Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases paper retracted

[DynamicDidactic]

Paper retracted for concerns about informed consent (rather than the methodology)

After backlash, publisher to retract article that surveyed parents of children with gender dysphoria, says co-author

Michael Bailey Springer Nature will retract an article that reported results of a survey of parents who thought their children’s gender dysphoria resulted from social contagion. The move is “due to…

retractionwatch.com

The article

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases - Archives of Sexual Behavior

During the past decade there has been a dramatic increase in adolescents and young adults (AYA) complaining of gender dysphoria. One influential if controversial explanation is that the increase reflects a socially contagious syndrome: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD). We report results from...

link.springer.com

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

So, Springer initially approved it, knowing of the informed consent issue (which is not unique to this case and happens on many publications) and it seems that they retracted it after political backlash? This is very problematic. Are there other, legitimate, methodological concerns that would warrant this being retracted? There's a lot of not great research out there, but I personally believe that retraction is only for cases of fraud, malfeasance, or sheer incompetence.

 

[cara susanna]

Wow, this is a real rabbit hole that you can fall down into easily. Some people are arguing that Bailey is a bad scientist, some are arguing that he is a good scientist and being targeted by activists because his data is "politically inconvenient."

It sounds like it probably shouldn't have been accepted in the first place, at least not without serious revisions, but I'm not sure it should have been retracted?

 

[WisNeuro]

Wow, this is a real rabbit hole that you can fall down into easily. Some people are arguing that Bailey is a bad scientist, some are arguing that he is a good scientist and being targeted by activists because his data is "politically inconvenient."

It sounds like it probably shouldn't have been accepted in the first place, at least not without serious revisions, but I'm not sure it should have been retracted?

Yeah, I mean there are a lot of people out there that aren't great scientists that we don't retract their work. I'd want to see how this work has problems that go above and beyond what else is out there in publication, in terms of shortcomings, before a retraction. Also, seems like there is far more attacking the researcher rather than the data itself.

 

[Shiori]

I think the controversial nature of the paper got a lot more eyes on it. The retraction is a bad look because the informed consent issue should have been caught early on and now the retraction just feels like bowing to pressure from the public. It makes me appreciate my old IRB a lot more. We spent a lot of time collaborating on things like participant screeners for this very reason.

 

[Ollie123]

The sampling bias issue is hugely problematic but their limitations section is almost a full page on its own and much of it focuses on that. It's incredibly sloppy methodologically, but when you are among the first to publish on something I tend to give people a pass on that as long as they acknowledge their sloppiness.

The IRB/consent thing is weird and I can kinda see both sides. It does set a bad precedent to essentially let people do an end-run around IRBs. At the same time, Joe Smith managing a website is absolutely allowed to survey their users without involving an IRB. If anonymized, how much risk is created by allowing researchers to analyze/publish that data when the individual could put it on their website, write a white paper with it or do other things that arguably would make it even more "public" than an obscure academic publication?

I fully agree we should be held to a higher standard, but I also think a survey is not a chemotherapy clinical trial and some perspective is needed. This would almost certainly have qualified for a consent waiver anyways - none of the 3 institutions I'm affiliated nor the dozens of others I'm familiar with would have required full consent as it would inherently introduce what is essentially the only meaningful risk involved in participating.

To be clear, I don't think one can make much of this paper but the scientific literature is replete with articles like this. People recruit from weird subreddits on obscure topics, heck people recruit from this very forum for theses/dissertations quite regularly. None of that is optimal scientifically. This is a relatively top journal in that field and I certainly don't know that it warranted publication there. However, the retraction feels like they "caught" someone on a technicality after an editorial judgment call. I just can't support that regardless of my views on the underlying science.

 

[WisNeuro]

The sampling bias issue is hugely problematic but their limitations section is almost a full page on its own and much of it focuses on that. It's incredibly sloppy methodologically, but when you are among the first to publish on something I tend to give people a pass on that as long as they acknowledge their sloppiness.

The IRB/consent thing is weird and I can kinda see both sides. It does set a bad precedent to essentially let people do an end-run around IRBs. At the same time, Joe Smith managing a website is absolutely allowed to survey their users without involving an IRB. If anonymized, how much risk is created by allowing researchers to analyze/publish that data when the individual could put it on their website, write a white paper with it or do other things that arguably would make it even more "public" than an obscure academic publication?

