3 ms·

it is not one paper, there are multiple papers by the author. Author got canceled in media because her research was based on patients and parents' feedback that

by slt2021 4y ago

it is not one paper, there are multiple papers by the author. Author got canceled in media because her research was based on patients and parents' feedback that was against media status-quo. Papers lays out facts about fake gender dysphoria that was not caused by patient actually being trans, and mainstream trend of grooming and allowing early gender therapy to kids is only multiplying these victim kids who undergo gender change and immediately regret it and have to reverse the gender reversal. Nobody wants to talk about downsides of grooming and it is alarming to many parents, and canceling researchers who study subject does not help understand this phenomenon better. I believe I am not alone, and there are millions of parents across the country that will fiercely fight against this erroneous practice. You can call these parents however you want: homophobes or other names, but that does not change their mind and does not present valid arguments against their view.

pseudalopex 4y ago
> it is not one paper, there are multiple papers by the author. Her publication list is 1 paper on ROGD, 1 correction, 1 defense of the methodology, and 1 paper not on ROGD.[1] So 1 paper on ROGD. The findings weren't replicable when researchers asked the patients and looked at clinical evidence instead of asking hostile parents.[2] > Author got canceled in media because her research was based on patients and parents' feedback that was against media status-quo. She was criticized for ridiculous methodology. And media reported the controversy. > Papers lays out facts about fake gender dysphoria She laid out parents' perceptions and treated them like facts. And even she didn't call the dysphoria fake. [1] https://littmanresearch.com/publications/ https://littmanresearch.com/publications/ [2] https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(21)01085-4/fulltext https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(21)01085-4/fulltext
- slt2021 4y ago
  looks like Mrs. Littman still believes in validity of her research and validity of methods and materials used. Her research view is considered toxic, only because its against mainstream consensus in media, that completely ignores medical errors in diagnosing and treating ROGD. she not only included parents, but asked patients as well, and their opinion does carry some weight in my book. there are commentaries in support of her continued research for sake of current and future patients https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334530426_In_Support_of_Research_Into_Rapid-Onset_Gender_Dysphoria https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334530426_In_Suppor... https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00185-8/fulltext https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00185-8/fulltext
  - pseudalopex 4y ago
    The ROGD paper was parents only. Littman included patients in the paper not on ROGD. Her recruiting focus was a problem though. Even she didn't think 1 paper made a valid medical diagnosis and treatment guidelines. The 1st letter didn't dispute the critique of her methods. It said the question was important and should be studied more. The 2nd letter writer didn't understand the 2nd paper apparently. Littman predicted ROGD and childhood onset were 2 different groups. The distribution in the 2nd paper didn't look like 2 different groups. 80% of the parents in Littman's paper said their adolescents had 0 gender dysphoria criteria in childhood. But gender knowledge is 1 of the criteria. n = 173 isn't much smaller than n = 256. The paper didn't say what she said it said about anxiety. It speculated long standing gender dysphoria or social complications could lead to more anxiety. And her speculation about why recent awareness was associated with lower anxiety scores ignored it was everyone's 1st visit.

pseudalopex 4y ago

> it is not one paper, there are multiple papers by the author. Her publication list is 1 paper on ROGD, 1 correction, 1 defense of the methodology, and 1 paper not on ROGD.[1] So 1 paper on ROGD. The findings weren't replicable when researchers asked the patients and looked at clinical evidence instead of asking hostile parents.[2] > Author got canceled in media because her research was based on patients and parents' feedback that was against media status-quo. She was criticized for ridiculous methodology. And media reported the controversy. > Papers lays out facts about fake gender dysphoria She laid out parents' perceptions and treated them like facts. And even she didn't call the dysphoria fake. [1] https://littmanresearch.com/publications/ https://littmanresearch.com/publications/ [2] https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(21)01085-4/fulltext https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(21)01085-4/fulltext

slt2021 4y ago
looks like Mrs. Littman still believes in validity of her research and validity of methods and materials used. Her research view is considered toxic, only because its against mainstream consensus in media, that completely ignores medical errors in diagnosing and treating ROGD. she not only included parents, but asked patients as well, and their opinion does carry some weight in my book. there are commentaries in support of her continued research for sake of current and future patients https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334530426_In_Support_of_Research_Into_Rapid-Onset_Gender_Dysphoria https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334530426_In_Suppor... https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00185-8/fulltext https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00185-8/fulltext
- pseudalopex 4y ago
  The ROGD paper was parents only. Littman included patients in the paper not on ROGD. Her recruiting focus was a problem though. Even she didn't think 1 paper made a valid medical diagnosis and treatment guidelines. The 1st letter didn't dispute the critique of her methods. It said the question was important and should be studied more. The 2nd letter writer didn't understand the 2nd paper apparently. Littman predicted ROGD and childhood onset were 2 different groups. The distribution in the 2nd paper didn't look like 2 different groups. 80% of the parents in Littman's paper said their adolescents had 0 gender dysphoria criteria in childhood. But gender knowledge is 1 of the criteria. n = 173 isn't much smaller than n = 256. The paper didn't say what she said it said about anxiety. It speculated long standing gender dysphoria or social complications could lead to more anxiety. And her speculation about why recent awareness was associated with lower anxiety scores ignored it was everyone's 1st visit.