidelines about fringe science (and to be clear, this paper is unambiguously WP:FRINGE because it's not consensus and not close to it, whether or not it's technically pseudoscience) are very clear about avoiding WP:FALSEBALANCE. Loki ( talk) 01:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
discredited and deregistered Andrew Wakefield,
falsely claimed causative links, or
fraud was exposedhave been used about Littman's research; if they have, please add them to the article and I will withdraw my objection. At this point, we don't yet know what future research will show, and it's too early to make a statement like that in the lead sentence in Wikipedia's voice. We, as editors, don't get to decide what is fringe science, we rely on reliable sources for that. Please self-revert while the discussion is going on. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
overwhelming evidencedisagrees with it. Scientific American says that
a steadily growing body of scientific evidence demonstrates that [Littman's theory] does not reflect transgender adolescents’ experiencesand quotes the head of WPATH saying
"To even say it’s a hypothesis at this point, based on the paucity of research on this, I think is a real stretch". CAAPS says
there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents. WPATH says that Littman's correction to her paper
effectively disproves her own initial report. In scientific language, this is very strong condemnation, and indicates that actual authorities in the topic area don't just think the theory is controversial or unproven, they think it's false.
There continues debate as to whether AOGD is a genuine phenomenon
It is clear that we simply do not know enough about the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD
"adolescent-onset gender dysphoria (AOGD)" added as an alternative name in the ledeI don't think that's warranted. That paper is the third part of a three paper series ( paper 1, paper 2), and it's the only one to even mention ROGD or AOGD. If the purpose of the series was to study what they're referring to as either AOGD or ROGD, you'd expect that to be mentioned throughout.
wholly out of scope of that paper.Agreed, and the way these little remarks were taken out of context and then blown up shows why it's important to consider whether such statements are WP:DUE, and whether the text in the article is actually representing sources accurately. Hist9600 ( talk) 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The full context is that the entire first section is about epidemiologyThe first paper makes no mention of ROGD, nor does it cite Littman's paper.
This is the "observed phenomenon" referred to succinctly in the above quote.This sounds like SYNTH, combining findings from paper 1 and applying that to paper 3. The first paper in the series makes no remarks on an "observed phenomenon" by that term or any similar phrasing. Nor do the first or second papers use this AOGD acronym or its constituent parts. Only the third paper does, in one paragraph of its discussion section.
unable to report on age of onset of GD as this was rarely reported. They were only able to find one paper that had information on age of onset, the others only had age of referral. What is more likely the case here is that when the authors state that
we simply don't know enough about the observed phenomenon, it is a remark on how few papers actually report the age of onset. That isn't a comment on ROGD though, just on the lack of research.
Turban is an outlier in claiming there is no "observed phenomenon" hereTurban's paper wasn't included in the review, primarily because despite being published in 2023 the review's cut-off date was some time around 2 November 2020 according to the first paper. In fact, with the exception of a commentary by de Vries, all of the cited papers in the further research section of the article were published after the cut-off date of this review. Turban's 2022 research is quite simply newer than this review, despite their relative publishing dates.
Even though it concludes we don't know, it finds quite conclusively that there is something unexplained.No, it doesn't. None of the three papers cited in the brief remark in the third paper are cited elsewhere in the review. And the first part of the review has no remarks on an unexplained phenomenon. Only the third paper in the series does, and it's really unclear why they've asserted it other than perhaps based on the paper by Bauer and the response letters by Littman and Sinai. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This sounds like SYNTH
1. What is the prevalence of GD in adolescence?
2. What are the proportions of natal males / females with GD in adolescence (a) and has this changed over time (b)?
3. What is the pattern of age at (a) onset (b) referral (c) assessment (d) treatment?
4. What is the pattern of mental health problems in this population?
5. What treatments have been used to address GD in adolescence?
6. What outcomes are associated with treatment/s for GD in adolescence?
7. What are the long-term outcomes for all (treated or otherwise) in this population?
The present paper focuses on questions 1, 2, 3a, 3b, and 3c. We shall address question 4 in a second paper, and questions 3d, and 5–7 in a final paper. The methodology below includes the searches conducted for the whole review.
A newer source that is of lower quality does not supersede an older source of higher quality.
Turban et al (2022) claims there is no shift in sex ratioIncorrect. Turban reports that there was a relative increase in the number of AFAB youth between 2017 and 2019, going from an AMAF:AFAB ratio of 1.5:1 to 1.2:1, but that this more due to an absolute decrease in the numbers of AMAB youth than an absolute increase in the numbers of AFAB youth.
The cutoff is irrelevant when the published papers are olderHere you're quoting from WP:MEDDATE, and that would potentially be appropriate if the review actually supported what you're trying to use it for. However paper 1 doesn't support any commentary on ROGD, because it quite explicitly states that the authors
were unable to report on age of onset of GD as this was rarely reported.
And questioning why the authors mentioned ROGD is not really relevantIt is entirely relevant when the papers on ROGD, including Littman's original paper, were not included in the review. We cannot cite this paper in this article, because the subject of this article was not included within the scope of the review. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Incorrect
In August 2023, a PRISMA systematic review into rapid- or adolescent-onset gender dysphoria (AOGD) found an absence of literature
We originally set out to study the phenomenon of adolescent- or rapid-onset GD (AOGD) and found an absence of literature, leading to our broader search strategy.
As far as I can tell, Swood is mischaracterizing this review pretty severely. It's a review of adolescent gender dysphoria in general, not of studies of ROGD.You've done the exact same thing - and I've been scratching my head wondering how anyone gets from "we wrote a review on this" from "we wanted to write a review on this, but didn't and reviewed a larger topic instead" (ie, explicitly stating they did not write a review on this)
Alongside our international colleagues, the founding multidisciplinary team also became aware of the increase of presentations of what was termed late-onset, rapid-onset, or adolescent-onset GD. This group of adolescents, predominantly female, had no prior history of gender distress during early development and presented with sudden-onset gender-related distress. The absence of prior history raised questions that this particular group of adolescents were being drawn to the construct of gender dysphoria because of some evolving social process.
simply are not justified by the data. This paper then goes on to express significant methodological concerns about Elkadi's work, and remark how they misrepresent and misinterpret their findings.