I fully agree we should be held to a higher standard, but I also think a survey is not a chemotherapy clinical trial and some perspective is needed. This would almost certainly have qualified for a consent waiver anyways - none of the 3 institutions I'm affiliated nor the dozens of others I'm familiar with would have required full consent as it would inherently introduce what is essentially the only meaningful risk involved in participating.

To be clear, I don't think one can make much of this paper but the scientific literature is replete with articles like this. People recruit from weird subreddits on obscure topics, heck people recruit from this very forum for theses/dissertations quite regularly. None of that is optimal scientifically. This is a relatively top journal in that field and I certainly don't know that it warranted publication there. However, the retraction feels like they "caught" someone on a technicality after an editorial judgment call. I just can't support that regardless of my views on the underlying science.

My thoughts exactly. If we retract papers for the reasons cited, there are countless other articles that also need to be retracted. I also agree that the methodology is not strong, but I can find similar issues in dozens of papers in a quick perusal of some recent journals. This is dangerous precedent to set, and, if anything, just adds legitimate fuel to some of the crazy conspiracy theories of the right when it comes to academia.

 

[foreverbull]

I’ll wait until researchers also sample from affirmative parents vs. ONLY those against. This is a theme for the poorly-researched ROGD “phenomenon.” ROGD is not in the DSM, by the way. It was coined by Littman, whose methodology was abhorrent.

This new study ALSO pulls their sample from an anti-affirmative care site. All I had to do was visit the main site to see immediately that they are not affirmative (parentsofrogdkids.com).

Wikipedia actually summarizes the issue well:

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I’m not commenting on the study being pulled, just the content, by the way.

 

[WisNeuro]

I’ll wait until researchers also sample from affirmative parents vs. ONLY those against. This is a theme for the poorly-researched ROGD “phenomenon.” ROGD is not in the DSM, by the way. It was coined by Littman, whose methodology was abhorrent.

This new study ALSO pulls their sample from an anti-affirmative care site. All I had to do was visit the main site to see immediately that they are not affirmative (parentsofrogdkids.com).

Wikipedia actually summarizes the issue well:

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I’m not commenting on the study being pulled, just the content, by the way.

The authors readily acknowledge this.

 

[borne_before]

Two main issues with this so far:

(A) We agree that it's absolute dog**** methodology, sampling bias, and severe limitations, which the authors, to their credit, identify.

(B) Retracting a paper is candyass except in several situations. However, the way to combat bad research is better research, not retraction because the transactivitists do not like what the data said. Truth is like a flame n a box and it will eventually burn it's way out with healthy and vigorous scientific data gathering and debate.

 

[cara susanna]

Absolute dog****e methodology, sampling bias, and severe limitations, which the authors themselves identify.

However, the way to combat bad research is better research, not retraction because the transactivitists do not like what the data said. Truth is like a flame n a box and it will eventually burn it's way out with healthy and vigorous scientific data gathering and debate.

I don't necessarily disagree, but to play devil's advocate... bad studies can influence the public view and do a lot of damage, even if they are later debunked. See: Wakefield

 

[WisNeuro]

Absolute dog****e methodology, sampling bias, and severe limitations, which the authors themselves identify.

However, the way to combat bad research is better research, not retraction because the transactivitists do not like what the data said. Truth is like a flame n a box and it will eventually burn it's way out with healthy and vigorous scientific data gathering and debate.

I'm not even sure that I would call it "bad" research. If anything, they're studying an under-researched portion of this population. If you are supportive of trans-rights and transitioning, I don't think it's a bad thing to try and gain more insight into parents who do not support transitioning in childhood and their beliefs. The authors do not appear to be championing ROGD or such, and they readily acknowledge the bias that comes from the sampling, but they also raise the important issue that you may need to use such approaches to reach certain segments of this population who may not be captured using other methods.

 

[borne_before]

I don't necessarily disagree, but to play devil's advocate... bad studies can influence the public view and do a lot of damage, even if they are later debunked. See: Wakefield

It is not the goal of science to protect the public. See: nuclear weapons. But the truth of Wakefield did come out. One cannot control how the public reacts to that.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'd hesitate to put this in comaprison to Wakefield. In Wakefield's example, he was literally paid to conduct research attacking the MMR vaccine, and he falsified data. This is much different than simply publishing something that is controversial.

