In recent years, conversations about transgender youth have frequently touched on two controversial concepts: “Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria” (ROGD) and “transgender social contagion.” If you’ve stumbled across these terms, you’ve likely encountered claims that young people suddenly adopt a transgender identity under the influence of social media or peers—rather than through a genuine understanding of their own gender. While these ideas may sound plausible on the surface, they’ve been widely challenged and refuted by experts in pediatrics, psychology, and transgender health. At the same time, they have garnered ongoing publicity in some parent communities and political circles, where they are used to justify anti-trans legislation and question the validity of trans identities overall.
Whether you’re a parent trying to understand your teenager’s new pronouns, a trans person who has been asked to defend your identity, or simply an ally looking to learn more, this article aims to shed light on the history, research, critiques, and real-life impact behind “ROGD” and “transgender social contagion.” Along the way, we’ll explore why the scientific consensus rejects these theories—and why empathy, open communication, and professional guidance remain the gold standard for supporting transgender youth.
The Rise of “Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria” (ROGD)
In 2018, a physician and researcher named Lisa Littman published a paper in the journal PLOS One describing what she termed “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD). She hypothesized that some young people—particularly those assigned female at birth—might claim a transgender identity after increasing their social media use or befriending trans peers. According to this perspective, online platforms supposedly “infect” teenagers with the idea that they are trans, creating clusters of youth who suddenly identify in new ways.
Parent Surveys and Methodological Controversies
From the moment Littman’s paper appeared, researchers and advocacy groups criticized its methodology. Littman’s survey collected responses solely from parents recruited on three websites openly skeptical or critical of medical care for trans youth. These anti-trans or “trans-skeptical” forums—4thWaveNow, Transgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals—advertised Littman’s survey to parents who already believed their child’s trans identity was misguided. Unsurprisingly, 76.5% of respondents felt their child was “incorrect” in identifying as transgender.
Critics also pointed out that the youth themselves were never surveyed. Parents who participated were asked to diagnose their children with gender dysphoria (a clinical term referring to distress due to a mismatch between one’s internal sense of gender and assigned sex at birth), even though most parents do not have training in psychology or medicine. According to multiple peer-reviewed critiques—by researchers such as Arjee Restar (2020), Florence Ashley (2020), and Victoria Pitts-Taylor (2020)—these biases and methodological issues undermine the paper’s conclusions.
Because the findings were deemed “descriptive and exploratory,” PLOS One issued a correction explaining that Littman’s study “had not been clinically validated” and required multiple clarifications. Brown University, Littman’s then-employer, removed its press release on the study. Further fueling skepticism, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) stated that ROGD “constitutes nothing more than an acronym” and encouraged researchers to stop using the term until more rigorous data surfaced.
The “Social Contagion” Connection
Although Littman’s original 2018 article used the term ROGD, many discussions in conservative blogs and online groups substituted or conflated it with “transgender social contagion.” This idea claims that trans identity spreads from teen to teen like a virus—an online trend rather than a real expression of self.
While the ROGD paper didn’t use the “social contagion” phrase outright, it alluded to the concept through references to “peer influence” and social media immersion. Almost immediately, these concepts were embraced by anti-trans activists, policymakers, and media personalities. The theory gave them a sort of “scientific” veneer to argue that trans kids are just “confused.” As a result, many now simply refer to both ROGD and “transgender social contagion” interchangeably, even though they are (at least in Littman’s framing) slightly different.
Critiques of the ROGD and “Social Contagion” Hypotheses
Researchers and professional organizations have issued robust critiques and conducted new studies to test whether social contagion truly explains rising numbers of trans youth. Multiple independent research groups (Restar et al., 2019; Kuper et al., 2019; Kennedy, 2020; Bauer et al., 2021; Sansfaçon et al., 2021; Sorbara et al., 2021; Puckett et al., 2022; Turban et al., 2022; Turban et al., 2023) have found no support for ROGD or “transgender social contagion” as scientific phenomena.
Sampling Bias and “Targeted Recruitment”
A key criticism concerns Littman’s original data-collection approach, known as “targeted recruitment.” While targeted recruitment is sometimes used in research, it is crucial to include diverse groups when drawing general conclusions. By advertising almost exclusively on anti-trans or trans-skeptical websites, Littman’s survey participants were predisposed to believe their children had been “misled.” This creates a classic example of selection bias.