A 2023 systematic review of gender dysphoria in adolescence found there had not been enough studies to do a review of ROGD specifically.
Our over-arching aim was to establish ‘what does the literature tell us about gender dysphoria in adolescence?’and
We were unable to report on age of onset of GD as this was rarely reported.
gender dysphoria in adolescence"(gender dysphoria experienced during adolescence, which may be a continuation of pre-adolescent dysphoria),
ROGD(the theory that trans youth are suddenly getting gender dysphoria out of the blue at puberty due to catching trans from the internet and their friends), and
the ratio of transmasculine to transfeminine youth seeking careare distinct topics. It is SYNTH to conflate them and say an article on the first saying "this is not about the second" is actually about the second because it commented on the third. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
the ratio of transmasculine to transfeminine youth seeking care are distinct topics
[You] put in a limited - one-sentence - mentionthat calls a review explicitly not about ROGD
a PRISMA systematic review into rapid- or adolescent-onset gender dysphoria (AOGD). Multiple editors are trying to point out this is a gross misrepresentation of the source.
In August 2023, a PRISMA systematic review into rapid- or adolescent-onset gender dysphoria (AOGD) found an absence of literatureis not only misrepresenting the review's scope, it's painting a misleading picture of the relevant dates. They found an absence of literature years before the publish date, hence why they researched something else. They didn't find an absence in August 2023, as the study did not take anything in 2023 into account.
gender dysphoria in adolescence(the subject of the review) does not equal
rapid-/adolescent-onset gender dysphoria(explicitly not the subject). The same way a systematic review of
homosexuality in adolescencewouldn't transubstantiate into a review of
adolescent-onset homosexualityjust because the authors said
we wanted to study adolescent-onset homosexuality and couldn't find enough literature so we reviewed homosexuality in adolescence instead, also there's a debate whether adolescent-onset homosexuality is even a thing.
there was already a consensus against including this. Which I think this discussion has made clear there wasn't, there was seeming consensus for a one-sentence inclusion. So why not improve the sentence?
In August 2023 a PRISMA systematic review into adolescent gender dysphoria literature noted that rapid- or adolescent-onset dysphoria continued to be a subject of debate.
it would not outweigh dozens of medical organizations coming together to say "there is no evidence this exists
One controversial suggestion ascribes the increase in sudden onset GD in adolescence to a social phenomenon termed rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD). The argument, initially emerging from interviews with parents of transgender youths, effectively runs that a social contagion fuelled by social media leads to peer group-GD, reflecting a social coping mechanism for other issues. The polarisation of the subsequent debate will be familiar to all, with many experts and scientific bodies critical of the research and concept. However, others recognise the need to thoroughly investigate one of the few offered explanations for the recent demographic changes.
[...] Indeed, the role of social media in not just ROGD but more broadly in GD and perhaps separately in the increase in childhood mental health problems is overdue serious academic exploration.
Void, you are galloping further into WP:IDHT territory. [You] put in a limited - one-sentence - mention that calls a review explicitly not about ROGD a PRISMA systematic review into rapid- or adolescent-onset gender dysphoria (AOGD). Multiple editors are trying to point out this is a gross misrepresentation of the source.
On a related note, In August 2023, a PRISMA systematic review into rapid- or adolescent-onset gender dysphoria (AOGD) found an absence of literature is not only misrepresenting the review's scope, it's painting a misleading picture of the relevant dates. They found an absence of literature years before the publish date, hence why they researched something else. They didn't find an absence in August 2023, as the study did not take anything in 2023 into account.
To try and clear this up a final time, gender dysphoria in adolescence (the subject of the review) does not equal rapid-/adolescent-onset gender dysphoria (explicitly not the subject).
The same way a systematic review of homosexuality in adolescence wouldn't transubstantiate into a review of adolescent-onset homosexuality just because the authors said we wanted to study adolescent-onset homosexuality and couldn't find enough literature so we reviewed homosexuality in adolescence instead
also there's a debate whether adolescent-onset homosexuality is even a thing.
Additionally, including the review in the article would have no effect on the lead, since "we have no data on this and aren't even sure it's real" doesn't mean "scientifically unsupported" is incorrect.
And it would not outweigh dozens of medical organizations coming together to say "there is no evidence this exists, the study proposing it was irredeemably flawed and the very premise is pathologizing".
The "debate" only exists to ROGD supporters. Scientifically there is no actual backing for the existence of it. There is no reason we should be giving credence to this.
The Thompson study questions whether the available scientific literature on adolescent gender dysphoria provides sufficient evidence to adequately inform clinical decision making.
These aren't conclusions of that paper but a general call for more research into the topic.
Further that particular moment of discourse is already covered in the 'further research' section of the article
The issue is it's a study about something else and using it as an authoritative source about something it is not looking into---even if it initially set out to---is wp:undue.
If a study puts in extensive effort to find all the scientific literature concerning ROGD and reports that a legitimate debate exists as to whether ROGD has a scientific basis but that there is insufficient evidence to form a conclusion either way, then this cannot be described as reporting something it was not looking into. Are you saying that the authors were not qualified to make these observations or that with respect to these remarks this study is not a reliable source?
We already have the Bauer (and teh Ferrara et.al.) papers and Sinai and Littman's letters cited, i really don't see what the Thompson paper adds given it's about something else
Thompson adds a different perspective. It set out to examine and report on all the available scientific literature on ROGD, something the other studies did not attempt to do. Swood100 ( talk) 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The only thing that study says about ROGD is that there isn't enough research to do a systemic review, so the authors did something else.
