A study published by Brown University argues that it is possible some youtube experience gender dysphoria due to peer pressure and trends among their peer groups. They call this "rapid onset gender dysphoria." Brown has pulled down a press release about the study due to community pressure, with people saying it could undermine trans rights. But is there truth to the study? Is it possible that young people are simply trying to be trendy, or is it just that our society is more accepting of trans people and now our youth feel safe and comfortable expressing how they really feel?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Science isn't always easy, because often scientific research will clash with political ideology.
I mean, look at the famous story of the heliocentric universe.
We know that sometimes the truth isn't popular.
Now we're seeing another controversy.
Brown University has recently retracted a press release about a study they published on what's called rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
This is an idea that young people are becoming trans because of peer pressure, that they spend too much time on YouTube, they spend too much time on Tumblr, and then start believing that they are gender dysphoric.
Now, people in the trans community are saying this is junk science, and that it's actually erasing the experiences of many trans people.
There's an argument that the reason we're seeing an increase in so many transgender individuals is because the public is now being more accepting of it, and thus young people have less to fear by coming out.
So let's take a look at exactly what this study is, and let's take a look at the arguments on both sides, and the argument as to why Brown University took down this press release.
So we'll start with Science Daily.
Rapid-onset gender dysphoria, August 22, 2018.
Summary.
Rapid-onset gender dysphoria might spread through groups of friends and may be a harmful coping mechanism, a new study suggests, but more research is needed.
Until recently, it was unusual for a teen to report initial feelings of gender dysphoria during or after puberty without childhood symptoms.
Clinicians have reported this kind of gender dysphoria is on the rise, particularly for patients whose sex was observed to be female at birth.
Additionally, the numbers of adolescents seeking care for gender dysphoria has increased dramatically.
It is unknown why these changes are occurring.
This month, a Brown University researcher published the first study to empirically describe teens and young adults who did not have symptoms of gender dysphoria during childhood, but who were observed by their parents to rapidly develop gender dysphoria symptoms over days, weeks, or months during or after puberty.
Littman surveyed more than 250 parents of children who suddenly developed gender dysphoria symptoms during or after puberty.
She said she wanted to better understand the phenomenon, which seems to be on the rise, but had been considered atypical even just a few years ago.
Gender dysphoria is defined as the emotional distress a person feels because of the difference between their experienced gender identity and their sex observed at birth.
Gender dysphoria is not the same as gender nonconformity, or not following the stereotypes of one's assigned gender.
The children of the parents surveyed were more than 80% female at birth and ranged between 11 and 27 years old at the time of the survey, with an average age of 16.
Additionally, 47% of the children were reported as academically gifted, and 41% expressed a non-heterosexual sexual orientation prior to their gender dysphoria symptoms.
Most of the parent respondents were female, white, and U.S.
residents.
In the 90-question survey, Littman asked the parents about each of the eight indicators for gender dysphoria in childhood that are detailed by the American Psychiatric Association.
To meet the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria in childhood, a child needs to experience at least six of the eight indicators.
Most include readily observable signs, such as a strong rejection of typically feminine or masculine toys and games, and a strong resistance to wearing typically feminine or masculine clothes.
80% of the parents reported observing none of these indicators in their children before puberty.
Among the noteworthy patterns Litman found in the survey data, 21% of parents reported their child had one or more friends become transgender identified at around the same time, 20% reported an increase in their child's social media use around the same time as experienced gender dysphoria symptoms, and 45% reported both.
The pattern of clusters of teens in friend groups becoming transgender-identified, the group dynamics of these friend groups, and the types of advice viewed online led her to the hypothesis that friends and online sources could spread certain beliefs.
Examples include the belief that non-specific symptoms, such as feeling uncomfortable in their own skin or feeling like they don't fit in, which could be part of normal puberty or associated with
trauma, should be perceived as gender dysphoria.
The belief that the only path to happiness is transition, and the belief that anyone who disagrees with the teen is
transphobic and should be cut out of their life.
Of the parents who provided information about their child's friendship group,
about a third responded that more than half of the kids in the friendship group
became transgender identified.
Littman said, A group with 50% of its members becoming transgender
identified represents a rate that is more 70 times the expected
prevalence for young adults.
Now I apologize for reading so much of that study, but it's important you at least understand some of this
because the science is being disputed and there are potentially some good reasons to dispute it.
But first, let's start with what happened.
Brown University pulled down their press release.
From the Free Beacon, Brown University censors gender dysmorphia study.
Ivy League claims commitment to academic freedom despite censorship.
Brown University is censoring findings from its own study on transgender youth, which found evidence that teens can be influenced by social media and their friend circles to want to change their gender identity.
Brown took down a news article about the study on rapid-onset gender dysphoria, a phenomenon where teens in a friend group who never experienced questions about their gender before suddenly identify as transgender at the same time.
This occurs typically after a flood of social media use and binge-watching YouTube videos about transitioning.
Brown said it removed the news article about its own study's findings after community members complained that the study's results were anti-transgender youth.
Though Brown censored academic findings from its own behavioral scientist, the school claims it affirms the commitment to academic freedom.
The School of Public Health has heard from Brown community members expressing concerns that the conclusions of the study could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community, said Bess Marcus, the dean of Brown's School of Public Health, in a statement on the controversy.
The university and school have always affirmed the importance of academic freedom and the value of rigorous debate informed by research.
The idea that they would take down a scientific study because its ideas could be used to discredit a particular group is rather shocking.
Of course science will sometimes discredit certain groups.
If a study came out on climate change and it discredited people who don't believe in climate change, we're not going to take it down because people are upset by it.
But this starts getting into the area of protected classes.
And people are a protected class based on their gender identity.
And this is where things start getting murky.
But!
There is actually some good reason to question the study itself.
I don't know about taking the study down, but some pro-trans groups have pointed out some potential flaws in the research.
In a media post by Giulia Serrano, they point out some interesting issues with the study.
In the article it reads, but isn't there a research study on rapid-onset gender dysphoria?
And she states, To date, only one research study on ROGD has been published.
It is authored by Dr. Lisa Littman, and appeared in Plus One a few days ago. There are numerous
problems with this study, as Zinnia Jones and Bren Tannehill detailed in their critiques
of an earlier rendition of the same study back when it appeared as a non-peer-reviewed
poster in the Journal of Adolescent Health. For starters, this was not a study on the children
themselves, but rather their parents, who were instructed to fill out a 90-question survey about
their adolescent and young adult children.
What's even more troubling is how this sample set of parents was selected.
Recruitment information with a link to the survey was placed on three websites where parents and professionals had been observed to describe rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
Fourth Wave Now, Transgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals.
In other words, this supposed study of rapid-onset gender dysphoria is entirely based on the opinions of parents who frequent the very same three blogs that invented and vociferously promote the concept of ROGD.
Frankly, this is the most blatant example of begging the question that I have ever seen in a research paper.
The fact that Littman didn't even bother to post a link to the survey on any of the many other online groups for parents of trans kids, i.e.
ones that do not push an ROGD agenda, and who thus might have different assessments of their adolescent trans children, strongly suggests that she purposefully structured her study to confirm the former parents' assumptions rather than objectively assess the state of their children.
Now full disclosure, Julia Serrano is a trans woman, and may be biased in favor of the trans community.
And she does bring up good points about how this study was actually done.
However, when doing a study, if they want to find the perspective of certain parents who are experiencing someone, then they would go to certain websites.
Simply because those sites are claiming that something may or may not be true, doesn't mean that the survey should be invalidated.
Because we don't necessarily know what all of the survey questions were, And it's possible the survey questions were rather vague and neutral and were simply trying to assess certain things about these children.
And thus we have the great conundrum as it pertains to science.
I don't see any evidence to suggest that Lisa Littman is biased against trans people or trying to pursue a narrative or agenda or politics.
This seems to be a researcher with Brown who saw something that may or may not be true, maybe read a website, and then tried to explore it a little bit further, even admitting that more research needs to be done.
And many of the people criticizing her study are actually trans people themselves, so naturally they're going to be biased.
And that leaves us with the conundrum of who do you trust?
Do we believe those critics who claim that the methodology was flawed?
Or do we believe the researcher?
We know that she was sourcing parents who already kind of believed this to be the case.
So is it possible that the reporting, the study, is actually flawed from the get-go?
But even if it is, should we get rid of it?
Or should we challenge its assumptions and do more research?
If Lisa Lippman put out this study claiming more research needed to be done, and that many parents were reporting these symptoms and these effects happening with their children, then isn't it fair to claim that we should actually look into this and research this more?
Brown says that this research could be a detriment to those advocating for trans rights.
Is that a reason to tape down science?
This is the trouble we're going to face as we move forward with the scientific community and the political community because they often do butt heads.
There are so many times where science is going to undermine some kind of political agenda and it's going to be Well, it's going to be controversial.
There are certainly people who are gender dysphoric, and they deserve our support and our protection.
And it's possible that some people are just easily influenced, so the study may actually be accurate.
We don't know.
We need to do science.
And this is the challenge.
Do we pursue science that undermines a particular group of protected individuals?
Or do we say we simply can't ignore science because a group of people is protected?
Basically, every protected class can be subjected to some kind of science that could potentially undermine their group.
But one thing is true, and we can look at this story from the New York Times.
Estimates of U.S.
transgender population doubles to 1.4 million adults.
So we know that the amount of trans people is going up dramatically.
And there's two arguments to this.
One, you have people saying it's rapid-onset gender dysphoria, that it's a trend.
Because their friends are doing it, because it's becoming popular, they want to get in on this and engage in it as well.
And I have heard anecdotes from people who talk about their typical female friends who go off to college, and then all of a sudden one day, they're trans.
I have friends who were straight, hetero females, and went off to college and came back with their heads shaved and were dramatically different.
That doesn't mean they weren't trans from the get-go, and that's the other side of the argument.
The public is more accepting of transgender individuals, and thus you're going to see more of them.
Before, when it wasn't as accepted and wasn't in the media, people who were trans were probably too worried about coming out because they would be shunned, ostracized, or in some instances, I don't know what's actually going on.
even killed.
So as society becomes more accepting of trans individuals, don't be surprised when you see
the numbers of those reporting being trans go up because they feel safer doing so.
I don't know what's actually going on.
I know that science usually is the right way to go, and I don't think it's right to pull
down a study because it might undermine a political agenda or undermine certain individuals.
It is a serious challenge, because human rights, individual rights need to be protected, but
at the same time, we can't ignore science simply because we're political.
This is something that affects the left and the right.
Both sides can become anti-science at times, and whether or not this is a true case of junk science or normal research in the course of pursuing truth is It's something we're gonna have to figure out.
So let me know what you think in the comments below.
How do you feel about this?
Do you think rapid-onset gender dysphoria is real?
Or do you think it's right-wing biased junk science attempting to impede the advancements of trans rights?
Again, comment below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
New videos every day at 4 p.m.
And new videos on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.