In my last role as a school nurse there was a girl who, at the age of 11 told her parents she wanted to be a boy. So,, the parents did what they could and got help from various doctors and experts, and over the course of the next 3 years I got to know this student well, and regardless of what I thought on the matter, was able to support this student. The student knew I had a different perspective but we had a good working relationship and this student appreciated a different perspective eg I disagreed with the hormone blockers, chest compression brace and eventual male hormones.
Anyway, during this student's time here, 2 close female friends of the student decided they were trans as well. The thing is, I believed they were not trans. I knew both of them had serious family issues, including a family divorce, and had also gone through the gambit of self harm - from cutting, eating disorders etc. But the rest of the group of girls all agreed they were trans, and encouraged this.
At about the same time this was happening, Brown university came out with a study looking into ROGD (rapid onset gender dysphoria) which showed that the vast majority of the teens and young adults coming out as trans, were not actually trans. They cited various issues, including media pressure as well as underlying, unresolved psychological issues. Unfortunately, because this study was not 'affirming' of their transition, the study was withdrawn due to media pressure.
Anyway, regardless of my thoughts, these students were sent to the pediatric psychologist, who promptly refused to see them. I knew the psychologist very and and she confided in me that it's far too dangerous a minefield and she could easily lose her licence. She said that basically, any opinion that did not affirm someone as trans risked it all. A second pediatric psychologist I knew also refused to see them.
Anyway, the school decided to go along with one of the girl's requests to be called a boy. I was not happy to do this, but did ask my manager if the girl's parents were aware we were calling their daughter a boy. My manager said 'Yes' the parents were aware.
I was not convinced I was being told the truth, and about one week after being told the parents were aware, the headmaster had a talk with us in the health center, and told us that if we have any communication with the parents, not to call their daughter a boy or use her boy name ie we were told to lie to the parents.
I was not happy to do this, and quit. And now I'm in the middle of the Australian desert having new adventures.
Speaking of the Philippines, according to my Daughter-in-law who is from there, homosexuality and transgender is quite common and is socially very acceptable there.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
1 hour ago, Emergent said:
Speaking of the Philippines, according to my Daughter-in-law who is from there, homosexuality and transgender is quite common and is socially very acceptable there.
There’s actually an interesting documentary about it - AMAB women are considered a third discrete gender. I think they’re called kathoey.
I don't understand why you would share your opinion of transitioning with a child. I'm a school nurse, and we've had multiple students ask to change name/pronoun and some have gone back to their original names/pronouns. I'll call anyone whatever they asked to be called. I feel it would be grossly inappropriate for me to put my beliefs (of any kind) on a child. Of course, if something seemed dangerous or could cause physical harm I would report as I would in any situation, but it's not my job to share my personal beliefs. It's my job to create a safe environment and provide appropriate healthcare in school. I do agree that being lied to by the administration is upsetting. I'd be upset if I was lied to and then asked to lie in return. I understand why that caused you to quit.
Brown University’s retraction of their news article on Littman’s study has been making rounds. So has the comment by PLoS ONE that they will be conducting post-publication review. These points are most often shared as a win, as evidence that the study is being recognised as bad and will go down in the annals of history as a failure.
I think we also need to talk about how it could be a significant setback for trans communities and good science.
“In light of questions raised about research design and data collection” is how the Brown University statement starts.
The problem is that research design and data collection isn’t the primary issue with the study. Yes, methodological concerns are significant. Yes, bias might impact the accuracy of reported numbers because participants might have an incentive to lie. But to reduce criticism of the study to methodological concerns completely misses the core of the problem.
If there’s one label I would give the biggest problems with the study, it’s “interpretive”. The data is for the most part fine. If you want to convince yourself of that, imagine if the exact same study was done but instead it was trying to elucidate parental attitudes about trans kids among regular members of anti-trans websites, and concluded that those parents were hostile to their kids’ gender identities and justified that hostility by the belief that people identify as trans due to social contagion. Most of us would be fine with such a study. It’s indeed what’s happening here.
