New journal paper by gender-affirmation advocate Jack Turban claims to disprove the existence of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and the social contagion hypothesis - what could possibly be wrong with it?

[TheBiologyStupid]

American psychiatrist Jack Turban, an advocate of gender-affirmation, has co-authored a (free) journal paper in which the authors claim that there has been no sudden increase in the number of females identifying as males (in the US), and therefore that there is no evidence for the rapid-onset gender dysphoria or social contagion hypotheses. They conclude that, "The sex assigned at birth ratio of TGD adolescents in the United States does not appear to favor AFAB adolescents and should not be used to argue against the provision of gender-affirming medical care for TGD adolescents".

Their paper is here: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35918512/

University of Chicago professor (emeritus) Jerry Coyne has now published an analysis of the journal paper, identifying several weaknesses in it (as do many of the commenters below his post). Coyne's area of expertise is evolutionary biology, but he has posted often on the scientific method more generally. He can't be dismissed as a voice for the right-wing; he's a lifelong Democrat voter, although he is also critical of the excesses, as he sees them, of the "progressive" wing of the party. His analysis is here: whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/08/04/new-paper-purports-to-refute-social-contagion-hypothesis-for-transgender-adolescents

In the past, Turban has been criticised by Jesse Singal and professor Michael Biggs:

jessesingal.substack.com/p/science-vs-cited-seven-studies-to

journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comment?id=10.1371/annotation/dcc6a58e-592a-49d4-9b65-ff65df2aa8f6

A poor paper, but also a poor refutation by Coyne.

What i am very, very fed up with is statements like Coyne makes here that he is somehow uniquely calm and neutral on this because he thinks that social contagion could be only one explanation for different routes to dysphoroa/transition focus. I haven't come across anyone who thinks social contagion is the only explanation for gender dysphoria. It's still possible to be unconvinced that anyone has effectively refuted it as a cause though.

The key point, that this is a very different data set from data that led to the formulation of ROGD as a descriptive hypothesis, is well made though.

I agree that Coyne, although sceptical (skeptical as I suppose a USian would spell it), isn't quite fully there yet.

He's now posted (or, rather, reposted with some additional commentary) something about the demise of the Tavistock clinic:
whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/08/05/the-death-of-the-tavistock-clinic-recounted-by-one-of-the-whistleblowers/

Jack Turban belongs behind bars.

"In other words, biological females suffer more seriously from the dysphoria. And that neither supports nor contradicts the “social contagion hypothesis”. As for the rise over time, it could be explained either by the social contagion hypothesis or a rapid de-stigmatization of transgender people."

I find that very hard to believe. That should then also imply older people should see such a drastic increase, too. Additionally, this should also then result in lower suicide rates due to this massive de-stigmatization, or if not then one of two things is true 1. there is no massive de-stigmatization and/or 2. there are no massive number of suicides if blind affirmation isn't given.

Yes, it would be useful to know how many actual suicides and suicide attempts in emergency response records can be linked to "gender-questioning teens" etc.

A substantial weakness of Turban's paper, overlooked by Coyne, is confusing correlation with causation in relation to data on bullying.

It's no surprise that trans children experience more bullying. The relevant question is whether the children experience bullying as a result of coming out as trans, or whether they were already being bullied before they came out. Anecdotes in the UK would suggest it's often the latter.

If it is the case that bullied kids go on to identify as trans, this doesn't prove that some kids can identify as trans as a result of social contagion to try to raise social status; there could be other explanations. But a causal link in that direction leaves the social contagion hypothesis intact and doesn't affect the ROGD theory in the way Turban suggests. (If the causal link operates in the other direction, and trans identification does result in more bullying, that doesn't falsify the existence of social contagion either, but Coyne covers that point in his piece.)

A substantial weakness of Turban's paper, overlooked by Coyne, is confusing correlation with causation in relation to data on bullying

You missed out the third 'C': confounding. Autistic kids are more likely to be bullied and autistic kids are more likely to be trans.

Both children who lack friends, have been bullied and/or are autistic are more likely to spend more time online. I've watched children I teach learn more from YouTube, academically and socially. My autistic niece learnt a lot about social interaction and a friend's child would refer to YouTube to prepare him for new experiences and places.

Most detransitioners cite online influences as having a predominant role. Ritchie said 100%. Others describe tumblr obsessions. Porn. YouTube. Sinead was slightly different iirc.

This really isn't rocket science.

This, he's a latest in a long line of quacks that infest the medical profession.

Singal's done yet another of his magna opera on this latest piece.

(He spends a lot of the intro on a "I'm really fed up with Turban's work so I might be a bit biased" disclaimer.)

jessesingal.substack.com/p/the-new-study-on-rapid-onset-gender

Twitter summary thread:

twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1555731294562258947

The New Study On Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria Published In “Pediatrics” Is Genuinely Worthless

Partly about the study and partly, deep sigh, about my frustrations with Jack Turban's outsize role in this conversation and his highly questionable standards

You guys know I am The Nuance Guy and try to avoid overheated language, but "worthless" is apt her

(Article excerpt) "In recent years, there’s probably no public-facing researcher who has written or been quoted more about youth gender medicine. And it’s always in the same way: The evidence is fantastic. These treatments work. Everything’s great. Our field is helping so many kids. There’s no controversy here."

"In a sworn declaration (PDF) he filed as part of a legal challenge to Arkansas’s attempt to ban youth gender medicine, Turban wrote that “all existing evidence indicates that gender-affirming medical interventions improve mental health outcomes for transgender adolescents and it would be dangerous and unethical to prohibit these medical services.” If you know anything about the present state of research on youth gender medicine, this is an absolutely astonishing thing for a supposed expert to claim — and under oath! There are plenty of studies that offer mixed at best findings about the impact this medicine has on youth mental health. Some of Turban’s own research has failed to establish a statistically meaningful link between access to youth gender medicine and improved outcomes on crucial variables like suicide attempts. (See here for more details.) This is why just about every nation or research body that looks closely into this question has found the same thing: The evidence base is alarmingly weak. Finland, Sweden, and now England have significantly tightened up how they approach youth gender medicine as a result. To my knowledge, Turban has never explained why his assessment of the research base for youth gender medicine is so different — so much sunnier — than almost everyone else’s."

Also, "Why would kids choose to be trans given that trans kids are bullied?" is a severe misunderstanding of both teenage subcultures and what ROGD proponents are saying. If you want to criticize the theory, fine, but criticize the actual theory, not a dumb strawversion of it.

Didn’t Turban tweet last year that puberty blockers were only as dangerous as the contraceptive pill?

He is truly a dangerous ideologue.

There's little in that paper that one of my students from 10 years ago wouldn't have pulled to shreds. But nowadays it gets published, is given credence and some even actually believe it.

I don't have the words for the dismay I feel.

He seems to have compared two groups of young people who self-declared their sex and whether or not they considered themselves transgender.

He admits that some of those who self-declared as transgender might have given their sex as their desired sex, not their actual sex.

He concludes from the ratio of self-declared males (who might be either male or female) to self-declared females (who might be either female or male), along with a small decrease in the number of young people identifying as transgender, that ROGD and social contagion don't exist.

And this got published.

And this got published.

Yup, and in a leading medical journal. Astonishing.