#hotd#daeron targaryen#aemond targaryen#daemon targaryen#helaena targaryen
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from Malaysia
seen from India
seen from Brazil
seen from Romania
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Argentina
seen from Martinique
seen from China
I just got this blazed post on my dashboard
Do NOT participate in this study. It is being run by some of the most biased, transphobic figures in psychology. I cannot stress enough how much harm these people have done in their careers.
Read more here:
The project is called AYAGDOS—brought to you by the same names behind “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” pseudoscience.
The project is called AYAGDOS—brought to you by the same names behind “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” pseudoscience.
S. Baum at Erin In The Morning:
Dr. Lisa Littman self-identified as “pro-LGBT” during her speech at a conference for Genspect—an anti-LGBT hate group, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. She was the very first presenter on the two-day itinerary for the event held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in September of last year. Genspect’s founder called Littman “the greatest hero of the movement”—the movement, it seems, against transgender youth. The topic of Littman’s presentation was AYAGDOS—the Adolescent and Young Adult Gender Dysphoria Outcomes Study. You or your trans child may have stumbled upon ads for the initiative on Reddit, Facebook, Google, X, or Instagram. They’re recruiting people with gender dysphoria between the ages of 13 and 25 who “think” they “might be trans” to participate in a study from Northwestern University, as the ads plastered with the university logo prominently announce. At first, they targeted demographics more sympathetic to the cause, like users of r/detrans on Reddit. Now they’re expanding to more politically diverse audiences, Littman told the Genspect convention.
But trans community leaders have issued a strong warning against participating. Critics cite the researchers’ long and tumultuous histories with trans research subjects, which are rife with retractions and reported misconduct, as well as ties to organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Genspect is just one of those groups, although they ardently reject the hate group label. “The people drawn to Genspect aren’t extremists,” founder Stella O’Malley said of the nearly 300 Albuquerque conference attendees, 40% of whom self-identified as TERFs (anti-trans radical feminists). “We come from all sides, all backgrounds, all belief systems.”
Meanwhile, researchers leading AYAGDOS—Littman, Dr. Kenneth Zucker, and Dr. J. Michael Bailey—have promoted pseudoscientific and pejorative ideas about trans people (such as that trans women are the product of a sexual fetish); relied on controversial methodologies that skew study outcomes; and reportedly used unwitting trans women as “original research” subjects, to name just a few scandals that have plagued one or more of the trio.
[...] Although the AYAGDOS ads are newly making the rounds, the beginnings of the study emerged in 2018, when Littman published a now-notorious paper on “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria,” also known as ROGD. The paper plucked the term from the backwaters of anti-trans internet forums, launching it into the mainstream. The new name gave credence to classic moral panics about the “social contagion” of queerness with a modern, scientific-sounding spin.
Mere weeks after the ROGD paper went live, the journal had to republish it with corrections to the title, abstract, introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections. But the damage was already done. ROGD is “a pseudoscientific phrase made popular by Dr. Lisa Littman and others that is used to legitimize the claims of anti-LGBTQ+ activists and parents who rejected their trans kids,” as per the Southern Poverty Law Center. Over 60 psychological organizations condemned the concept, saying in a joint statement that “the proliferation of misinformation regarding ROGD is also infiltrating policy decisions.”
Anti-trans scientists behind the “social contagion” myth are recruiting trans youths for a study seeking validation for the myth.
It starts by claiming there are three types of gender dysphoria (there aren’t) and goes downhill from there.
For over a decade, the Gender Affirmative Model has been the standard of care for gender dysphoric youth across the West. Yet, despite its
Published: Mar 30, 2023
For over a decade, the Gender Affirmative Model has been the standard of care for gender dysphoric youth across the West. Yet, despite its widespread and long-standing use, good evidence to support it remains elusive. Maybe that’s because there isn’t any.
A new paper reports on results from a survey of 1,655 parents of children who developed gender dysphoria during adolescence or soon after. American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines recommend affirming these kids in their new gender, and supporting them along the path to social, medical (hormonal), and surgical transition.
