It was about social transition, which seemed to be use of pronouns. What you are saying is likely to be true in some cases, but you can also make the reverse argument that some children may be brought up in gender neutral households, and therefore have been conditioned to not refer to themselves as he or she.

Put another way, nearly half the participants in the study were aged under 6 years of age, with a mean age of 4.3 years old, with some socially transitioning at 3 years old. Certainly gender dysphoria at 3 years old is not surprising, but I would question the need for the child to socially transition at that age.

Non-binary is not the same as transgender. The study made a distinction between the two and very few binary transgender children retransitioned. The odds of a household that normalized gender identity exploration encouraging or discouraging a particular gender identity for their children seems quite low to me. The odds of that happening in a household that adhered to cisgender identities seems astronomically higher. I'm not saying it couldn't happen in non-traditional households but if I was going to put money on which household was likely to skew results in transitioning I would bet heavily on the traditional one and I don't think it's close.

The children in the study were not evaluated for gender dysphoria. Not everyone transgender will experience that. I would question the need to restrict social transition of a child. It sounds like you're imagining social transition being something forced upon the child rather than not standing in the way of their exploration. If you restrict the child's exploration you're probably more likely to end up creating dysphoria.

I don't know what you mean. The observation in the data is that the older kids were LESS likely to detransition than the younger kids, which is the opposite of your claim. Now you seem to be dismissing it as "post-hoc analysis", but like....duh? All analysis happens after the fact. There is nothing about the fact that it is "post-hoc analysis" that implies it is a statistical artefact; it of course may well be as this is just the study announcement not the full study, but your comment here seems to ring as if you didn't like the result the data implied as it went against your prediction, and now you are just handwaiving it away as some sort of "post-hoc" statistical artefact. Maybe so, but you have to do your homework in that case.



My point is a rejection of a republican orthodoxy on the issue. Namely, a bunch of states are trying to push back or criminalize in some way transitions of youth, and one of the talking points for that is that putatively a large number of youth detransition. So no, I don't think we should be adopting policies that post pone social transitions of trans youth. That statement wasn't however meant to be declaring that no family or doctor would ever decide it wasn't appropriate for an individual; of course these decisions should be quite case by case for the specific support units of any individual.



This is very different from where you started, and seems obviously true. If I had two people one of whom had identified as trans for 13 years and one who had identified as trans for 6 months, of course the later would be more likely to detransition. What it seems like is going on is some sort of weird attempt to delegitimize transitions by older teenagers, what with the earlier scarequote "discovers" and the like. Maybe this isn't your goal, but this is how it is coming off to me. Well, the specific study I cited isn't meant to address older teenagers, but quite similarly we should have little reason to minimize the meaningfullness of people who transition in their later teens (or far later in life too!), especially in a society that makes social transitions punishingly hard on youth.

As far as I'm aware, nonbinary falls within the category of transgender. Is this what you meant? This study did make the distinction, but still included nonbinary within the transgender umbrella.

This point is very hard to quantify. The number of parents who actively discourage gender identity exploration is greater than zero, and so are those parents who actively encourage it. You are right that the former category is undoubtedly larger than the latter. However, even if this number was 99 to 1 in every 100 parents, the 1 is still likely to be highly significant, even if only 10% of these parents were "successful" in socialising their child to be transgender. These numbers are pure speculation, but even if they are ballpark, it would encompass a double digit percentage of transgender people overall who were socialised into their transition.

I think most reasonable parents would remain neutral (neither encourage or discourage) their child during the perfectly natural childhood exploration of gender and sex roles. I'm not sure discouraging exploration would make it more likely to create dysphoria, but this is ultimately an empirical question so if you have a source to support this, I'd be happy to read it.

Then read up about post-hoc analysis and the replication crisis. Furthermore, I didn’t point it out, the study authors (to their credit) did and I noted this aspect as it’s important.

lol, no family on Earth is trying to make their child transgender, what am I reading here.

The study seems to quite clearly contradict your guess. However, you have seemly dismissed this as likely a statistical artefact. I'm well aware with problems in the replication crisis, but I don't know what YOU mean. As in, you can't just flap your hands around and throw out any conclusion from the data you don't like. So as I said: if you believe this is just an artifact and doens't contradict your assumptions then you have to do your homework.

Lol, you just plaigarized wiki, didn't you? Regardless, you missed the point. The study was quite clear to distinguish between "binary transgender" and "non-binary" people, so distinct categories even if broadly speaking non-binary people are lumped into a broader trans spectrum.

No, but I can be sceptical of a result where the total sample size of detransitioners is 8 - yes, eight - children

You can base your worldview on that if you like, however, I'll wait for more robust evidence.

Incidentally, Here is an alternative study that examined boys with GD at ~8 years old, and then followed them up at ~20 years of age.

From the discussion:

So the results across several studies seem to suggest the vast majority of boys grow out of it by the time they reach adulthood.