 

[ClinicalABA]

As a point of clarification, this IS NOT the Litman article that got a lot of discussion on a different thread (the one where they basically used data collected from parents on chat groups for parents who thought their kids had developed ROGD as evidence of the existence of ROGD). This one seems a little different with more reasonable and cautious conclusions, as well as statements about the limitations. As to retracting it, if the publisher rule says you need irb approval and they authors didn't get it, then retract away. As to whether or not retraction was politically motivated who knows. If so, that's probably a dangerous road to go down.

 

[psych.meout]

I'd hesitate to put this in comaprison to Wakefield. In Wakefield's example, he was literally paid to conduct research attacking the MMR vaccine, and he falsified data. This is much different than simply publishing something that is controversial.

They didn't falsify data here, but the goal of this research is absolutely to attack gender affirming care, especially for trans youth.

 

[WisNeuro]

They didn't falsify data here, but the goal of this research is absolutely to attack gender affirming care, especially for trans youth.

Can you point me to the specific passages in the article that unequivocally do that?

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

Can you point me to the specific passages in the article that unequivocally do that?

The survey solicitation seems to suffice. “So-called gender clinics” suggests an obvious bias against gender-affirming care.

 

[psych.meout]

Can you point me to the specific passages in the article that unequivocally do that?

That's not what I said. My point is that they're assembling a body of poor quality research that they can point to and use to advance their transphobic cause and restrict access to gender affirming care and promote conversion therapy. They will push it onto the lay public and almost none of them will read past the abstract. I.e., regardless of how thorough the limitations section is almost no one who isn't a professional in some manner will ever read it. The few that do read it lack the knowledge and skills to properly critique the methodology and other issues.

This is all painfully obvious if you look at the website for the first author's organization and have even a passing familiarity with the anti-trans movement pushing this pseudoscientific ROGD nonsense.

 

[PikminOC]

The survey solicitation seems to suffice. “So-called gender clinics” suggests an obvious bias against gender-affirming care.

As opposed to everything else on the planet that is gender affirmative?

 

[DynamicDidactic]

That's not what I said. My point is that they're assembling a body of poor quality research that they can point to and use to advance their transphobic cause and restrict access to gender affirming care and promote conversion therapy. They will push it onto the lay public and almost none of them will read past the abstract. I.e., regardless of how thorough the limitations section is almost no one who isn't a professional in some manner will ever read it. The few that do read it lack the knowledge and skills to properly critique the methodology and other issues.

This is all painfully obvious if you look at the website for the first author's organization and have even a passing familiarity with the anti-trans movement pushing this pseudoscientific ROGD nonsense.

When you say "they" I assume you don't mean the actual academic on the paper (Michael Bailey) or the academics that reviewed the article.

I can understand why you may be worried about this type of findings, especially in light of the methodological limitations. I agree that anti-trans groups would use results like this for their cause (though, these groups aren't actually looking for science to support their perspective). However, these concerns, to me, do not outweigh the need for research that tries to question the orthodoxy. Bailey has a theory on transexualism that differs from the dominant one currently in the field. He published a study to support his theory. This will spur on others to design a methodologically more rigorous study that contradicts his findings. This, to me, is the best way to figure out the truth of the matter. I also understand that my perspective is not unbiased and may comes with important challenges.

I wonder how much push back Bailey received in the 90s when he promoted the heritability of homosexuality (i.e., it is not a choice) back when this was not the dominant view in the field. I think he has changed his views on bisexuality, through research, over the years.

 

[psych.meout]

When you say "they" I assume you don't mean the actual academic on the paper (Michael Bailey) or the academics that reviewed the article.

I'm talking about the first author, her org, and people like her. Bailey's involvement and his anti-trans posts on social media are more and more concerning by the day.

I can understand why you may be worried about this type of findings, especially in light of the methodological limitations. I agree that anti-trans groups would use results like this for their cause (though, these groups aren't actually looking for science to support their perspective).

They aren't looking for real science, they are just looking for something to push back against the real science, which is consistently supporting conclusions contrary to their bigoted ideology. They don't care about the quality of the research as long as it has the veneer of science and holds up without any real scrutiny.

