THANK YOU! Thank you for taking the time to wade through the garbage and for debunking all of it. Truly a labor of love and I can't tell you how much it means to me that you are doing this!
Thank you Lisa! What really saddens me is that by denying writers like you and making this a one-sided argument, they are not only not allowing some true facts to be publicized, they are also preventing a truly productive and vitally important conversation from taking place. I, for one, would really love it if someone pointed out to me ways in which my thinking on this topic was wrong. So far I haven't encountered anything that would make me significantly change my mind, but I keep trying because I would hate to be the kind of close-minded fanatic that is unfortunately given so much space and such visibility in the NYT.
And yes, the NY Times doesn't have plausible deniability. It's not like this evidence is getting harder to find, more and more is coming to light, including through your excellent writing and research (thank you!).
"Girls may indeed lose sexual function"...yeah...boys without their sex organs aren't doing so great either, and the estrogen consent form notes that they aren't sure whether fertility might return even if you stop taking it.
"But the study, which PLOS One corrected and apologized for, was sharply criticized as methodologically flawed and ideologically motivated, and the condition is not a term recognized by any major professional association. "
You nailed all the objections, indeed, "Other than the addition of a few missing values in Table 13, the Results section is unchanged in the updated version of the article. " It was criticized for all sorts of things...but not shown to be them. This was just, well, repeating gossip by tne NYT? They didn't actually check, it seems??
And Littman followed up with another convenience study of detransitioners in 2021, where they gave first person (a criticism of the earlier study, although parent reports about kids are indeed common) reports--
"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). "
"the well-documented benefits of gender-affirmative care with the risks of medical intervention.
The benefits are not well-documented, except in research as flawed as the ROGD research."
"A growing number of clinicians and researchers are noting that the dramatic rise of teens declaring a trans identity appears to be, at least in part, a result of peer influence (Anderson, 2022; Hutchinson, Midgen, & Spiliadis, 2020; Littman 2018; Littman, 2020; Zucker, 2019). Some have noted yet another influx of trans-identified youth emerging during the COVID lockdowns, and have hypothesized that increased isolation coupled with heavy internet exposure may be responsible (Anderson, 2022). While the research into the phenomenon of social influence as a contributor to trans identification of youth is still in its infancy, the possibility that clinicians are providing treatments with permanent consequences to address what may be transient identities in youth poses a serious ethical dilemma. "
Just amazing that the NY Times isn't taking your corrections or anyone else's.
I wonder how they are going to look when it becomes more well known that they were ignoring and hiding research evidence, and promoting falsehoods. That day cannot come too soon.
More brilliance! Thanks so much for taking the time on this and for giving me writing I can show to my friends!
THANK YOU! Thank you for taking the time to wade through the garbage and for debunking all of it. Truly a labor of love and I can't tell you how much it means to me that you are doing this!
Thank you Lisa! What really saddens me is that by denying writers like you and making this a one-sided argument, they are not only not allowing some true facts to be publicized, they are also preventing a truly productive and vitally important conversation from taking place. I, for one, would really love it if someone pointed out to me ways in which my thinking on this topic was wrong. So far I haven't encountered anything that would make me significantly change my mind, but I keep trying because I would hate to be the kind of close-minded fanatic that is unfortunately given so much space and such visibility in the NYT.
Excellent, thank you!
And yes, the NY Times doesn't have plausible deniability. It's not like this evidence is getting harder to find, more and more is coming to light, including through your excellent writing and research (thank you!).
And they don't seem that interested at corrections@nytimes.com .
"Girls may indeed lose sexual function"...yeah...boys without their sex organs aren't doing so great either, and the estrogen consent form notes that they aren't sure whether fertility might return even if you stop taking it.
"But the study, which PLOS One corrected and apologized for, was sharply criticized as methodologically flawed and ideologically motivated, and the condition is not a term recognized by any major professional association. "
You nailed all the objections, indeed, "Other than the addition of a few missing values in Table 13, the Results section is unchanged in the updated version of the article. " It was criticized for all sorts of things...but not shown to be them. This was just, well, repeating gossip by tne NYT? They didn't actually check, it seems??
And Littman followed up with another convenience study of detransitioners in 2021, where they gave first person (a criticism of the earlier study, although parent reports about kids are indeed common) reports--
"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). "
"the well-documented benefits of gender-affirmative care with the risks of medical intervention.
The benefits are not well-documented, except in research as flawed as the ROGD research."
The data also provide examples of harm:
"Estrogen is associated with greater suicidality among transgender males, and puberty suppression is not associated with better mental health outcomes for either sex" --https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comment?id=10.1371/annotation/dcc6a58e-592a-49d4-9b65-ff65df2aa8f6
And of no mental health benefit: https://segm.org/ajp_correction_2020
The USTS survey is often used, although ”Findings in this report should be understood to represent the nearly 28,000 USTS respondents rather than the full U.S. transgender population” (https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/suicidality-transgender-adults/ ),
this is also noted in the rebuttal to one paper based upon it: One size does not fit all, by D'Angelo et al (2021), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01844-2 .
"A growing number of clinicians and researchers are noting that the dramatic rise of teens declaring a trans identity appears to be, at least in part, a result of peer influence (Anderson, 2022; Hutchinson, Midgen, & Spiliadis, 2020; Littman 2018; Littman, 2020; Zucker, 2019). Some have noted yet another influx of trans-identified youth emerging during the COVID lockdowns, and have hypothesized that increased isolation coupled with heavy internet exposure may be responsible (Anderson, 2022). While the research into the phenomenon of social influence as a contributor to trans identification of youth is still in its infancy, the possibility that clinicians are providing treatments with permanent consequences to address what may be transient identities in youth poses a serious ethical dilemma. "
(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2046221)
Just amazing that the NY Times isn't taking your corrections or anyone else's.
I wonder how they are going to look when it becomes more well known that they were ignoring and hiding research evidence, and promoting falsehoods. That day cannot come too soon.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for doing this, Lisa. It’s gotta feel incredibly frustrating, but it’s so important.