That's it, the paper is not about this topic. You are putting way to much weight on one paragraph in this paper
Thompson was a three-part study that originally set out to do a systematic review of the scientific literature concerning "adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria," which it characterized as "the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD," but found insufficient literature and so broadened the scope of the study. [1] [a] It noted that there is a debate in the scientific community as to whether "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" is a genuine phenomenon, [b] and questioned whether the literature on adolescent gender dysphoria provides evidence to inform clinical decision making adequately. [c] The study also noted that we do not understand "the huge increase in numbers of adolescents (and especially [natal females]) presenting for [gender dysphoria] intervention in recent years, nor the comorbidities and long-term outcomes." [d]
concerning "adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria," which it characterized as "the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD,"is tautological (it's basically
the term, which they define as the thing defined by the term)
questioned whether the literature on adolescent gender dysphoria provides evidence to inform clinical decision making adequatelyis not related to ROGD and is irrelevant.
This increase is cited by Littman and others in support of the thesis that a social cause could be involvedcontinues to be WP:OR, and the second source cited there doesn't even support it.
On the other hand, studies such as Rosenthal conclude that the increase does not represent a real rise in the number of cases, but is the result of those with gender dysphoria being now more willing to come forward, because of greater societal acceptanceignores that Rosenthal is a review, not a study.
Thompson et al. 2023 initially sought to examine "adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria AOGD)" but found insufficient literature, leading them to review research on gender dysphoria in adolescence published prior to November 2, 2020. They found insufficient data to report on the age of onset of dysphoria and stated there is debate as to whether AOGD is a genuine phenomenon.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 23:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
1) concerning "adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria," which it characterized as "the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD," is tautological (it's basically the term, which they define as the thing defined by the term)
2) questioned whether the literature on adolescent gender dysphoria provides evidence to inform clinical decision making adequately is not related to ROGD and is irrelevant.
3) the footnote in d This increase is cited by Littman and others in support of the thesis that a social cause could be involved continues to be WP:OR, and the second source cited there doesn't even support it.
I agree with YFNS. Swood's version is too long and gives WP:UNDUE weight to a study that didn't actually investigate ROGD.
there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents.,
Despite the lack of evidence for ROGD and its significant potential for creating harm,
Terms, such as ROGD, that further stigmatize and limit access to gender-affirming and evidence-based care,
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
the lack of reputable scientific evidence to support its clinical utility) and even the paper's correction which made a large point of highlighting that the diagnosis is not clinically validated.
if it's published in a reliable journal, then it's still evidence. The original paper said "ROGD is a real phenomenon because these parents said so", the university publicly apologized for how bad the methodology was, how unsupported the claims were, and the fact it passed peer-review in the first place. The correction came after a post-publication review, which forced the paper to change it's entire premise from "this is real" to "it may be real but it is not clinically validated this is real". Importantly, a lot of the sources on misinformation about ROGD highlight that those citing the paper to claim it's definitely real tend to cite the original, not the correction. While the correction is peer-reviewed scientific evidence that some parents think ROGD is real, the original paper was considered very explicitly by major health bodies and the journal itself to not be evidence that ROGD is real. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
In the revised version of Littman’s 2018 paper she pointed out a “controversy over whether what is described as rapid onset of gender dysphoria, particularly in natal females, falls under the existing definition of late-onset or adolescent-onset gender dysphoria or whether it represents a new kind of development or presentation.” Abbruzzese, Levine & Mason describe the landscape this way, “This now-ubiquitous presentation of gender dysphoria in troubled adolescents with previously gender-normative childhoods lacks a DSM-5-TR descriptor (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2022), leaving clinicians to refer to it by many names, including adolescent-onset gender dysphoria; postpuberty adolescent-onset transgender history; and rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD).” The Elkadi study clearly uses the terms “rapid-onset” and “adolescent-onset” GD synonymously, as do the Thompson study and the Sinai letter. It was pointed out that Elkadi was criticized but such disagreement is common and doesn’t establish which source is more credible. To say that Elkadi is shown to be fringe when it is cited by a source asserted to be fringe is not a serious criticism. It is cited in a peer-reviewed study, which gives it the same respect as every other source cited by that study.
Thompson is a review of other studies and has the indicia of a reliable source. I haven’t seen a consensus against including Thompson. What would the reasons be? The claim is made that Thompson is “a review of adolescent gender dysphoria in general, not of studies of ROGD.” The argument seems to be that when Thompson discussed “the phenomenon of adolescent- or rapid-onset GD (AOGD)” this did not indicate that in the view of the authors of the study both “adolescent-onset” and “rapid-onset” gender dysphoria were subsumed under the term “AOGD” and could be referenced by using this single descriptor. Is that the gist of the position being taken? How many are in that camp? Or is it the gist of the objection to Thompson that the authors are not qualified to make this observation? By my reckoning there are at least five sources affirming that “rapid-onset” and “adolescent-onset” GD are terms used by some sources to refer to the same phenomenon. This seems to be worthy of a mention.
