Skip to content

Some Additional Questions for Dr. Lisa Littman

By: L

Questions or comments for the author can be directed to Health Liberation Now! here.

Lisa Littman is a scientist who achieved notoriety in 2018 for publishing a paper claiming to discover a phenomenon of “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD) among youth, a phenomenon in which teens with no history of gender dysphoria would immediately come out as trans in adolescence.  The paper was immediately met with criticism, both within the academic community and from trans advocates.  They specifically took issue with the study’s methodology and the way it purported to identify an entire new phenomenon of adolescent onset dysphoria in spite of the scientific consensus that trans identity can become apparent at any age.[1]  Eventually, Dr. Littman published a modified version of the paper, which was more conservative in drawing conclusions and clarified that ROGD is as of now only a hypothesis.

Despite the criticisms of her work, Dr. Littman has given a number of interviews on it:

  • With Jonathan Kay, of Quillette[2]
  • With Benjamin A. Boyce, alongside Sasha Ayad[3]
  • With Julian Vigo, of Savage Minds[4]
  • With Megyn Kelly[5]
  • With Stella O’Malley and Sasha Ayad, of Gender: A Wider Lens[6]

Dr. Littman acknowledges the controversy, but typically presents herself as an unsuspecting victim of out-of-control woke activists, hungrily pouncing on any dissent from the One Transactivist NarrativeTM.  She has also denied any affiliation with ideologically motivated anti-trans activists, stating in one interview that “I am not a religious conservative and I am not a radical feminist”.[2]  However, all of these interviews have been uncritical of her work if not outright adulating, and have not gone into detail about the critiques that advocates had of it, nor questioned how it fits into the broader discourse on pediatric trans medical care.  Thus, in the interest of openness and discussion, below are a few additional questions specific to Dr. Littman’s research that I would be interested to hear her answers to.  Note that I will at no point here call Dr. Littman a transphobe, a fraud, or a grifter; I am merely asking questions.

Question Set 1: Pertaining to chosen consultants for data analysis

In the “Acknowledgements” section of your original ROGD study, you credited the input of one Michele Moore.[7]  Twitter search reveals that Moore is a modestly prominent “gender critical” campaigner in the UK who has been active since well before the publication of the study.  In particular, she collaborated in 2017 with another such campaigner, Heather Brunskell-Evans, to publish Transgender Children and Young People: Born in Your Own Body, a book which in one chapter states that:

…the figure of the ‘transgender child’ is no more objective and no less political than the figure of the ‘pathological homosexual’, ‘the macho man’ and ‘the inferior woman’ that conventional liberal wisdom is now happy to consign to history. I suggest that ‘the transgender child’ should be equally understood as a socially constructed identity that should be rejected.[8, p. 43]

So, Moore endorses the view that no children can be transgender and thus presumably believes that all children should be blocked from social and medical transition.[9, 10]

  1. In an interview, you stated that you began asking questions after witnessing “an unusual pattern whereby teens from the same friend group began announcing transgender identities on social media, one after the other, on a scale that greatly exceeded expected numbers”.[2]  After this, how did you come into contact with Moore? What led you to believe that she – someone who appears to have no experience working with trans youth or even any medical qualifications – would be a good consultant for your study?
  2. Do you agree with Moore’s endorsement of the view that the existence of trans youth should be “rejected”? Furthermore, were you aware of her views at the time when you accepted her help when working on the manuscript?
  3. Given Moore’s clear opposition to affirming trans youth’s identities, how can we trust that your research is unbiased?

Question Set 2: Pertaining to hypothesis testing, procedure, and independent failure to prove in clinical populations

In a correction paper published in 2019 after the initial criticism of your original paper, you stated that the initial study was “hypothesis generating rather than hypothesis testing,” meaning that further research would be necessary to study and confirm ROGD as a genuine phenomenon.[11]  Recently, a new study has been published which examined data for evidence of ROGD and found no evidence to support it, and actually some evidence to the contrary.[12]  It is the first independent test of your research results.

  1. Why do you believe that this study may have found a different result than yours?
  2. Given that the study actually studied trans youth themselves and did not rely on parental reports[12] – a factor which you yourself acknowledge as a limitation of your own study in the correction paper[11] – do you believe it is scientifically responsible to continue to treat ROGD as a genuine phenomenon in the absence of evidence?
  3. When conducting research with LGBTQ+ adolescents, there is a growing practice to file a waiver of consent with an Institutional Review Board, allowing researchers to gather more accurate data on sensitive subjects.[13]  Brown University provides a way for affiliated researchers – like you were while conducting the study – to do so.[14]  Therefore, why not study the youth directly in your original paper? Given that researchers who did study the youth found results which contradicted your own, do you believe that your paper would have drawn the same conclusions if you had utilized the IRB’s consent waiver?

