> despite some orgs claiming there is a "transgender trend", we are just not seeing this in the data.'
Rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a well documented phenomenon.
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(16)30765-0/abst...
https://statsforgender.org/since-the-turn-of-the-millennium-...
It is not.
Lisa Littmans research behind „rapid onset gender dysphoria” is a survey amongst parents recruited on three anti-trans internet sites and communities:
https://psychcentral.com/lib/there-is-no-evidence-that-rapid...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_c...That by itself means its heavily biased research on a weak sample.
„Stats for Gender” site is ran by Genspect, which is also a biased source on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genspect
> Genspect, which is also a biased source on the subject:
Organization that supports position <x> supports position <x>.
If Genspect can be discarded as being a biased source, then so can WPATH and every other org supporting gender ideology.
Given the fraught nature of the debate, Wikipedia seems like a poor source for determining the bias of players in the debate - the most passionate debaters have plenty of time to just edit Wikipedia.
Can you explain what „gender ideology” is supposed to mean?
The primary issue with Genspect is poor scientific rigour applied to their publications, as I have shown above. Pretty much „if it fits our platform, we will spread it”.