Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation – The White House (cw transphobia)

Countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated

Transition regret is extremely low but whatever.

begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding.

Oh god, Vance wrote this didn’t he? This has got the stink of his bizzaro obsession with women not being “whole” unless they spit out a few babies (and good lord there’s a lot to unpack in why they felt it necessary to bring up breastfeeding).

They talk about preventing the mutilation of children while giving them unimaginable scars. People of my age were at least able to see things get better for queer people, the young ones today have only known this backsliding.

Fuck.

Trying really hard to not just completely lose it today

This references rapid onset gender dysphoria.

ROGD is garbage. The term was coined by littman, who used dogshit methodology to study the “phenomenon”. The paper required corrections, brown university distanced themselves from her (kind of, sort of defending her) and dozens of outlets responded outlining the methodology flaws, including the APA

Of the several methodology flaws the biggest was sampling bias. she recruited her subjects through known anti trans groups online. This was outlined in the paper but not discussed as a potential flaw before the corrections

Of course culture wars latched on to this. fox news, breitbart, etc latched on to how she was being censored for her narrative going against the “woke agenda” (conveniently leaving out she manipulated her sample to be biased for parents that were upset and angry about their kids being trans)

Several studies occurred in the interim. Bauer found no evidence for rogd. Littman said their definition was incorrect. Ferrara did note there is still room to explore the issue and Arnoldussen found there was rationale for future study towards an “ROGD” subtype, though they were clear at this point there was no evidence for such a thing.

So at this point we have this social contagion theory, one (deeply flawed) paper supporting it, one not, and two saying “maybe?”. The evidence is obscenely weak.

Then another paper comes out by bailey and Diaz. This was a shitshow. This basically was the littman paper all over again. Like literally! They acknowledge this! parentsofrogdkids.com is literally the fucking website they sampled from!

But the shitshow here is that the paper was retracted. It was retracted because of informed consent issues, and fairly quickly. So you’re passionate about this issue and you’re like “yeah, fuck them, retract that”. But here’s the thing: it takes a lot for a paper to get retracted. Like serious malfeasance. The Wakefield mmr study got retracted. It took a long time, and it was because he falsified data and had a vested financial interest in a competing product to the mmr vaccine. That study is instrumental in the “vaccines cause autism” sentiment, it was tremendously destructive.

So the issue here is informed consent (which frankly should’ve been picked up by the publisher, and arguably isn’t even an issue because it’s anonymous Internet forum data that did have a semblance of consent but whatever). But the issue here is similar to the littman issue: optics. It’s arguable the main reason this was retracted was because it was a heavily controversial topic with many eyes on it done poorly. But now there’s another “academics are censoring our narrative” because of the heavy handed response.

See https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4819394-publisher-to-retract-paper-on-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria

A moms discussion forum, thread on the topic, first few replies:

I wonder how many other studies based on survey data will be subjected to retraction because of ethical consent? This is another worrying example of research that doesn’t fit the narrative being silenced.

It would be interesting to know how many of the trans suicide statistics publications meet this standard. But yes, informed data consent is absolutely important

They reference a student doctor forum thread, which discusses the paper far more fairly, including the actual methodology flaws. And yet, no one reaches that point.

Why does this matter? Because these people get propelled when they are perceived as unfairly censured. When littman was going through the intense debate post her censure her narratives were amplified heavily. Abigail Shrier, who wrote a book in this period about ROGD (that involved future retracted “scientist” bailey), was suddenly invited to be on Joe Rogan. Littman herself was on megyn Kelly.

Anyway these people clearly aren’t interested in science. They’re interested in cherry picking data using obviously flawed methodology.

The hypocrisy is obviously infuriating. If I studied trans issues and pulled my subjects from blahaj and hexbear to ensure I got supportive results I would be crucified and rightly so. But we are in crazy bullshit times where people don’t understand basic experimental design (but will still speak authoritatively in the face of those who do) and as a result we are in a space where people are genuinely going to be harmed

I provide pediatric and adult mental health care. I provide gender affirming care. I have for over a decade now. I have written countless letters approving hrt for children and adults as well as surgery letters for adults. I am generally fearful for my freedom and safety. I am very sad for my clients, who for the last week have been extremely upset about not getting their federal documents updated in time. Now they will be in a significantly worse space. Treatment will be interrupted. Treatment that has been desired for a long time will have to delayed even more. People will turn to unsafe black market options.

Fuck this

this will certainly lower egg prices

death to america