Debunking the 'Additional Factors' Article on Gender Dysphoria

Hey there folks, today I want to share with you my take on the recently published "Additional Factors" article, written by a mother claiming to have "a degree in clinical psychology and have done extensive personal research," and published on pittparents.com1. It tries to shed light on some potential “additional factors” that may cause gender dysphoria in adolescents. However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that this article is nothing more than a collection of baseless speculations, misrepresented studies, and harmful stereotypes that contribute to the stigmatization and marginalization of transgender individuals2. In this response, we will expose the article's numerous flaws and make a case for the importance of responsible scholarship in the face of misinformation and prejudice.

Misrepresentation of Evidence

One of the most egregious aspects of the "Additional Factors" article is its shameless misrepresentation of the research it cites. The author engages in a pattern of cherry-picking, selectively presenting findings that appear to support their claims while ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts their position3. This blatant disregard for scientific integrity is not only dishonest but also deeply unethical, as it misleads readers and undermines the public's trust in the research community. In fact, if you review the evidence cited in the "Additional Factors" article, it becomes clear that none of the studies directly support the claims made by the author.

The article cites studies on a wide range of topics, including sleep disturbances, screen time, obesity, inflammatory diet, and epigenetic inheritance. However, when we examine these studies closely, we find that they do not actually provide any direct evidence for the author's assertions about the factors contributing to gender dysphoria.

For example, the studies on sleep disturbances and screen time4, while potentially relevant to general health and well-being, do not specifically investigate the relationship between these factors and gender identity development. Similarly, the research on obesity and inflammatory diet, while important in its own right, does not establish any causal link between these issues and the emergence of gender dysphoria5.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this pattern is the article's discussion of epigenetic inheritance and transgenerational effects. It is based on a highly selective and misleading interpretation of the available evidence. While the cited studies do suggest that environmental factors can influence gene expression and potentially impact future generations, they do not provide any specific evidence for the claim that these mechanisms are responsible for the development of gender dysphoria. And even if they did, then is she going to make the argument that gender dysphoria is genetic, and has some biological basis? I highly doubt it, though I admit that would be most interesting to explore.

In fact, I found that many of the studies cited actually contradict the article's central arguments. For example, the research on sleep disturbances and mental health consistently emphasizes the complex, multifactorial nature of these issues, rather than suggesting a simplistic causal relationship between sleep problems and any mental health issue, or gender identity (which is not included or mentioned within the study). Similarly, the studies on epigenetic inheritance highlight the importance of direct exposure to environmental factors, rather than supporting the article's claims about transgenerational effects.

The "Additional Factors" article's use of evidence appears to be little more than a smokescreen, designed to give the impression of scientific legitimacy while actually engaging in a form of intellectual dishonesty. By cherry-picking studies, misrepresenting their findings, and ignoring evidence that contradicts their arguments, the author creates a false narrative that is not supported by the research they cite.

Reliance on Speculation and Extrapolation

Perhaps even more troubling than the article's misuse of evidence is its heavy reliance on baseless speculation and extrapolation. The author makes sweeping claims about the causes of gender dysphoria, pointing to factors such as sleep disturbances, screen time, obesity, and inflammatory diet, as factors that may contribute to gender dysphoria without providing any direct evidence to support these assertions. Instead, they engage in a series of leaps of logic, building a house of cards on a foundation of flimsy assumptions and conjecture. This kind of reckless speculation has no place in serious discourse and serves only to confuse and mislead readers. To foment hate and discontent, to whom does such an effort benefit? More copies of Shrier’s book being sold, perhaps?

Oversimplification of a Complex Issue

The "Additional Factors" article also fails to engage with the complexity and nuance of gender identity development. By reducing this multifaceted issue to a handful of simplistic causal factors, the author demonstrates a willful ignorance of the depth and richness of the existing literature on this topic6. This kind of reductionism not only undermines the credibility of the article's arguments but also does a grave disservice to the countless individuals whose experiences of gender identity are far more complex and varied than the author's narrow framework allows. If you read between the lines based on the studies being cited, it is clear that the author is very much trying to strongly infer that gender dysphoria is a “delusion” or “mental illness”, or perhaps even a phase or fad.

