Notice of republication
After publication of this article [1], questions were raised that prompted the journal
to conduct a post-publication reassessment of the article, involving senior members
of the journal’s editorial team, two Academic Editors, a statistics reviewer, and
an external expert reviewer. The post-publication review identified issues that needed
to be addressed to ensure the article meets PLOS ONE’s publication criteria. Given
the nature of the issues in this case, the PLOS ONE Editors decided to republish the
article, replacing the original version of record with a revised version in which
the author has updated the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion
sections, to address the concerns raised in the editorial reassessment. The Materials
and methods section was updated to include new information and more detailed descriptions
about recruitment sites and to remove two figures due to copyright restrictions. Other
than the addition of a few missing values in Table 13, the Results section is unchanged
in the updated version of the article. The Competing Interests statement and the Data
Availability statement have also been updated in the revised version. The original
version of the published article is appended to this Correction as S1 File.
This Correction Notice serves to provide additional clarifications and context for
the article in response to questions raised during the post-publication review of
this work.
Emphasis that this is a study of parental observations which serves to develop hypotheses
This study of parent observations and interpretations serves to develop the hypotheses
that rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a phenomenon and that social influences, parent-child
conflict, and maladaptive coping mechanisms may be contributing factors for some individuals.
Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is not a formal mental health diagnosis at this
time. This report did not collect data from the adolescents and young adults (AYAs)
or clinicians and therefore does not validate the phenomenon. Additional research
that includes AYAs, along with consensus among experts in the field, will be needed
to determine if what is described here as rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) will
become a formal diagnosis. Furthermore, the use of the term, rapid-onset gender dysphoria
should be used cautiously by clinicians and parents to describe youth who appear to
fall into this category. The term should not be used in a way to imply that it explains
the experiences of all gender dysphoric youth nor should it be used to stigmatize
vulnerable individuals. This article has been revised to better reflect that these
parent reports provide information that can be used to develop hypotheses about factors
that may contribute to the onset and/or expression of gender dysphoria among this
demographic group.
Because this is a study of parent reports, there is some information about the AYAs
that the parents would not have access to and the answers might reflect parent perspectives.
Examples where parent answers reflect their perspective of the AYA include answers
concerning the child’s mental well-being, the parent-child relationship, and whether
the child has high expectations about transitioning. However, it is also important
to note that there are other survey items where the parent would have direct access
to information about their child and that those answers reflect items that can be
directly observed. Examples of this type include age, natal sex, diagnoses given by
medical providers in the presence of the parent, directly observed behaviors of the
child and the child’s friend group, school performance, whether the child has dropped
out or required a leave of absence from school, has been unable to hold a job, whether
the child went to a clinic, or received treatment. Readers are reminded to keep in
mind that this is a study of parent report and consideration of what information parents
may or may not have access to is an important element of the findings.
Questions on whether the article describes adolescent-onset gender dysphoria or if
it describes something new
There is some controversy over whether what is described as rapid onset of gender
dysphoria, particularly in natal females, falls under the existing definition of late-onset
or adolescent-onset gender dysphoria or whether it represents a new kind of development
or presentation. This controversy might be a false dichotomy because both might be
true. Although recent observations of adolescents and young adults who are predominantly
natal female having a sudden onset of gender dysphoria symptoms beginning during or
after puberty might technically fall under the existing definitions and criteria for
adolescent and adult gender dysphoria [2], the substantial change in the demographics
of patients presenting for care, the inversion of the sex ratio with disproportionate
increase in adolescent natal females [3–5], and the new phenomenon of natal females
exhibiting adolescent-onset and late-onset gender dysphoria [6–8] signal that something
new may be happening as well. These changes may indicate that there are new etiologies
leading to gender dysphoria and it is unclear, particularly without research about
these new populations, whether gender dysphoria in this context has the same outcomes,
desistence and persistence rates, and response to treatment as the gender dysphorias
that have been previously studied.
Expanded discussion of qualitative analyses
Because this is a descriptive, exploratory study into a new topic with very little
existing data, the addition of the qualitative analysis of two questions in addition
to the quantitative analysis allowed for a greater depth of information to be used
in the development of hypotheses. A grounded theory approach was selected as the strategy
of choice for handling the qualitative data. There were two reviewers consisting of
a professor with a PhD degree and expertise in qualitative methods (MM) [9] and the
author (LL) who holds an MD and MPH degree, and has published both qualitative and
quantitative research papers [10–11]. Each reviewer independently read and re-read
the open-text responses in an iterative process to identify major themes arising from
the data. Once each reviewer independently listed major themes and coded the open-text
responses according to those themes, both reviewers compared notes to collaboratively
revise and refine the major themes identified. Once an agreed-upon final list of themes
was developed, attention was turned back to the data to code the open-text response
with the final list of themes. After this task was completed, LL selected salient
quotes to reflect each major theme, shared the quotes with MM, and both discussed
collaboratively until agreement for the final list of major themes and associated
quotes was reached. The incorporation of both the qualitative and quantitative analysis
allowed for a more vivid picture of parent perspectives about the friendship group
dynamics and behaviors and clinician interactions than could have been obtained from
just one type of analysis.
