Your bag is empty.
In the discipline of sexology, the study of gender dysphoria, or when one’s gender identity doesn’t match their birth sex, has become a controversial area of research. Consider the backlash last August when PLOS ONE, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, published the first study to examine rapid-onset gender dysphoria, or ROGD, a phenomenon the study claims is growing among adolescents who come out as transgender. This coming out, as described by the study’s author, Dr. Lisa Littman, “seemed to occur in the context of belonging to a peer group where one, multiple, or even all of the friends have become gender dysphoric and transgender-identified during the same time-frame.” Littman, a physician and assistant professor at Brown University, conducted the online study, a 90-question survey of 256 parents, and concluded that ROGD may be an effect of “social contagion,” or “the spread of affect or behaviors through a population.”
The study ignited the internet almost immediately after publication, with some left-leaning media outlets calling it everything from “junk” to “anti-trans.” Think Progress’s LGBTQ editor, Zack Ford, wrote, “All she did was anonymously survey parents from the exact same anti-trans online parent groups that invented the concept, codifying their totally bogus myth in the guise of a scientific study.”
Instead of defending Littman’s research, Brown University rescinded its corresponding press release five days after publication, which happened to be the same day PLOS ONE announced it would review the article to seek “further expert assessment on the study’s methodology and analyses.” Bess Marcus, dean of Brown’s School of Public Health, said “removing the article from news distribution is the most responsible course of action.”
reconsidering the methodology of a peer-reviewed study after publication isn’t just a question of academic rigor; it can amount to censorship of findings.
Speaking as a former sexual neuroscientist, it has been my experience that those who point out the existence of ROGD are often labeled transphobic, whether they’re researchers, journalists or parents. Regarding Littman’s study, it’s disturbing that opponents criticized the sample group—parents of transgender teens who answered the survey on one of three selected websites— because they obviously hadn’t read the research. Of note, roughly 86 percent of the parents endorsed gay marriage and 88 percent stated transgender people deserve equal rights and protections. About 60 percent of parents reported their children had at least one mental health disorder, such as anxiety or autism, prior to announcing they were transgender. Many reported a history of trauma or self-harm. Most important, none of the children met the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria in childhood as defined by psychiatry’s DSM-5 guidelines.
In addition, many parents reported their kids came out after spending vast amounts of time online, including watching transition videos on YouTube. For about 37 percent of parents who reported about friends, more than half of their kids’ friend groups had also come out as transgender. This is more than 70 times the prevalence of transgender people in the general population. The study also showed how young people might receive social benefits for identifying as trans, such as increased popularity among peers and greater protection by teachers. Some of the websites accessed by young people even provided instructions on getting approved for hormone therapy.
Opponents of the study argued that trans people weren’t consulted as part of the research. This complaint is naive. The role of a scientist is to be objective, and a well-designed study—along with institutional review boards that ensure research is executed ethically— operates with this in mind. Whether or not scientists consult with or identify as part of the population they are studying is irrelevant.
Littman agrees that more research on ROGD is required but stands by her findings. So do many academics, stemming from the fact that it’s rare for an academic journal to place an already published scientific paper under review, considering its methodology has already been vetted during the peer-review process.
I worry that, given the negative press—Slate wrote that Littman’s “anti-trans study mischaracterized a real condition,” for example—PLOS ONE was influenced by a fear that the findings were politically incorrect.
For one, public capitulation only promotes the idea that ROGD is a made-up condition fabricated by bigots to invalidate transgender people. Secondly, reconsidering the methodology of a peer-reviewed study after publication isn’t just a question of academic rigor; it can amount to censorship of findings.
I don’t deny that the transgender community has faced discrimination and hardship. Although transitioning can be beneficial for some adults, the same cannot always be said for children. Based on my experience, in the case of ROGD in particular, a girl’s proclamation of gender dysphoria commonly has nothing to do with gender. There are a host of reasons why a young woman may feel discomfort around being female; they don’t necessarily mean she’s gender dysphoric.
The way the chips have fallen around Littman’s study could set a precedent and broadcast a wider message that academic journals can be swayed if a particular group deems an article’s findings unpalatable. In a time when the president’s administration is attempting to ignore the research of climate scientists, we must also protect science that—while not immediately comfortable—can lead to a better understanding of the human condition.
This article appears in the Winter 2019 PLAYBOY.