The results of this survey provide strong support for Dr. Littman’s Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) hypothesis, which suggests that gender dysphoria in this group may resolve with time and good psychological and social support, if needed.
During the past decade there has been a dramatic increase in adolescents and young adults (AYA) complaining of gender dysphoria. One influen
Key Findings
Key findings of particular concern are that these children tend to have emotional problems that predate their gender-related issues by nearly four years. Furthermore, children with mental health issues were more likely than those without to have taken steps to transition. Children who were referred to a gender specialist were also more likely to have taken steps to transition. Parents reported feeling pressured by these specialists to transition their child. And parents reported a decline in their child’s mental health and social functioning after transition.
History of Gender Dysphoria and Standards of Care
About 15 years ago, Western countries began experiencing an exponential rise in adolescents and young adults suddenly developing gender dysphoria and being referred to gender clinics for treatment. Around the same time, a new philosophy on transgenderism began to take root: Just as there is nothing wrong with being attracted to the same sex, there was nothing wrong with identifying with a gender that did not match your biological sex. In other words, being transgender is perfectly normal. It is not a mental illness. If a trans person does have any mental health issues, it can be attributed to the extreme distress of having to live in a body that does not feel right (gender dysphoria), and the stress of living in a judgmental, transphobic world.
Out of this philosophy grew the Affirmative Care Model. This model focused on reassuring (affirming) people that their gender identity was real, normal and natural, and helping them take steps to relieve their gender dysphoria through social, medical (hormonal) and surgical transition. In order to address their social distress from lack of acceptance, much effort is devoted to creating a supportive environment among friends, family, schools and society in general.
Although there was almost no evidence to support it at the time, the Affirmative Care Model quickly became the standard of care in most Western countries.
In 2016, Dr. Littman noticed an anomalous spike in teenage girls suddenly declaring themselves transgender and became concerned. She conducted a survey of their parents to learn more about this new phenomenon. Based on what she found, she proposed that a new sub-category of gender dysphoria had emerged, this one sharing more similarities with anorexia and other eating disorders than with the previously recognized types of gender dysphoria. Dr. Littman described Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) in her seminal paper published in 2018.
ROGD develops suddenly, during or after puberty in a person who would not have met the criteria for childhood gender dysphoria. Most often, these kids are white, highly intelligent and come from well-educated families. ROGD affects mainly girls, and groups of friends often come out as trans together. The influence of social media is believed to play a role. They often have a prior history of mental health issues, developmental difficulties or have experienced a traumatic or stressful event before developing gender dysphoria. A prior history of self-harm and difficulty fitting in with their peers are also common. Sadly, transitioning is not likely to help these kids with their issues as it does not address the root cause. In fact, it has a good chance of making things much worse.
The ROGD hypothesis suggests that for these unhappy kids, “gender dysphoria” is a catch-all phrase for any kind of distress, and transition is the cure-all solution
Since the publication of Littman’s paper, the ROGD hypothesis has come under fire from proponents of the affirmative care model. It’s easy to see why: The affirmative care model is based on the premise that being transgender is perfectly normal. The ROGD model suggests that this particular kind of gender dysphoria – and the desire to transition – is most definitely not normal. It’s a maladaptive coping mechanism.
Unfortunately, there is little evidence to support either hypothesis.
The World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s newest Standards of Care, published in Oct. 2022 admits, “A key challenge in adolescent transgender care is the quality of evidence evaluating the effectiveness of… gender-affirming medical and surgical treatments.” “The number of studies is still low and there are few outcome studies that follow youth into adulthood.”
Testing the ROGD hypothesis presents its own challenges. In North America, gender clinics are still using the affirmative model as a standard of care, which views taking steps to transition as medically necessary and thus, would be unwilling to test the ROGD model. Further, ROGD has become such a contentious topic at universities that any academic who broaches the subject risks career suicide. Just ask Dr. Littman and Dr. James Caspian.