However, these concerns, to me, do not outweigh the need for research that tries to question the orthodoxy. Bailey has a theory on transexualism that differs from the dominant one currently in the field. He published a study to support his theory. This will spur on others to design a methodological more rigorous study that contradicts his findings. This, to me, is the best way to figure out the truth of the matter. I also understand that my perspective is not unbiased and may comes with important challenges.

There's a difference between "questioning orthodoxy" from a place of well-intentioned skepticism vs. an organized, ideologically-driven conspiracy to fight trans rights and deny all trans people, including adults, gender affirming care.

Inside the secret working group that helped push anti-trans laws across the country

Leaked emails give a glimpse of the religious-right networks behind transgender health care bans.

www.motherjones.com

I wonder how much push back Bailey received in the 90s when he promoted the heritability of homosexuality (i.e., it is not a choice) back when this was not the dominant view in the field. I think he has changed his views on bisexuality, through research, over the years.

Which makes it all the more ironic that he's thrown his lot in with people who are using the same arguments against the trans community that was used against the gay and bi community decades ago and are in favor of the same kinds of conversion therapy but now for trans people.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

deny all trans people, including adults, gender affirming care.

Are you saying this is Bailey’s intention?

 

[borne_before]

I'm talking about the first author, her org, and people like her. Bailey's involvement and his anti-trans posts on social media are more and more concerning by the day.


They aren't looking for real science, they are just looking for something to push back against the real science, which is consistently supporting conclusions contrary to their bigoted ideology. They don't care about the quality of the research as long as it has the veneer of science and holds up without any real scrutiny.


There's a difference between "questioning orthodoxy" from a place of well-intentioned skepticism vs. an organized, ideologically-driven conspiracy to fight trans rights and deny all trans people, including adults, gender affirming care.

Inside the secret working group that helped push anti-trans laws across the country

Leaked emails give a glimpse of the religious-right networks behind transgender health care bans.

www.motherjones.com

Which makes it all the more ironic that he's thrown his lot in with people who are using the same arguments against the trans community that was used against the gay and bi community decades ago and are in favor of the same kinds of conversion therapy but now for trans people.

Maybe Bailey can come off as anti trans because he actually studies the population, speaks with data, and isn’t enamored by the gender agenda?

I swear y’all use the term anti trans as a slur for anyone rationally examine the situation.

 

[Shiori]

I was curious and took a peek at his work. It's clear there are a lot of feelings there, and he presents many of his thoughts on Twitter as well. I get the sense that much of his work has become notable as it spurs conversation about academic freedom rather than due to substantive advances to the field. Being a provocateur is lucrative. When he says things like there should be leniency for people who sexually abuse very young children because they won't remember it, I can't help but feel a bit cynical about the motives. The caveat that there should be no physical harm did not alleviate my concerns. I can imagine he has serious stances, sure. I don't want to do the work of sifting through them for the sake of academic rigor. There are folks doing better research.

 

[psych.meout]

Are you saying this is Bailey’s intention?

I'm not a mind reader, but it should give you pause that he works with multiple organizations (e.g., the first author of this article is part of parentsofrogdkids.com, he did a talk for SEGM in the last week or so) that are against trans care and were implicated in that anti-trans conspiracy revealed in the leaked emails I posted about earlier.

Maybe Bailey can come off as anti trans because he actually studies the population, speaks with data, and isn’t enamored by the gender agenda?

What about all the scientists who research these populations and end up with data and conclusions that are contradictory to his? Why don't they receive this dispensation from you and are regarded as "rationally examining the situation?" Why is it just someone on the anti-trans side that you're regarding so highly?

I swear y’all use the term anti trans as a slur for anyone rationally examine the situation.

No, I use it to refer to orgs and people who are explicitly anti-trans, like the organization of his co-author who is publishing using a pseudonym.

 

[PikminOC]

I'm not a mind reader, but it should give you pause that he works with multiple organizations (e.g., the first author of this article is part of parentsofrogdkids.com, he did a talk for SEGM in the last week or so) that are against trans care and were implicated in that anti-trans conspiracy revealed in the leaked emails I posted about earlier.


What about all the scientists who research these populations and end up with data and conclusions that are contradictory to his? Why don't they receive this dispensation from you and are regarded as "rationally examining the situation?" Why is it just someone on the anti-trans side that you're regarding so highly?


