The National Post recently covered the CBC’s cancellation of a BBC documentary about transgender children (Why CBC cancelled a BBC documentary that activists claimed was ‘transphobic’). In that coverage, the Post shared claims made by some activists criticizing some scientific studies, but did not apparently fact-check those claims, so I thought I would outline the studies here. For reference, in a previous post, I listed the results of every study that ever followed up transgender kids to see how they felt in adulthood (Do trans- kids stay trans- when they grow up?). There are about a dozen such studies, and they all came to the very same conclusion: The majority of kids cease to feel transgender when they get older.
|National Post, 13 December 2017|
The other alleged criticism was that a study “cast too wide a net on which children were legitimately displaying gender dysphoria.” Although also unnamed, this seems to refer to Drummond et al. (2008), which followed up 25 kids assessed in childhood for gender issues: 15 of the 25 received official diagnoses for their gender dysphoria, and 10 were judged to be experiencing the feelings, but to be “subthreshold” for an official diagnosis. That is, the alleged criticism is that including “subthreshold” cases would water down the results from cases who are formally diagnosed. The irrelevance of that claim is again easily seen by looking at it directly: Of the 15 kids who received a diagnosis, two continued to be transgender in adulthood (13/15 = 87% desistance), and of the 10 without a diagnosis, one continued to be transgender (9/10 = 90% desistance). Drummond thus reported their combination, that (22/25 =) 88% desisted. That is, both the “too wide” net and the narrow net each support the very same conclusion: The majority of kids cease to feel transgender when they get older.
I am personally of the opinion that the studies’ authors were correct in their original methods, but the numbers indicate that it simply does not matter. Even if the criticisms were valid, the studies conclusions would remain the same.
The state of the science is made clear simply by listing the results of the studies on the topic. Despite coming from a variety of countries and from a variety of labs, using a variety of methods, all spanning four decades, every single study without exception has come to the identical conclusion. This is not a matter of scientists disagreeing with one another over relative strengths and weaknesses across a set of conflicting reports. The disagreement is not even some people advocating for one set of studies with other people advocating for a different set of studies: Rather, activists are rejecting the unanimous conclusion of every single study ever conducted on the question in favour of a conclusion supported by not one.
Importantly, these results should not be exaggerated in the other direction either: The correct answer is neither 0% nor 100%. Although the majority of transgender kids desist, it is not a large majority. A very substantial proportion do indeed want to transition as they get older, and we need to ensure they receive the support they will need. Despite loud, confident protestations of extremists, the science shows very clearly and very consistently that we cannot take either outcome for granted.
Drummond, K. D., Bradley, S. J., Badali-Peterson, M., & Zucker, K. J. (2008). A follow-up study of girls with gender identity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 44, 34–45.
Steensma, T. D., McGuire, J. K., Kreukels, B. P. C., Beekman, A. J., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2013). Factors associated with desistence and persistence of childhood gender dysphoria: A quantitative follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 52, 582–590.
The BBC documentary pulled from CBC is viewable here:
Thank you very much for this clear debunking of the criticisms levelled at the desistance figures.ReplyDelete
The insistence of some trans activists that any study which finds against their claims must be either biased, fraudulent, have a badly designed methodology or have interpreted the results erroneously without actually doing a proper analysis of what they are saying reveals their ideological motivations.
It's like this tobacco industry who spent a great deal of time and money questioning whether smoking caused cancer because to admit that it did - which they knew long ago, would result in less profits.
Now we have a situation where pharmaceutical companies set to gain by the idea that children who identify as the opposite sex are never mistaken or never change their mind. Because then all can be immediately put on hormones for a lifetime. And no one has to worry about that actually being a heinous error.
