NBC News reports:
The “social contagion” theory can be traced back to a 2018 paper published in the journal PLOS One. Dr. Lisa Littman, who at the time was a professor of behavioral and social sciences at Brown University, coined the term “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” which she described as adolescents experiencing a conflict between their birth sex and gender identity “suddenly during or after puberty.” These adolescents, she wrote, “would not have met the criteria for gender dysphoria in childhood” and are experiencing dysphoria due to social influence.
Littman also hypothesized that adolescents assigned female at birth are more likely to be affected by social contagion and, as a result, are overrepresented in groups of adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria when compared to those who were assigned male at birth.
After intense debate and criticism, PLOS One conducted a post-publication reassessment of the article, and issued a correction that included changing the headline to clarify that Littman did not survey transgender or gender-diverse youth themselves, but actually surveyed their parents. The correction also noted that, “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is not a formal mental health diagnosis at this time.”Now a new study, by some prominent transgenderism advocates, claims to refute this.
The deleterious effect of unfounded hypotheses stigmatizing TGD [transgender and gender diverse] youth, particularly the ROGD hypothesis, cannot be overstated, especially in current and longstanding public policy debates. Indeed, the notion of ROGD [rapid-onset gender dysphoria] has been used by legislators to prohibit TGD youth from accessing gender-affirming medical care, despite the considerable methodological limitations underlying the generation of this hypothesis, as well as the unequivocal support for gender-affirming medical care by multiple major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association.8Cannot be overstated? The bias shows. The study shows no such deleterious effect.
Their main argument is that females would be more subject to social contagion, but his study found more males.
They also say that the transgender kids reported bullying, while that would not be expected if the kids were doing what is popular.
This is not a refutation of anything. Maybe boys and girls have different reasons for being transgender. Maybe transgenderism is popular with some but not others.
It says other studies found bullying, but I do not see that the data prove anything. Suppose you discovered that kids with tattoos report more bullying. Would that prove that there is no social pressure to get tattoos? Certainly not.
This whole subject is politicized. A good paper is forcibly corrected. Stupid papers get published if they promote transgenderism. The major medical associations are on board with it.
Here is a criticism of an earlier paper by the same authors.
You know they have biases when you use phrases like "those assigned male sex at birth (AMAB)". They have male sex from the moment of conception until they die. They are male. The sex is noticed at birth, but also before birth and after birth.
There is no solid science backing up any of the transgender affirming treatments.