Furthermore, if a substantial study like Thompson set out to study “adolescent- or rapid-onset GD (AOGD)” and found both an “absence of literature” and a “debate as to whether AOGD is a genuine phenomenon,” this would seem to conflict with an assertion that that same literature concludes that ROGD is “discredited.” Swood100 ( talk) 02:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Notes
References
Flounder fillet, regarding the {{ Infobox alternative diagnosis}} which you added, alternative medicine describes things like "New Age medicine, pseudo-medicine, unorthodox medicine, holistic medicine, fringe medicine, and unconventional medicine, with little distinction from quackery", and does not describe scientific theories that are proved incorrect, for example. This infobox is inappropriate; please remove it. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 01:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change ", who had not previously studied transgender health care or gender dysphoria" to " "
This statement is a judgement of valor and is not based on any evidence. Nolieonlytruth ( talk) 19:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Not done: this is supported by the cited source. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
In the recent changes to the lead, the word controversy was dropped. Controversy is the defining characteristic of ROGD, without which we wouldn't have this article. I've added it back to the lead sentence with a couple of pre-existing refs that directly support it. This created a bit of cite clutter given the two refs already there, so I've boldly bundled them for better flow. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 18:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 29 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Rapid-onset gender dysphoria. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
@ Snokalok with this edit you reverted the addition of additional reading with the following comment:
The Manhattan Institute is not a reliable source to recommend on trans issues
The deleted source is "Archives of Sexual Behavior", and a specific response to the other listed item in "further reading", co-authored by Lisa Littman.
Please reinstate.
Void if removed ( talk) 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subjectper WP:ELYES. For further information, see WP:EXTERNAL. But if Fire isn't convinced, then it will be fine. Zenomonoz ( talk) 01:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. Is that the case here?
Why would a letter to the editor ever be included as a due weight source, especially as an EL or Further reading no context link? It's not a published study, what reason does it have to be included? Seems like a clear violation of MEDRS. Silver seren C 05:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
In a letter to the editor, Littman responded that her methodologies were consistent with those that had been used, without controversy, in widely cited studies supporting gender identity affirmation health care. [28- WP:UNDUE and WP:MANDY applies
Some clinicians state that an increasing prevalence of trans youth first presenting in early adolescence, as described in Littman's research, is consistent with their patient population, though they are uncertain as to causes or implications for clinical treatment. [50] [51] [52- A letter to the editor, a primary study saying ROGD might be a thing, but needs further research and could have other explanations, and a "Special Section" in the ASB written by Zucker.
We originally set out to study the phenomenon of adolescent- or rapid-onset GD (AOGD) and found an absence of literature, leading to our broader search strategy. There continues debate as to whether AOGD is a genuine phenomenon: Bauer et al. (2022) [61] provided data to suggest it is not, but faced strong rebuttal from both Littman (2022) [62] and Sinai (2022) [63] in terms of the way that AOGD has been defined and clinician experience. It is clear that we simply do not know enough about the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD, nor do we fully understand the huge increase in numbers of adolescents (and especially NF) presenting for GD intervention in recent years, nor the comorbidities and long-term outcomes.
neutralmaterial, a requirement for point three, being a piece of opinion published by someone with massive amounts of stake in the subject. ELs aren't a place to post dump every place people related to the article have expressed their personal opinions as to why they're right. I'm also extremely skeptical of the framing with which it was included (as a "response") - we're not required to include every possible academic response; that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. What matters is the relative weight given to each source in high-quality sourcing. A letter to the editor is obviously not equal in weight to a peer-reviewed paper and should never be weighed equally in an article by putting it on equal footing in terms of placement, focus, amount of coverage, etc. The fact that this was included via a think tank like the Manhattan Institute is telling because it shows that, beyond not going through peer-review, it has only really received attention from people who are literally "hired guns" whose job is to promote the perspective it advocates, which clearly indicates that it's WP:UNDUE to be weighted equally to the Turban paper. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Why would a letter to the editor ever be included as a due weight source… It's not a published study, what reason does it have to be included?
This seems a bit excessive. Serious methodological critiques and comments are at least as valid as the studies they critique, more so to the extent they disclose flaws that impact the validity of the study. Here are two that are currently included in this article:
The due weight evaluation is performed by the journal publishing the letter. If a study is relevant to this article then a critique of it serious enough to be published in a top journal cannot be irrelevant.
And it is obviously not neutral material, a requirement for point three, being a piece of opinion published by someone with massive amounts of stake in the subject. ...The fact that this was included via a think tank like the Manhattan Institute is telling because it shows that, beyond not going through peer-review, it has only really received attention from people who are literally "hired guns" whose job is to promote the perspective it advocates, which clearly indicates that it's WP:UNDUE to be weighted equally to the Turban paper.
Not all criticism of FRINGE-criticism is FRINGE, but it is when it's by the proponents of the FRINGE theory in the first place.
These are the classical ad hominem argument: attacking the characteristics or authority of the writer instead of addressing the substance of what is written. Surely it can't be true that a given technical critique will be fringe if written by author A but not if written by author B. What is it about the letter that shows an absence of neutrality?
I'm also extremely skeptical of the framing with which it was included (as a "response") - we're not required to include every possible academic response; that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE.
This is the purpose of reliable sources. We count on them to weed out the minority views, fringe theories, and extraordinary claims that are the gist of WP:FALSEBALANCE. This journal determined that this critique deserved some of its limited space. What better evidence could there be for relevance? Swood100 ( talk) 23:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Mathglot: in response to this revert, sorry I couldn't find any discussion in the archives specifically on why the lead sentence is structured like this. Do you have a link to where it was discussed? Just don't understand why it would have been decided to word it in such a roundabout way instead of directly stating what ROGD is to start with. Thanks! Shapeyness ( talk) 13:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I've removed undiscussed changes that added unsupported original research to the defining sentence of the article. This article is one of the most contentious topics in the already designated contentious topics area of gender-related topics. The change to the WP:LEADSENTENCE by LesbianTiamat is a complete no-go, with a edit summary that failed to mention the addition of wording that defines ROGD as pseudoscience, an explosive assertion in Wikipedia's voice which is unsupported WP:Original research. The article body makes no such statement, and there is certainly no citation for it in the body. As the lead summarizes the body, this is off-limits for the lead, much less the defining sentence.