Here we go.... Another Big Pharma meme. No, the number of transkids that would be using hormones even if every single one of them never desisted would be so small as to not even register on the profit margin numbers in their tax reports. Please focus on the real issue, that of the actual science vs. science denial.Delete
used them as a kid still using them and i'm 59Delete
Edit - potentially being a heinous error. For a minority of course it might be the right decision. However the problem is no one can tell who would have desisted without treatment and who wouldn't.ReplyDelete
Do the studies take into account affirmative treatment versus wait and see treatment? Wouldn't affirmative treatment make it harder to detransition?ReplyDelete
I'm not aware of anyone on early-transition side ever gathering data on the results of what they're doing, never mind publishing it. The basis for it is purely philosophical. Much it boils down to extremists saying that what would have been best for them is what's best for everyone else. At the same time as demanding their lived experiences be respected, they deny the lived experiences of others. That reflexive early transition might make detransition harder is exactly why the issue is so important. Primum non nocere.Delete
This post and your earlier one have brought out the most important point in the discussion: most children desist and come out as lesbian or gay in their teens. Is the "early transition side" comprised the activists and clinicians who advocate for children age two and up to be socially transitioned immediately, then medically transitioned around age 11 with puberty blockers, followed by cross-sex hormones and surgeries between ages 12 and 14? Is "early transition" being driven primarily by late transitioners/autogynephiles? I'm asking for a book I'm writing. Thanks.Delete
I wouldn't reflexively assume that everyone is advocating for exactly the same thing. I often hear/see many advocate for whatever particular thing is under discussion, but be silent when someone else starts advocating for a still younger age or more dramatic intervention. Most people have a "this far, but not farther" view, but because they are often attacked for the "but not farther" part, they leave it out...and the person making the most extreme claims is the one who gets quoted by the media. It has indeed been my experience that the activists are composed largely of the late transitioners telling the world what the experiences/needs of the early transitioners are, all on the basis of "lived experiences" that they never actually had. (Exceptions acknowledged.)Delete
This was an informative read, Dr. Cantor. Thank you for also including this fascinating documentary. - From another clinical psychologist in the U.S.ReplyDelete
I agree with Anonymous (12/16/17 at 12:45). Although it is true that not all of them desist, the problem is that there is no way to sort those who will desist from those who won't. Whether the breakdown of desisters/non-desisters - determined in hindsight - is 90/10, 50/50, or 10/90, that issue is that there is no way of determining which child is in which group. Therefore, none of them should be getting hormone blockers. You can't justify permanently damaging a child's body in order to satisfy the cosmetic preferences of others.ReplyDelete
This is absolute child abuse as a result of false science.Delete
Why is it that this aspect of the trans issue is seldom, if ever mentioned
Recently there was a court case in Australia to determine if court permission was required for minors to undertake cross hormone treatment. During that case the representative for the Royal Children's hospital claimed:ReplyDelete
The Royal Children's Hospital has received more than 230 patient referrals this year, and more than 700 since 2003. Of these, 96 per cent diagnosed with gender dysphoria continued to identify as transgender into late adolescence.
No patient who commenced stage two treatment has sought to transition back to their birth sex.
I was wondering if you knew anything about this case and these statistics. I can't find any data on this, it may be based on the RCH records. Is it too small a sample or short a period of time to show desistance or is it that the RCH have known which children to transistion. I would like to know your thoughts it seems odd that there has been no desistance. Thanks
It would certainly be important should any clinic show such a dramatically different result from the others. As is clear from the discussions about the existing studies, however, many people are highly motivated to make the numbers look how they want. So, I wouldn't automatically accept what one side said in a court case; I'd need to see the full research report on how the numbers were collected. If they are seeing something different from the rest of the world, they need to report it!Delete
Hi Temporal Tui, digging into the stats given here:Delete
They accept kids under the age of 17. A total of 86 children were referred to the gender clinic from 2002 to 2013 (40 of those in 2013). 614 were referred from Jan 2014 to Aug 2017. No figure is given as to how many of those referred are diagnosed.
From what I've been told by the parents of desisters, it typically takes a few years before they do. The clinic in that court case said they had no longitudinal data at all.
But they seem to affirm early (no other response to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is mentionend anywhere on the website - at least that I could find). Instead they say they give puberty blockers between the ages of 9 and 12 - at onset of puberty - and start cross-sex hormones at the age of 15 or 16.
So of those out of the 710 they did diagnose, 96% persisted into adulthood and none desisted after moving on to cross-sex hormones.
Not sure how much this means given that most of their patients were only refered in the last few years and given the fact that the desistance rate falls sharply once you transition kids socially, and even more after hormones.
I just saw a recent court case in the US where the judge thought it noteworthy that the gender clinic considered transition to be the appropriate treatment for 100% of their underage patients, so that particular Australian clinic may do the same. Who knows...
