Actually, A.D., you are correct on every score in what you are saying. I was trained in the early 70s that there is a group of individuals, mostly boys who knew from day one that they were girls. Nobody reasonable doubts that. Most did not outgrow it. And they were psychologically healthy.
But that's not the case any longer. Most cases ar…
Actually, A.D., you are correct on every score in what you are saying. I was trained in the early 70s that there is a group of individuals, mostly boys who knew from day one that they were girls. Nobody reasonable doubts that. Most did not outgrow it. And they were psychologically healthy.
But that's not the case any longer. Most cases are adolescent onset, girls, and kids with multiple psychiatric problems.
So, your last sentence fits with the research and with my training 50 years ago.
Hey thanks for the sources. I only had time to read one of them, and are heading out for the day.
Which one of the sources did you get your data about 80% from. I want to be sure to read that one first. I'll get to all of them later in the day or tomorrow. Thanks again.
There is also a peer reviewed article (Ristori & Steensma, 2016) but also a recent paper summarizes a lot of them and is not paywalled: Singh, Bradley, Zucker, 2021.
It is one of the studies in the earlier summaries, it's just it was originally a thesis and now there is a peer reviewed paper with a review of earlier literature that is more current.
I tried reading it, but got lost in the terminology of biphilic/androphilic and all of the other phrases like this. Couldn't make heads or tails of the article, but thanks for sending it my way. Ordinarily I enjoy reading research, even research that contradicts my beliefs, but this one was over the top for me.
ah darn, sorry! The philia stuff is whether they are gay or not?
Here:
"In the Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis (52) study, the DSM-III-R criteria were used to diagnose GID. Of the 12 persisters, all met the criteria for GID at the time of the baseline assessment; in contrast, only 68% of the 47 desisters met the criteria for GID; the remainder were deemed subthreshold for the diagnosis. Thus, in their study, the threshold-subthreshold distinction appears to have been an important one in predicting outcome; nonetheless, it should be noted that 68% of the desisters had been threshold for the diagnosis in childhood—perhaps a strong rebuttal to the No True Scotsman argument. In Steensma et al. (51), the DSM-IV-TR criteria were used. Of the 23 persisters, 21 (91.3%) met the criteria for GID; in contrast, only 22 (39.3%) of the 56 desisters were threshold for the diagnosis, suggesting an even more substantial difference in the threshold-subthreshold distinction than was found in Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis. Although the latter percentage was lower than what was found in Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis, that almost 40% of the desisters met the criteria for GID in childhood still argues in favor that the children were desisting from something.6
From Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis (52) and Steensma et al. (51), one predictor of outcome, therefore, was the distinction between being threshold or subthreshold for the GID diagnosis in childhood. Dimensional measures of gender-variant behavior have also proven useful. In both Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis and Steensma et al., dimensional measures of sex-typed behavior in childhood also significantly discriminated between the persisters and desisters, with the former group having, on average, more severe gender-variant behavior at the time of the childhood assessment. Steensma et al. found two other predictors of persistence: boys who were assessed at an older age and boys who had made either a partial or complete gender “social transition” [see (68–70)]. Of the 12 boys who had partially or completely transitioned prior to puberty, 10 (83.3%) were classified as persisters. In contrast, of the 67 boys who had not socially transitioned, only 13 (19.4%) were classified as persisters."
and from the abstract for this study in particular, of 139: " Of the 88 participants who met the full diagnostic criteria for GID in childhood, 12 (13.6%) were classified as persisters and the remaining 76 (86.4%) were not. Of the 51 participants who were subthreshold for the GID diagnosis in childhood, 5 (9.8%) were classified as persisters and the remaining 46 (90.2%) were not. "
You went to all of this work to give an explanation? that really starts my day off right.
It appears I have been wrong. that.......uh........people have learned more since I was trained (55 years ago) or retired (almost 20 years ago). The thing is...I have always liked learning.
So I thank you. It's nice being on substack because you get to interact with people who want to talk instead of fight.
"Assessed at an older age" - does that mean they only first presented at an older age or that, regardless of when they first presented symptoms of GID they were only assessed in this study at an older age?
