Evan Urquhart

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.

Considering the fact that virtually ALL of the papers on GD since around 2000 have been of people who experienced dysphoria & chosen to transition with NO controls on those who did not, they contain the same bias that you're condemning in Littman.

This is exactly why I'm telling you that Littman did you a disservice. All (or almost all) studies are flawed. There are always new questions to ask, and new ways to approach the questions we already have. But Littman's methodological flaws were fatal.

Littman WAS asking a question: Why the change? Littman's "flaws" were no more "fatal" than any of the research that's being published on the subject. I'm no babe in the woods. I'm a former childhood-type dysphoric that met GID criteria & I've read volumes of research.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like you wouldn't have met the current criteria. Does it reassure you at all that these criteria have been, and continue to be, updated and refined to try to limit false positives?