There's another Australian gender clinic whose main doctor was eviscerated recently for daring to speak of a social contagion and advising against all these kids, but he was dismissed as a transphobe.
I am from Australia.Delete
I am a health professional and have some knowledge of the Royal Children's Hospital Gender Service. It is EXTREMELY affirming, and I believe they have a low threshold for treating children with blockers and hormones.
They make it clear they are not a mental health service, and kids only have 3-4 sessions with a psychologist or psychiatrist before the decision is made about treatment.
They seem to take quite a celebratory attitude to the medicalisation of transidentifying kids, and shown in this article.
There is no suggestion that the skyrocketing rates should be cause for concern - merely a call for more services!
I understand the data all around the world show that almost none of the children who go onto blockers desist.
Since the data from desistance studies shows there is a significant rate of natural desistence, it seems clear that blockers, followed by hormones is somehow ENHANCING PERSISTENCE.
Hence, there is an argument that clinics such as this are CREATING transgender people.
This is a very grave concern - as a doctor, I must say that taking children who would otherwise settle into a healthy adulthood, and placing them on a pathway to a life of surgery and medication with known and unknown risks (not to mention probable sterility) is ethically unconscionable.
I cannot understand why there is not rigorous public debate about this, and it disturbs me deeply.
So I believe that the 96% who persisted, which the RCH was using to argue their case, were probably ON TREATMENT, in which case their persistence may well not have been "natural" but caused (at least in part) by the treatment they are on!
Hence presenting this figure to the courts as an argument supporting their case is disingenous at best, and at worst fraudulent.
By the way, I can tell you that social contagion is alive and well in Australia, unfortunately.
As always, Dr. Cantor is a voice of reason, advocating for science/facts/evidence over ideology--all for the sake of the public's well-being.ReplyDelete
These are really impressive ideas in on the topic ofReplyDelete
blogging. You have touched some fastidious points here. Any way keep up
A good balanced movie. Too bad the CBC lost their nerve and chose not to broadcast it. Especially when 60-80% o fchildhood gender dysphoria suffers DO NOT continue to transition as adults... the minority of the minority are dictating the acceptable norms... I quite liked young Warner who we see at the beginning and end of the movie. I think warner's mom is being very supportive... and yet I am curious to see how that story works itself out in the future...ReplyDelete
Ms. McGillivray, It is NOT a minority of a minority that are dictating norms... the transactivists that are demanding these results be ignored by maligning them in various ways were NEVER transkids. They are "late transitioners". In MTF transsexuality/transgenderism there are two completely separate medical conditions/etiologies that lead to "gender dysphoria". The non-transkid population seeks to control the narrative by subsuming the transkid experience as a subset of their own as a route to greater legitimacy... they wish to create the false idea that they were themselves transkids... when in fact, as children, they were very gender typical boys... but boys with a specific unusual sexual interest in transforming their bodies. This is a paraphilia known as "autogynephilia". In the English Speaking nations, perhaps 80% to 90% of MTF transsexuals are of this autogynephilic (AGP) "late transitioning" population. Because they are the majority of those who seek and obtain transition services and because they have a history of pre-transition socio-economic status greater than transkids, their voice dominates the transactivists, drowning out those of "former" transkids.Delete
For more information on the this issue:
Could you please list the 12 studies. I'd like to read the others. Thank you.ReplyDelete
The link to that list is in the post, but here it is again: http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.htmlDelete
TLDR This article explains perfectly what the problem is with the desist studies done prior to the changes made to the DSM-5 on how transgender children\gender dysphoric children are diagnosed, and why the results are flawed, and pretty much useless.Delete
Dr.James Cantor the actual main concern with these desist studies are that they were done using the flawed criteria of the DSM-4 at the time. This is a problem because the way that the DSM-4's criteria were structured it made no distinction between actual transgender children, and gender nonconforming children like tomboys for example. Under the DSM-4's criteria it was not a requirement that the child say consistently, persistently, and insistently that they are, or they feel they are the opposite sex\gender, or they didn't feel male, or female.
We of course now don't see gender nonconforming behavior as detriment to a child's well being, and mental health as adults, and is just as healthy as gender conforming behavior. However, at the time of the DSM-4 that was not the case, and people like Dr.Susan Bradley, and Dr.Kenneth Zucker who was in that cancelled BBC doc viewed both transgender, and gender nonconforming behavior as undesirable. They used "gentle discouragement" aka reparative, and conversion therapy, which we know from studies, and data does not work on LGBT people, and it also causes great harm. Now by the time the DSM-5 comes around in 2013 we understand that there is a difference between transgender children, and gender nonconforming children, and that gender nonconforming behavior is not an issue, shouldn't be diagnosed, and changed.
I was looking for the results of an Australian study on transgender children that found 96% persisted, and only 4% desisted as they grew up when I found this article, and upon reading it realized that maybe you don't know that the main criticism of all the studies is the use of the DSM-4's flawed criteria for diagnosing a child with gender identity disorder\GID now known as gender dysphoria. I'm wondering if they used the DSM-5 standards, which would mean the study was done after 2013. Which now that there is that 1 mandatory criteria that must be met for a child to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and basically as transgender we are going to see less kids overall being diagnosed with gender dysphoria compared to if we were still using the criteria of the DSM-4 (which gender dysphoria would have been known as GID in the desist studies using the DSM-4's criteria at that time).
Anyway, down below is a link to a great article written about the flaws in the desist studies, and it explains it in a much better, and much more eloquent way than I did. The chief issue being as I mentioned none of those desist studies distinguished between transgender children, and gender nonconforming children many of whom never said they identified as the opposite sex\gender, but under the DSM-5's criteria they would not have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. As a result they wouldn't have been in the desist studies for transgender children. Dr.Kristina Olson is currently conduction the world's largest study ever of transgender children, and gender nonconforming children. She has them in separate cohorts because they aren't the same, and I hope people can see why if a study did mix the 2, and that study wanted to know what the desist rates are for transgender children, well I hope they, and you can see how the data would then not be very helpful. I will also provide a link to her study's website as well.
The latest argument by the trans activists is that these studies don't count anymore, because the DSM V has now tightened the criteria for gender dysphoria. Thus, they say, some portion of the children in these studies who were diagnosed with GID or dysphoria would not get any diagnosis under DSM V, and thus the desistance rates would be lower or non-existent. Thus, they conclude, desistance is a "myth."An example of this argument can be found here: http://transadvocate.com/the-new-york-magazine-lies-to-parents-about-trans-children_n_18875.htmReplyDelete
As far as I can tell, such an argument fails for 3 reasons. First, if it is true that the criteria have been tightened as of 2014, that doesn't mean that desistance was "mythical" under the prior standards, which reigned for decades. Second, if the criteria are now tightened, that would argue for new desistance studies employing the new criteria or a re-crunching of the data in the prior surveys using the new criteria. But there is no way to say now that the results wouldn't hold up even under tighter criteria. Third, looking at the Drummond study discussed above, which involved a group of diagnosed children and a second group which was not diagnosed, there was no real difference in the desistance rates. So there is no reason to assume that there would be a difference using the DSM V criteria.
I would greatly appreciate a post from you directly addressing this latest trans activist argument.
Dr.Kristina's Olson's study of transgender children, and gender nonconforming children is the largest in the world. I will send you a link to it, as well as a link to an article similar to the one you posted, but much more detailed. By the way when they say myth they don't mean that those numbers under the DSM-4's standards just don't exist. They mean that data is useless, or at a minimum not reliable until new studies are done using the stricter criteria of the DSM-5, which is what Dr.Kristina Olson is doing. She has transgender children, and gender nonconforming children in separate cohorts are to avoid the pitfalls of previous desist studies. By the way the change in criteria was a big one. Prior to the DSM-5 it was not a mandatory requirement that child say consistently, persistently, and insistently that they are, or they feel they are the opposite sex\gender, or neither male, or female.Delete
Under the DSM-4 a child only had to meet all the gender nonconforming criteria to be diagnosed with gender identity disorder\GID now known as gender dysphoria. In other words a girl who is a tomboy, and who says she is a girl, likes being a girl, doesn't want to be a boy would have still been diagnosed with GID, and been a part of the desist studies. Now it's mandatory they have to meet that first criteria, and saying I wish I were the opposite sex\gender doesn't count, and a child who says that doesn't meet the mandatory requirement. This is a big deal as it does a pretty good job of separating transgender children, and cisgender\non-transgender gender nonconforming children. They are not the same thing, and if one is wanting to know the desist rate specifically for transgender children then the study can't have gender nonconforming children in it because that defeats the purpose since we've now mixed to different cohorts\groups. That 2nd link is an article written by Dr.Kristina Olson the woman I mentioned is leading the world's largest study ever of transgender, and gender nonconforming children.