Clarification of study design, methods, and related limitations
As mentioned in the article, the study design of this research falls under descriptive
research: as such, it did not assign an exposure, there were no comparison groups,
and the study’s output was hypothesis-generating rather than hypothesis-testing [12].
Descriptive studies often represent a first inquiry into an area of research and the
findings of descriptive studies are used to generate new hypotheses that can be tested
in subsequent research [12–13]. Because of the known limitations of descriptive studies,
claims about causal associations cannot be made [12], and there were none made in
the article. The conclusions of the current study are that the findings raise certain
hypotheses and that more research is needed. Simple descriptive metrics to describe
the quantitative characteristics of a sample in a descriptive study are the appropriate
measures to use in this study. Additionally, because the data were collected at one
point in time, no claims of cause and effect can be made.
All research methods have advantages and limitations. Obtaining information from parents
(and guardians) about the health and well-being of children and adolescents is an
established method of research [14]. Parental report, used elsewhere and in this study,
offers the advantages of collecting data from adults who are knowledgeable about the
child, who are able and willing to complete research activities such as detailed surveys,
and who can provide details that are not available by other methods. Limitations of
parental report include information that parents may not be aware of and parental
biases. Anonymous surveys, used elsewhere and in this study, are advantageous for
topics that might be stigmatized and can allow participants to be more honest in their
responses but introduce the limitation that the researcher cannot verify the identity
and experiences of the participants. The use of targeted recruitment and convenience
samples, used elsewhere and in this study, offers the benefit of connecting with hard-to-reach
populations but introduces limitations associated with selection bias that can subsequently
be addressed by further studies. For the current study, selection bias may have resulted
in findings that are more positive or more negative than would be found in a larger
and less self-selected population. Subsequent studies should address these issues.
Updated Information about recruitment
Concerns were raised that this study only posted links to the recruitment information
on selected sites that are viewed as being unsupportive of transition. However, announcements
about the study included requests to distribute the recruitment information and link,
and because information about where the participants encountered the announcement
was not collected, it is not known which populations were ultimately reached. It has
come to light that a link to the recruitment information and research survey was posted
on a private Facebook group perceived to have a pro-gender-affirming perspective during
the first week of the recruitment period (via snowball sampling). This private Facebook
group is called “Parents of Transgender Children” and has more than 8,000 members.
This means that parents participating in this research may have viewed the recruitment
information from one of at least four sites with varied perspectives. Specifically,
three of the sites that posted recruitment information expressed cautious or negative
views about medical and surgical interventions for gender dysphoric adolescents and
young adults and cautious or negative views about categorizing gender dysphoric youth
as transgender. And, one of the sites that posted recruitment information is perceived
to be pro-gender-affirming. The rest of the Correction notice will refer to recruitment
from the four sites that are known to have posted the survey in the first week of
recruitment: 4thwavenow, transgendertrend, Youth Trans Critical Professionals, and
Parents of Transgender Children.
Parental approaches to gender dysphoria and views on medical interventions
To oversimplify parental approaches as simply “accepting” or “rejecting” misrepresents
the range of responses and complexity of approaches that parents take when addressing
the needs of their gender dysphoric children. Parental approaches are complex and
cover many variables. For example, one parental approach might be to affirm the child
as a person, support gender nonconformity, support gender exploration, support mental
health evaluation and treatment as needed, support the exploration of potential underlying
causes for the dysphoria while expressing caution about medical interventions. Another
approach might be to affirm the child’s newly declared gender identity, support gender
nonconformity, support a liberal approach to medical intervention while expressing
caution about mental health evaluation and caution about the exploration of potential
underlying causes for the dysphoria. To categorize the former as “rejecting” and the
latter as “accepting” would be inaccurate.
This study recruited participants based on whether participants thought their child
exhibited a sudden or rapid onset of gender dysphoria beginning during or after puberty
and did not recruit based on parental beliefs about what types of approaches toward
gender dysphoric AYAs are best. Although one of the sites posting recruitment information
might be considered to hold a pro-gender affirming perspective and three sites might
be considered to hold a cautious or even negative perspective about medical or surgical
interventions, the site where a participant first heard about the study may not be
an accurate reflection of their beliefs and whether they endorse or disagree with
the content of the websites. Data about where participants first heard about this
study were not collected. Future studies should seek a wider array of websites to
post recruitment information, recruit from clinicians with varied approaches to gender
dysphoria, and ask specific questions about parental beliefs regarding their approach
to their child’s gender dysphoria, including: whether parents support or don’t support
gender exploration, gender nonconformity, mental health evaluation and treatment,
exploration of potential underlying causes for dysphoria, non-heterosexual sexual
identity, and whether they hold a liberal, cautious or negative view about the use
of medical and surgical interventions for gender dysphoric youth. Exploration about
what types of affirmation are endorsed by parents including affirmation of the child
as a person and affirmation of the child’s gender identity would also be valuable.
