Home › Research › ROGD

Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (Littman 2018)

Lisa Littman, a physician and researcher at Brown University, published a survey of 256 parents in PLOS ONE in 2018 whose children, according to them, suddenly developed gender dysphoria during or after puberty (source). From it she derived the hypothesis of 'rapid-onset gender dysphoria' (ROGD), a category that the study itself says is not clinically validated. The article sparked a fierce controversy: Brown withdrew its press release and PLOS ONE opened a post-publication review (source).

The study

Littman asked 256 parents about their children who suddenly started feeling trans during puberty. Findings:

• Mostly natal female (82.8%), mean age 16.4 years when the survey was completed.
• According to the parents, the dysphoria began during or after puberty; this was an inclusion criterion of the study.
• In 36.8% of the friend groups described, the majority of members became transgender-identified, according to the parents.
• 86.7% of parents reported increased social media or internet use, a friend group in which one or more friends became transgender-identified in the same period, or both.
• 62.5% had at least one mental health or neurodevelopmental diagnosis before the onset of dysphoria.
• Parents reported subjective declines in mental health (47.2%) and in the parent-child relationship (57.3%) since coming out (source).

Later studies and findings

Since 2018:

• Littman (2021) — a survey of 100 self-selected detransitioners; not a replication of the 2018 study (source).
• Diaz & Bailey (2023) — a parent survey on 1,655 possible cases, retracted the same year by Archives of Sexual Behavior (source).
• Hutchinson et al. (2020) — a letter to the editor calling for more research into ROGD; these clinicians see more first presentations in early adolescence, without certainty about the causes (source).
• According to the Cass Review, referrals in England shifted from mostly boys before puberty to mostly girls in or after puberty, without a clear explanation (source) — see the distribution 2010 curve.

The controversy

Brown University withdrew its press release, and two weeks after publication PLOS ONE announced a review of the methods and analyses. In March 2019 the journal published a corrected version: the title, abstract, introduction, discussion and conclusion were revised; Littman writes there that ROGD is not a formal diagnosis and that the study, which collected no data from young people or clinicians, does not validate the phenomenon (source). The Diaz & Bailey (2023) article was retracted because, according to the retraction note, participants had not given written consent; the authors disagree (source). See publication bias and intimidation .

What ROGD means for healthcare

The affirmative model assumes that trans identity is internal, innate and stable — despite the absence of any biological marker . If Littman's hypothesis were confirmed, it would undermine that premise. The Cass Review names the influence of peers and media as one of the possible explanations for the rise in referrals, but also as the most contested one; which explanation is right has not been established (source). According to the Cass Review, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria also does not reliably predict whether someone will remain gender incongruent, or whether medical treatment is the best option (source). The Cass Review , COHERE Finland , SBU Sweden and the Norwegian Ukom call for more caution in medical treatment of minors; WPATH SOC 8 criticises the methodology of Littman's study (source).

The broader pattern

ROGD remains a hypothesis based on parent reports. Testing it requires data from the young people themselves, parents, clinicians and third parties, as the study itself asks (source). Compare self-report as a source and the desistance data .