[d6e]

Those studies were mostly from the 80s-2000s when things were really different. Kids were often referred just for being gender nonconforming (like boys playing with dolls), not necessarily having serious gender dysphoria. Plus the treatment back then was often trying to make kids more "gender typical" - which obviously might push some kids toward appearing to "desist" even if they still had gender issues. Many of the kids in those studies didn't even meet what we'd now consider the criteria for gender dysphoria. So saying "80% of trans kids desist" might be more like "80% of gender nonconforming kids don't turn out to be trans" - which is pretty different.

[Manuel_D]

The majority of the sample met the criteria for gender dysphoria as listed in the DSM. Gender non-conforming behavior is just one criterion, multiple of which need to be met to categorized as gender dysphoric. This is the same set of criteria that a medical professional would use to approve a patient for puberty blockers.

The predominant approach back then was not to suppress incongruent gender identity. The approach was to take a neutral stance and neither foster not suppress the patient's gender identity, called "watchful waiting".

[d6e]

> The predominant approach back then was not to suppress incongruent gender identity. The approach was to take a neutral stance and neither foster not suppress the patient's gender identity, called "watchful waiting".

The clinic involved in this study actively was known for conversion therapy. Zenneth Zucker is one of the authors and is famous for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Zucker#Therapeutic_int...

The head of the child and adolescent gender identity clinic at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Dr. Kenneth Zucker, has made a career promising the parents of intersexed and transgender children that he can make them “normal”. His method, called reparative therapy, in which children are pushed into assigned gender roles and discouraged from behaving or dressing in a way that’s counter to their ‘assigned’ sex, was once standard practice, but in recent years, has been increasingly scrutinized. A 2003 report in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry called his techniques “something disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals,” and author Phyllis Burke has questioned the idea that transgendered children should be treated as mentally ill, saying, “The diagnosis of GID in children, as supported by Zucker and [his colleague J. Michael Bailey] Bradley, is simply child abuse.”

https://www.queerty.com/dr-kenneth-zuckers-war-on-transgende...

I imagine a conversion therapy clinic would issue a study that their conversion therapy works. I wonder how long those kids stayed "desisted" or if they were just pressured into the closet again only to transition later in life.

[Manuel_D]

Kenneth Zucker won over half a million dollars in a defamation lawsuit over these false claims. Your own link covers his successful defamation lawsuit, but you seem to have ignored this:

> After his dismissal, Zucker sued CAMH for defamation and wrongful dismissal.[3] In October 18, CAMH settled with Zucker for $586,000 in damages, legal fees, and interest and released an apology for the report falsely stating he called a patient a "hairy little vermin".[3][46] CAMH removed the report from its website and apologized, and replaced it with a summary of the report which has not survived a move to its new website.

Is it intellectually honest to post CAMH's accusations against Zucker, but neglect to mention that they were sued, paid out a settlement, apologized, and removed this report?

And again, what about the other three studies that all saw desistance rates over 70%? Even if you want to ignore Zucker's results on the grounds that he practiced "conversion therapy" (despite winning his defamation case...) it's not the only study conducted on desistance rates absent puberty blockers.

> I wonder how long those kids stayed "desisted" or if they were just pressured into the closet again only to transition later in life.

You don't need to wonder, just read the study: they followed up with patients over a decade later. By comparison, much of the research attempting to study the benefits of puberty blockers only follow up 1 or 2 years later, yet few seem to point out that this is a small duration of time in the context of a child's entire future adult life.

[d6e]

I'm sorry, I don't want to spend my whole friday evening getting into this.

For me, the topic is personal because I was one of those young transgirls who was forced to go through male puberty. I transitioned the moment I was 18. I'm in my thirties now and still trans and still a woman. There's aspects of my body that are still permanently altered by the fact that I was forced to go through male puberty. I still resent the adults in my life, particularly the psychiatrist who strung me a long for years while I had to go through body horror. I would have done literally anything for hormone blockers back then.

I'm sure this is personal for you too. That's why you spend so much effort replying. Maybe we can see common ground? Neither of us want children to be forced to go through the wrong puberty.

Anyways, hope you have a good evening

[Manuel_D]

A child put on blockers that would have desisted absent hormonal intervention is also a child that goes through the "wrong puberty". Chances are a good number of your psychiatrist's patients that became comfortable in their same sex gender, who would have been put on blockers and set on a track towards transition if your psychiatrist took a permissive approach towards hormonal intervention. Any responsible cost-benefit analysis of blockers has to weigh the effect it has on persistence rates.

And the cohort studies among gender dysphoria patients that don't receive blockers do show a majority desistence. This isn't just Zucker's practice finding majority rates of desistence. And your personal stake is still no justification to repeat defamatory statements about him.