The problem isn’t so much with the data itself than how it’s interpreted. In particular, it fails to adequately position the data in relation to the null hypothesis — that this is a mundane presentation of late-onset gender dysphoria among teenagers with anti-trans parents — and thus conveniently ignores the fact that its data provides no support for the thesis of ROGD since it is equally compatible with non-ROGD hypotheses. Furthermore, those non-ROGD hypotheses satisfy Ockham’s razor insofar as they don’t require positing any new clinical subgroup or new, unpredicted social facts. The burden of proof lies squarely on those positing ROGD to show why we should reject hypotheses that are in closer alignment with established scientific knowledge. Because it doesn’t adequately address these issues, the Littman study fails to say anything interesting about the existence of ROGD.
If the concern of Brown University is primarily for research design and data collection, and if PLoS ONE is known for being relatively light in their review of interpretive aspects so long as the data’s good, then we’re in a dangerous set up. It’s likely that PLoS ONE’s review will largely let the study stand. And if it does, then it seems that Brown University’s concerns will largely have been addressed.
If that happens — and it’s not unlikely — then the Littman study will get a huge boost in credibility. To external observers, it will look like concerns were raised and turned out not to be substantiated.
By supporting Brown University’s statement and PLoS ONE’s review, we might be playing right into the hands of proponents of ROGD. I think we should consider that, maintain a healthy scepticism toward the whole review process, and make clear that the biggest issue with the study is interpretive, not methodological.
The title is: Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria." Its last pgh is this:
This descriptive, exploratory study of parent reports provides valuable detailed information that allows for the generation of hypotheses about factors that may contribute to the onset and/or expression of gender dysphoria among AYAs. Emerging hypotheses include the possibility of a potential new subcategory of gender dysphoria (referred to as rapid-onset gender dysphoria) that has not yet been clinically validated and the possibility of social influences and maladaptive coping mechanisms. Parent-child conflict may also explain some of the findings. More research that includes data collection from AYAs, parents, clinicians and third party informants is needed to further explore the roles of social influence, maladaptive coping mechanisms, parental approaches, and family dynamics in the development and duration of gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults.
Specializes in Physiology, CM, consulting, nsg edu, LNC, COB.
"At about the same time this was happening, Brown university came out with a study looking into ROGD (rapid onset gender dysphoria) which showed that the vast majority of the teens and young adults coming out as trans, were not actually trans. They cited various issues, including media pressure as well as underlying, unresolved psychological issues. Unfortunately, because this study was not 'affirming' of their transition, the study was withdrawn due to media pressure."
No, none of this is true. It did not "show" that. You can read the brief report of the study by the author, as well as her methods, at the link below. There were a number of critiques of it, but it was not "withdrawn due to media pressure." It was withdrawn because it didn't say what you think it did-- it was a description of parental observations by an anonymous group of parents who self-selected from an online community of parents who believed this to be the case. Lest you think parents know their children better than anyone, I invite you to cast your mind back to when you were 15, 16.... did you think that? If you know any trans kids or adults, how many of them tell you that their parents were completely OK with their transition and 100% supportive all the way? What if they weren't, for whatever reason, and they were the ones answering this questionnaire? There are other problems with this analysis, see below.
There were a number of critiques of that study. Here's one: (my emphases)
Brown University’s retraction of their news article on Littman’s study has been making rounds. So has the comment by PLoS ONE that they will be conducting post-publication review. These points are most often shared as a win, as evidence that the study is being recognised as bad and will go down in the annals of history as a failure.
I think we also need to talk about how it could be a significant setback for trans communities and good science.
“In light of questions raised about research design and data collection” is how the Brown University statement starts.
The problem is that research design and data collection isn’t the primary issue with the study. Yes, methodological concerns are significant. Yes, bias might impact the accuracy of reported numbers because participants might have an incentive to lie. But to reduce criticism of the study to methodological concerns completely misses the core of the problem.
If there’s one label I would give the biggest problems with the study, it’s “interpretive”. The data is for the most part fine. If you want to convince yourself of that, imagine if the exact same study was done but instead it was trying to elucidate parental attitudes about trans kids among regular members of anti-trans websites, and concluded that those parents were hostile to their kids’ gender identities and justified that hostility by the belief that people identify as trans due to social contagion. Most of us would be fine with such a study. It’s indeed what’s happening here.