I already see some serious problems within this article. It clearly states 12 studies, but only reports the findings of two. Only two references are given as well. which is hardly conclusive when the two studies referenced could be cherry-picked, and the ten others could proffer completely different conclusions. Also, in most countries, children aren't allowed to access hormones until the age of 16-18, so how does this affect anything? Children are given puberty blockers, not HRT. So there's nothing irreversible or damaging about being diagnosed as a child and later desisting.ReplyDelete
Laying this out:
1 - Quoting two studies out of twelve is hardly a definitive assessment
2 - Children aren't given access to cross-gender hormones until the ages of 16-18 (which I completely agree with), so regardless of any desistance rate it causes no problems if they decide that transition is wrong for them.
3 - There is absolutely no tracking or study of how desistance rates might be affected by social and/or peer pressure, so there could very well be transitions that occur after the data is published. Many. MANY transgender people detransition from social pressures, family disapproval. and an inability to find jobs due to discrimination levels present in society and employment.
Given these three points, I can't see how the information presented in this article should affect current protocols and procedures for the treatment of individuals displaying symptoms of GID in any way, whether adult or child.
In conclusion, many more studies need to be conducted in a provably unbiased manner if they are to affect any proposed changes to existing treatment protocols. Those studies need to take into account: persistence and desistance rates, measurable social factors, employment rates, familial and religious discriminatory factors, and any geographical data on discrimination factors that may occur in the areas where the studies are conducted. Obviously, sample sizes and time factors must be addressed as well. Only then can any reliable and provable conclusions be reached.
These are good points! Also, the amount of people studied in the studies that are listed are generally not considered reflective of anything. The sample size is too small (127 kids and 25 kids) to be valid.Delete
The author here attempts to debunk people's claims the author asserts that he knows what people are referring to (as stated). There are articles out there which cite their claims. Here's one that you can actually see what they're referencing:
Also, how do you respond to the 13 groups--including the UK Council for Psychotherapy, the Royal College of GPs, the British Psychoanalytic Council and the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy--who condemned the documentary?
1. The size of a sample is not determined by consensus. It is a mathematical association between the size of the effect one is looking for and the variance within the samples. The procedure for calculating the necessary sample size is called a power analysis. It is indeed true that some of the studies are small, and if that's all we had, it wouldn't be much. The larger studies, however, were demonstrably adequate in size. And more importantly, because the smaller studies turned out to see exactly the same thing as the larger studies, we have direct evidence of the entire argument being completely moot.Delete
I have no idea what the second paragraph is trying to express.
Actually, I do not have to respond to anyone. I merely cite the existing evidence. If any number of political/social groups want to contest a scientific conclusion (in this case, a unanimous one), it is up to those political groups to justify why they break with the science.
> I already see some serious problems within this article.Delete
Well, that would certainly save you the trouble of having to actually read it all.
> It clearly states 12 studies, but only reports the findings of two.
> Only two references are given as well. which is hardly conclusive
> when the two studies referenced could be cherry-picked, and the
> ten others could proffer completely different conclusions.
Yeah. Easy to miss. It’s all the way in sentence number three until I say “I listed the results of every study” and link to the list of all 12.
And cherry-picking: the selection of only a subset of studies that happen to support me. Not only have I not cherry-picked citation, but because every single study said the same thing: It is simply NOT POSSIBLE for one to cherry-pick. (!) All subsets of the studies say the same thing!
But I can see how you might miss that. I didn't say that all the studies got the same result until sentence number four, and, as you say, you already saw some serious points by then.
> Also, in most countries, children aren't allowed to access
> hormones until the age of 16-18, so how does this affect
> anything? Children are given puberty blockers, not HRT.
> So there's nothing irreversible or damaging about being
> diagnosed as a child and later desisting.
> Children aren't given access to cross-gender hormones
> until the ages of 16-18 (which I completely agree with),
> so regardless of any desistance rate it causes no problems
> if they decide that transition is wrong for them.
