1w ago

Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation – The White House (cw transphobia)

www.whitehouse.gov Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation – The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Policy and

I'm fucking crying. Also bans healthcare for 18 year olds. They're coming for adults too (I mean obviously).

Erin Reed thread

You're viewing a single thread.

31 comments

This references rapid onset gender dysphoria.
ROGD is garbage. The term was coined by littman, who used dogshit methodology to study the “phenomenon”. The paper required corrections, brown university distanced themselves from her (kind of, sort of defending her) and dozens of outlets responded outlining the methodology flaws, including the APA
Of the several methodology flaws the biggest was sampling bias. she recruited her subjects through known anti trans groups online. This was outlined in the paper but not discussed as a potential flaw before the corrections
Of course culture wars latched on to this. fox news, breitbart, etc latched on to how she was being censored for her narrative going against the “woke agenda” (conveniently leaving out she manipulated her sample to be biased for parents that were upset and angry about their kids being trans)
Several studies occurred in the interim. Bauer found no evidence for rogd. Littman said their definition was incorrect. Ferrara did note there is still room to explore the issue and Arnoldussen found there was rationale for future study towards an “ROGD” subtype, though they were clear at this point there was no evidence for such a thing.
So at this point we have this social contagion theory, one (deeply flawed) paper supporting it, one not, and two saying “maybe?”. The evidence is obscenely weak.
Then another paper comes out by bailey and Diaz. This was a shitshow. This basically was the littman paper all over again. Like literally! They acknowledge this! parentsofrogdkids.com is literally the fucking website they sampled from!
But the shitshow here is that the paper was retracted. It was retracted because of informed consent issues, and fairly quickly. So you’re passionate about this issue and you’re like “yeah, fuck them, retract that”. But here’s the thing: it takes a lot for a paper to get retracted. Like serious malfeasance. The Wakefield mmr study got retracted. It took a long time, and it was because he falsified data and had a vested financial interest in a competing product to the mmr vaccine. That study is instrumental in the “vaccines cause autism” sentiment, it was tremendously destructive.
So the issue here is informed consent (which frankly should’ve been picked up by the publisher, and arguably isn’t even an issue because it’s anonymous Internet forum data that did have a semblance of consent but whatever). But the issue here is similar to the littman issue: optics. It’s arguable the main reason this was retracted was because it was a heavily controversial topic with many eyes on it done poorly. But now there’s another “academics are censoring our narrative” because of the heavy handed response.
See https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4819394-publisher-to-retract-paper-on-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria
A moms discussion forum, thread on the topic, first few replies:
I wonder how many other studies based on survey data will be subjected to retraction because of ethical consent? This is another worrying example of research that doesn’t fit the narrative being silenced.
It would be interesting to know how many of the trans suicide statistics publications meet this standard. But yes, informed data consent is absolutely important
They reference a student doctor forum thread, which discusses the paper far more fairly, including the actual methodology flaws. And yet, no one reaches that point.
Why does this matter? Because these people get propelled when they are perceived as unfairly censured. When littman was going through the intense debate post her censure her narratives were amplified heavily. Abigail Shrier, who wrote a book in this period about ROGD (that involved future retracted “scientist” bailey), was suddenly invited to be on Joe Rogan. Littman herself was on megyn Kelly.
Anyway these people clearly aren’t interested in science. They’re interested in cherry picking data using obviously flawed methodology.
The hypocrisy is obviously infuriating. If I studied trans issues and pulled my subjects from blahaj and hexbear to ensure I got supportive results I would be crucified and rightly so. But we are in crazy bullshit times where people don’t understand basic experimental design (but will still speak authoritatively in the face of those who do) and as a result we are in a space where people are genuinely going to be harmed
I provide pediatric and adult mental health care. I provide gender affirming care. I have for over a decade now. I have written countless letters approving hrt for children and adults as well as surgery letters for adults. I am generally fearful for my freedom and safety. I am very sad for my clients, who for the last week have been extremely upset about not getting their federal documents updated in time. Now they will be in a significantly worse space. Treatment will be interrupted. Treatment that has been desired for a long time will have to delayed even more. People will turn to unsafe black market options.
Fuck this
- A moms discussion forum, thread on the topic, first few replies:
  Just to be clear, mumsnet is widely regarded as 4chan with a glass of prosecco. I would not just say "moms discussion forum" when priming people for what it is or just how reactionary the people there are.
  
  Good to know. I was completely unfamiliar, it just showed up as like the third result when I was pulling up links to the bailey study.
  What a shocker they’re pushed up google search results! That’s what I get for using startpage, which is still tainted by googles algorithm bullshit
  
  it just showed up as like the third result when I was pulling up links to the bailey study
  Mumsnet is probably the largest base of terfs on the internet. It's foundational to the terf movement.
  
  They’ll probably be used for recruiting in one of these studies
  I mean this completely unironically. This is the methodology flaw to be absolutely clear. Littman devised this social contagion theory, that gender dysphoria is socially inflicted. That peer influence is what makes your kid trans.
  She then specifically sought out forums critical of transgender people. “4thwavenow”, “transgender trend”, and “youth transcritical professionals”. These websites opposed gender affirming care for youth and “trans ideology”
  She claims she asked people on these sites to spread the survey beyond the sites but specifically sought out “parents who believed their children had ROGD”. At the time this was a term she had coined. This is still not a recognized term by anyone credible and definitely was not then
  Shockingly horrid methodology flaws. Additionally leaked emails from these communities show failures to disclose conflicts of interest and arguably show littman and several other psychologists in these communities were working backwards, eg they had the idea that this was idea absolutely true and were looking for confirmation. It is possible from the start they were not interested in any possibility of finding data that did not support their hypothesis and their actions appear to support this belief, eg they were putting their thumb on the scale in their favor
- There's this sartre quote, about how anti-semites don't care if they are talking garbage, the point is not to be logically consitent.
  
  "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semite has the right to play."

31 comments