@adman22again @AveryOfBirds @WelfareCrypto @jordanbpeterson We can also criticize the methodology of the rapid onset theory which is the foundation of Shriers book. https://t.co/UtE92bA03u =)
@dobleplusungood @bee_how @llleeds69 @UglaStefania The ROGD paper about parent feelings - of parents who feel their child is not actually trans - faces significant critical review in academia. https://t.co/VF7KmKtHu0
"A common error in reports of descriptive studies is overstepping the study design and data (Grimes & Schulz, 2002) and @LisaLittman1 (2018) paper, for reasons described in this critique, is an example of this fundamental error." https://t.co/ghtKTZcI
@LouiseWluddite @CliffordTaz @joannaccherry The paper you screenshotted is by Littman who has been promoting the idea of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, supported by debunked science and bad methodology in her papers https://t.co/q6QajwFPPM
@BryanMittler @rbollinger17 @disclosetv "May" being the operative word. It isn't social contagion https://t.co/C1CzewOt8O
@milquetoastleft @AriDrennen Come on man not the littman study… there are like 20 papers debunking it but here’s the first one I found: https://t.co/3Et6rjCa3Z
@jA05810016 @GoonerProf ROGD is bollocks, not in the DSM nor in the ICD-11, and was heavily criticized, see for example: https://t.co/UtE92bA03u
@Setzer7777 @PunkiDaisyl6 @Tiothae In the ICD-11 gender incongruence in children was tightened, added an anatomical req for dx, incongruence in teens and adults is easier to obtain now, but still, gender variant behaviour and preferences aren't enough. I
@AdamGue63786860 @Shawnsolar @AmazonChique Sure, vetted and reviewed research that ends up in the DSM–5, isn't nearly important as random research. /s https://t.co/1jVYrqXufr
In April 2019, another Brown University academic published a report in journal the Archives of Sexual Behaviour criticising Littman’s methodology. https://t.co/eNQ9RRbnzv
@oldmangotree @sol_noctu @Fianna_Saoirse Und rekrutierte sie von transfeindlichen Blogs und Websites. Es gibt auch eingehende akademische Kritik an dem Paper, natürlich wird das meist nicht beachtet und mehr von einem Mob an Aktivisten gefaselt, die versuc
ROGD: https://t.co/UtE92bRAV2
@Obiben55 @yarbsalocin @protodoxa @C_Kavanagh There’s no medical body that acknowledges ‘ROGD’ as a real diagnosis or real phenomenon for that matter. In fact there’s a thorough critique of it available: https://t.co/UtE92bA03u, maybe it will satisfy you
after subjecting myself to the works of a. shrier et al, this is the sexiest thing i've read all day https://t.co/CXKMgFLLfH
@jordanbpeterson Oh, so you *can* spot when something is based on fraudulent research, Dr Peterson? https://t.co/jx3XfOt2MW
I love how in response to a fairly in depth paper (https://t.co/4JggSq9OlK) this is the response The paper was rereleased with some pretty big changes, namely it no longer claims to demonstrate the existence of rogd
RT @AveryOfBirds: @e_urq Also it's a fucking masterclass in bad science https://t.co/4JggSq9OlK
RT @AveryOfBirds: @e_urq Also it's a fucking masterclass in bad science https://t.co/4JggSq9OlK
Oh do be quiet!