Furthermore, any potential parent who supported their trans child or believed their child to be genuinely transgender likely wouldn’t frequent anti-trans websites—and thus would be far less likely to learn of the survey. Even if a few supportive parents did complete Littman’s questionnaire, their responses wouldn’t outweigh the large majority recruited from bias-confirming sites.
Cherry-Picking Data on Detransition and Regret
Several controversies in trans health research revolve around so-called “detransition” rates—when someone reverses social or medical steps they previously took as part of a transition. Early studies (published between 2008 and 2013) involved small sample sizes and frequently classified participants as detransitioners if they had simply stopped responding to researchers, or if a parent alone claimed they reversed their transition. In one example, a participant who identified as nonbinary was mistakenly labeled as a “detransitioner.” Critics argue these flawed methodologies have been widely misused to exaggerate the frequency and significance of detransition.
What does more modern research show? Larger-scale, more rigorous studies find that detransition is relatively rare and often stems from external factors like lack of social support, discrimination, or prohibitive medical costs—not because someone suddenly realizes they were never trans. In other words, transitioning remains beneficial for the vast majority of those who seek it. When you look at the data, the “transgender social contagion” theory—suggesting that loads of kids are identifying as trans only to revert once they come to their senses—simply isn’t supported.
Homophily vs. Social Contagion
In the realm of social science, “social contagion” is actually a contested term. It can sometimes conflate different phenomena such as “homophily”—the tendency for people with shared traits or interests to form friendships and social networks. For instance, left-handed people tend to form bonds with other left-handed people not because left-handedness “spreads,” but because they share certain life experiences or preferences. The same principle can apply to trans youth: online communities and social circles may form among trans teens or those questioning their gender precisely because they share these struggles, not because they are “spreading” transgender identity to one another.
Imagine you’re a young trans person living in a city where you haven’t met another trans or nonbinary individual in real life. You find an online group—whether via TikTok, Twitter, or a Discord server—where people talk about coming out, the joys and challenges of transitioning, and supportive resources for gender diversity. You feel a sense of relief: finally, you aren’t alone. For an outside observer unaware of your internal journey, it may appear as if you were “converted” into trans by your new internet friends. But the reality is more likely that you sought out a community who already understood your experience. You didn’t catch “transness” like a virus. You found acceptance and solidarity.
The Illusion of “Sudden” Trans Identity
A fundamental misconception underlying ROGD is that coming out as trans “out of nowhere” must mean it’s not authentic. But plenty of trans and nonbinary folks harbor private feelings about their gender for months or years before sharing them with family and friends. Especially in less supportive households, a young person may try to hide or deny their identity until they can’t bear the dissonance any longer, or until they find online resources that give them the confidence to speak up.
What appears “sudden” from the outside may actually be a protracted period of introspection for the youth involved. As many psychologists note, adolescence is a time of self-discovery, boundary-pushing, and a desire to find like-minded peers. That’s a normal part of growing up—and for trans youth, that self-discovery includes complex, real questions of gender identity.
Why the Concept Persists
If the “ROGD” theory doesn’t stand up scientifically, why does it remain influential in some circles?
- A Comforting Narrative for Parents: Many parents are completely caught off guard by a child’s unexpected coming-out. If you genuinely believe you know your kid better than anyone else, you might have a tough time accepting their transgender identity—especially if it conflicts with values you’ve held for years. The notion that your child has been “misled,” “brainwashed,” or “confused” can be more comforting than accepting that your child’s sense of gender is genuinely different from what you envisioned.
- Political Agendas and Anti-Trans Legislation: The ROGD paper arrived at a moment when conservative groups were looking for ways to challenge a broader cultural shift toward LGBTQ+ acceptance. Legal organizations such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Family Research Council seized on ROGD as “evidence” to oppose trans-affirming policies. They have cited Littman’s findings in legislative memos, court cases, and public testimony, hoping to justify banning or limiting trans health care, especially for minors.
- Misunderstandings of Trans Identity: Public discourse often oversimplifies trans identity. Some imagine a straightforward story of a child “trapped in the wrong body” from birth. When confronted with more varied and nuanced journeys—some individuals come out later, some identify as nonbinary or gender fluid—observers assume these experiences are a “trend” or “phase.”