Question Set 3: Pertaining to inappropriate use of hypothesis as evidence and for guidance in clinical practice

Since the publication of your original paper, a great number of parents’ organizations, think tanks, and other organizations have taken the ROGD study as fact and used it as a pretense to deny that their children are transgender: see Parents of ROGD Kids, which happens to feature a quote from none other than you on its website regarding ROGD,[15] and similarly oriented group Our Duty.[16]  It has been used by Abigail Shrier in her book, Irreversible Damage.  Most significantly, it has been cited in legal briefs in support of blanket bans on gender affirming care for minors, irrespective of whether they have been through “exploratory therapy”.[17] In addition the organization that Michele Moore is affiliated with, Transgender Trend, has treated ROGD as fact to argue against the “affirmative model”,[18] as has Genspect, an organization that you are affiliated with.

  1. Given that you have made it clear that ROGD is currently a hypothesis and especially in the light of recently published results contradicting that hypothesis, do you believe that it is appropriate to treat ROGD as a real phenomenon like this and use it to argue for policy? If not, then what would you say to some of these parent/advocacy groups who do treat it as fact and use it to attempt to lobby against healthcare access for trans youth?
  2. On November 20, five days after the study finding no evidence for ROGD was published, an organization that you are an advisor to, Genspect, held a conference titled ROGD: What We Know and What We’re Learning.  At that conference, ROGD was treated as genuine; one presenter, Stella O’Malley, discussed how it might be applied in clinical practice.[19]  Given that it is by your own words only a hypothesis, and now one which has evidence against it, why do feel that this treatment – using it to set out guidelines for working with actual patients – is warranted?
  3. On November 25, you have supported assertions that exploratory therapy to rule out potential causes of dysphoria is of importance for providing medical transition-related care for trans and gender diverse adolescents.[20]  Previously, you have also said with respect to your ROGD paper that “some people are using this research…to negate the fact that transition can be beneficial for some.  This is a misuse of this work and is not acceptable”.[21]  However, Genspect states that they “unequivocally oppose the transition of children, and young people under 25”.[22] Do you believe that exploratory therapy should be necessary for transition or do you now believe that transition under 25 (30 for neurodiverse adults) should be banned? If the former, then why let Genspect use your research like this?

These are reasonable questions pertaining to scientific rigor that should be simple enough to answer.  We have reached out to Dr. Littman directly for clarity.  She has not yet responded, but if she does then we will update this post with her replies and any comments we have to make on them.

References

  1. Serano, J. (2021, December 01). Everything You Need to Know About Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. Medium. Link
  2. Kay, J. (2019, March 19). An Interview With Lisa Littman, Who Coined the Term ‘Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria’. Quillette. Link
  3. Boyce, B. A. (2020, April 10). Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: A Primer | with Lisa Littman and Sasha Ayad [Video]. YouTube.
  4. Vigo, J. (2021, April 1). Lisa Littman [Podcast]. Savage Minds.
  5. Kelly, M. (2021, October 25). Dr. Lisa Littman on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, the Teen Trans Trend, and Intellectual Rigor [Video]. YouTube.
  6. O’Malley, S. & Ayad, S. (2021, December 3). Gender Dysphoria & Detransition Research: A Conversation W/ Dr. Lisa Littman [Podcast]. Gender: A Wider Lens Podcast.
  7. Littman, L. (2018). Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria. PLOS One, 13(8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202330
  8. Brunskell-Evans, H. (2018). Gendered Mis-Intelligence: The Fabrication of ‘The Transgender Child.’ In H. Brunskell-Evans & M. Moore (Eds.), Transgender Children and Young People: Born in Your Own Body (1st ed., pp. 41–63). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  9. Moore, M.  [@michelemooreEd].  (2017, December 8). [Tweet]. Link
  10. “Born in Your Own Body – New Book On Transgender Children and Young People.” (2017, December 08). Transgender Trend. Link
  11. Littman, L. (2019a, March 19). Correction: Parent Reports of Adolescents and Young Adults Perceived to Show Signs of a Rapid Onset of Gender Dysphoria. PLOS One, 14(3). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0214157
  12. Bauer, G. R., Lawson, M. L., & Metzger, D. L. (2021). Do Clinical Data from Transgender Adolescents Support the Phenomenon of “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria”? The Journal of Pediatrics, 238. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.11.020
  13. Taylor, C. G. (2008). Counterproductive Effects of Parental Consent in Research Involving LGBTTIQ Youth: International Research Ethics and a Study of a Transgender and Two-Spirit Community in Canada. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5(3), 34-56. doi:10.1080/19361650802162177
  14. “Research at Brown.” (n.d.). Brown University. Link
  15. “Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria.” (n.d.). Parents of ROGD Kids. Link
  16. “ROGD – What is it?” (n.d.). Our Duty UK. Link
  17. Brief for State of Alabama and 18 Other States as Amici Curiae Supporting Defendants-Appellants, Brandt et al. v. Rutledge et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (2021). (no. 21-2875), 2021 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Link
  18. “The ‘gender affirmative model’ or ‘affirmation’ approach.”  (2021, April 15). Transgender Trend. Link
  19. O’Malley, S. (2021, November 20).  How Clinicians Work with ROGD.  [Conference presentation].  ROGD: What We Know and What We’re Learning, online.
  20. Littman, L. [@LisaLittman1].  (2021, November 25). [Tweet]. Link
  21. Littman, L. [@LisaLittman1].  (2019b, March 19). [Tweet thread]. Full thread
  22. Home page. (2022). Genspect. Link
Tags: