Evan Urquhart

My article wasn't a critique of Littman but an investigation into potential connections between gender dysphoria and depersonalization, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Others have critiqued Littman & I agree: her methods were a case study in how to get so biased a sample that your results shed no light on the q at hand. But, I didn't write a critique of Littman myself. Can't think of any articles I've written critiquing a single study, tbh.

Ever critiqued/interviewed anyone re: K Olson's study of the mental health of transitioned pre-pubescent children? It uses similar -yet less extensive - measures. No, because you aren't really interested in bias or method. You're interested in disparaging inconvenient results.

I don't believe Olson's study is even complete, but to my knowledge she hasn't attempted to find evidence of a new medical condition by speaking only to people purporting to be parents who frequented specific sites where that very condition had been conceived and popularized.

I believe the term is social contagion? A site where a certain idea was created and popularized is the wrong place to start if you're looking for evidence to support that idea.

I would have thought that parents who believe this ROGD phenomenon is real would insist on independent evidence that verifies it in the larger gender dysphoric population- the hypothesis is that this ROGD thing is affecting actual kids, not the minds of certain parents, right?

Littman's study wasn't "complete" either. It was merely an exploration of the OBVIOUS change in the frequency & demographic of gender dysphorics that are not consistent with previous patterns of GD. Actual experts (not internet exhibitionists) have also noted this change.

It wasn't an exploration of that, though. That's what people who understand social science research are, very politely, attempting to explain to you. Her study failed to explore the phenomenon because of egregious methodological flaws.