ROGD Paper withdrawn

[IcakethereforeIam]

I've just learned about this. Whatever you do, DO NOT follow the link below to download the paper. Also, please tell and share with everyone you know so they don't make the same mistake that I'm about to.

https://twitter.com/profjmb/status/1661022522446610434?s=20

Please would you explain more? Why is a mistake?

Equally puzzled. Why post a link and tell us not to click on it, on pain of something undefined?

For those who are puzzled and don't want to click on the link.

It appears that an academic paper on ROGD has been published. It appears the usual flying monkeys have appeared to try to get the paper withdrawn. It is possible the concerns are legitimate . It is also possible the paper is inconvenient to a particular ideology and that may be why it's been tragetted. For the moment it is available but with a note on it.

I've not read it yet and it could possibly go right over my head. Or it might be a load of bollocks.

So, yeah.....

Abstract

"During the past decade there has been a dramatic increase in adolescents and young adults (AYA) complaining of gender dysphoria. One infuential if controversial explanation is that the increase refects a socially contagious syndrome: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD). We report results from a survey of parents who contacted the website ParentsofROGDKids.com because they believed their AYA children had ROGD.

Results focused on 1655 AYA children whose gender dysphoria reportedly began between ages 11 and 21 years, inclusive. These youths were disproportionately (75%) natal female. Natal males had later onset (by 1.9 years) than females, and they were much less likely to have taken steps toward social gender transition (65.7% for females versus 28.6% for males). Pre-existing mental health issues were common, and youths with these issues were more likely than those without them to have socially and medically transitioned. Parents reported that they had often felt pressured by clinicians to afrm their AYA child’s new gender and support their transition. According to the parents, AYA children’s mental health deteriorated considerably after social transition.

"We discuss potential biases of survey responses from this sample and conclude that there is presently no reason to believe that reports of parents who support gender transition are more accurate than those who oppose transition. To resolve controversies regarding ROGD, it is desirable that future research includes data provided by both pro- and anti-transition parents, as well as their gender dysphoric AYA children."

Sorry, I forgot. You can't see what my eyebrows are doing or see me winking.

Thank you

This is a great share @IcakethereforeIam, thank you. Reading it now. It reads well, has some interesting finding and it feels pretty well balanced acknowledging the limitations of the source of the data, alternative hypothsis and that there is little evidence to support either.

Pdf downloaded for posterity!! I shall read it tomorrow! Thanks for the heads up cake.

I will admit to being confused because I could not see the ‘eyebrows’ or the ‘wink’.

I was panicking, but thankfully I definitely typed 'winking'.

Oh no! I clicked on the link! ;o)
And then I checked it had been archived: https://archive.ph/HQalW

A great find @IcakethereforeIam Let's hope that the Streisand effect does indeed kick in.

Lots of good stuff it there but to pull out a couple of things:

The authors acknowledge that the framing of the survey is biased toward belief in, and concern about, ROGD. This may have influenced responses, although it is likely that a more important bias was self-selection due to the website’s name and purpose. The initial purpose of the survey was not for scientific publication, but information gathering for a community of parents with shared concerns. In the Discussion, we consider which results are more or less likely to be biased.

I can't think of any reason why the paper could legitimately be pulled other than flawed methodology. The paper makes it clear that this was a self-selection survey, therefore it is informative rather than scientific. By contrast, there are many papers which support an alternative viewpoint on gender identity which hide this fact about their own methodology. A very good example are the much quoted suicide stats. The methodology behind the suicide stats research is not openly stated and the information is in wide circulation.
Regardless, despite the methodology, the information in this paper is important. The methodology just provides context (which was completely missing from the suicide stats papers - and would have told a different story had it been shared).

One statistically robust finding was both disturbing and seemingly important. Youths with a history of mental health issues were especially likely to have taken steps to socially and medically transition. This relationship held even after statistically adjusting for likely confounders (e.g., age). The finding is concerning because youth with mental health issues may be especially likely to lack judgment necessary to make these important, and in the case of medical transition permanent, decisions.

A significant finding. This provides more evidence that the affirmative pathway is inappropriate for a significant enough number of children who are on it. Therefore it must be unethical.

I think its been pulled on the basis of informed consent. The data was collected by the website via survey but not specifically for this academic study. If this use of data was not in the privacy statement or on a dedicated consent form attached to the survey then it wouldn't be considered consented data. It doesn't invalidate the findings but would be open to challenge on data use.

Ah, OK.
They may find that they are ok on that if it's anonymous. I assume that there wouldn't be a GDPR contravention if it is.

i.e if the data had already been anonymised when they got it.

Oh no, this is definitely the last thing I wanted, people clicking the link <wink>

Oh, okay, OP, it's a darn good thing that I am so biddable and compliant.

Oh no I have accidentally clicked on the link.

Silly silly me.

Have you, Faffer? Then what happened? Are you okay? Is it awful?

It was an interesting paper. The lower level of autism in natal females compared to natal males (6.5% and 13.3%, respectively) surprised me. I also expected the overall level of autism to be higher.

I don't think the paper itself has been retracted,just that the annex with the raw survey data has been withdrawn. It says at the bottom of the manuscript:

16 May 2023 Publisher's Note: the Supplementary Information has been removed due to a lack of documented consent by study participants.

Ah @TheBiologyStupid, that makes sense.

What's clear is critics don't care what the substance of the research says. They'll make accusations based on any peripheral issue that might get traction.

@IcakethereforeIam good work keeping it under wraps （＾＿ －)

Yes me too.

It seemed at odds with other information, such as the Tavistock figures.

A few thoughts on that:

1. Many autistic girls are diagnosed late. The Tavistock's figures said the just over one third of referrals had autism. Two of their clinicians wrote a research paper where they also included those with autistic traits, which brought it to 48%
2. Many of those who identify as trans on this survey are likely to desist before they end up with a referral to a gender clinic. Autistic children are more likely to "lock in" an identity, so are more likely to be among the last ones standing.
3. Social contagion will affect many children. Perhaps the demographic has shifted again to a wider impacted group. Those with anxiety were very highly represented.

Could that be to do with rates of autism vs rates of diagnoses?

I, too, would expect that the clinicians properly diagnose autism while at the Tavi vs the respondents of the survey who don’t have diagnosed autism and may not even be aware that it is possible that they, the respondent, may be autistic.