Survey Results
Concurring with Dr. Littman’s findings, our survey indicates children who are most likely to develop ROGD are of European descent (78.9%), with above-average intelligence. They are also more likely to be female (75%). Their gender dysphoria develops around the age of 14 for girls, and 16 for boys. This may be partly due to the fact that boys go through puberty later than girls.
Their parents are more likely to be progressive and hold positive views towards LGBTQ+ rights. Frequently, parents went out of their way to make sure the reader understood this when they told their stories. Many had family and friends in the LGBTQ+ community, and some were members themselves. They just didn’t feel it made sense in their child’s case.
A majority of these kids were dealing with mental health issues (57%) that began around the age of 10, well before they developed gender dysphoria, and 42% of them had received a formal psychological diagnosis. The most frequently-reported issues were anxiety and depression. Self-harm was also prevalent in girls. Attention deficit disorder, autism, and obsessive-compulsive disorder were reported in numbers higher than the general population.
Very often, these kids had experienced a stressful event before they developed gender dysphoria (72.6%). Some described issues that would be overwhelming even for an adult to deal with, such as the suicide of a close relative, receiving a serious medical diagnosis such as cancer, being sexually assaulted, or being present at a mass shooting. Sometimes, the stress was more mundane, like moving, breaking up with a girl- or boyfriend, or having a good friend turn on them, but the child was having a hard time dealing with it. During the lock downs due to COVID, the strain of isolation was especially hard on these kids.
Parents also reported that their kids were having a lot of trouble fitting in with their peers at an age when being accepted feels like the most important thing in the world. Only about a quarter of parents reported that their child was well liked, and only one third said their kids got along well with other kids.
Parents reported their kids spent an average of 4.5 hours per day on the internet and social media.
When asked whether their child had friends who came out at the same time, 60.9% said their daughters did, compared with only 38.7% of their sons. The average number of friends who came out were 2.4.
“My daughter used to be so lonely her only friend was her guinea pig. At 11, a girl at school befriended her as did her group of friends. All of a sudden, my daughter said she was bi, then gay, then pan, then poly, then fluid, now trans. Her mental health is deteriorating and the psychiatrists (this is her 6th) seem to push their own agenda and label me transphobic. I KNOW my daughter. When no social group will welcome you and one finally does, you’ll conform to fit in, to not lose the only ‘friends’ you have.”
~Parent of an ROGD Kid
Transition
The majority of the children had socially transitioned at the time parents completed the survey (65.3%), and girls tended to socially transition earlier (age 15) than boys (age 17). In general, parents reported that their children had not started taking puberty blockers or hormones, and surgery was especially rare.
Girls who had friends who socially transitioned were more likely to do so themselves (73.3%), compared with only 39.5% of boys who were more likely to transition if they had a friend who did so.
One very concerning finding was that children with preexisting mental health issues were also more likely to socially transition than those without. This is worrisome, because children with emotional issues may lack the judgment needed to make serious, and sometimes irreversible, decisions about their bodies.
Another troubling finding was that children who received a referral to a gender specialist were more likely to have transitioned. This is especially concerning because 51% of parents who took their kids to a gender specialist also reported that they felt pressured to transition their child.
Effects of Transition on Mental Health and Social Functioning
When asked about the state of their child’s mental health after social transition, they were much more likely to say it had worsened than improved.
Sadly, the change in the quality of the parental relationships also declined, as shown in the table below:
Conclusion
The results of the largest survey to date on gender dysphoric adolescents support Dr. Littman’s ROGD hypothesis. These youth are most likely using “gender dysphoria” to describe general feelings of dysphoria that they have no other name for, and do not understand. Transitioning will not help them. It can only cause irreversible harm and make things much worse.
Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK and some States are backing away from the gender affirmative model, citing the lack of evidence and amid the growing number of detransitioners, many of whom are launching lawsuits against the gender specialists who harmed them. (See Ritchie Herron and Keira Bell, Michelle Zacchigna and Chloe Cole.)
Yet here in North America, the United States and Canadian Governments, the American Academy of Pediatrics and most other medical associations, are doubling down on the gender affirmative model.
