Dr. Littman seems to hold her study as proof of a new hypothetical medical condition: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.

A closer look at the data would seem to reveal that claim grossly premature: In Littman's admission, her evidence consists of little more than polls and surveys carried out from three politically bent websites. The websites according to Littman are: "4thwavenow, transgender trend, and youthtranscriticalprofessionals". A quick check of all websites would let anyone see they have an obvious political bent where all advocate for the criminalization of transition, bathroom bills, and a variety of anti-LGBT stances common to the religious right. Do Littman and the editors believe whatever the surveys there answer would be credible data? If yes, then wouldn't such a standard also force us to consider what "vaccine critical" websites say about vaccines and autism as proof? To my eyes and just about every other biomedical scientist's this seems like a gross overreach.

Equally concerning, only the politically active parents and their statements were examined and held as proof. At no point in this study did the author ever examine the allegedly ROGD youth or speak to their clinicians, so the only evidence we have comes from politically radical family members recruited from far-right websites that are involved with a variety of anti-LGBT initiatives including bathroom bills and attempts at having the state outlaw transition. Any of the good investigators I know would have taken their claims with a grain of salt, not held it as proof of a new medical condition. Why was there no attempt at obtaining objective information by assessing the purported ROGD cases and speaking to their clinicians?

Likewise, any credible reviewers and editors would have shown similar scrutiny. Going by the comments of the Journal of Adolescent Health in Twitter, Dr. Littman previously submitted this study in their journal; however it was rejected, likely because the gross overreach in claims. If Plosone continues to publish studies like this, which make spectacular claims but upon closer inspection have remarkably thin evidence, then the journal might come to be known as a repository for badly flawed studies that can't get published elsewhere. I'd be shy to have my work next to this study, provided it isn't corrected and I doubt I'm alone: Submissions to Plosone and it's impact factor have collapsed from their peak. No doubt in part because Plosone's string of flawed studies, which is continued by Littman's is increasingly driving those who can to pick journals with reputations for more rigor.