The fact that the large body of evidence is ignored in favor of a redacted and discredited study, and a book that is widely dismissed by any credible medical organization should be quite the pair of red flags. This is a case of cherry-picking and mischaraterizing “study shopping” out of context wrapped up in a thin veneer of credibility as a someone who “has [have] a degree in clinical psychology and has [have] done extensive personal research in the area of sexual orientation, mental health, diet, sleep, pollution, and drug use.” Let’s not forget the “I am one of you” claim tenuously phrased as “I am a mother with two adolescent sons whose identities and sexuality are developing, so I understand the pain of other mothers.”

Furthermore, the author's use of studies on OCD, delusions, and hallucinations in the context of gender dysphoria is particularly insidious. By drawing these false equivalencies, the article subtly suggests that transgender identities are a form of mental illness or cognitive distortion, rather than a valid and authentic expression of an individual's sense of self. This kind of pathologization has a long and damaging history, and it's crucial that we recognize and challenge it wherever it appears, even in seemingly "scientific" contexts.

The Danger of Misinformation

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the "Additional Factors" article is the potential harm it could cause to transgender individuals and their families. By spreading misinformation and fueling prejudice, this article contributes to a climate of stigmatization and discrimination that can have devastating consequences for those who are already marginalized and vulnerable7. The author's reckless disregard for the well-being of transgender individuals is not only deeply unethical but also a betrayal of the fundamental principles of scientific research, which should always prioritize the pursuit of truth and the promotion of human welfare.

This kind of misinformation can have severe real-world consequences for transgender individuals and their families. It can lead to the denial of necessary gender-affirming care, the invalidation of transgender experiences, and the perpetuation of discrimination and prejudice. It can tear apart families, leading to estrangement, isolation, and further familial division. It can also contribute to internalized stigma and self-doubt among transgender people themselves, undermining their sense of self-worth and value, making it harder for them to accept and express themselves. This is why having the right information in the right context makes all the difference.

A Call for Responsible Scholarship

In light of the serious flaws and potential dangers of the "Additional Factors" article, it is clear that we need to hold such ideologues accountable. As members of the community and as human beings, we have a moral obligation to stand up against this kind of dangerous pseudoscience. We must be willing to call out lies and distortions wherever we see them, and we must work together to promote a culture of truth, integrity, and respect for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity8. We are stronger and better together!

Central to this effort must be a commitment to affirming the validity and authenticity of transgender identities. We must follow where the data and science lead us. We must reject any attempt to frame transgender experiences as a form of mental illness or delusion, as this is not what the evidence shows us. We must recognize it as a deep-seated and integral part of an individual's sense of self, as this is what our best evidence shows us9. Only by starting from a place of facts and science, respect and affirmation, can we hope to produce knowledge that is truly inclusive and transformative.

Conclusion

The "Additional Factors" article is a prime example of the kind of irresponsible scholarship that can arise when researchers prioritize their own agendas over the pursuit of truth and the well-being of others. By misrepresenting evidence, engaging in reckless speculation, and oversimplifying complex issues, this article not only undermines its own credibility but also contributes to a climate of misinformation and prejudice that can have serious consequences for transgender individuals and their families.

As members of the scientific community and as concerned citizens, we have a moral obligation to speak out against this kind of dangerous pseudoscience and to demand better from those who claim to be experts in this field. We must insist on rigorous, evidence-based research that respects the complexity and diversity of human experience, and we must be willing to hold ourselves and others accountable when we fall short of these standards.

Only by committing ourselves to responsible scholarship and ethical research practices can we hope to generate knowledge that is truly valuable and transformative, knowledge that can help to build a more just and compassionate world for all individuals, regardless of their gender identity. Let us use the "Additional Factors" article as a wake-up call, a reminder of the urgent need for greater integrity, compassion, and critical thinking in the pursuit of scientific truth.

Ultimately, the fight against misinformation and pathologization is one that requires the participation of all of us, not just members of the scientific community. By exposing and challenging articles like "Additional Factors," we can all contribute to a more accurate and compassionate public understanding of transgender experiences. Let us use this as a reminder of the urgent need for critical thinking, empathy, and a commitment to the dignity and humanity of all individuals, regardless of their gender identity.