Thank you Bernard for all the information you give us. As a parent of a son lost to ROGD it helps me to understand what has happened. He had never shown any problems until Covid struck and he was constantly online. I'm sure that's where he was influenced.
It is pathetic to see how the Affirmative Model zealots claim that they follow the evidence.
The main evidence they follow is from the Dutch papers which have been severely criticised. Yet they do not even follow the eligibility criteria used in the Dutch protocols which would have excluded all children with ROGD.
To be honest the longer I read the less I believe “ROGD”. Rapid onset - at puberty. So are menses “rapid onset”. As are growth or the penis and breasts and body hair.
I can’t find a term for “puberty dysphoria” yet I can find plenty on “puberty distress” including “Violent victimization”.
My hypothesis is that 100% of ROGD is mis-attributed distress at rapid onset of puberty, and “Usually, rapid weight gain around puberty, excessive acne, and unwanted hair on arms, legs, and face can cause distress in this age group causing mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders to worsen. “
Puberty.
When is puberty stress over?
The end of puberty. When does most “gender dysphoria resolve?” At the end of puberty.
It’s the easiest, least complex explanation, doesn’t involve the fiction of “gender”, and has been observed for time immemorial.
I think even Littman's original study also had ROGD boys, (I know people keep talking about adolescent girls but there are many adolescent boys who fit the ROGD profile, including detransitioners and desisters, certainly not the majority but there was a huge jump from around 24 adolescent boys first coming to the Tavistock (UK) in 2009 to 426 adolescent boys in 2016...this is a very big jump!)
Also, just to note that no one has shown us why we should take the Dutch criteria seriously either--they don't have long term outcomes (1-2 years past surgery is not long term given the regret times) except for some reports coming out now (> 9 years past being part of the Dutch protocol) where there is identity change, dysfunction, regret over lost fertility, etc., summarized by Abbruzzese et al., 2023, the myth of reliable research....
If the gender affirming advocates can dismiss the phenomenon of ROGD in teenage girls as a result of wider acceptance of gender ideology socially, and a more positive media role, then how can they explain the absence of trans identifying numbers among our mothers and grandmothers?
“ROGD had also made its critics nervous about clinical management because today’s gender services were giving hormonal interventions to patients who would not have qualified for treatment under the original Dutch protocol, which is supposed to represent the foundational evidence for practice”
I’m having a difficulties following the logic:
It seems that the rise of the ROGD cohort is damaging the validity of the original Dutch protocol, but wasn't that the one that we’d long since agreed had been implemented in the absence of an evidence base and thus was automatically already discredited?
Just how many layers of discredit can one intervention tolerate?
Thank you Bernard for all the information you give us. As a parent of a son lost to ROGD it helps me to understand what has happened. He had never shown any problems until Covid struck and he was constantly online. I'm sure that's where he was influenced.
Hope he emerges, Gay. B
It is pathetic to see how the Affirmative Model zealots claim that they follow the evidence.
The main evidence they follow is from the Dutch papers which have been severely criticised. Yet they do not even follow the eligibility criteria used in the Dutch protocols which would have excluded all children with ROGD.
To be honest the longer I read the less I believe “ROGD”. Rapid onset - at puberty. So are menses “rapid onset”. As are growth or the penis and breasts and body hair.
I can’t find a term for “puberty dysphoria” yet I can find plenty on “puberty distress” including “Violent victimization”.
My hypothesis is that 100% of ROGD is mis-attributed distress at rapid onset of puberty, and “Usually, rapid weight gain around puberty, excessive acne, and unwanted hair on arms, legs, and face can cause distress in this age group causing mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders to worsen. “
Puberty.
When is puberty stress over?
The end of puberty. When does most “gender dysphoria resolve?” At the end of puberty.
It’s the easiest, least complex explanation, doesn’t involve the fiction of “gender”, and has been observed for time immemorial.
I think even Littman's original study also had ROGD boys, (I know people keep talking about adolescent girls but there are many adolescent boys who fit the ROGD profile, including detransitioners and desisters, certainly not the majority but there was a huge jump from around 24 adolescent boys first coming to the Tavistock (UK) in 2009 to 426 adolescent boys in 2016...this is a very big jump!)
Also, just to note that no one has shown us why we should take the Dutch criteria seriously either--they don't have long term outcomes (1-2 years past surgery is not long term given the regret times) except for some reports coming out now (> 9 years past being part of the Dutch protocol) where there is identity change, dysfunction, regret over lost fertility, etc., summarized by Abbruzzese et al., 2023, the myth of reliable research....
If the gender affirming advocates can dismiss the phenomenon of ROGD in teenage girls as a result of wider acceptance of gender ideology socially, and a more positive media role, then how can they explain the absence of trans identifying numbers among our mothers and grandmothers?
I don't see tumblr mentioned anywhere.
My bright, gifted, neurodiverse child avoided fb, instagram, etc with derision and has chosen to have nothing to do with tik tok.
But tumblr has been the platform that worried me. Political, angry, ranting youth. A lot of pronouns.
“ROGD had also made its critics nervous about clinical management because today’s gender services were giving hormonal interventions to patients who would not have qualified for treatment under the original Dutch protocol, which is supposed to represent the foundational evidence for practice”
I’m having a difficulties following the logic:
It seems that the rise of the ROGD cohort is damaging the validity of the original Dutch protocol, but wasn't that the one that we’d long since agreed had been implemented in the absence of an evidence base and thus was automatically already discredited?
Just how many layers of discredit can one intervention tolerate?