No. The evidence suggests that by age 16-18, the desisters have already desisted. Prepubescent children, however, desist more often than not (but not always). The studies showing high desistance were from children generally under 12, not 16-18.
> 1 - Quoting two studies out of twelve is hardly a definitive
Correct. This blog post was a response to correct two claims made in the National Post article. I hesitate to call anything “definitive,” but I already wrote a full review of all 12 studies, and I linked it here. That’s about all I can do.
> 3 - There is absolutely no tracking or study of how desistance
> rates might be affected by social and/or peer pressure, so
> there could very well be transitions that occur after the data
> is published. Many. MANY transgender people detransition
> from social pressures, family disapproval. and an inability
> to find jobs due to discrimination levels present in society
> and employment.
Yes, there are lots of possibilities we can imagine. There’s just no evidence to suggest any of them. Plus, do you seriously want to question these people’s lived experiences of desistance to match your politics? I mean, don't you want to retain the moral authority by which to demand others to accept your lived experience of persistence despite their politics?
> In conclusion, many more studies need to be conducted
> in a provably unbiased manner if they are to affect any
> proposed changes to existing treatment protocols. Those
> studies need to take into account: persistence and
> desistance rates, measurable social factors, employment
> rates, familial and religious discriminatory factors,
> and any geographical data on discrimination factors that
> may occur in the areas where the studies are conducted.
> Obviously, sample sizes and time factors must be
> addressed as well. Only then can any reliable and
> provable conclusions be reached.
Do please go ahead. If such a study shows something different than the current studies, then we have learned something. But until then, every single study on the topic has found the identical result, and you want to reject every single study on the topic in favour of a study that exists only in your imagination.
Preliminary results from Dr.Kristina Olson's study, which also happens to be the world's largest ever of transgender children, and gender nonconforming children treated as separate cohorts. There is also the soon to be published research from Dr Michelle Telfer, and colleagues at Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne that found "“From 2003 to 2017 96 percent of all patients assessed and diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria continued to identify as transgender or gender diverse into late adolescence”. Here's a link to the article which the above quote came from it's kinda of bit down into the article as well as a link to the website for Dr.Kristina Olson's study.Delete
As acceptance for trans lives increases, more and more children are seeing they have a future, and more support, if they continue to present as trans. Especially in a country like Australia where their rights are protected in adult life and they aren't scrutinised. I think a lot of studies from the past have not followed whether these desistors had a change of heart in adulthood and retransitioned, this is quite common. If so many desist then why are there so many today? Why such an investment in making access to treatment so difficult for genuine trans children? What you need to state is your position on whether you approve puberty blockers for the "wait and see" strategy, and whether you believe trans kids need to be discouraged.ReplyDelete
The point is that there is no definitive test that confirms who is "truely trans". If someone (a child) feels they are trans there can be more than one option. While waiting and seeing you can affirm the belief or affirm the sex. Affirming the sex does not mean demanding certain toys or clothes, etc.Delete
There is an awful lot to consider when making this determination that could include a life on medication and surgeries. Puberty blockers are not without risk nor are cross sex hormones or surgery. No child can begin to understand that. Half of the parents and half of the patients don't understand this. One person's best treatment is not necessarily the best treatment for all, that's why options should remain open.
