Jump to content

Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skryba2000 (talk | contribs) at 14:13, 9 June 2022 (→‎Dr Littman's new (2021) article: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Time to close the RfC?

    There hasn't been any further input on it in over 10 days. Seems like time to solicit an admin to re-close it. SilverserenC 17:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, I'd agree. My opinion on that hasn't really changed since 12 January. Do a request for closure. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    -sche has requested the closure at WP:CR, so I'll be going over the multiple discussions on this talk page and other relevant pages. Although I don't see myself as involved, I'd understand if a participant would rather someone else close it. If that's the case, ping me here or leave a message at my talk page and I will let someone else close the discussion. Thank you. Isabelle 🔔 16:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    4thWaveNow.com down and out or temporary problem?

    So I thought I should look at the website in question, 4thWaveNow.com, but I cannot access it using Chrome (Windows PC) or Safari (iPhone) [ ERR_CONNECTION_CLOSED ]. Temporary problem or galaxy-wide conspiracy to destroy 4th waves?! :^O Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It worked for me a few days ago and it is working for me again now. I guess it was just a temporary technical glitch or maintenance that passed too quickly for anybody even to get a conspiratorial hashtag trending on Twitter. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! Yes, it is working for me too. :-) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pseudoscientific - yes

    Bodney recently added back the adjective "pseudoscientific" to the article's first sentence (diff). I agree that so-called "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" is pseudoscientific because the concept was developed without systematic practices usually followed to develop hypotheses, such as:

    • an attitude of detachment and skepticism;
    • considering alternative explanations;
    • systematically collecting data in an unbiased manner;
    • establishing diagnostic criteria which are then subject to studies of inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity;
    • surveying mental health professionals to ascertain their opinions regarding the concept's reliability, validity, and utility; and
    • seeking evaluation by other experts.

    If you disagree with this assessment, please explain your rationale. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 17:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    As an aside, I believe that the plethora of media (including social media) presentations on the topic, which vary in quality from the scientific to the absurd, have led some adolescents—who are influenced by their peer groups who have been influenced by the same media—to jump to conclusions about their gender identity and to subsequently seek treatment for gender dysphoria before it is probably warranted. It is a social phenomenon that deserves attention, analysis, and civil discussion. Unfortunately, by reflexively calling it a mental disorder, legitimate debate has been stymied. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As the editor who originally added "pseudoscientific", it is clear that the concept is pseudoscientific.
    Any "concept" which is not accepted in the DSM, has been refuted by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, and has no current peer-reviewed supporting evidence beyond one researcher and a retracted paper with clear design flaws, is pseudoscientific.
    The fact that the edit was disputed at all is unfortunate evidence of bias, as I understand that certain groups of people very much want this "concept" to be validated. However, until legitimate scientific evidence is produced, the "concept" shall remain pseudoscientific. Strokesfan42 (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like completely unnecessary OR. Are there reliable sources calling the concept pseudoscience? If not, it should be removed, if so, it should stay. Equivamp - talk 01:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the above is WP:Original research. It matters not how personally convinced editors are; what matters is if WP:MEDRS actually agree that the term applies. However, even statements like the 2021 joint statement by various professional orgs. don't use the term, so it seems unlikely to be warranted. I agree with the three editors who reverted the term.
    As my own aside, I found Markworthen's aside interesting, though I don't see that Littman 'reflexively called it a mental disorder'. Crossroads -talk- 06:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we need to wait until a reliable source uses the word "pseudoscience" even if a reliable source critiques the concept in language very similar to how we characterize pseudoscience in our article on the topic? I am not being snarky, I am genuinely interested in better understanding the policy. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 14:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "... I don't see that Littman 'reflexively called it a mental disorder'", that is my interpretation of what happened. Others might characterize the events differently. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 14:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it falls short of WP:FRINGE/PS, which would allow editors to unambiguously name it pseudoscience even if sources don't use that term. --Equivamp - talk 14:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Equivamp is correct that in order to call it "pseudoscience" in Wikipedia's voice, it would have to meet the conditions laid out in WP:FRINGE/PS, and the conditions are not met here. Those conditions cover "obviously bogus ... nonsense claiming to be scientific", which applies to examples such as astrology and perpetual motion. The broader category of questionable science, even if it has been described by critical sources as pseudoscience, does not qualify to be labeled as pseudoscience in Wikivoice. Also, contrary to a recent edit comment arguing that "the paper is retracted", the post-publication review did not result in a retraction of the paper, but instead resulted in the journal's publication of an updated and corrected version. See Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy#Correction for citations. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how politically motivated nonsense that is manifestly rejected by the scientific community isn't "obviously bogus". 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Equivamp and Lwarrenwiki - I appreciate you explaining the policy in a clear, understandable way. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not we call it pseudoscience, I do think we should have something there, because we do have strong sourcing that ROGD is very questionable, even if we don't have the literal word "pseudoscience". Loki (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with this statement. Scientists have defended Littman's methodology and study, such as in this letter to the editors of "The Journal of Pediatrics":
    https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00185-8/fulltext Skryba2000 (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Letters to the editor are typically not peer-reviewed, and are among the least useful of sources according to WP:MEDRS. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevertheless, this letter is evidence of an on-going scientific debate on this subject. 83.31.115.201 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a "controversy"