It's heartening to see further criteria by which the group can be subdivided accurately. Providing transition to support to the sub-group that would persist 80% of the time is very different than providing it to the group that would persist only 20% of the time.
But notice that the subgroup who persisted at 83.3% were previously socially transitioned. Whereas those who were not previously socially transitioned only persisted at 19.4%. Based on this study, it appears that socially transitioning a pre-pubescent child is doing much of the work. This is why the Cass report concluded that social transition is not neutral and should be considered a clinical intervention.
80% was my calculation, based on adding all the individuals' outcomes in all the studies. Of course, the groups and methodolgies of the studies vary, so they're not quite commensurable - but it's a ballpark figure.
Hi Barney. Could not get ahold of the actual citations (behind paywalls), but I did read all of the shortened versions.
We may have a disagreement about what these show. Let me explain:
1. They seem non-representative of studies in the area. Some are quite old, in fact.
2. Even with that, they seem to show that people with more evidence of GID in childhood have much more of a likelihood to have it persist into adulthood.
Don't know if it is possible, but if you could give me your analysis that came up with an estimate of 80% I am totally willing to look at that. I desperately delve into research, and am always up for learning.
Some of those studies I might be inclined to be skeptical of as either being too recent (if there's been a social push to question might that push numbers higher) or too far back (if there was a lot of stigma with being trans, might that push things too far the other way)
(And another one is about "effeminate behavior" not "dysphoria".)
At least based on the dates there, this one:
Wallien, M. S. C., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2008). Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1413–1423.
Lists:
trans-21/54
cis-33/54
(It does not further break down gay/lesbian)
That's got a higher percentage, but still < 50%
I have not read that paper, it stood out to me both as a good year(late enough for gay rights early enough before the recent rise), the highest percentage, and definitely (based on the title) about dysphoria.
Actually, A.D., you are correct on every score in what you are saying. I was trained in the early 70s that there is a group of individuals, mostly boys who knew from day one that they were girls. Nobody reasonable doubts that. Most did not outgrow it. And they were psychologically healthy.
But that's not the case any longer. Most cases are adolescent onset, girls, and kids with multiple psychiatric problems.
So, your last sentence fits with the research and with my training 50 years ago.
Seems that about 80% of even those children "who knew from day one" that they were the opposite sex actually *do* outgrow it. http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html
Sissy boys and tomboy girls grow up again and again to be gay men and lesbians. I know, I am one of them.
This is why to me "gender affirming care" is the gay/lesbian conversion therapy from hell.
BTW, I explain all this to other gay men and they get angry and accuse of transphobia, etc. Just totally clueless and don't want to know either.
Hey thanks for the sources. I only had time to read one of them, and are heading out for the day.
Which one of the sources did you get your data about 80% from. I want to be sure to read that one first. I'll get to all of them later in the day or tomorrow. Thanks again.
There is also a peer reviewed article (Ristori & Steensma, 2016) but also a recent paper summarizes a lot of them and is not paywalled: Singh, Bradley, Zucker, 2021.
It is one of the studies in the earlier summaries, it's just it was originally a thesis and now there is a peer reviewed paper with a review of earlier literature that is more current.
I tried reading it, but got lost in the terminology of biphilic/androphilic and all of the other phrases like this. Couldn't make heads or tails of the article, but thanks for sending it my way. Ordinarily I enjoy reading research, even research that contradicts my beliefs, but this one was over the top for me.
ah darn, sorry! The philia stuff is whether they are gay or not?