As far as the "Controversy surrounds" wording, it's possible that could be improved, and this page is the proper place to discuss that. I'm against fronting the term ROGD in the definition and pushing the term controversy after it, or out of the sentence entirey, as this whole topic is about the controversy. Fronting ROGD makes it appear that is a thing, or at least, a notable topic on its own, even if not settled science yet, as if maybe it just generated some controversy along the way worthy of discussion, like, say, in the way Einstein's 1905 special theory did. But there is no support for that syndrome-first view; this topic is all about the controversy, which is the central theme of the article, with people on all sides in high dudgeon on one side or another of the controversy, and all loudly declaiming their point of view. It is first and last a controversy; without the controversy, there is no article, as the controversy is the only thing that give the topic notability. Hundreds of "proposed diagnoses" or "syndromes" or what-have-you are coined and published on PLOS and in other journals; that's how a young researcher gets a name for themselves, if it catches on, so you can't blame them. But 99.9% of neologisms in academic articles either sink into obscurity, or retain some niche support within their own field but never get anywhere close to having a whole Wikipedia article about them, because they lack the notability for it.
There are probably thousands of articles on dysphoria-related topics; there is zero chance that this one, published in PLOS in 2018, would ever have a dedicated Wikipedia article about it, had it not provoked nationwide and international controversy. The lead sentence needs to reflect that, however we word it; pushing the term controversy to second billing is not the way to do that, in my opinion, although I'm open to any change that preserves the essential nature of this topic as a controversy. Mathglot ( talk) 04:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
far-right and anti-trans researchers have taken control of the narrative with pseudoscience like ROGD(emphasis mine). Now while that report on its own wouldn't be enough to support changing the lead, in conjunction with the array of sources presented in the September/October 2022 RfC that also describe it as pseudoscience, as well as any new papers that have been published in the last two years that also call it pseudoscience (there seems to be a couple from a quick Google Scholar search), and likely another RfC there may well be enough sources to actually change the lead and body content. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 04:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
More studies using both self and parent report measures would be needed to gain better insight in the existence of the ‘ROGD’ subtype.
ROGD uses scientific terminology and poses as science, while not being based on accepted scientific research. That is what pseudoscience is. Therefore, ROGD is pseudoscience.
explosive assertion, Mathglot is right that we currently don't have enough RSes for that to be inserted into the lede. ROGD is an unproven assertion not backed by any reliable studies, but we don't yet have enough sourcing for calling it pseudoscience directly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HandThatFeeds ( talk • contribs) 09:07, January 29, 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence should at the very least make it clear that there is no scientific or evidence based support for this thing. The term proposed makes it sound like there might be. Would anyone object to to changing 'proposed' to 'scientifically unsupported' in the first sentence?— blindlynx 20:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
We originally set out to study the phenomenon of adolescent- or rapid-onset GD (AOGD) and found an absence of literature, leading to our broader search strategy. There continues debate as to whether AOGD is a genuine phenomenon: Bauer et al. (2022) [61] provided data to suggest it is not, but faced strong rebuttal from both Littman (2022) [62] and Sinai (2022) [63] in terms of the way that AOGD has been defined and clinician experience. It is clear that we simply do not know enough about the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD, nor do we fully understand the huge increase in numbers of adolescents (and especially NF) presenting for GD intervention in recent years, nor the comorbidities and long-term outcomes.
the original one was retractedno, it was revised post-publication. That's different. Void if removed ( talk) 14:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
In the discussion above, I proposed a rough draft of a new lead that seemed to be met well. As the discussion has closed, I want to get people's thoughts on replacing the current lead with the following text.
Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is a proposed phenomenon where children identify as transgender and experience gender dysphoria due to peer influence and social contagion. 1 2 ROGD is not recognized as a valid mental health diagnosis by any major professional association, who discourage its use due to a lack of reputable scientific evidence for the concept, major methodological issues in existing research, and stigmatization of gender-affirming care for transgender youth. 1 2 3 4 The paper proposing the concept was based on a survey of parents on 3 anti-trans websites; 1 2 following its publication, it was re-reviewed and a correction was issued highlighting that ROGD is not a clinically validated phenomenon. 1 2 5 6 7 Since the paper's publication, the concept has frequently been cited in attempts to restrict or criminalize gender-affirming care for transgender youth. 1 2
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 07:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
ROGD is a discredited term referring to a proposed phenomenon where...to the first sentence of the proposed lead would alleviate those concerns? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 23:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
a sample of trans youthis misleading as one of the largest criticisms has been that parents, not trans youth, were surveyed. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 00:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello - this is a serious question - but can you not all see how incredibly partisan and biased you are all being with this piece? Just your user names alone are enough to show that you are in no way non-partisan and that you have a very clear and obvious agenda? If you really want to be of use to the world then you need to show some real effort into making an entirely balanced piece. The published page is currently terrible but the proposed edits are in some ways even worse. Who can be appealed to to actually look at this thing independently because you all quite clearly cannot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.58.36 ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Blindlynx, you've twice inserted your preferred wording into the WP:LEADSENTENCE of this highly contentious article. The sources do not support your version, and in any case, you shouldn't be reverting the article, the lead, and especially the definition against multiple editors. That means there isn't consensus about it. Please undo your last change. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
scientifically unsupportedor words to that effect. Just to take your three reasons:
scientifically unsupported.
fraudulent research paper,
discredited and deregistered Andrew Wakefield,
falsely claimed causative links,
fraud was exposedare all phrases that appear before the final sentence definitively saying
The scientific consensus on vaccines and autism is that there is no causal connection between MMR, or any other vaccine, and autism. In fact, these guidelines about fringe science (and to be clear, this paper is unambiguously WP:FRINGE because it's not consensus and not close to it, whether or not it's technically pseudoscience) are very clear about avoiding WP:FALSEBALANCE. Loki ( talk) 01:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
discredited and deregistered Andrew Wakefield,
falsely claimed causative links, or
fraud was exposedhave been used about Littman's research; if they have, please add them to the article and I will withdraw my objection. At this point, we don't yet know what future research will show, and it's too early to make a statement like that in the lead sentence in Wikipedia's voice. We, as editors, don't get to decide what is fringe science, we rely on reliable sources for that. Please self-revert while the discussion is going on. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
overwhelming evidencedisagrees with it. Scientific American says that
a steadily growing body of scientific evidence demonstrates that [Littman's theory] does not reflect transgender adolescents’ experiencesand quotes the head of WPATH saying
"To even say it’s a hypothesis at this point, based on the paucity of research on this, I think is a real stretch". CAAPS says
there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents. WPATH says that Littman's correction to her paper
effectively disproves her own initial report. In scientific language, this is very strong condemnation, and indicates that actual authorities in the topic area don't just think the theory is controversial or unproven, they think it's false.
