[runarberg]

That was my final straw. Her video about rabid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) was bad. While she correctly (sorta) dismissed the theory of ROGD she was appallingly sympathetic to many of the ROGD talking points. Her worst offend was being skeptical of gender affirming care because of some vague and unproven long term-effects and because “the mental health of the treated kids didn’t improve, so much as the mental health of the kids that didn’t get treated declined”.

This kind of misunderstanding of the science is suspect when coming from a scientist famous for her skeptical take in her own field. Her sorta dismissal of ROGD is also suspect, because she seems to sorta believe the anecdotal “evidence” for it why also noting the lacking of actual evidence. This is the opposite of the kind of skeptical take she is known for. I call it suspect because here we have a social issue surrounding a minority where she flips her philosophy. I wonder why she did that.

[Lemmi]

I remember that one and thought she had quite a neutral view on it.

The only concern she mentioned was a statistical point of a few more girls potentially being / having a little bit too much rogd.

[runarberg]

The thing is, ROGD is not a scientific theory, it is a misdirection—or rather a debate tactic—by people with an interest in trying to discredit the existence of trans people. A true scientist would not have a “neutral take” on ROGD, just like a true scientist would not have a neutral take on the chemtrail conspiracy, or the theory that vaccines cause autism.

There are no evidence for ROGD other than very bad and highly suspicious anecdotal evidence. There isn’t even a statistical evidence for it. A scientist would know that, and would quickly dismiss this theory and all the talking points of those advocating for it.

btw. she raised more “concerns” than just the population skew in favor of trans people assigned female at birth—which btw. is not a concern, but at most a curiosity. She also had concerns about the efficacy and the long term health affects of gender affirming care. The concerns were without merit, and a true scientist with a neutral take would not find the long term health impacts “concerning” given the evidence we have, and as for the efficacy... well... see my parent post.

[cigcig]

It's a reasonable hypothesis that happens to be politically inconvenient, as if it turns out to be the one that best explains the available data, this is another nail in the coffin of an ideology that is already severely weakened by significant challenges in many areas, despite so many of its acolytes having already gone all-in.

[runarberg]

It is not any more reasonable as a theory—or even a hypothesis—than the theory that vaccine causes autism or that fossil fuel usage does not contribute to global warming. If there is no evidence to back up a theory—or a hypothesis—it is unreasonable to push it as a possibility.

What is reasonable is to assume that people are pushing these theories (or hypotheses) because they have an agenda. What ROGD is stating is basically that transgender people are contagious. This is a very disgusting thing to believe so they decorate it with science sounding terms and provide compelling—and suspicious—anecdotes to support it. This isn’t science and it is definitely not reasonable. I’m gonna call it what it is, this is hate speech, and it is not reasonable by any definition of that word (not even political convenience).