If they truly want to “do no harm”, then they must follow Sweden’s lead and stop transitioning minors.
==
This should be good news. We have good reason to believe that distress can be resolved by treating the underlying cause, rather than through invasive and irreversible hormones, drugs and surgeries. How can this be a bad thing?
Because it's not about helping distress; if it was, they'd applaud the best treatment that causes the least harm. But it's about using anxious kids as pawns to remake society according to Queer Theory.
Lisa Littman has just published a study on destransitioners. Here's a graph detailing the main reasons why participants chose to detransistion.
Full publication is available here
Transcript: Last year, I made a video talking about how the mainstream media was screwing up the reporting on the nuclear fusion breakthroug
Hossenfelder’s opening statement is akin to saying “On the one side are people who think vaccines are a way for Bill Gates to inject us with micro transmitters, and on the other side are people who think vaccines are safe and effective ways to reduce the spread of disease. And then there are normal people like you and I who think ‘both sides are crazy and could someone please summarize the facts in simple words,’ which is what I’m here for.”
This is known as “false balance,” or “bothsidesism,” a rhetorical trick that pretends to demonstrate an unbiased viewpoint, but in reality you’re being biased by default by comparing something backed up by reams of scientific data with something that has absolutely no basis in reality.
When this New York Times article invokes the authority of science, it seeks to evoke the image of careful statisticians sifting through data collected by diligent doctors. But it is actually appealing to self-selected online surveys with cash prizes, studies with tiny samples, and studies that are missing more than half of their subjects. Stacking a bunch of weak studies on top of each other doesn’t provide a strong result, but The New York Times presumes readers won’t bother to check the details — the editors certainly didn’t.
Researchers have learned to fear the wrath of LGBT activists, and take pains to avoid it. Results that undermine the narrative have to be carefully presented lest the public draw the wrong conclusions. Thus, when scientists concluded that there is no “gay gene” they “worked with LGBTQ advocacy groups and science-communication specialists on the best way to convey their findings in the research paper and to the public.”
With regard to transgender ideology, the intimidation is even more overt. For example, Lisa Littman’s qualitative study describing the phenomenon of rapid-onset gender dysphoria met a ferocious response from transgender activists. Similarly, activists smeared Canadian psychologist Kenneth Zucker and forced him out of his position as the leader of a gender identity clinic, even though he sometimes supported transitioning children. He was just more cautious about it than activists wanted. He was eventually vindicated, but targeting him still sent a warning to any researchers who are seen as insufficiently pro-trans.
As these cases demonstrate, the science is being manipulated to fit transgender ideology. Shoddy studies — often conducted by activists and doctors with a stake in medical transition — are boosted if they support the trans narrative, while results and researchers who challenge it are suppressed. This skewed data is then used by trans activists and their allies to shape the discourse.
Uncomfortable facts and stories are kept out of the official narrative. Insightful and moving first-person accounts of transition and detransition are confined to non-traditional outlets such as Substack, as are the warnings of leading trans doctors about the reckless rushing of children into transition. The information bubble is the point.
From Dr. Lisa Littman, researcher conducting this study:
This note is to ask for your help in reaching out to possible participants for a study regarding the experiences of people who have desisted or detransitioned. The purpose of this research is to explore: 1) which factors may or may not be related to the development of and desistance from transgender identification; 2) whether or not individuals experienced changes in their sexual orientation during and after transgender-identification; and 3) what kinds of counseling and informed consent were received by those who sought medical care to transition. Specifically, we are looking for participants living in the United States who are: 18-33 years of age, previously identified as transgender, but do not currently identify as transgender. An eligibility screening interview will be conducted by videoconference call. Eligible individuals who are willing to participate will complete an online survey administered through Qualtrics. The study is approved by the Brown University HRPP.
Please consider sharing the recruitment flyer on social media, with anyone you know who might be eligible, or with any community where there might be people who are eligible. If you have any questions about the study, please feel free to contact me at: [email protected]