There continues debate as to whether AOGD is a genuine phenomenon
It is clear that we simply do not know enough about the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD
"adolescent-onset gender dysphoria (AOGD)" added as an alternative name in the ledeI don't think that's warranted. That paper is the third part of a three paper series ( paper 1, paper 2), and it's the only one to even mention ROGD or AOGD. If the purpose of the series was to study what they're referring to as either AOGD or ROGD, you'd expect that to be mentioned throughout.
wholly out of scope of that paper.Agreed, and the way these little remarks were taken out of context and then blown up shows why it's important to consider whether such statements are WP:DUE, and whether the text in the article is actually representing sources accurately. Hist9600 ( talk) 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The full context is that the entire first section is about epidemiologyThe first paper makes no mention of ROGD, nor does it cite Littman's paper.
This is the "observed phenomenon" referred to succinctly in the above quote.This sounds like SYNTH, combining findings from paper 1 and applying that to paper 3. The first paper in the series makes no remarks on an "observed phenomenon" by that term or any similar phrasing. Nor do the first or second papers use this AOGD acronym or its constituent parts. Only the third paper does, in one paragraph of its discussion section.
unable to report on age of onset of GD as this was rarely reported. They were only able to find one paper that had information on age of onset, the others only had age of referral. What is more likely the case here is that when the authors state that
we simply don't know enough about the observed phenomenon, it is a remark on how few papers actually report the age of onset. That isn't a comment on ROGD though, just on the lack of research.
Turban is an outlier in claiming there is no "observed phenomenon" hereTurban's paper wasn't included in the review, primarily because despite being published in 2023 the review's cut-off date was some time around 2 November 2020 according to the first paper. In fact, with the exception of a commentary by de Vries, all of the cited papers in the further research section of the article were published after the cut-off date of this review. Turban's 2022 research is quite simply newer than this review, despite their relative publishing dates.
Even though it concludes we don't know, it finds quite conclusively that there is something unexplained.No, it doesn't. None of the three papers cited in the brief remark in the third paper are cited elsewhere in the review. And the first part of the review has no remarks on an unexplained phenomenon. Only the third paper in the series does, and it's really unclear why they've asserted it other than perhaps based on the paper by Bauer and the response letters by Littman and Sinai. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This sounds like SYNTH
1. What is the prevalence of GD in adolescence?
2. What are the proportions of natal males / females with GD in adolescence (a) and has this changed over time (b)?
3. What is the pattern of age at (a) onset (b) referral (c) assessment (d) treatment?
4. What is the pattern of mental health problems in this population?
5. What treatments have been used to address GD in adolescence?
6. What outcomes are associated with treatment/s for GD in adolescence?
7. What are the long-term outcomes for all (treated or otherwise) in this population?
The present paper focuses on questions 1, 2, 3a, 3b, and 3c. We shall address question 4 in a second paper, and questions 3d, and 5–7 in a final paper. The methodology below includes the searches conducted for the whole review.
A newer source that is of lower quality does not supersede an older source of higher quality.
Turban et al (2022) claims there is no shift in sex ratioIncorrect. Turban reports that there was a relative increase in the number of AFAB youth between 2017 and 2019, going from an AMAF:AFAB ratio of 1.5:1 to 1.2:1, but that this more due to an absolute decrease in the numbers of AMAB youth than an absolute increase in the numbers of AFAB youth.
The cutoff is irrelevant when the published papers are olderHere you're quoting from WP:MEDDATE, and that would potentially be appropriate if the review actually supported what you're trying to use it for. However paper 1 doesn't support any commentary on ROGD, because it quite explicitly states that the authors
were unable to report on age of onset of GD as this was rarely reported.
And questioning why the authors mentioned ROGD is not really relevantIt is entirely relevant when the papers on ROGD, including Littman's original paper, were not included in the review. We cannot cite this paper in this article, because the subject of this article was not included within the scope of the review. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Incorrect
In August 2023, a PRISMA systematic review into rapid- or adolescent-onset gender dysphoria (AOGD) found an absence of literature
We originally set out to study the phenomenon of adolescent- or rapid-onset GD (AOGD) and found an absence of literature, leading to our broader search strategy.
As far as I can tell, Swood is mischaracterizing this review pretty severely. It's a review of adolescent gender dysphoria in general, not of studies of ROGD.You've done the exact same thing - and I've been scratching my head wondering how anyone gets from "we wrote a review on this" from "we wanted to write a review on this, but didn't and reviewed a larger topic instead" (ie, explicitly stating they did not write a review on this)
Alongside our international colleagues, the founding multidisciplinary team also became aware of the increase of presentations of what was termed late-onset, rapid-onset, or adolescent-onset GD. This group of adolescents, predominantly female, had no prior history of gender distress during early development and presented with sudden-onset gender-related distress. The absence of prior history raised questions that this particular group of adolescents were being drawn to the construct of gender dysphoria because of some evolving social process.
simply are not justified by the data. This paper then goes on to express significant methodological concerns about Elkadi's work, and remark how they misrepresent and misinterpret their findings.
A 2023 systematic review of gender dysphoria in adolescence found there had not been enough studies to do a review of ROGD specifically.
