Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases paper retracted

[PikminOC]

What was the answer the academic gave other than a woman is someone who identifies as one?

Still waiting.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Too many people pushing agendas. My patients who are currently transitioning are almost as upset with the allys as they are with the haters. They are acutely aware that there is no clear roadmap to how to do this difficult and complicated process and they are constantly shifting their own perspective as they are going through it. The complexity of this process and how individualized It is for them is becoming clearer to them every session. Maybe that’s because I ask them questions about their process that brings that to their awareness, but they really like that as a cisgender hetero male, I don’t pretend to understand, advise, or guide them in any way. We talk about evolving effects on relationships, sexual behavior, expenses, efficacy of surgery, future children, timing of treatment and how that effects development of sex characteristics, psychological and physiological effects of hormones, passing, being misgendered, pronouns, name changes, family acceptance, societal acceptance. It just seems to me that there is a lot more to consider when working with these patients than the political debate and as psychologists, I think that we should try to focus more on how to help our patients than which side of the debate we should be on.

In full disclosure, I am actually on the side of not having laws to limit what should be between a doctor and the patient or their family. I usually don’t disclose that to my patients though just as I won’t ever disclose what I feel about Trump or Biden or any other purely political issue.

Couldn't agree more with your perspective and approach clinically. It has been my experience as well. Political trends come and go. Principles of sound science and practice are stable and are effective. Listening to your patients, taking a careful approach in complex situations, collaborating with patients to find their own way through difficult and uncertain times...all of these are cornerstones of competent clinical care. In 10 - 15 years (maybe sooner), the field as a whole will perhaps be able to look back on these times with sober eyes and reflect on lessons learned regarding the perils of politics and ideology becoming so enmeshed with 'real science' (TM) and careful, competent clinical practice. By the way, 'real science' involves questioning one's own theories and doing so with a spirit of being open to data that don't support that position. I get the most out of reading authors who entertain multiple perspectives on even their 'pet' (or 'moneymaker') theories and demonstrate integrity by bringing up findings/studies that are problematic for the paradigm that they tend to favor. Very little in the field of clinical psychology is 'settled science' (I mean, maybe principles of operant and respondent conditioning) and I become immediately suspicious when we start acting like it is.

 

[borne_before]

Couldn't agree more with your perspective and approach clinically. It has been my experience as well. Political trends come and go. Principles of sound science and practice are stable and are effective. Listening to your patients, taking a careful approach in complex situations, collaborating with patients to find their own way through difficult and uncertain times...all of these are cornerstones of competent clinical care. In 10 - 15 years (maybe sooner), the field as a whole will perhaps be able to look back on these times with sober eyes and reflect on lessons learned regarding the perils of politics and ideology becoming so enmeshed with 'real science' (TM) and careful, competent clinical practice. By the way, 'real science' involves questioning one's own theories and doing so with a spirit of being open to data that don't support that position. I get the most out of reading authors who entertain multiple perspectives on even their 'pet' (or 'moneymaker') theories and demonstrate integrity by bringing up findings/studies that are problematic for the paradigm that they tend to favor. Very little in the field of clinical psychology is 'settled science' (I mean, maybe principles of operant and respondent conditioning) and I become immediately suspicious when we start acting like it is.

I think smalltownpsych's approach is the only reasonable one as a psychologist. I do disagree about laws and regulation of docs, though. I just think there is a nasty profit incentive to transition kids - subconsciously, the docs get a lifetime of non-diabetic patients to bill for. I also worry about munchie moms and parents who accommodate their kids every whims too much.

 

[WisNeuro]

Honestly, I’ve completely stopped watching documentaries because they are usually so completely slanted towards one side or another that they feel like a complete waste of time. (I’ll admit I still consume some biased media—YouTube video essays, the occasional Last Week Tonight video, but at least they’re usually more upfront about their bias and/or engage with disconfirming evidence to some degree).

Likewise. even news-wise, I've generally pivoted away from reporters/anchors and just look up the primary sources if it's something that I'm interested in knowing more about.

 

[The Cinnabon]

Still waiting.

My bad, was busy doing real life stuff (camping in the American Southwest).

It was Patrick R. Grzanka at Knoxville. They were talking about the intersection between sex and gender and differences.