No, I use it to refer to orgs and people who are explicitly anti-trans, like the organization of his co-author who is publishing using a pseudonym.

Gender dysphoria is rising—and so is professional disagreement | BMJ

More children and adolescents are identifying as transgender and offered medical treatment, but some providers and European authorities are urging caution because of a lack of strong evidence.

www.bmj.com

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

Gender dysphoria is rising—and so is professional disagreement | BMJ

More children and adolescents are identifying as transgender and offered medical treatment, but some providers and European authorities are urging caution because of a lack of strong evidence.

www.bmj.com

Journalism is not the same as scientific research but perhaps you missed this within the last thread where you posted this.

 

[PikminOC]

Journalism is not the same as scientific research but perhaps you missed this within the last thread where you posted this.

Then show me a rigorous systematic review of the evidence.

 

[Shiori]

Google Scholar presents several of them. I did a quick search and found some interesting stuff.

 

[psych.meout]

Gender dysphoria is rising—and so is professional disagreement | BMJ

More children and adolescents are identifying as transgender and offered medical treatment, but some providers and European authorities are urging caution because of a lack of strong evidence.

www.bmj.com

Maybe instead of just posting a link you could articulate an argument of your own?

Also, that article does a great job of removing the political context of those government health agencies changing their positions as domestic transphobic groups (e.g., Genspect) and their political allies gain power while being funded by American Evangelical groups.

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

Then show me a rigorous systematic review of the evidence.

Again perhaps you missed it in the other thread, but Shiori had provided a list of example research.

Achille, C., Taggart, T., Eaton, N. R., Osipoff, J., Tafuri, K., Lane, A., & Wilson, T. A. (2020). Longitudinal impact of gender-affirming endocrine intervention on the mental health and well-being of transgender youths: preliminary results. International Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology, 2020(1), 1-5.
Allen, L. R., Watson, L. B., Egan, A. M., & Moser, C. N. (2019). Suicidality and well-being among transgender youth after gender-affirming medical interventions. Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology.
Cantu, A. L., Moyer, D. N., Connelly, K. J., & Holley, A. L. (2020). Changes in anxiety and depression from intake to first follow-up among transgender youth in a pediatric endocrinology clinic. Transgender Health, 5(3), 196-200.
Chew, D., Anderson, J., Williams, K., May, T., & Pang, K. (2018). Hormonal treatment in young people with gender dysphoria: a systematic review. Pediatrics, 141(4).
Costa, R., Dunsford, M., Skagerberg, E., Holt, V., Carmichael, P., & Colizzi, M. (2015). Psychological support, puberty suppression, and psychosocial functioning in adolescents with gender dysphoria. The journal of sexual medicine, 12(11), 2206-2214.
De Vries, A. L., McGuire, J. K., Steensma, T. D., Wagenaar, E. C., Doreleijers, T. A., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2014). Young adult psychological outcome after puberty suppression and gender reassignment. Pediatrics, 134(4), 696-704.
De Vries, A. L., Steensma, T. D., Doreleijers, T. A., & Cohen‐Kettenis, P. T. (2011). Puberty suppression in adolescents with gender identity disorder: A prospective follow‐up study. The journal of sexual medicine, 8(8), 2276-2283.
Kuper, L. E., Stewart, S., Preston, S., Lau, M., & Lopez, X. (2020). Body dissatisfaction and mental health outcomes of youth on gender-affirming hormone therapy. Pediatrics, 145(4).
Olson, K. R., Durwood, L., DeMeules, M., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2016). Mental health of transgender children who are supported in their identities. Pediatrics, 137(3).
Sorbara, J. C., Chiniara, L. N., Thompson, S., & Palmert, M. R. (2020). Mental health and timing of gender-affirming care. Pediatrics, 146(4).
Tordoff, D. M., Wanta, J. W., Collin, A., Stepney, C., Inwards-Breland, D. J., & Ahrens, K. (2022). Mental health outcomes in transgender and nonbinary youths receiving gender-affirming care. JAMA network open, 5(2), e220978-e220978.
White Hughto, J. M., & Reisner, S. L. (2016). A systematic review of the effects of hormone therapy on psychological functioning and quality of life in transgender individuals. Transgender health, 1(1), 21-31.

A reading list! There was more, but this is a good place to start digging into the literature.

