Experts Agree: ROGD is Not Science, Has No Evidence in Support

From Marci Bowers to Thomas Steensma, experts say no evidence to support a social contagion or two distinct groups of patients with gender dysphoria with different needs has been found.

by Evan Urquhart

An article in Scientific American by Timmy Broderick today presented the views of a diverse group of experts on gender dysphoria in youth. Each one rejected the notion that there is any legitimacy to the hypothesis that many young people who present with gender dysphoria are in the grips of a social contagion, and not really trans. The article is notable for including experts who have often been seen as falling outside the American-led gender-affirming care model, including Thomas Steensma, a Dutch researcher who is often pointed to by social-contagion believers as providing an alternative to the American model of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

screenshot from Scientific American

In addition to Steensma, Broderick’s article provides quotes from Marci Bowers, current president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and from former WPATH president Eli Coleman, as well as other experts in the field of sociology and mental health. Coleman is particularly cutting, telling Scientific American, “To even say it’s a hypothesis at this point, based on the paucity of research on this, I think is a real stretch.”

The social contagion hypothesis continues to be promoted by anti-trans activists, the right-wing press, and even in the mainstream. However, as Scientific American points out, the only studies that purport to show anything resembling an “ROGD” or social contagion phenomenon are based on surveys of parents, and not just any parents but parents specifically culled from websites promoting the social contagion idea.

Steensma, in particular, is an unusual and important voice. The Dutch researcher is closely associated with desistance research, research that has been used to suggest that large numbers of youth who are seen by gender clinics will not grow up to be trans. Such research is controversial, with recent studies showing much lower desistance rate of 5 percent, as compared to the 80 percent often mentioned in connection to Steensma’s work in 2013. This suggests that a process of refining the diagnostic criteria has likely allowed researchers to more successfully predict which young people will grow up to be trans.

In other words, Steensma is an outsider to the group of researchers who have most vocally supported the American gender-affirming model, and someone whose earlier research has often been relied on by opponents of gender-affirming care. If he says that he has looked for evidence of a social contagion or a new form of gender dysphoria or a distinct group of rapid-onset patients with a different set of needs, there is reason to believe he did so. If he says he found no evidence, his status as a relative skeptic suggests there was no evidence to be found.

It is perhaps unlikely that the Scientific American article will convince the zealous believers in the social contagion idea. However, it provides even firmer ground for those who follow the science to insist that the science does not support, and has never supported, this fringe theory.