The problem isn’t so much with the data itself than how it’s interpreted. In particular, it fails to adequately position the data in relation to the null hypothesis — that this is a mundane presentation of late-onset gender dysphoria among teenagers with anti-trans parents — and thus conveniently ignores the fact that its data provides no support for the thesis of ROGD since it is equally compatible with non-ROGD hypotheses. Furthermore, those non-ROGD hypotheses satisfy Ockham’s razor insofar as they don’t require positing any new clinical subgroup or new, unpredicted social facts. The burden of proof lies squarely on those positing ROGD to show why we should reject hypotheses that are in closer alignment with established scientific knowledge. Because it doesn’t adequately address these issues, the Littman study fails to say anything interesting about the existence of ROGD.
If the concern of Brown University is primarily for research design and data collection, and if PLoS ONE is known for being relatively light in their review of interpretive aspects so long as the data’s good, then we’re in a dangerous set up. It’s likely that PLoS ONE’s review will largely let the study stand. And if it does, then it seems that Brown University’s concerns will largely have been addressed.
If that happens — and it’s not unlikely — then the Littman study will get a huge boost in credibility. To external observers, it will look like concerns were raised and turned out not to be substantiated.
By supporting Brown University’s statement and PLoS ONE’s review, we might be playing right into the hands of proponents of ROGD. I think we should consider that, maintain a healthy scepticism toward the whole review process, and make clear that the biggest issue with the study is interpretive, not methodological.
The title is: Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria." Its last pgh is this:
This descriptive, exploratory study of parent reports provides valuable detailed information that allows for the generation of hypotheses about factors that may contribute to the onset and/or expression of gender dysphoria among AYAs. Emerging hypotheses include the possibility of a potential new subcategory of gender dysphoria (referred to as rapid-onset gender dysphoria) that has not yet been clinically validated and the possibility of social influences and maladaptive coping mechanisms. Parent-child conflict may also explain some of the findings. More research that includes data collection from AYAs, parents, clinicians and third party informants is needed to further explore the roles of social influence, maladaptive coping mechanisms, parental approaches, and family dynamics in the development and duration of gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults.
Specializes in Psych, Addictions, SOL (Student of Life).
On 3/14/2021 at 5:40 PM, nursingaround1 said:
There's a difference between name changes, and calling someone the gender they are not. There's also a difference in calling someone who is genuinely suffering from the condition known as gender dysphoria by their preferred gender, and some confused people taking up current trends, often ignoring their other mental health issues.
The DSM 5 does not recognize transgenderism as a mental disorder. You might be reading older versions of the manual!
When a person suffering from anorexia nervosa tells you they think they are fat - do you agree with them to make them feel better? Of course not. That is why I am reluctant to call a confused teen the opposite gender to what they are.
And when we have a patient with schizophrenia who believes he is Jesus, we call him by his name, not Jesus. I agree with you.
When a person suffering from anorexia nervosa tells you they think they are fat - do you agree with them to make them feel better? Of course not. That is why I am reluctant to call a confused teen the opposite gender to what they are.
That’s not the same thing at all. Supporting their exploration of identity by using the name and pronouns they choose is so benign and not equivalent to encouraging behavior that is harming their health. You are not being tasked with making treatment decisions like hormones or puberty blockers. Do you have a moral objection when students decide they want to go by a different nickname?
Honestly it’s probably a good thing that providers who have the attitude you describe don’t want to “treat” gender dysphoria. I’d worry it would essentially be conversion therapy; and puberty blockers are associated with improved mental health outcomes including decreased suicidal ideation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7073269/
The psychiatric industry is totally politicized and beholden to liberal social agendas entirely. Many people don't trust a thing they say, their DSM seems to change to line up with the latest societal trends. There's a lot of pseudo-intellectualism in academia these days, with psychiatry leading the way.
I personally believe that the prevalence of hormone disruptors that are ubiquitous in modern life has a lot to do with these disorders. Xenoestrogens are present in many chemicals that we use, and are particularly a problem when absorbed through the skin. These disrupt the hormone balance in the body.
I have recently started totally avoiding hair and skin products that contain these. That means no fragrances, and that includes both natural and artificially concocted ones. I also started using topical progesterone to try to restore my hormone balance as related to estrogen.
Emergent, RN
4,300 Posts
Speaking of the Philippines, according to my Daughter-in-law who is from there, homosexuality and transgender is quite common and is socially very acceptable there.