 

[PikminOC]

Maybe instead of just posting a link you could articulate an argument of your own?

Also, that article does a great job of removing the political context of those government health agencies changing their positions as domestic transphobic groups (e.g., Genspect) and their political allies gain power while being funded by American Evangelical groups.

Who is funding the other side? We know wpath is not politic free

 

[futureapppsy2]

I wish controversial articles would stop being retracted just for being controversial. It's bad science. The IRB issue is interesting, because, yes, tons of data are collected without IRB approval informally, but then publishing those data leads to, like, @Ollie123 said, people using "non-academic" collaborators to get out of getting their research IRB approved, and the participants could potentially argue that they never were told their data would be shared in XYZ manner. (My sense of Bailey from following his work intermittently for years is that he sometimes (usually?) does good science but also deliberately tries to be an edgelord in what he studies and how he presents it).

 

[futureapppsy2]

The survey solicitation seems to suffice. “So-called gender clinics” suggests an obvious bias against gender-affirming care.

Yep. Going back to the IRB issues, I can't see many IRBs approving a letter of information like that. I think a legit criticism of these ROGD studies is that they recruit participants solely from websites for parents who don't think their trans-identified kids are trans, ask the parents about their kid's gender and mental health, do no sort of confirmation or cross-checking at all, and then present what the parents report as true. It would be like recruiting parents for a survey from conversion therapy websites, asking them about their kid's sexual orientation, and then uncritically reporting that all these queer youth are actually straight after all! As someone who does a lot of survey research, asking proxy reporters is always extremely iffy because you are adding a huge degree of separation between the reporter and the person of actual interest--it's why we don't rely on proxy reports alone in assessment.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I'm not even sure that I would call it "bad" research. If anything, they're studying an under-researched portion of this population. If you are supportive of trans-rights and transitioning, I don't think it's a bad thing to try and gain more insight into parents who do not support transitioning in childhood and their beliefs. The authors do not appear to be championing ROGD or such, and they readily acknowledge the bias that comes from the sampling, but they also raise the important issue that you may need to use such approaches to reach certain segments of this population who may not be captured using other methods.

A huge issue with this study and Littman's 2018 study is that they exclusively sample parents from sites for parents who don't think their trans-identified kids are trans, ask the parents to report on their children's mental health and gender identity (which are largely internal experiences) without any sort of other corroborating reporting or data, and then report the parents' perception of their children as factual. If you're going to do research on parent experiences, fine, cool, we need that research in a lot of populations, but you have to report it as being parental perception or parental experience data, not data on the children, especially if you're using an extremely biased sampling methodology. It would be like recruiting parents exclusively from websites for families seeking conversion therapy for their gay children, surveying them on their children's sexual orientation, and then unironically reporting that a lot of gay youth are actually straight and were just confused/corrupted/sinful. The study is being cited as "ground breaking proof" that ROGD is real and that most trans youth aren't really trans when it doesn't prove that at all--it just proves that parents on websites for parents who don't believe their kids are trans don't believe their kids are trans.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Too many people pushing agendas. My patients who are currently transitioning are almost as upset with the allys as they are with the haters. They are acutely aware that there is no clear roadmap to how to do this difficult and complicated process and they are constantly shifting their own perspective as they are going through it. The complexity of this process and how individualized It is for them is becoming clearer to them every session. Maybe that’s because I ask them questions about their process that brings that to their awareness, but they really like that as a cisgender hetero male, I don’t pretend to understand, advise, or guide them in any way. We talk about evolving effects on relationships, sexual behavior, expenses, efficacy of surgery, future children, timing of treatment and how that effects development of sex characteristics, psychological and physiological effects of hormones, passing, being misgendered, pronouns, name changes, family acceptance, societal acceptance. It just seems to me that there is a lot more to consider when working with these patients than the political debate and as psychologists, I think that we should try to focus more on how to help our patients than which side of the debate we should be on.

In full disclosure, I am actually on the side of not having laws to limit what should be between a doctor and the patient or their family. I usually don’t disclose that to my patients though just as I won’t ever disclose what I feel about Trump or Biden or any other purely political issue.