RT @AveryOfBirds: @ArtmoonLouise @genspect Two things One, the suddenness of it probably has a lot to do with her knowing this is how you'd…
@BobWithers52 Truely groundbreaking, showing that it's not just men called Wakefield who can produce a deeply flawed paper and have it accepted by people who want it to be true https://t.co/4JggSq9OlK
@e_urq Also it's a fucking masterclass in bad science https://t.co/4JggSq9OlK
@ArtmoonLouise @genspect Two things One, the suddenness of it probably has a lot to do with her knowing this is how you'd react to it And two, if you're interested in reading papers on the topic you should take a glance at this https://t.co/4JggSq9OlK
@ALLIANCELGB Tide? Specialists? https://t.co/4JggSq9OlK
@ProgPilgrim @jessesingal Regardless of if you've seen it, of course there have been many specific critiques made of the original ROGD study; you'll find many in this article, for example. https://t.co/3XysdrK3gD
@caitlinmoriah Also, someone got a whole paper out of critiquing the methodological problems in the study: https://t.co/I7RgNcWT1t
@darkst @keeltyc @jessesingal And here's a critique of it's multiple methodological flaws: https://t.co/ym4gNFFMRq
@AndrewWfrpgm One of the best places to see criticisms of the article is the corrections section on the article itself! But other than that I recommend @JuliaSerano's thorough takedown here: https://t.co/S9ndgLXOVG and there's a good formal response here:
@CThomas87148619 @Jsoosty @NickCohen4 @jk_rowling So, a scholarly review of the paper, by a noted researcher, and uses the research of dozens of other researchers means nothing to you? What about statements from WPATH? https://t.co/mFnwy95wID Or critique
@TakeLuckSerious @notCursedE @BlueMouseEeek @_Cuddlefish_ @BarnabyJDixon @SashaLPC Sorry, I’m not buying a disorder that is only supported by a study where they surveyed PARENTS from only *3* diff anti-trans forums on their perception of their child’s gend
@SophiaPangloss @wontsomeonethi2 @William27136245 @lauramarsh70 I completely agree with your first sentence! Not sure how it fits with the rest. IMO we’ve always had children who felt they were trans. It just wasn’t something acceptable for them to express
@ATBollands @KLBfax This is the part where I'm honestly losing patience for this. Rapid onset is not an accepted concept and is the product of one deeply flawed study, like, that study is used in classes as an example of what not to do https://t.co/4JggS
@Frank_Ardalan @Radical_Learner @jordanbpeterson ‘A destructive cultural fad’. What an appalling thing to say. In your worldview, their is no possibility that this child could genuinely be transgender. It has to be a ‘fad’. There is no good science that
@AbigailShrier The research you based your entire book on suffers from severe methodological flaws. Why haven’t you addressed this @AbigailShrier ? https://t.co/jx3XfOt2MW
@AbigailShrier @bariweiss ‘Irreversible Damage’ is based on research that contains basic & severe methodological flaws. As a result, the literature you reference does not support your conclusions. https://t.co/jx3XfOt2MW
@AbigailShrier @thetimes @_SwiftPress Your book is based on research with basic & severe methodological flaws. As a result, the literature you reference does not support your conclusions. You are peddling junk science. Here is a methodological review
@prageru @AbigailShrier The research Shrier is basing her arguments on suffers from basic & severe methodological flaws. Abigail Shrier is a charlatan. https://t.co/jx3XfOt2MW
@jordanbpeterson Hi @jordanbpeterson , The research that Abigail Shrier’s book ‘Irreversible Damage’ is based on contains severe methodological flaws, and therefore does not support the conclusions of her thesis. Did you bring this up with her? https://t.
