ALFABET bende
Abbreviations Identities Topics About
2
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
← All topics

ROGD

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria — the research that came under pressure.

In 2018, American researcher Lisa Littman published a study in the scientific journal PLOS ONE on a pattern she termed Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD): the sudden development of gender dysphoria in adolescents—predominantly biological females—without early signs in childhood, and often in clusters within groups of friends or following intensive social media use.

What happened next

Brown University initially removed the press release about the study following pressure from activist organizations—a documented case of institutional self-censorship. PLOS ONE reinstated the study after an external review, but the damage to the public debate had been done. Littman became the target of an organized campaign to discredit her work.

In 2023, researchers published the largest parent-report study to date in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, with 1,655 cases supporting the ROGD pattern. This study was later retracted by publisher Springer—not because of the findings themselves, but due to a procedural issue regarding consent. The retraction is controversial and has been criticized by several scientists as politically motivated.

What ROGD Does and Does Not Claim

ROGD is a descriptive concept for an observable pattern, not a diagnosis. It does not claim that gender dysphoria is not real, but investigates whether social and environmental factors play a role in the increase in cases among adolescents. This is a legitimate scientific question—but is treated by activists as an attack on trans identity, thereby blocking substantive debate.

Related topics:

Children and gender, social pressure within peer groups, Freedom of speech

Related gender identities:

Genderfluid, xenogender cluster, Non-binary

What the international reevaluation reveals

The ROGD issue is not separate from the broader medical reevaluation. The Cass Review (2024) in the United Kingdom led to a de facto halt on puberty blockers within NHS England. SBU and Karolinska in Sweden withdrew their support for medical transition in minors outside of study settings starting in 2022. Finland (COHERE, 2020) and Norway (UKOM, 2023) followed suit. NICE (2020) classified the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as “very low certainty.”

The Netherlands is lagging behind. The Dutch Protocol—once touted as an international model—is being abandoned elsewhere. The data on which it is based do not come from randomized trials, but from observational studies with cohorts that are not generalizable to the current referral population.

How the discussion is being stifled

Within ROGD, the gender-affirming model is defended through moral pressure and scientific claims that do not hold up to scrutiny. Anyone who refers to the Cass Review or the Scandinavian shift is not given a rebuttal but is labeled transphobic. The WPATH Files (2024) showed that even within WPATH there was uncertainty regarding informed consent for minors.

Parents who come forward with concerns are dismissed as troublemakers. Clinicians who advocate for caution face internal complaints and public campaigns. The result: only one side of the story remains heard.

International Reconsideration

In recent years, various national health authorities have distanced themselves from the gender-affirming model for minors. The common denominator: evidence of lasting benefits is lacking, while the risks are real.

  • Cass Review (2024). Review commissioned by NHS England, conducted by Hilary Cass. Conclusion: the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in minors is weak. NHS England ceased the routine prescribing of puberty blockers outside of clinical trials.

  • SBU — Sweden (2022). The Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment (SBU) and Karolinska University Hospital discontinued the use of puberty blockers and hormones for minors outside of clinical trials. Reason: lack of evidence for effectiveness and safety.

  • NICE — United Kingdom (2020). Two NICE evidence reviews (puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones) classified the evidence base as very low certainty. None of the studies identified met modern methodological standards.

  • COHERE — Finland (2020). The Finnish Council for Choices in Health Care revised the protocol: psychotherapy as first-line treatment, medical transition for minors only in exceptional cases and within a research setting.

  • UKOM — Norway (2023). The Norwegian UKOM classified transgender care for minors as experimental; existing protocols do not meet the requirements for evidence-based care.

  • WPATH Files (2024). Internal discussions among WPATH clinicians acknowledge that informed consent for minors is problematic and that serious side effects (bone density, fertility, cognitive development) are not adequately explained.