That book relies on the concept of ROGD, which is something that doesn't exist. Anybody pushing ROGD, or supporting other people who push ROGD, is anti-science and anti-fact.
You should consider why you feel comfortable pushing something that's obviously bollocks, just because it supports your anti-trans activism.
> Anybody pushing ROGD, or supporting other people who push ROGD, is anti-science and anti-fact.
This is an interesting case [2]. The concept of ROGD was introduced in an article in a scientific journal [1], by an assistant professor in Brown University. Then there was a strong reaction from people from outside the scientific community (blogosphere, activists). Later, there's been scientific debate back and forth [2]. But it is interesting, if people from outside the scientific community can win the public debate and get to decide what is science and what is not.
There have also been strong reactions against ROGD within the scientific community [1]. Like much science, the study has its own share of methodological flaws and biases that should make anyone sensible person the results of the study with skepticism
My reply is the only one which links to a publication which attempts to directly answer OP's question and includes both praise and criticism of said publication.
I think therefore that anyone can judge for themselves whether said publication is "anti-science" or "anti-fact" and your help is not required. I feel perfectly comfortable allowing people to think for themselves, especially since this publication is not obviously bollocks: it was awarded both the Economist and Times book of the year prizes.
Finally, based on what I've seen from the scientific community around politicised topics like this one, any link (especially from US-affiliated organisations) should be by default open to questioning and not unassailable proof. Although given that it's psychology it should probably just be outright ignored for a couple of decades until they manage to form a coherent opinion.
Totally off topic, and I have no strong opinion on the whole transgender and ROGD thing (i learned that acronym from your comment), but:
> anti-science and anti-fact
This combination of words doesn't make sense to me. Science constantly discovers new "facts" that invalidate old "facts". I understand stuff like "the current scientific consensus", but I don't understand how you can call people who question the current scientific consensus on something "anti-fact". Especially in the context of psychology and psychiatry, where lately the facts have been superseding themselves rather rapidly.
Tldr, if you're pro science, shouldn't you by definition be ever so mildly sceptical of facts?
EDIT: note, I'm not trying to attack you personally nor weasel in some alt right talking point. I've seen words like "anti-fact" used a lot lately, I think I understand where it comes from, especially in the context of American hyper-polarized politics. I guess i wrote.my comment hoping to contribute to slightly more constructive language, at least from the sane side of the aisle.
That's not how constructive language is done. You don't improve "hyper-polarized politics" by saying one pole represents sanity and the other the opposite.
I guess, on second thought, there's a place for saying, quietly, among yourselves, "I agree that the opposition is crazy, but it's probably going to be more productive if we engage them like rational people." But that's not a useful public stance.
You should consider why you feel comfortable pushing something that's obviously bollocks, just because it supports your anti-trans activism.
https://www.caaps.co/rogd-statement