@jordanbpeterson Hi Jordan, The research that Abigail Shrier’s book on trans issues is based on contains severe methodological flaws, and therefore does not support the conclusions of her thesis. Did you bring this up with her? https://t.co/jx3XfOt2MW
@LilyLilyMaynard <speaks very very slowly> The original study was retracted. An new version replaced it. Even Zucker's journal tore it apart. https://t.co/qS0n8CJXcS That you apparently support LL's methodology but say what you've just said? You pr
@TheOnlySprout 3. @Dr_ArjeeRestar's thorough methodological critique (2020) https://t.co/Lc65fCOO31
Rapid-onset #genderdysphoria #LisaLittman https://t.co/GJ7BKCx426 free PDF Methodological Critique of Littman’s #ROGD #ArjeeRestar https://t.co/3zPiuQhX4X free PDF Response to Restar (2019) Littman https://t.co/qarlBFSlTz (US$39.95 for the PDF) =>$om
@jordanbpeterson @AbigailShrier Hi Jordan, The research that Shrier’s book is based on contains severe methodological flaws, and therefore does not support the conclusions of her thesis. Did you bring this up with her? https://t.co/jx3XfOt2MW
@jordanbpeterson @AbigailShrier Hi Jordan, The research that Shrier’s book is based on contains severe methodological flaws, and therefore does not support the conclusions of her thesis. Did you bring this up with her? https://t.co/jx3XfOt2MW
@logical_ultra @MediClit @DrDebraSoh It was taken down then republished with addendums that basically striped the conclusions down to not being evidence of anything. I mean, it's a study on a phenomenon in trans kids that spoke to zero trans children and t
@yozhikitty @wonfeer @richhell @tom_swiss @fakedansavage @jessesingal Pretty serious clarification It's not accepted anywhere as a valid diagnosis And here's some light reading on its many flaws https://t.co/4JggSq9OlK https://t.co/xDGKX4O4uD
@tom_swiss @richhell @fakedansavage @jessesingal Eviscerated might be a better word https://t.co/4JggSq9OlK It's bad, legendarily bad
@ScottSteed7 @gp_jls The mark of a true intellectual "I agree with this book before I've read it and don't need to hear otherwise". But here in the interest of futility https://t.co/4JggSq9OlK
@ElliotIkilei @Athena1944 @Ayaan @AbigailShrier You're all very predictable. There's a reason that study had to have it's conclusion modified after it's initial presentation It's deeply flawed and riddled with the same ideological bias you accuse others of
@ThisRandomNoise @jack_turban Whereas Abigail based an entire book on a paper so flawed I've actually had it used in a class as an example of what you should never do https://t.co/4JggSq9OlK
@BlouInCalif @jack_turban They paid him or they funded research? And $15k is such a tiny amount in these things, if that's the smoking gun then you're really reaching If you're interested, here's something a little more substantial https://t.co/4JggSq9Ol
@MaskedResister1 @TweeterMegz Thought of you when I saw this https://t.co/4JggSq9OlK Maybe we should have good quality studies
@TmsKeith @JohnAndersonAO but the Littman study is methologically flawed and highly biased in its construction. https://t.co/MA0YMmpmKp
@AmazonEve @VaderSnark @deb1ballard @NathanielHart72 @Quillette @DrDebraSoh I mean, JFC. She claims on p. 173 that Littman's ROGD "study" was retracted after ONE --YES, JUST ONE-- activist complained about it online. Does she even bother with this? http
@AsterixNational @NotMorganHanson It does have many methodological issues, so the validity of the paper has to be questioned, the author set her survey in well know pages antagonistic to trans people so it's having a sample selection bias https://t.co/onof
@ZackFord @BrynnTannehill @lifeafterdawn @MaiaMonet @jammi_dodger94 also fyi to date there are 2 peer-reviewed critiques of ROGD & the Littman study: https://t.co/FSgpi2sfji https://t.co/dvKngYMp25
@Phildidgee @ashneedstherapy @2damntrans @Tyler85876933 @Kegluneq1103 @TedAuerbach @LoUFO7 Nope. I mean, you’re literally citing Littmans paper as evidence of good methodology. https://t.co/xTLk3YIlCc
@raarts @MinaCoen @blueeyes_micky @D66 @UvA_Amsterdam @damiaan_denys 2/ Dat is vooringenomenheid met een hoofdletter B (Bias). Lees deze wetenschappelijke roast van Litman's onderzoek maar eens: https://t.co/mYZtxlb0jA
