Evan Urquhart

The other thing Evan is doing is hsifting the goalpost so one second we're talking about the potential of a kid self-diagnosing themselves as trans via YouTube, the next we're talking about them... getting a haircut or changing their style? That's not what's at issue here.

I agree Jesse, and I think that was the undertone of our exchange. For me, the most compelling reason why ROGD should be studied was Susan Bradleys clinical experience of an influx of FtoM trans kids, about half with autism. https://youtu.be/bZJorJ_W1QA 

I was not aware "ROGD" is considered a loaded term - it certainly shouldn't be. Susan Bradley's clinical experience is not a scientific study, but its not NOTHING. The smart response is to consider ROGD a possibility and conduct more research, and we've already started that.

The thing about ROGD is that it didn't come out of clinicians observing gender nonconforming youth, or researchers working with those youth. It came from so-called "gender critical" forums, places where anti-trans activists discuss strategy.

The paper on ROGD asked parents in these pre-existing online anti-trans forums that created the term to tell their stories. The researcher, to my knowledge, had and has no other experience with trans or gender nonconforming youth.

There are a few statements you are saying that may or may not be factual, and a reader here like myself would have to read a lot to see if they are true. 1. ROGD is a concept originating from online discussions. 2. The term itself originated from these forums. (1/2)

3. These forums are anti-trans people, or bigots. 4. People use these forums to plan public talking points. I'm a bit skeptical, as Bradley, Zucker, Blanchard, etc. all seem to take it seriously.

"Bigots" is your word, not mine. The rest is knowledge I have as a result of my professional reporting on this topic, and I am presenting it to you in a neutral and unbiased way.