[seethedeaduu]

We have been saying that the DSM is a joke for years, and that you can't diagnose someone of being trans just by ticking boxes, the only way to go about it is self identification. So yeah sure, they used the DSM to diagnose and then perform conversion therapy on GNC children who never necessarily claimed to be trans, and from that they inferred that most trans kids end up "becoming cis".

> Do you have any actual evidence that a significant portion of desisters in this study transitioned later in life?

I don't have enough funds to perform such a research, maybe there exists such a paper but I have not looked for it. In general trans topics are woefully underfunded. But I know enough people that ended up desisting either due to conversion therapy or due to shame and lack of support from their family, and transitioned years afterwards (5-15+ years) after living shitty and depressing empty lives pretending to be cis.

[Manuel_D]

For the third time, the children in the study met the same criteria that would be used to approve a child for puberty blockers. Why do you keep insisting that these children "never necessarily claimed to be trans"? Whatever "claiming to be trans" is supposed to mean, the important thing is that the study used the same criteria that would be used to approve a child for puberty blockers.

> But I know enough people that ended up desisting either due to conversion therapy or due to shame and lack of support from their family, and transitioned years afterwards (5-15+ years) after living shitty and depressing empty lives pretending to be cis.

This is called "anecdote". As I said, the claim that a sizeable chunk of desisters transition later in life is being made without evidence.

And again, with a mean followup time of over 10 years, most of the people who transitioned 5-15 years later would be counted as persisters, not desisters.

[seethedeaduu]

And again, we have been saying that these criteria are stupid. You can't diagnose someone as trans unwillingly, and then be surprised that they decided to not transition. Teenagers who start hormones or blockers do so because they ask for it, because they identify themselves as trans.

> This is called "anecdote"

When you are lacking proper research all you are going to get are anecdotes. Let's not put our heads in the sand.

> with a mean followup time of over 10 years, most of the people who transitioned 5-15 years later would be counted as persisters, not desisters.

10-15 years means that you are 25-30 if you came out at 15. At that point people often self-medicate with hrt and nobody ends up knowing. The mean age of 10 years is because they tracked younger children, if you came out at 7 its unlikely that you will transition at 17 with unsupportive parents, especially back then.

[Manuel_D]

No, "trans kids" don't get prescribed blockers just because they ask for it. Does a child just say one day "I'm a girl" (or boy) and then get handed blockers as they head out the door?

Of course not. There is an assessment period. They are assessed for gender dysphoria, and if diagnosed they may be prescribed puberty blockers to treat their gender dysphoria. And what is the criteria for diagnosing a patient with gender dysphoria? Whether or not you think the criteria in the DSM are effective, at the end of the day these are the criteria that would be used to approve puberty blockers. If you think these criteria erroneously include kids who aren't "trans kids" then we're approving puberty blockers for patients who aren't "trans kids".

Of course a longer follow up time is strictly better, but it's not valid to simply fill in a gap in data with whatever better suits your worldview. If a study measuring rates of detransition follows up with patients for 10 years, then patients that detransition after 10 years would not be counted. Is it valid to point to a couple anecdotes of detransition, and then claim that the study's finding are false because there's loads of people who detransitioned after 10 years? Of course not. But that's the same flawed criticism you're making here.

[seethedeaduu]

> "trans kids"

Why the scarequotes? For the record I don't think I have used these two words together, but I obviously do think that kids can be trans just like anyone else, is that even debatable?

> don't get prescribed blockers

I am quoting here out of context but correct, there is no point in puberty blockers before the "natural" puberty.

> There is an assessment period. They are assessed for gender dysphoria, and if diagnosed they may be prescribed puberty blockers to treat their gender dysphoria

Sure, and we have been saying that these criteria are unscientific, inaccurate, and based on social stereotype.

> at the end of the day these are the criteria that would be used to approve puberty blockers

The difference being that teenagers who don't explicitly seek them because they don't consider themselves as trans are never considered for undergoing puberty blockers. All that study shows is what we have been saying all the time about the DSM.

> If you think these criteria erroneously include kids who aren't "trans kids" then we're approving puberty blockers for patients who aren't "trans kids".

No, because teenagers who don't consider themselves trans do not seek puberty blockers and are therefore never considered for them. The main distinguisher between trans and nontrans people is their self identification.

> Of course a longer follow up time is strictly better, but it's not valid to simply fill in a gap in data with whatever better suits your worldview. There certainly seems to be a pattern.

I don't think it's surprising or debatable that trans people who undergo conversion therapy or grow up in oppressive/conservative environments often end up repressing.

[Manuel_D]

For, what, the fifth time the sample in the study did express cross sex gender identity. They were trans kids, to use your terminology. A patient can't desist from a cross sex gender identity if they never expressed one in the first place. Pointing out that these patients didn't seek blockers is nonsensical since blockers weren't an option at the time. The fact of the matter is that the desisters in this study:

1. Expressed a cross-sex gender identity. They were trans kids, as you choose to term it.

2. Met the assessment criteria that would be used to approve a patient for blockers.

Yes, the desisters in the study would most likely be prescribed blockers if they went to a gender clinic that prioritized affirmation.

> The difference being that teenagers who don't explicitly seek them because they don't consider themselves as trans are never considered for undergoing puberty blockers

Again, these patients did express a cross-sex gender identity, or "consider themselves as trans" to use your language. If they never did, then they can't desist from a cross sex gender identity if they never expressed one in the first place.

> No, because teenagers who don't consider themselves trans do not seek puberty blockers and are therefore never considered for them. The main distinguisher between trans and nontrans people is their self identification.

To re-use your terminology, studies found that ~80% of the children who considered themselves trans stop considering themselves trans and become comfortable and no longer experience gender dysphoria in their cis gender after natal puberty. It seems like the root of the problem is the lack of understanding that the children in the study did "consider themselves trans", as you choose to put it.

If all you're going to do is continue to erroneously claim that the patients in this study weren't expressing a cross sex gender identity ("consider themselves trans"), or baselessly claim that the desisters are actually just repressing a trans identity then there's no value in continuing this.