A research project currently recruiting transgender youth and young adults online is drawing renewed scrutiny from advocates, clinicians, and researchers who warn that its leadership and institutional partners have a documented history of promoting discredited theories about gender identity.
The study, known as the Adolescent and Young Adult Gender Dysphoria Outcomes Study (AYAGDOS), is recruiting participants ages 13 to 25 through websites operated by Littman Research and the Gender Dysphoria Institute. The project describes itself as an effort to examine mental health, family dynamics, and developmental trajectories related to gender dysphoria.
However, transgender advocates say the study’s leadership and affiliated organizations raise serious concerns about bias and research intent.
AYAGDOS is led by Dr. J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Dr. Lisa Littman, and Dr. Kenneth Zucker. All three have longstanding professional associations with research frameworks that challenge or reject gender-affirming models of care.
Bailey, a psychology professor, has faced repeated criticism over his work on gender and sexuality. In 2023, he co-authored a paper on so-called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” that was later retracted after failing to meet informed consent requirements. Reporting by The Daily Northwestern documented backlash from students and faculty, who argued that Bailey’s work reinforced anti-trans narratives while lacking methodological rigor.
Littman is best known for authoring the 2018 paper that popularized “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” or ROGD, a theory suggesting that some adolescents identify as transgender due to peer or social influence. That study relied exclusively on parental reports recruited from anti-transgender websites and has been widely criticized by major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Critics argue the theory has no clinical basis and has been repeatedly used to justify restrictions on gender-affirming care.
Zucker, a former clinical director of a child gender clinic in Toronto, has also been the subject of extensive criticism for approaches aimed at discouraging gender variance in children. His clinic closed in 2015 following an external review, and his work is frequently cited by groups opposing affirming care. Advocacy organizations have described his legacy as closely aligned with conversion-style frameworks rather than modern standards of care.
Concerns extend beyond the individual researchers. The Gender Dysphoria Institute, which is involved in publishing and promoting the study, has released multiple articles endorsing or normalizing ROGD as a valid explanatory framework. Those publications place the organization firmly within a network of groups that reject or cast doubt on the benefits of gender transition, according to transgender advocacy researchers.
RELATED: The Myth of Trans Contagion: Debunking Rapid-Onset GD Claims
Medical experts note that ROGD has been repeatedly rejected as a diagnosis and is not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association or other major professional bodies. Despite this, research linked to the concept continues to appear in policy debates and court filings used to restrict access to care.
Advocates warn that participation in AYAGDOS carries risks beyond privacy concerns. They argue that data collected by researchers with a demonstrated ideological stance may be interpreted selectively or used to reinforce narratives that portray transgender identities as pathological or socially induced.
“This is not neutral research happening in a vacuum,” one advocate said. “It’s part of a long pattern where trans people are studied to validate predetermined conclusions.”
Transgender people and allies are being urged to carefully evaluate who is conducting research, how data may be used, and whose interests it ultimately serves before participating.