Our over-arching aim was to establish ‘what does the literature tell us about gender dysphoria in adolescence?’and
We were unable to report on age of onset of GD as this was rarely reported.
gender dysphoria in adolescence"(gender dysphoria experienced during adolescence, which may be a continuation of pre-adolescent dysphoria),
ROGD(the theory that trans youth are suddenly getting gender dysphoria out of the blue at puberty due to catching trans from the internet and their friends), and
the ratio of transmasculine to transfeminine youth seeking careare distinct topics. It is SYNTH to conflate them and say an article on the first saying "this is not about the second" is actually about the second because it commented on the third. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
the ratio of transmasculine to transfeminine youth seeking care are distinct topics
[You] put in a limited - one-sentence - mentionthat calls a review explicitly not about ROGD
a PRISMA systematic review into rapid- or adolescent-onset gender dysphoria (AOGD). Multiple editors are trying to point out this is a gross misrepresentation of the source.
In August 2023, a PRISMA systematic review into rapid- or adolescent-onset gender dysphoria (AOGD) found an absence of literatureis not only misrepresenting the review's scope, it's painting a misleading picture of the relevant dates. They found an absence of literature years before the publish date, hence why they researched something else. They didn't find an absence in August 2023, as the study did not take anything in 2023 into account.
gender dysphoria in adolescence(the subject of the review) does not equal
rapid-/adolescent-onset gender dysphoria(explicitly not the subject). The same way a systematic review of
homosexuality in adolescencewouldn't transubstantiate into a review of
adolescent-onset homosexualityjust because the authors said
we wanted to study adolescent-onset homosexuality and couldn't find enough literature so we reviewed homosexuality in adolescence instead, also there's a debate whether adolescent-onset homosexuality is even a thing.
there was already a consensus against including this. Which I think this discussion has made clear there wasn't, there was seeming consensus for a one-sentence inclusion. So why not improve the sentence?
In August 2023 a PRISMA systematic review into adolescent gender dysphoria literature noted that rapid- or adolescent-onset dysphoria continued to be a subject of debate.
it would not outweigh dozens of medical organizations coming together to say "there is no evidence this exists
One controversial suggestion ascribes the increase in sudden onset GD in adolescence to a social phenomenon termed rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD). The argument, initially emerging from interviews with parents of transgender youths, effectively runs that a social contagion fuelled by social media leads to peer group-GD, reflecting a social coping mechanism for other issues. The polarisation of the subsequent debate will be familiar to all, with many experts and scientific bodies critical of the research and concept. However, others recognise the need to thoroughly investigate one of the few offered explanations for the recent demographic changes.
[...] Indeed, the role of social media in not just ROGD but more broadly in GD and perhaps separately in the increase in childhood mental health problems is overdue serious academic exploration.
Void, you are galloping further into WP:IDHT territory. [You] put in a limited - one-sentence - mention that calls a review explicitly not about ROGD a PRISMA systematic review into rapid- or adolescent-onset gender dysphoria (AOGD). Multiple editors are trying to point out this is a gross misrepresentation of the source.
On a related note, In August 2023, a PRISMA systematic review into rapid- or adolescent-onset gender dysphoria (AOGD) found an absence of literature is not only misrepresenting the review's scope, it's painting a misleading picture of the relevant dates. They found an absence of literature years before the publish date, hence why they researched something else. They didn't find an absence in August 2023, as the study did not take anything in 2023 into account.
To try and clear this up a final time, gender dysphoria in adolescence (the subject of the review) does not equal rapid-/adolescent-onset gender dysphoria (explicitly not the subject).
The same way a systematic review of homosexuality in adolescence wouldn't transubstantiate into a review of adolescent-onset homosexuality just because the authors said we wanted to study adolescent-onset homosexuality and couldn't find enough literature so we reviewed homosexuality in adolescence instead
also there's a debate whether adolescent-onset homosexuality is even a thing.
Additionally, including the review in the article would have no effect on the lead, since "we have no data on this and aren't even sure it's real" doesn't mean "scientifically unsupported" is incorrect.
And it would not outweigh dozens of medical organizations coming together to say "there is no evidence this exists, the study proposing it was irredeemably flawed and the very premise is pathologizing".
The "debate" only exists to ROGD supporters. Scientifically there is no actual backing for the existence of it. There is no reason we should be giving credence to this.
The Thompson study questions whether the available scientific literature on adolescent gender dysphoria provides sufficient evidence to adequately inform clinical decision making.
These aren't conclusions of that paper but a general call for more research into the topic.
Further that particular moment of discourse is already covered in the 'further research' section of the article
The issue is it's a study about something else and using it as an authoritative source about something it is not looking into---even if it initially set out to---is wp:undue.
If a study puts in extensive effort to find all the scientific literature concerning ROGD and reports that a legitimate debate exists as to whether ROGD has a scientific basis but that there is insufficient evidence to form a conclusion either way, then this cannot be described as reporting something it was not looking into. Are you saying that the authors were not qualified to make these observations or that with respect to these remarks this study is not a reliable source?
We already have the Bauer (and teh Ferrara et.al.) papers and Sinai and Littman's letters cited, i really don't see what the Thompson paper adds given it's about something else
Thompson adds a different perspective. It set out to examine and report on all the available scientific literature on ROGD, something the other studies did not attempt to do. Swood100 ( talk) 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The only thing that study says about ROGD is that there isn't enough research to do a systemic review, so the authors did something else.