I'd love to tell you more, but Matt Walsh just decided to skip/cut that entire part of the conversation out in an effort to do a poor excuse for comedy that would rile up his supporters. Hence the entire issue.

 

[borne_before]

My bad, was busy doing real life stuff (camping in the American Southwest).

It was Patrick R. Grzanka at Knoxville. They were talking about the intersection between sex and gender and differences.

I'd love to tell you more, but Matt Walsh just decided to skip/cut that entire part of the conversation out in an effort to do a poor excuse for comedy that would rile up his supporters. Hence the entire issue.

Where did you go? That's my neck of the woods.

 

[calimich]

Honestly, I’ve completely stopped watching documentaries because they are usually so completely slanted towards one side or another...

I agree. Despite the usual slant, I find them entertaining and thought prokoving. Kanopy has lots of good stuff imo, and it's free with most library cards. Others I've liked: leaving neverland, touching the void, the central park five, fyre, murderball

 

[PikminOC]

My bad, was busy doing real life stuff (camping in the American Southwest).

It was Patrick R. Grzanka at Knoxville. They were talking about the intersection between sex and gender and differences.

I'd love to tell you more, but Matt Walsh just decided to skip/cut that entire part of the conversation out in an effort to do a poor excuse for comedy that would rile up his supporters. Hence the entire issue.

Patrick can still post what he said. Did he? His tweets are protected so I cant see if he posted it there. Did he write his definition anywhere for my edification

 

[The Cinnabon]

Where did you go? That's my neck of the woods.

Jemez Springs, NM

 

[borne_before]

Jemez Springs, NM

TIL - you know I am going to ABQ for the total eclipse with my mom (who is a huge astrophoto nerd) and family in october. Might need to check it out! I love a good dip in a spring.

 

[PikminOC]

Patrick can still post what he said. Did he? His tweets are protected so I cant see if he posted it there. Did he write his definition anywhere for my edification

I looked online and still can't find Patricks definition

 

[futureapppsy2]

This video is a really nice critique of Littman's study and ROGD research in general (tl;dr: Sampling only participants from websites for parents who don't think their kids are trans will get you the opinions of parents who don't think their kids are trans)

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I don’t ask probing questions. I invite patients to share their thoughts with me and over time they learn to trust that I provide a safe and non-judgmental space to explore their own process. The patients that I am thinking about who have shared all of their conflictual thoughts have seen me for at least six months of weekly sessions. They don’t often tell their friends and family who support their transition process about their thoughts because like many things with my patients, the other people in their life don’t really understand and in an effort to be helpful say well-meaning things that are invalidating.

To me, this is the only ethical and professional perspective and approach as a psychologist. It may draw scorn, but I will agree that the profession--as a whole--has become completely politicized and it would be better if we re-focused our attention on the perspective that you've articulated in this thread.

 

[borne_before]

To me, this is the only ethical and professional perspective and approach as a psychologist. It may draw scorn, but I will agree that the profession--as a whole--has become completely politicized and it would be better if we re-focused our attention on the perspective that you've articulated in this thread.

I don’t ask probing questions. I invite patients to share their thoughts with me and over time they learn to trust that I provide a safe and non-judgmental space to explore their own process. The patients that I am thinking about who have shared all of their conflictual thoughts have seen me for at least six months of weekly sessions. They don’t often tell their friends and family who support their transition process about their thoughts because like many things with my patients, the other people in their life don’t really understand and in an effort to be helpful say well-meaning things that are invalidating.

I hope what I am asking isn't too laborious - but I am truly interested in some of the wording you use during these interactions.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I hope what I am asking isn't too laborious - but I am truly interested in some of the wording you use during these interactions.

It usually starts with asking about the various relationships in their life and what the patient experiences as supportive or unsupportive and how that plays out. I also normalize this spectrum of supportive vs unsupportive to an extent and then add that something like gender transitions can add another layer to it. I have similar conversations with all of my patients because fill in the blank with a diagnosis it adds another layer to it. This facilitates a dialogue that begins to break out of the black and white focus on the haters and abusers vs everyone else. The haters and abusers aren’t really worth talking about as the best strategy is probably to get away from them as much as possible and a focus on that is more of a defense mechanism than anything else and we don’t want to collide with a maladaptive defense. The real work is to talk about the people who are worth having in our life but still can be invalidating or misunderstanding or judgmental.