    Controversy implies there are two sides, both of which have equal merit. That is not the case here. Academics in the field manifestly reject this fringe theory, and just manage to fall short of calling it "pseudoscientific". Wikipedia doesn't have articles on a "Flat Earth controversy" or "Vaccine hesitancy controversy" or "climate skepticism controversy" because there are no such controversies. There's a broad consensus by academics in the field, and regardless of what fringe quacks pushing politically motivated nonsense say, or how numerous they are, or how many republican lawmakers make laws based on their fringe quackery to disenfranchise disadvantaged communities, their nonsense will never be on the same level as objective reality. ROGD is a fringe theory - not a "controversial" one. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I tentatively agree. As reference points for the examples you've named, the corresponding Wikiarticles are Flat Earth, Modern flat Earth beliefs, Vaccine hesitancy, and Climate change denial. So what then would you suggest renaming the article to? Just "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria"? Or something else? Adjusting the language of the first sentence of the lead will be easier if there's a firm idea of what the article name could change to. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be strongly against just "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria". Having an article with the name of a fake thing can unintentionally serve to make the fake thing look more real. Even if the article clearly says that the fake thing is fake anybody who sees the name of the article linked but doesn't click on it might get the wrong idea. I like the naming of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and I'd like this article to go the same way as that eventually but, of course, that can't happen unless/until we have sufficient valid sources to support it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The titles "climate change denial" and "flat earth beliefs" already imply that they are fake, and "vaccine hesitancy" is something I always had a problem with. Overall, I agree with DanielRigal. I would personally recommend "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (pseudoscience)" or "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (conspiracy theory)", if not for the above discussion concluding that due to contrived technicalities, the subject cannot be called a pseudoscience in wikivoice, even though that is obviously what it is. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The current name is good and is correct because the main topic is the controversy that arose from the publication of the paper. Parentheticals in titles are for disambiguation (which is unnecessary here), not proclamations of falsity. "Conspiracy theory" does not fit because a claim of conspiracy has never been made and that is distinct from criticized scientific hypotheses. As for "vaccine hesitancy", I think that title exists because not all failure to get vaccinated is because of actively opposing vaccines, but often due to vague distrust, apathy, and the like resulting in not taking action to get vaccinated. Countering all that takes different strategies depending on what the causes are. Crossroads -talk- 05:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am an expert in the study of disinformation and conspiracy theories. In my opinion, this is a genuine case of scientific controversy, not a case of disinformation.
    Your article misses a very important source: Littman's 2021 article:
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02163-w
    In this study of 100 detransitioners, Littman found further evidence for the hypothesis that RODG affects some individuals.
    Another very important source is Littman's letter to the editor of "The Journal of Pediatrics":
    https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00183-4/fulltext
    In this letter, Littman criticises Bauer's study, which adopted an incorrect definition of RODG. The study did not "relate the timing of the onset of gender dysphoria with that of puberty. Given the range of participant ages, it could be that a significant majority of study participants in both the study and comparison groups should be categorized as ROGD, undercutting the study's ability to provide any meaningful information about ROGD."
    You should also look at other sources, such as this article published by Cambridge University Press:
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-bulletin/article/freedom-to-think-the-need-for-thorough-assessment-and-treatment-of-gender-dysphoric-children/F4B7F5CAFC0D0BE9FF3C7886BA6E904B Skryba2000 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all low-quality sources published by highly controversial figures. Please don't employ FALSEBALANCE between mainstream and WP:FRINGE perspectives. Newimpartial (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean that an article on ROGD should not quote publications by the authoress of this concept?
    Or, that Cambridge University Press is a low quality source? 83.31.115.201 (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Littman is not a reliable source:
    • Dr Littman’s participants in the study were recruited from three blogs; 4thWave Now, Transgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals, all known to have an anti-transgender bias, which sheds doubt on the findings.[1] — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Littman’s new study is done on a sample of detransitioned persons, correcting this methodological weakness. 83.31.115.201 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call the weaknesses "corrected". Recruitment information with a link to the survey was posted on blogs that covered detransition topics and shared in a private online detransition forum, in a closed detransition Facebook group, and on Tumblr, Twitter, and Reddit. Still sounds like rather biased sampling, to me. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How else would you recruit detransitioners, then?
    Besides - the reviewers of the article did not see this as a weakness, since the article was accepted for publication. 83.31.115.201 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first study also made it through peer review, didn't it? That didn't turn out well. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you sound like a science denier.
    The original study was not just peer-reviewed. It was post-reviewed after publication, which is extremely rare, and found to be scientifically sound. You can read about this procedure here:
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201903/rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria
    Moreover, the original study also recruited participants from a private Facebook group called “Parents of Transgender Children” that had more than 8,000 members. 83.31.115.201 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The perspective you are expressing here is a FRINGE POV not shared by the preponderance of WP:MEDRS sourcing or by the position statements of major professional organizations in the field. This is all amply documented in previous discussions. 20:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
    It seems to me that you are calling everything that does not agree with your point of view ″FRINGE POV″. How does that agree with Wikipedia′s policies of neutral POV? 22:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
    The fact that the study specifically samples detransitioners is in itself evidence of bias. Detransitioning is very rare, compared to the overall number of transgender peope who transitioned, but their numbers are blown out of proportion by people with a right wing, anti-transgender political agenda.. Imagine doing a study on rhinoplasty and specifically sampling former patients whoás surgeries have been botched, to prove a point. This methodology does not stand up to scrutiny. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr Littman's new (2021) article

    The article is currently lacking a reference to Dr Littman's new publication:

    Littman, L. Individuals Treated for Gender Dysphoria with Medical and/or Surgical Transition Who Subsequently Detransitioned: A Survey of 100 Detransitioners. Arch Sex Behav 50, 3353–3369 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02163-w

    I propose that we should add a section to the Wikipedia article about this publication.

    Please keep in mind that we are talking about a peer-reviewed publication in a reputable scientific journal, published by a medical doctor and scientist. Please keep a neutral point of view and do not try to disparage this publication as ″fringe″.

    The article has several hypotheses and makes many observations. Here's an executive summary: 1) the study involved 101 individuals who were recruited ″in a private online detransition forum, in a closed detransition Facebook group, and on Tumblr, Twitter, and Reddit. Recruitment information was also shared on the professional listservs for the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the American Psychological Association Section 44, and the SEXNET listserv (which is a listserv of sex researchers and clinicians) and the professionals on the listservs were asked to share recruitment information with anyone they knew who might be eligible. Efforts were made to reach out to communities with varied views about the use of medical and surgical transition and recruitment information stated that participation was sought from individuals regardless of whether their transition experiences were positive, negative or neutral. Potential participants were invited to share recruitment information with any potentially eligible person or community with potentially eligible people.″

    A majority (almost 70%) of participants were female. A majority (over 60%) were Americans.

    2) the main conclusions relevant to the ROGD hypothesis can be found in Table 7 (″Self-appraisal of past transgender identification″).

    To give a summary of these findings, let me try to restate the ROGD hypothesis: psychosocial factors (such as trauma, mental health conditions, maladaptive coping mechanisms, internalized homophobia, and social influence) can cause or contribute to the development of gender dysphoria in some individuals, and this occurs at puberty or later (hence the term ″Rapid″ in the acronym. Littman now often uses the term ″Late Onset″ instead).

    Table 7 summarizes the responses of survey participants who detransitioned and were asked about their appraisal of their past transgender identification. ″The statements most frequently selected included: “I thought gender dysphoria was the best explanation for what I was feeling” (57.0%), “My gender dysphoria was similar to the gender dysphoria of those who remain transitioned” (42.0%), “What I thought were feelings of being transgender actually were the result of trauma” (36.0%), “What I thought were feelings of being transgender actually were the result of a mental health condition” (36.0%).″ Note that almost two times more female than male participants chose the last two responses.

    The last two responses directly support the ROGD hypothesis. As for social influence, another response is ″Someone else told me that the feelings I was having meant that I was transgender and I believed them″ and was selected by over 30% of respondents.

    I hope that this suffices to give an executive overview of the paper - but please, read the paper before responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skryba2000 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You have been told in no uncertain terms that Dr Littman is NOT a reliable source. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you can't just ignore a scientific, peer-reviewed publication, just because you don't like the author or because the research results offend you. You also don't get to divide authors of scientific articles into the good guys and the bad girls (in this case). If you do that, you end up doing nothing but censorship.
    On the contrary - you should keep a neutral POV and just consider the relevance of this source for the article. And Littman's new paper is highly relevant. Skryba2000 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there anything in the 2021 paper that actually supports the hypothesis, though? It looks like just another convenience sample from the internet set to confirm the researcher's bias. Newimpartial (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Skyrba, you seem to have put quite a bit of WP:OR into establishing this newer paper as somehow related to this article, but I just don't see its relevance. You are aware, I hope, that this was a convenience sample of 101 detransitioners, and that ROGD fanfic makes claims much more sweeping than "detransitioners exist". Newimpartial (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another quote from the new paper (wish you would've read it, though):
    "The data in this study strengthen, with first-hand accounts, the rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) hypotheses which, briefly stated, are that psychosocial factors (such as trauma, mental health conditions, maladaptive coping mechanisms, internalized homophobia, and social influence) can cause or contribute to the development of gender dysphoria in some individuals (Littman, 2018)"
    This should convince why this paper is relevant to this Wikipedia article.
    As to WP:OR: you are confused. Finding an external source and linking it to an article is not original research; it's what Wikipedia is all about. Skryba2000 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does Littman actually provide the supporting evidence she promises there? Newimpartial (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the paper? Skryba2000 (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I started at the beginning and read as much as I could stomach. I am under no obligation to WP:SATISFY you on this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't read the paper you have to take my word for it - there is evidence in these interviews that supports the hypothesis. I just about summarized it in the executive summary in the OP. Skryba2000 (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy&oldid=1092311253"