- Amplification on Social Media: While the internet can be a lifesaving resource for young trans people, it can also become a breeding ground for alarmist narratives. Platforms like YouTube host videos explaining ROGD in inaccurate ways, and some personalities with large conservative followings promote it. Viral posts can reach worried parents who, late at night, search for reasons why their child’s identity has shifted.
Real-Life Consequences for Trans Youth
We have a growing body of research that robustly indicates transgender youth benefit from supportive environments. According to a 2022 study in Pediatrics, 94% of children who socially transitioned were still identifying as trans or nonbinary five years later (Olson et al., 2022). Meanwhile, additional studies have found that access to puberty blockers and hormone therapy reduces depression and suicidal thoughts among trans youth by significant margins—60% lower odds of depression and 73% lower odds of suicidality, for example (The Trevor Project, 2022; Turban et al., 2022).
When misinformation about ROGD saturates the public sphere, it creates real harm:
- Family Rejection: Parents who believe their child “caught” trans identity online may dismiss or punish the child’s expressions, intensifying conflict and emotional strain. Many youth in this situation feel isolated, leading to higher risks of depression and anxiety.
- Delayed or Blocked Medical Care: Families may postpone or refuse vital gender-affirming care, potentially leading to worsened gender dysphoria and mental health outcomes.
- Political Backlash: Legislation that denies minors (and in some cases, even adults) access to trans-affirming treatments is often defended with references to ROGD. Transgender people’s autonomy becomes restricted, fueling stigma.
- Undermined Trust in Science: By holding up flawed research as fact, critics reinforce public mistrust in legitimate science—a problem that extends beyond trans issues to broader public health debates.
Historical Context: Trans Children Are Not New
A misunderstanding driving much of the “social contagion” narrative is the assumption that trans kids barely existed until very recently. For those who grew up without hearing about trans identities, it may feel like a completely new development. But historians and gender scholars stress that children have been expressing “gender-nonconforming” behaviors and identities throughout recorded history—whether or not they used the word “transgender.”
Trans historian Jules Gill-Peterson notes that children have been receiving medical transition care for as long as such care has been available. Social transitions—such as a child presenting as a different gender at school—date back even further. The difference today is greater visibility: mainstream media, social platforms, and evolving medical guidelines have made it safer (in some places) for children to come out at earlier ages. It’s not that trans kids never existed; they were simply denied recognition and forced into secrecy.
Challenging Myths and Finding Support
If you’re a parent reading this and struggling with your child’s transition, know that seeking reputable, evidence-based information is one of the best steps you can take. While the internet can supply harmful misinformation, it also provides access to supportive communities, affirming mental health professionals, and scientifically grounded research about best practices.
Here are a few suggestions:
- Talk Openly with Your Child: Offer empathy and an open mind. Ask how they feel, what they need, and what support looks like to them. You might be surprised by how much your child has already researched or reflected on their identity.
- Seek Professional Guidance: If you’re worried about “sudden changes,” consult a mental health professional experienced in working with LGBTQ+ youth. They can help differentiate underlying mental health needs from genuine expressions of trans identity—without defaulting to “one size fits all.”
- Consult Reputable Medical Organizations: Groups like WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health), the Endocrine Society, and the American Academy of Pediatrics regularly publish guidelines on caring for transgender youth, backed by peer-reviewed research.
- Recognize Common Adolescent Behavior: Teens often explore new ideas. Whether it’s hair color, music taste, or identity labels, experimentation is par for the course in adolescence. For many trans adolescents, though, living authentically is not just a “phase.”
- Consider the Risks of Rejection: Numerous studies link family rejection of LGBTQ+ kids to alarmingly high rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. Accepting a child’s identity or at least remaining open and loving in the face of uncertainty can be life-changing—and life-saving.
The Larger LGBTQ+ Picture
While the current political climate often focuses specifically on transgender youth, note that social conservatives sometimes recycle the “social contagion” allegation and apply it to all LGBTQ+ identities. This is not new. Decades ago, gay men and lesbians were similarly accused of “recruiting” teenagers. Yet studies repeatedly show that same-sex attraction itself does not “spread” within social networks (Brakefield et al., 2014). Instead, a more accepting environment simply allows people to be honest about who they are.