Are you going to acknowledge that Bryce was correct and you were wrong about transgender rape in prisons?

Fair enough, you have finally found a good argument. With so very few detransitioners the sample size is indeed tiny and disprove your claim (for which you have yet to provide any proof yourself).

Worth noting what "it" is though, notably in this study it was people referred, some kids back in the 80s, over a third of whom didn't even meet the at-the-time thresholds for GID/GD. This is contrast to the study I shared which talked about kids who had socially transitioned. Regardless, the broader point that kids are likely to grow out of a wide swath of various mental health issues is taken and this one is not necessarily an exception.

Regardless, does this not cut against your view that younger kids are more persistently trans than your archetypal 18 year old who scare quotes "discovered" they were trans in college (or, unmentioned, did not feel safe coming out before college)?

Nearly half of LGBTQ youth seriously considered suicide, survey finds

Which is why, for many of us, inclusion of trans youth in school sports takes priority over the perfect competitive environment.

I asked 3 times, didn't get a reference and wasn't inclined to keep flogging a dead horse.

The data were always there, you were just ignorant to it. There are lots of other flaws in that study, as there are with many studies, hence why it's good not to base your entire worldview on one piece of research.

No, because there were no late transitioners in these studies to compare with.

Ok, well can you show your robust multi-study research supporting your....checks notes for linguistic comparison...."entire worldview" that the earlier a person "discovers" that they are trans, the less likely they are to detransition?

Factors Leading to “Detransition” Among Transgender and Gender Diverse People in the United States: A Mixed-Methods Analysis

The most likely age group to detransition were those who transitioned between ages 18-24. This is despite the fact that this is the smallest age range analysed in this study.

...although I should also point out that, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, the data set is also likely skewed towards this age group, although we can't know this for sure as the skewness and kurtosis for age are not reported.

I'm not minded to search further high quality data, as having done a decent search already this morning, it just isn't available given the small sample size of trans people anyway, and the even smaller subset who detransition. There are plenty of case studies and qualitative literature, but this is obviously limited in scope when seeking to generalise findings.

What? He gave you three references. Bryce put a lot of work into a very good post that you just shrugged off without comment

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/c...text=lawreview"]https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/c...text=lawreview[/URL]

.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6830990/

ttps://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...e95f16028b06eb

Please provide the list of language you've specifically approved of so I can better comply with your language demands.
I'd prefer it be double-spaced and sufficiently wide margins for handwritten notes.

Thanks.

You're doing just great.

The article doesn't say this.

This is wrong on multiple levels. Firstly, if the article actually said this, it would be the opposite of your argument that the earlier someone transitions, the more likely they are to not detransition.

More importantly, perhaps, the article doesn't say this. You don't even try to quote them saying this, which would normally be bad etiquette, but this is just not anywhere in the abstract or body of the article that the authors have made this claim. The articles DO speak about the demographic factors that are most significant, but this is not listed.

I think what most likely led to your misstating this is that you misread the segment in Table 1 on age of transition. This data excludes people not currently living full time in their affirmed gender, and asks them if they have EVER detransitioned. Even among that group, however, you don't get to your claim. Given your comment about "despite the fact that this is the smallest age range" makes me think you didn't realize to divide out by the bucket size. As it happens, the 18-24 bucket has the second lowest rate of having ever detransitioned among people currently living in their affirmed gender. That said, they are all within a percent or two of each other so this is hardly a big deal. Now I really want to caution against this type of back of envelope division - aka "post-hoc analysis" as you have critiqued - without proper statistical tests, so I'm not endorsing this analysis just demonstrating the error in what my best guess as to your analysis was.

Ultimately, your own words seem the best description of this whole fiasco:

Putting this in a separate post because I do think there are a lot of really good and relevant things from the study Elrazor cited, even if it doesn't support the claim he is trying to make.

While most people who transition stay transitioned - displacing one conservative narrative about it being just a sort of weird faze in liberal colleges - what is crucial is that among those that do detransition, a huge portion of that are influenced by external pressures from family and society.

We have to do better as a society. If someone decides being trans isn't for them, that is totally fine, but detransition because of an unsupportive family is absolutely tragic. And the crazy part is the other conservative narrative is about focusing on detransitions as sort of proof of why its okay to pass these anti-trans youth bills when they are contributing to the very problem itself.

"If you do not cede our demands in this crusade fighting for a more fair world on behalf of (x), you are anti (x) and thus, an (x)ist..."

You people- and your entire thesis on the world- are/is garbage.

I find it interesting that the really-really-bad thing your worry about is that you get called a racist or a transphobe. Contrast this with the really-really-bad things that happen to trans people (Bobo's stats on suicide come to mind). Like is "if you do not cede our demands then......you get called a bad name" really this viscous take-down you seem to think it is? Especially from the same guy calling people garbage?