Here:
"In the Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis (52) study, the DSM-III-R criteria were used to diagnose GID. Of the 12 persisters, all met the criteria for GID at the time of the baseline assessment; in contrast, only 68% of the 47 desisters met the criteria for GID; the remainder were deemed subthreshold for the diagnosis. Thus, in their study, the threshold-subthreshold distinction appears to have been an important one in predicting outcome; nonetheless, it should be noted that 68% of the desisters had been threshold for the diagnosis in childhood—perhaps a strong rebuttal to the No True Scotsman argument. In Steensma et al. (51), the DSM-IV-TR criteria were used. Of the 23 persisters, 21 (91.3%) met the criteria for GID; in contrast, only 22 (39.3%) of the 56 desisters were threshold for the diagnosis, suggesting an even more substantial difference in the threshold-subthreshold distinction than was found in Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis. Although the latter percentage was lower than what was found in Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis, that almost 40% of the desisters met the criteria for GID in childhood still argues in favor that the children were desisting from something.6
From Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis (52) and Steensma et al. (51), one predictor of outcome, therefore, was the distinction between being threshold or subthreshold for the GID diagnosis in childhood. Dimensional measures of gender-variant behavior have also proven useful. In both Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis and Steensma et al., dimensional measures of sex-typed behavior in childhood also significantly discriminated between the persisters and desisters, with the former group having, on average, more severe gender-variant behavior at the time of the childhood assessment. Steensma et al. found two other predictors of persistence: boys who were assessed at an older age and boys who had made either a partial or complete gender “social transition” [see (68–70)]. Of the 12 boys who had partially or completely transitioned prior to puberty, 10 (83.3%) were classified as persisters. In contrast, of the 67 boys who had not socially transitioned, only 13 (19.4%) were classified as persisters."
and from the abstract for this study in particular, of 139: " Of the 88 participants who met the full diagnostic criteria for GID in childhood, 12 (13.6%) were classified as persisters and the remaining 76 (86.4%) were not. Of the 51 participants who were subthreshold for the GID diagnosis in childhood, 5 (9.8%) were classified as persisters and the remaining 46 (90.2%) were not. "
You went to all of this work to give an explanation? that really starts my day off right.
It appears I have been wrong. that.......uh........people have learned more since I was trained (55 years ago) or retired (almost 20 years ago). The thing is...I have always liked learning.
So I thank you. It's nice being on substack because you get to interact with people who want to talk instead of fight.
"Assessed at an older age" - does that mean they only first presented at an older age or that, regardless of when they first presented symptoms of GID they were only assessed in this study at an older age?
It's heartening to see further criteria by which the group can be subdivided accurately. Providing transition to support to the sub-group that would persist 80% of the time is very different than providing it to the group that would persist only 20% of the time.
But notice that the subgroup who persisted at 83.3% were previously socially transitioned. Whereas those who were not previously socially transitioned only persisted at 19.4%. Based on this study, it appears that socially transitioning a pre-pubescent child is doing much of the work. This is why the Cass report concluded that social transition is not neutral and should be considered a clinical intervention.
80% was my calculation, based on adding all the individuals' outcomes in all the studies. Of course, the groups and methodolgies of the studies vary, so they're not quite commensurable - but it's a ballpark figure.
Hi Barney. Could not get ahold of the actual citations (behind paywalls), but I did read all of the shortened versions.
We may have a disagreement about what these show. Let me explain:
1. They seem non-representative of studies in the area. Some are quite old, in fact.
2. Even with that, they seem to show that people with more evidence of GID in childhood have much more of a likelihood to have it persist into adulthood.
Don't know if it is possible, but if you could give me your analysis that came up with an estimate of 80% I am totally willing to look at that. I desperately delve into research, and am always up for learning.
thanks!
Jesse has written about this in detail in the past… even before he had a Substack:
https://medium.com/@jesse.singal/everyone-myself-included-has-been-misreading-the-single-biggest-study-on-childhood-gender-8b6b3d82dcf3
And
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/how-science-vs-accidentally-invented
Interesting.
Some of those studies I might be inclined to be skeptical of as either being too recent (if there's been a social push to question might that push numbers higher) or too far back (if there was a lot of stigma with being trans, might that push things too far the other way)
(And another one is about "effeminate behavior" not "dysphoria".)
At least based on the dates there, this one:
Wallien, M. S. C., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2008). Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1413–1423.
Lists:
trans-21/54
cis-33/54
(It does not further break down gay/lesbian)
That's got a higher percentage, but still < 50%
I have not read that paper, it stood out to me both as a good year(late enough for gay rights early enough before the recent rise), the highest percentage, and definitely (based on the title) about dysphoria.