That's it, the paper is not about this topic. You are putting way to much weight on one paragraph in this paper
Thompson was a three-part study that originally set out to do a systematic review of the scientific literature concerning "adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria," which it characterized as "the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD," but found insufficient literature and so broadened the scope of the study. [1] [a] It noted that there is a debate in the scientific community as to whether "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" is a genuine phenomenon, [b] and questioned whether the literature on adolescent gender dysphoria provides evidence to inform clinical decision making adequately. [c] The study also noted that we do not understand "the huge increase in numbers of adolescents (and especially [natal females]) presenting for [gender dysphoria] intervention in recent years, nor the comorbidities and long-term outcomes." [d]
concerning "adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria," which it characterized as "the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD,"is tautological (it's basically
the term, which they define as the thing defined by the term)
questioned whether the literature on adolescent gender dysphoria provides evidence to inform clinical decision making adequatelyis not related to ROGD and is irrelevant.
This increase is cited by Littman and others in support of the thesis that a social cause could be involvedcontinues to be WP:OR, and the second source cited there doesn't even support it.
On the other hand, studies such as Rosenthal conclude that the increase does not represent a real rise in the number of cases, but is the result of those with gender dysphoria being now more willing to come forward, because of greater societal acceptanceignores that Rosenthal is a review, not a study.
Thompson et al. 2023 initially sought to examine "adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria AOGD)" but found insufficient literature, leading them to review research on gender dysphoria in adolescence published prior to November 2, 2020. They found insufficient data to report on the age of onset of dysphoria and stated there is debate as to whether AOGD is a genuine phenomenon.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 23:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
1) concerning "adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria," which it characterized as "the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD," is tautological (it's basically the term, which they define as the thing defined by the term)
2) questioned whether the literature on adolescent gender dysphoria provides evidence to inform clinical decision making adequately is not related to ROGD and is irrelevant.
3) the footnote in d This increase is cited by Littman and others in support of the thesis that a social cause could be involved continues to be WP:OR, and the second source cited there doesn't even support it.
I agree with YFNS. Swood's version is too long and gives WP:UNDUE weight to a study that didn't actually investigate ROGD.
there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents.,
Despite the lack of evidence for ROGD and its significant potential for creating harm,
Terms, such as ROGD, that further stigmatize and limit access to gender-affirming and evidence-based care,
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
the lack of reputable scientific evidence to support its clinical utility) and even the paper's correction which made a large point of highlighting that the diagnosis is not clinically validated.
if it's published in a reliable journal, then it's still evidence. The original paper said "ROGD is a real phenomenon because these parents said so", the university publicly apologized for how bad the methodology was, how unsupported the claims were, and the fact it passed peer-review in the first place. The correction came after a post-publication review, which forced the paper to change it's entire premise from "this is real" to "it may be real but it is not clinically validated this is real". Importantly, a lot of the sources on misinformation about ROGD highlight that those citing the paper to claim it's definitely real tend to cite the original, not the correction. While the correction is peer-reviewed scientific evidence that some parents think ROGD is real, the original paper was considered very explicitly by major health bodies and the journal itself to not be evidence that ROGD is real. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
In the revised version of Littman’s 2018 paper she pointed out a “controversy over whether what is described as rapid onset of gender dysphoria, particularly in natal females, falls under the existing definition of late-onset or adolescent-onset gender dysphoria or whether it represents a new kind of development or presentation.” Abbruzzese, Levine & Mason describe the landscape this way, “This now-ubiquitous presentation of gender dysphoria in troubled adolescents with previously gender-normative childhoods lacks a DSM-5-TR descriptor (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2022), leaving clinicians to refer to it by many names, including adolescent-onset gender dysphoria; postpuberty adolescent-onset transgender history; and rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD).” The Elkadi study clearly uses the terms “rapid-onset” and “adolescent-onset” GD synonymously, as do the Thompson study and the Sinai letter. It was pointed out that Elkadi was criticized but such disagreement is common and doesn’t establish which source is more credible. To say that Elkadi is shown to be fringe when it is cited by a source asserted to be fringe is not a serious criticism. It is cited in a peer-reviewed study, which gives it the same respect as every other source cited by that study.
Thompson is a review of other studies and has the indicia of a reliable source. I haven’t seen a consensus against including Thompson. What would the reasons be? The claim is made that Thompson is “a review of adolescent gender dysphoria in general, not of studies of ROGD.” The argument seems to be that when Thompson discussed “the phenomenon of adolescent- or rapid-onset GD (AOGD)” this did not indicate that in the view of the authors of the study both “adolescent-onset” and “rapid-onset” gender dysphoria were subsumed under the term “AOGD” and could be referenced by using this single descriptor. Is that the gist of the position being taken? How many are in that camp? Or is it the gist of the objection to Thompson that the authors are not qualified to make this observation? By my reckoning there are at least five sources affirming that “rapid-onset” and “adolescent-onset” GD are terms used by some sources to refer to the same phenomenon. This seems to be worthy of a mention.
Furthermore, if a substantial study like Thompson set out to study “adolescent- or rapid-onset GD (AOGD)” and found both an “absence of literature” and a “debate as to whether AOGD is a genuine phenomenon,” this would seem to conflict with an assertion that that same literature concludes that ROGD is “discredited.” Swood100 ( talk) 02:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Notes
References
Flounder fillet, regarding the {{ Infobox alternative diagnosis}} which you added, alternative medicine describes things like "New Age medicine, pseudo-medicine, unorthodox medicine, holistic medicine, fringe medicine, and unconventional medicine, with little distinction from quackery", and does not describe scientific theories that are proved incorrect, for example. This infobox is inappropriate; please remove it. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 01:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change ", who had not previously studied transgender health care or gender dysphoria" to " "
This statement is a judgement of valor and is not based on any evidence. Nolieonlytruth ( talk) 19:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Not done: this is supported by the cited source. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
In the recent changes to the lead, the word controversy was dropped. Controversy is the defining characteristic of ROGD, without which we wouldn't have this article. I've added it back to the lead sentence with a couple of pre-existing refs that directly support it. This created a bit of cite clutter given the two refs already there, so I've boldly bundled them for better flow. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 18:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)