@michelemooreEd @ProfAliceS @Commonswomequ @LisaLittman1 @LSBU @RyersonCFE https://t.co/wnQI6yeD5s Lisa Littman’s #ROGD research has been debunked multiple times, including in this academic critique here: https://t.co/cuKj5TQ7ZV
RT @mimmymum: Lisa Littman’s #ROGD research has been debunked multiple times, including in this academic critique here: https://t.co/hnK2Wn…
Lisa Littman’s #ROGD research has been debunked multiple times, including in this academic critique here: https://t.co/hnK2WnSGjB cc. @Commonswomequ @carolinenokes @Nicola4WBE @PeterGibsonMP
@ArielleScarcell If you want to gesture at rapid onset gender dysphoria, discuss criticisms of it, too. Particularly Littman's selection bias. Wouldn't want to "deny science" would we? https://t.co/BrxLRIdf1Q
@action_rad @Llega_Ixtab @Susamj @LauraRdondo @__Hiedra @Paulafraga__ @DRadfem @rubiaspierre @ConfluenciaMF @ContraBorrado @towandarebels1 @Barbijaputa Aquí mismo un análisis más detallado. https://t.co/CkXfuBqZYy
RT @MerkinMuffley5: @CrystalBlueFae You mean in Littman's paper? There are countless plausible rival hypotheses ranging from confirmation b…
@CrystalBlueFae You mean in Littman's paper? There are countless plausible rival hypotheses ranging from confirmation bias to confusing correlation and causation. https://t.co/y5zRPZogRO
@HPluckrose @AbigailShrier @AbigailShrier's Irreversible Damage was influenced by an academic paper, Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults, written by L.L. Littman, critiqued by Arjee Javellana Restart as methodologically unscientifi
Look at this idiot, trying to discredit actual academic research with an anonymous paper by a man who identifies as trans, and who appears to have either zero qualifications, or a psychology degree (pffft). I bet it’s Merwin himself, and he’s self-identify
@bmogle @edeysal @AbigailShrier I could have quoted academic sources but the discussion lacked substance and the guardian articled provided the scientific context. Have a look at the following paper: https://t.co/GCmNqFCIQS
@Jeeeez17 @ALLIANCELGB https://t.co/xzpm62zBXU Her study has so many flaws that it’s barely even worth addressing. Here is a rather comprehensive analysis of them
@Kel20To @tjcbale @SKeenan39088780 @Hilary_Cass @kathmurray1 @NHSEngland ROGD is not a formal clinical diagnosis, it is a pseudoscientific phrase made up by lisa littman in her controversial and widely criticised paper. https://t.co/tQVXHiEEgN
@ChrisFalconer16 @McfuckyouSweety @fharris2011 @Transgendertrd @MForstater @TheBMA So, what proof do you have that rapid onset gender dysphoria - repeatedly promoted by the OP - exists again? None. And before you claim Littmans “How Not To Do Qualitativ
@Transgendertrd @TheBMA The paper you claim as “evidence” was so poorly researched and reported that it’s become the “How Not To” guide for qualitative research. https://t.co/xTLk3YIlCc
@Transgendertrd @TheBMA The only person trying to push an “ideology” not founded in evidence appears to be you. I mean, don’t you promote the idea that Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) is a real? You know, the thing that isn’t supported by any eviden
@ALLIANCELGB Your article mentions Lisa Littmen and her 'rapid onset gender dysphoria' study, which has horrible methodical flaws, and you keep mentioning it, so I suggest you read this https://t.co/InKO9Ym0H9
@BayswaterSG Here's a paper pointing out how her methodology was fundamentally flawed and biased from the start: https://t.co/I7RgNcWT1t
RT @GloriaSlap: @Chican3ry A better reason for being deeply sceptical of ROGD narratives is that they aren't really a thing: https://t.co/…
@Chican3ry A better reason for being deeply sceptical of ROGD narratives is that they aren't really a thing: https://t.co/MUWwRbRjHi
RT @doublehelix: @ToothbrushTed @mimmymum No, pro-reality peer review by other scientists showed that the ROGD study was biased rubbish h…
@gigilarue4 @MjrKusanagi @MadDad03114370 @drawnoutofshape @jk_rowling @marcusevanspsyc @AbigailShrier "minor" LOL. There are entire papers detailing the glaring bias and methodological problems in the study. https://t.co/R6ch36quxh