 

[Shiori]

Too many people pushing agendas. My patients who are currently transitioning are almost as upset with the allys as they are with the haters. They are acutely aware that there is no clear roadmap to how to do this difficult and complicated process and they are constantly shifting their own perspective as they are going through it. The complexity of this process and how individualized It is for them is becoming clearer to them every session. Maybe that’s because I ask them questions about their process that brings that to their awareness, but they really like that as a cisgender hetero male, I don’t pretend to understand, advise, or guide them in any way. We talk about evolving effects on relationships, sexual behavior, expenses, efficacy of surgery, future children, timing of treatment and how that effects development of sex characteristics, psychological and physiological effects of hormones, passing, being misgendered, pronouns, name changes, family acceptance, societal acceptance. It just seems to me that there is a lot more to consider when working with these patients than the political debate and as psychologists, I think that we should try to focus more on how to help our patients than which side of the debate we should be on.

In full disclosure, I am actually on the side of not having laws to limit what should be between a doctor and the patient or their family. I usually don’t disclose that to my patients though just as I won’t ever disclose what I feel about Trump or Biden or any other purely political issue.

Who will end up keeping these things from occurring?

 

[PikminOC]

Too many people pushing agendas. My patients who are currently transitioning are almost as upset with the allys as they are with the haters. They are acutely aware that there is no clear roadmap to how to do this difficult and complicated process and they are constantly shifting their own perspective as they are going through it. The complexity of this process and how individualized It is for them is becoming clearer to them every session. Maybe that’s because I ask them questions about their process that brings that to their awareness, but they really like that as a cisgender hetero male, I don’t pretend to understand, advise, or guide them in any way. We talk about evolving effects on relationships, sexual behavior, expenses, efficacy of surgery, future children, timing of treatment and how that effects development of sex characteristics, psychological and physiological effects of hormones, passing, being misgendered, pronouns, name changes, family acceptance, societal acceptance. It just seems to me that there is a lot more to consider when working with these patients than the political debate and as psychologists, I think that we should try to focus more on how to help our patients than which side of the debate we should be on.

In full disclosure, I am actually on the side of not having laws to limit what should be between a doctor and the patient or their family. I usually don’t disclose that to my patients though just as I won’t ever disclose what I feel about Trump or Biden or any other purely political issue.

The kids I treat don't want to answer any of those types of probing questions.

 

[PikminOC]

Did anyone watch Matt Walsh's "What is a Woman"?

 

[smalltownpsych]

Who will end up keeping these things from occurring?

Voters, including myself. Meanwhile, I will help my patients navigate the changing landscape. I just don’t see our role as psychologists to promote political agendas. In fact, I think it is a really bad idea that seems like a good one at times. I left APA because they were for torture before they were against torture and more and more they seemed like an a political advocacy group than a promotion of psychological science group.

 

[smalltownpsych]

The kids I treat don't want to answer any of those types of probing questions.

I don’t ask probing questions. I invite patients to share their thoughts with me and over time they learn to trust that I provide a safe and non-judgmental space to explore their own process. The patients that I am thinking about who have shared all of their conflictual thoughts have seen me for at least six months of weekly sessions. They don’t often tell their friends and family who support their transition process about their thoughts because like many things with my patients, the other people in their life don’t really understand and in an effort to be helpful say well-meaning things that are invalidating.

 

[Shiori]

Voters, including myself. Meanwhile, I will help my patients navigate the changing landscape. I just don’t see our role as psychologists to promote political agendas. In fact, I think it is a really bad idea that seems like a good one at times. I left APA because they were for torture before they were against torture and more and more they seemed like an a political advocacy group than a promotion of psychological science group.

I appreciate this approach. I think I will have to continue to advocate more aggressively. I live in a red state and they have already passed legislation stripping rights away from my clients. I have written my legislators to describe these impacts and how their laws impact my work. It takes all kinds of approaches. My fear is if I don't say something, they will take my silence as approval.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Who is funding the other side? We know wpath is not politic free

No, they are not. In recognition of their potential bias, the WPATH SOC documents clearly describe their methods and list their references. These methods include the use of reviewers from outside WPATH, as a bit of a checks and balance. Authors and affiliations are clearly listed.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

I second Heist question. Seriously though did anyone watch What is a Woman? Let's just pretend we've gotten out of the way people saying it's transphobic and/or grift work...any other thoughts? I know it's entertainment...but some of the people in academia it....yikes. (also concerning that none of them knew how to respond to socratic questioning).

 

[smalltownpsych]

I second Heist question. Seriously though did anyone watch What is a Woman? Let's just pretend we've gotten out of the way people saying it's transphobic and/or grift work...any other thoughts? I know it's entertainment...but some of the people in academia it....yikes. (also concerning that none of them knew how to respond to socratic questioning).

I didn’t watch it but I have seen some clips of these types. It highlights the challenge that people face when they try to eliminate all distinctions between groups of people. I remember teaching about differences between men and women in an intro to psychology class and how some objected to it. My main point was that the main difference that holds up to statistical analysis across studies is that men are more likely to be physically aggressive than women and that we don’t really have any other significant differences between genders and that many people theorize that this difference is likely due to the effects of testosterone. Response from student, but I know men who are not aggressive and women who are so you’re wrong. Ok let me use more biological stuff to explain how group differences and overlapping distributions work. On average, men are taller than women. Student: you’re still wrong, I know women who are tall and men who are short. I think this student is probably in charge of making mental health policy for the VA now. 😉

 

[calimich]

I second Heist question. Seriously though did anyone watch What is a Woman? Let's just pretend we've gotten out of the way people saying it's transphobic and/or grift work...any other thoughts? I know it's entertainment...but some of the people in academia it....yikes. (also concerning that none of them knew how to respond to socratic questioning).

I watched it, I like this genre. It seems like Walsh knows his audience well. Reminded me of Sacha Baron Cohen's work or Michael Moore. If you liked this you might like the borats or bruno, bowling for columbine or sicko also. Morgan Spurlock's Supersize me also good. Further out there would be Christopher Guest -- spinal tap is classic, mighty wind and best in show pretty good too.
What is a woman spoilers ahead...

good production value, Walsh is more deadpan than Cohen, more like Moore, and fewer disguises. Similar mechanics of interviewing "experts" and "people on the street", animated plane around a map, voiceovers, edited interviews, gotcha moments, cringy moments. From Dr. Phil McGraw to Dr. Jordan Peterson, a passionate monologue, Walsh hits lots of tropes from talking to literal spear-throwing Africans to the grand finale of returning home from traveling the globe to find his smiling wife in the kitchen making a sandwich. No wonder it's so popular.

 

[The Cinnabon]

I second Heist question. Seriously though did anyone watch What is a Woman? Let's just pretend we've gotten out of the way people saying it's transphobic and/or grift work...any other thoughts? I know it's entertainment...but some of the people in academia it....yikes. (also concerning that none of them knew how to respond to socratic questioning).

It's been a while, but I recall Walsh using clever editing.

One of the academics he interviewed did answer his question ... but Walsh edited it out/over it. When you come in such bad faith as to simply ... not pay attention to answers or delve an iota deeper, then I really can't blame most of the people who he interviewed to just not take him seriously.


Also, and this is hugely important ... why would Matt Walsh include someone in the film who was able to answer in an articulate fashion and expose him for being a grifter coming in bad faith?

 

[PikminOC]

It's been a while, but I recall Walsh using clever editing.

One of the academics he interviewed did answer his question ... but Walsh edited it out/over it. When you come in such bad faith as to simply ... not pay attention to answers or delve an iota deeper, then I really can't blame most of the people who he interviewed to just not take him seriously.


Also, and this is hugely important ... why would Matt Walsh include someone in the film who was able to answer in an articulate fashion and expose him for being a grifter coming in bad faith?

What was the answer the academic gave other than a woman is someone who identifies as one?

 

[futureapppsy2]

It's been a while, but I recall Walsh using clever editing.

One of the academics he interviewed did answer his question ... but Walsh edited it out/over it. When you come in such bad faith as to simply ... not pay attention to answers or delve an iota deeper, then I really can't blame most of the people who he interviewed to just not take him seriously.


Also, and this is hugely important ... why would Matt Walsh include someone in the film who was able to answer in an articulate fashion and expose him for being a grifter coming in bad faith?

Honestly, I’ve completely stopped watching documentaries because they are usually so completely slanted towards one side or another that they feel like a complete waste of time. (I’ll admit I still consume some biased media—YouTube video essays, the occasional Last Week Tonight video, but at least they’re usually more upfront about their bias and/or engage with disconfirming evidence to some degree).