Pro-gender-theory activists have forced the retraction of an academic paper attributing the exponential increase in gender dysphoria among teenage girls to social contagion, but the opposition has only served to highlight the truth of the research.
Published in March in the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behaviour (Springer Nature), the paper—entitled “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,”—examines the cases of adolescents and adults who present gender dysphoria as teenagers.
Cases of adolescent girls suddenly telling their parents they are transgender and demanding to start ‘transitioning,’ including taking hormone blockers and having irreversible surgeries, have skyrocketed in recent years. The UK’s National Health Service found that cases of adolescent girls with gender dysphoria have increased tenfold in the last decade.
‘Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria’ (ROGD) was identified and coined in psychology research literature in 2018 by Lisa Littman, who also suffered harsh backlash for her research. Differing from the previously more common cases of gender dysphoria (at least until recently) where patients presented as gender non-conforming from a very early age or transitioned as middle-aged men, ROGD has been identified by psychologists as occurring mainly in teenage girls with prior mental health diagnoses. Prominent psychologist Jordan Peterson has called it ‘sociological contagion’ leading to a psychological epidemic. Many parents agree, and support groups for parents have sprung up around the world.
Other psychologists are also studying the matter, including Michael Bailey, a researcher at Northwestern University in the U.S. He co-authored the now-retracted study with Susanna Diaz and is no stranger to ideological opposition to his research. In 2003, he published the also controversial book, “The Man Who Would Be Queen,” a popular account of the psychology and science behind homosexuality and transgenderism. His research has expanded on and found further support for theories that homosexuality is innate but being transgender is not—that it is a treatable psychological condition. He was accused of unethical research at that time as well, but a deep investigation found the accusations had no grounds.
Diaz, though, is neither a psychologist nor a professional researcher, but rather one of many concerned parents.
In an op-ed in The Free Press, Bailey explains that Diaz is not even her real name:
“Suzanna Diaz,” doesn’t go by her real name. I don’t even know it, despite having met her in person once and spoken with her many times. She uses a pseudonym to protect her family, especially her daughter, whom Suzanna believes has ROGD.
Diaz, Bailey explained, wrote a survey for the website parentsofrogdkids.com, asking parents about their child’s gender dysphoria. She notified potential participants that the results would be published on the website when a large enough sample size had been collected.
As Bailey recounts, he and “Diaz” met, and he was impressed with her survey. He decided to collaborate, conducting an analysis. He also understood her desire for anonymity from his own experiences.
Their conclusion, as written in the paper’s abstract, was basic:
We discuss potential biases of survey responses from this sample and conclude that there is presently no reason to believe that reports of parents who support gender transition are more accurate than those who oppose transition. To resolve controversies regarding ROGD, it is desirable that future research includes data provided by both pro- and anti-transition parents, as well as their gender dysphoric AYA [adolescent and young adult] children.
They also found that in most cases, other mental health problems, particularly anxiety and depression, had pre-dated gender dysphoria by four years on average and that the best predictor of the young person starting to ‘transition,’ either socially or medically, was having consulted a gender specialist. It also found that parents who consulted a gender specialist reported feeling pressured to transition their children.
Bailey explained in an op-ed in The Free Press that he and Diaz openly acknowledged and discussed the limits of their data, and also that most parents who responded to the survey held progressive social views.
The paper caused a stir, receiving both praise and criticism when it was initially published. On May 5th, approximately 100 gender-theory advocates published an open letter calling into question the ethics of the study and warning of bias. Later that month, Springer Nature notified Bailey that it was retracting the paper. Bailey consulted a lawyer and attempted to reason with the publisher to no avail. The paper was officially retracted in June on the grounds that those surveyed had not given their informed consent to have the information published. No personal data was published in the paper.
Speaking to the online magazine Unherd, other researchers called the grounds for the retraction “extremely flimsy” and “precedent-setting,” as they stand outside of previous standards, including the standards that Bailey’s paper was published under.
Bailey, though, does not consider even the cancellation campaign against him as lost.
On the contrary, the counter-campaign has proven as—or more—effective in not only spreading the findings of his study but proving that those who would cancel others are often the ones who are unethical and unscientific.
“We are outraged and disappointed that our article was retracted. But the belief that activists have won and science has lost is mostly wrong. Our article’s retraction has inadvertently resulted in a triumph for truth and reason,” he wrote in The Free Press.
Indeed, his paper is still available on Springer’s website, though with “retracted” in front of the title. It has been accessed 118,000 times and continues to circulate through various media outlets.