Seven Years Later—No Sign of an Epidemic
It has now been seven years since the concept of a “transgender social contagion” was first advanced by a parent on an anti-trans website, prior to Littman’s 2018 article. If there were an epidemic of falsely identified trans youth, we’d expect to see significant data on rising rates of regret or detransition. But comprehensive studies looking at youth who socially transition or seek hormone therapy do not show a surge in regret. Instead, the vast majority continue to identify as trans over the long term.
Certainly, some individuals do detransition for a host of personal reasons, which can include realizing that they identify differently than they once thought, but also factors like societal stigma or family pressure. This is why nuance and empathy in clinical care and family life are paramount. However, these cases are not evidence of an overarching “social contagion.”
The Bottom Line
“Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria” and “transgender social contagion” have stirred controversy and confusion for parents, medical professionals, and community members alike. Yet repeated critiques and newer studies affirm that these theories do not hold up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Rather than indicating a sudden “trend,” the increase in trans youth visibility likely reflects social progress that has encouraged more young people to come out and seek care.
For parents who wonder if the internet has “turned” their child trans, the science overwhelmingly suggests otherwise. It’s natural to feel disoriented or anxious when your child comes out—especially if it challenges what you believed about gender and identity. But as many families have discovered, acceptance, supportive conversations, and professional help create the best outcomes for children’s well-being. Dismissing trans identities as a “fad” can fuel harm, drive wedges between loved ones, and potentially risk your child’s mental health.
In the end, the core question should be: Is your child happier, healthier, and safer when they are allowed to live authentically? For countless trans people, the answer is a resounding yes. Rather than looking for evidence of a speculative “social contagion,” we can focus on evidence-based approaches to nurturing young people. Over time, such understanding can build bridges between parents and children, families and communities—and help cultivate a world where every individual can flourish without fear or shame.
No matter where you are on your journey—whether you’re a trans person discovering yourself, a parent looking for reliable information, or an ally hoping to create a more inclusive environment—the most powerful antidotes to misinformation are empathy, open-mindedness, and a willingness to learn. By centering love and factual science, we can ensure that all transgender and gender-diverse individuals receive the respect and care they deserve.
References
- Aral, S., Muchnik, L., & Sundararajan, A. (2009). Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
- Ashley, F. (2020). A critical commentary on “rapid-onset gender dysphoria.” The Sociological Review.
- Bauer, G. R., Lawson, M. L., Methe, L., et al. (2021). Do clinical data from gender-affirming clinics support the phenomenon of “rapid onset gender dysphoria”? Journal of Pediatrics.
- Brakefield, T., et al. (2014). Sexual orientation and peer group homophily in adolescence. Journal of Sex Research.
- Kuper, L. E., Adams, N., & Mustanski, B. (2019). Exploring the impact of gender identity on mental health and wellbeing: a critical take on the “rapid onset gender dysphoria” concept. Journal of Adolescent Health.
- Littman, L. (2018). Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria. PLOS One (original and corrected version).
- Olson, K. R., Durwood, L., DeMeules, M., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2022). Mental health of transgender children who are supported in their identities. Pediatrics.
- Pitts-Taylor, V. (2020). Methodological critiques of ROGD. Feminist Encounters: A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and Politics.
- Puckett, J. A., Cleary, P., Sorbara, J. C., et al. (2022). Investigating adolescent gender identity and experiences with online communities. Transgender Health.
- Restar, A. (2020). Methodological critique of Littman’s study of rapid onset gender dysphoria. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
- Sansfaçon, A. P., et al. (2021). An examination of self-identified transgender youth receiving gender-affirming care: Implications for ROGD. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal.
- Sorbara, J. C., Chiniara, L. N., & Thompson, S. (2021). A critical analysis of the “social contagion” hypothesis among trans youth. Journal of LGBT Youth.
- Turban, J. L., King, D., Carswell, J. M., & Keuroghlian, A. S. (2022). Pubertal suppression for transgender youth and risk of suicidality. Pediatrics.
- Turban, J. L., et al. (2023). Reevaluating ROGD: Longitudinal analyses of transgender youth psychosocial outcomes. JAMA Pediatrics.