Expanded discussion about limitations and biases
Regarding the reporting of gender dysphoria, an absence of childhood gender dysphoria
and whether the AYA was gender dysphoric at the time of survey completion were based
on parent report of whether certain indicators of gender dysphoria were observed prior
to puberty or at the time of the survey. These determinations were not diagnoses made
by clinicians. Three of the indicators listed in the DSM-5 include information that
a parent might not have access to (unless the child told them directly) [2], and therefore
answers based on parent perceptions may not accurately reflect the experiences or
traits of the AYAs themselves. However, the other five indicators include readily
observable behaviors and preferences that would seem difficult for a parent not to
notice such as: strong preference or strong resistance to wearing certain kinds of
clothing; strong preference or strong rejection of specific toys, games and activities;
and strong preference for playmates of the other gender [2]. It is possible that a
parent could have ignored some of these indicators, though other people in the child’s
life may have observed them. To improve the reliability of this measure, future studies
should include evaluation from clinicians with input from parents, AYAs and from third
party informants such as teachers, pediatricians, mental health professionals, babysitters,
and other family members who knew the youth during childhood to verify the whether
the readily observable behaviors and preferences were present or absent during childhood.
For a clinician to make a diagnosis of gender dysphoria in childhood, a child would
need to exhibit at least six of the eight indicators. Given that 97.6% of the participants
reported 2 or fewer readily observable indicators, even if hypothetically all participants
incorrectly under-reported all three of the subtler indicators, 97.6% would still
have fewer than six indicators. So, although no clinical evaluation was performed
and a clear presence or absence of a diagnosis cannot be verified, given the reports
of the easily observed behaviors and preferences, it can be said that it would be
very unlikely for these AYAs to have met criteria for childhood gender dysphoria if
they had seen a clinician for an evaluation.
There is expected variation in how objective parents can be about their own children.
Some individual biases may limit the objectivity of parents. This descriptive study
was not designed to explore or measure the objectivity of participants. Participants
may have first learned about this study from one of four (or more) sites described
previously where recruitment information was posted. It is possible that exposure
to websites that take a cautious or negative approach to transition during adolescence
and young adulthood and exposure to websites that take a pro-gender-affirming approach
might influence how parents report about their children’s experiences. There have
not been any studies to determine if parents who seek information from online sites
in general, don’t seek information from online sites, or seek information from specific
online sites, including the four sites noted for this study, differ in their ability
to provide objective assessments of their children. However, if there were an excess
of participants who, compared to other parents who take surveys reporting on their
children, were less able to be objective about their children, it could limit some
of the findings of the study, particularly for findings that are more interpretive
rather than the findings that are more concrete.
The research survey did not specifically ask whether parents supported their AYAs’
exploration of gender identity, so whether and what numbers of participants supported
their child’s exploration of gender identity is unknown. However, if there were an
excess of parents who did not support the exploration of gender identity, it could
potentially result in higher reports of declining mental health. The parents’ perception
that their child’s mental health and the parent-child relationship were worse after
the child announced a transgender-identification could be due to several variables
such as conflict between parent and child, maladaptive coping mechanisms, or worsening
psychiatric issues unrelated to gender. The trajectories for adolescent-onset gender
dysphoria are not well understood and additional research is desperately needed.
There are many ways that parents can provide support for their child which include:
affirming them as a unique and valuable person and as a loved member of the family;
supporting their emotional and financial needs; supporting them in pursuing their
interests; supporting them to develop the skills needed for self-sufficiency; supporting
their choices of gender nonconforming clothing and interests; supporting their exploration
of their identity; and supporting them in their critical thinking skills. Parental
support is multifaceted and should not be oversimplified into a binary of whether
a parent agrees or disagrees with a specific medical course. This study was not designed
to measure different types of support provided by parents or levels of support. If
there were an excess of parents who were unsupportive of their children, it might
affect some of these initial findings. The nature and extent of parental support—including
the many different ways that parents can support their children in becoming healthy,
self-sufficient adults—is well worth further study.
Clarification of Fig 1
The purpose of Fig 1 was to provide the reader with a quick sense of what kinds of
advice can be found and shared on Reddit and Tumblr. One example includes an excerpt
from a publicly available Tumblr blog that posted a list of purported indirect signs
of gender dysphoria. This excerpt is indeed an example of advice that can be found
on Tumblr. Note, however, that the excerpted Tumblr post itself does not reflect the
full content of the original blog it refers to, nor does the excerpt in Fig 1. The
original blog is titled, “‘That was dysphoria?’ 8 signs and symptoms of indirect gender
dysphoria” [15].
Discussion of the ICD-11 change from “gender dysphoria” to “gender incongruence”
The ICD-11 will go into effect in January 2022, and, with this change, the new diagnosis
of “gender incongruence” will replace “gender dysphoria.” Because the current descriptive,
exploratory study raises hypotheses about factors that may contribute to the onset
and/or expression of gender dysphoria and concludes that more research is needed,
it is unlikely that the change in diagnostic criteria will appreciably change the
conclusion of the study, although the terminology may become outdated.
Supporting information
S1 File
PDF of the original article version that was published on August 16, 2018 (two figures
removed due to copyright restrictions).
(PDF)
Click here for additional data file.