It's about time that we see just how insane it is to block puberty in children and forcing them on a lifetime of injections. When has it ever been ok to subject kids to this kind of abuse based on the narrow perspective that identity is as easy as being a woman or man, regardless of biological sex. Why do we insist on putting labels on everyone who may feel out of sorts with body? Could we not try to change how society treat people in general? Would it be so crazy to think that we could encourage kids to be proud of their bodies without having to put them in boxes that just promote more stereotypes and gender confusion? So as parents, we would rather have our children decide what is right for them and to accept the constructs of a society and this movement as the only means in which one must identify? We are ok as parents, to accept the notion that anatomy is meaningless and our very being is merely a feeling and nothing more? We should be removing the ideology of sex and gender roles, not conforming to fit an ideology that promotes more boxes and more labels. This movement is counterintuitive and dangerous to society at large, not to mention all the emotional blackmail. As parents, we are either supportive or killers. In a time where we are supposed to foster equality and fair treatment, instead, we are being forced to accept an ideology that completely excludes my right to be a proud woman with a vagina. To force a child into one gender because he or she says so, likes dresses or play with trucks is crazy and perpetuates a society that can't let go stereotypes. Be proud of who you are as you were born and live your life how you see fit. Long hair, short hair, masculine, feminine, dress, pants, who cares what society says where you should fit. Why is it detrimental to identify at all? Why can't we just be.ReplyDelete
With all due respect Dr. Cantor, I think you (along with the general public) are conflating a diagnosis of gender dysphoria with one of being transgender. In fact, only a subset of GD children are treated as if they are transgender.ReplyDelete
Kristina Olson, Ph.D, the director of the TransYouth Project at the University of Washington, which both clinically treats GD kids and does research, makes this point in her review article “Prepubescent Transgender Children: What We Do and Do Not Know,” Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Volume 55 Number 3 March 2016. She describes “a transgender child” (for example, a natal male) as “a child who consistently, persistently, and insistently identiﬁes as female despite, in this case, being a natal male.” It is these “binary transgender children” that are candidates for such treatments as social transitioning, not every child with a diagnosis of GD. (As the DSM-5 itself notes, a GD diagnosis casts a wider net: “Experienced gender may include alternative gender identities beyond binary stereotypes. Consequently, the distress is not limited to a desire to simply be of the other gender, but may include a desire to be of an alternative gender, provided that it differs from the individual's assigned gender.”)
There is empiric evidence that such children, exhibiting consistent, persistent and insistent identity as the “opposite” sex, persist as transgender into adolescence and adulthood:
“[S]tudies have found that children showing the most “extreme” signs of GD —- the ones who show more gender nonconformity (e.g., more behavioral preferences, more insistence on the “other” identity) -— are the most likely to identify later as transgender.3 More speciﬁcally, Steensma et al.5 [Steensma TD, McGuire JK, Kreukels BP, Beekman AJ, Cohen-Kettenis P., Factors associated with desistence and persistence of childhood gender dysphoria: a quantitative follow-up study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2013;52:582-590]suggested that the distinction between children who believe themselves to be the other gender and those who wish they were a member of the “other” gender appears to be a key predictor of persistence. They reported that “explicitly asking children with GD with which sex they identify seems to be of great value in predicting a future outcome.”5 (p. 588). Thus, knowing whether a child consistently claims the “other” gender identity might be the best single predictor of later transgender identity.
So, even beyond the question of whether the studies included only children properly diagnosed as GID/GD and beyond whether the GID criteria was too broad and beyond whether they properly measured “desisters,” there is the question of whether they differentiate between gender diverse children (also known as gender non-conforming, gender creative, or gender variant children) who have a GD diagnosis, and transgender children. Nothing I've seen about them indicates that they even make the attempt. Given all that, I do not think it can be fairly said, as you do, that these studies show that “The majority of kids cease to feel transgender when they get older.”
Well put. I was just reading that a study that is about to be published from Australia found that 96% transgender, and gender variant youth persist well into late puberty. Also can't wait for the results of Dr.Kristina Olson's study, which does separate transgender children into one cohort, and gender nonconforming children into another. I'm pretty confident that she will avoid most of, and hopefully all of the pitfalls of previous studies on transgender children, and gender nonconforming children. Also I read that it's a mandatory requirement under the DSM-5 that a child must say they are, or they feel they are the opposite, sex\gender, or neither male, or female, or they won't be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and definitely won't be treated as transgender. Still that doesn't mean that a cisgender\non-transgender child who is gender nonconforming won't experience aspects of gender dysphoria such as issues around their bodies, and they could also experience great distress such as depression, anxiety, and suicide ideation due to their gender nonconforming behavior due to how society treats gender nonconforming people especially in countries like the US, and UK. Below is a link to the article that mentioned the Australian desist study that showed only 4% had desisted by late adolescence, which contradicts completely all previous desist studies. The data from the study interestingly enough was first published in a court case concerning a 5 year old natal male born with a DSD who always lived as a girl, but who wanted surgery to remove her inner testes. It mentions it kind of a ways down in the article, but here's an excerpt from it, and the link below.Delete
"“From 2003 to 2017 96 percent of all patients assessed and diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria continued to identify as transgender or gender diverse into late adolescence”."
In Portland, a 12 yr old who started to question their gender a little over a year prior can be offered puberty blocking hormones. This seems hasty, but that is my child's experience.Delete