And (3) very few of the youth claimed to falsely believe they are trans actually ceased to identify as trans to their parents, despite parental hostility to their gender. 10/
-
Show this thread
-
In other words, ROGD adds nothing to our knowledge. We know trans & questioning people go on the internet for support. Stephen Whittle wrote about that back in the 90s. We know parental rejection of gender is bad for mental health and family relationships. 11/
1 reply 5 retweets 83 likesShow this thread -
We also know parents are often clueless about gender stuff. Hell, I’m a professional trans person/scholar and even my parents were completely clueless. Nothing new here. 12/
1 reply 2 retweets 72 likesShow this thread -
Epistemic violence is a useful lens to understand ROGD. Epistemic violence occurs when you have two competing interpretations of data, and you pick the interpretation that perpetuates stigma and oppression against a marginalized group. ROGD is a great example of that. 13/
1 reply 18 retweets 99 likesShow this thread -
There’s nothing special about more and more trans youth coming out in an era characterized by visibility. But ROGD prefers the ideological spin of anti-trans movements, and chooses to turn being trans into a psychic epidemic. 14/
1 reply 2 retweets 77 likesShow this thread -
I won’t mince my words. ROGD is an attempt at weaponizing scientific-sounding language to legitimize opposing gender affirmation. It asks for more evidence that we’re not harming youth, masking transantagonism as ‘legitimate concern’. 15/
1 reply 22 retweets 132 likesShow this thread -
Want to oppose gender-affirmative care despite all the evidence in favour of it? Just suggest that there’s a new social contagion and that the old data doesn’t cover it. 16/
1 reply 1 retweet 74 likesShow this thread -
These critiques were all laid out well ahead of Littman’s publication but she didn’t bother addressing them head on in the full study. The journal did well to correct it and say it’s just generating a hypothesis, but that doesn’t change the core theoretical flaws. 17/
2 replies 3 retweets 73 likesShow this thread -
Why were the critiques not addressed? I’d venture a guess: ROGD is not a bona fide scientific theory. It was never meant to further science. Instead, it serves to advance a transantagonistic agenda by putsuing the legitimacy of scientific language. 18/
1 reply 5 retweets 82 likesShow this thread -
‘Rapid-onset gender dysphoria’ sounds like a serious clinical term and gives people pause. But we shouldn’t fall for it. What it is, is epistemic violence. What it is, is pushing for new engagements with conversion therapy. 19/
1 reply 9 retweets 94 likesShow this thread
Because it’s Twitter, I didn’t delve into numbers and data but if you’re interested in that, you should read my article, which I had linked up top. Here’s a link to a non-paywalled version. 20/ https://www.florenceashley.com/uploads/1/2/4/4/124439164/ashley_a_critical_commentary_on_rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria.pdf …
-
-
To borrow my own concluding words: “Reports of an epidemic have been greatly exaggerated. Upon closer examination, ROGD reveals itself to be a construct mired in unfounded and prejudiced assumptions. It should be enthusiastically rejected.” 21/
4 replies 10 retweets 95 likesShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.