[Lemmi]

I remember that one and thought she had quite a neutral view on it.

The only concern she mentioned was a statistical point of a few more girls potentially being / having a little bit too much rogd.

[runarberg]

The thing is, ROGD is not a scientific theory, it is a misdirection—or rather a debate tactic—by people with an interest in trying to discredit the existence of trans people. A true scientist would not have a “neutral take” on ROGD, just like a true scientist would not have a neutral take on the chemtrail conspiracy, or the theory that vaccines cause autism.

There are no evidence for ROGD other than very bad and highly suspicious anecdotal evidence. There isn’t even a statistical evidence for it. A scientist would know that, and would quickly dismiss this theory and all the talking points of those advocating for it.

btw. she raised more “concerns” than just the population skew in favor of trans people assigned female at birth—which btw. is not a concern, but at most a curiosity. She also had concerns about the efficacy and the long term health affects of gender affirming care. The concerns were without merit, and a true scientist with a neutral take would not find the long term health impacts “concerning” given the evidence we have, and as for the efficacy... well... see my parent post.

[cigcig]

It's a reasonable hypothesis that happens to be politically inconvenient, as if it turns out to be the one that best explains the available data, this is another nail in the coffin of an ideology that is already severely weakened by significant challenges in many areas, despite so many of its acolytes having already gone all-in.