When Exactly did Trans/Non Binary Become So Commonplace?

[miniaturepixieonacid]

This isn't to start (yet another!) debate on the rights and wrongs of gender identification, transitioning etc. Just pondering on how quickly and in what year it became so common.

I'm just watching an old episode of Waterloo Road (Drama set in a comprehensive school) where one of the characters (Casey Barry for anyone who watched it) realises that she wants to be a boy rather than a tomboy and everyone reacts as if it's extremely unusual. The other pupils mock and bully her, her brother gets violent and tells her she is disgusting and a freak and the teachers talk about what a difficult road she has ahead and how much support she will need.

The episode is set in 2013. Not the 1990s. Only just over 10 years ago. But in a Year 10/11 class in a comprehensive in 2024 this wouldn't even raise an eyebrow, would it. There will be several trans and non binary pupils (maybe even several per year group) and pupils would consider it normal.

I teach in a prep school (only goes up to Year 8) so we haven't actually yet had a single pupil transition to the opposite gender. There's one 10 year old who I could potentially see it happening to over the next couple of years but it hasn't yet. So I'm relatively unknowledgable about the whole thing.

Interested to know from secondary school teachers who have been teaching for 10+ years what year you think it was that transitioning and being non binary went from rare to a relatively popular trend.

Great post and highlights how ‘gender’ is really a meaningless word. Instead of non-binary or gender non-conforming or whatever label is used one could just as easily say ‘I’m a non stereotypical female’ or ‘I’m a non stereotypical male’ because that’s basically what it means.

For anyone who is looking for further information on puberty blockers, transitioning children and the effectiveness of current treatment plans, I have some links. I will link them over multiple posts.

1. The Dutch Model is falling apart

By Stella O'Malley / 2 January 2023

First, Stella O’Malley writes about an article in Nederlands that is throwing a great deal of light on the Dutch Protocol. It also seems that there will be a review of the patients that the Dutch team had not previously included in their papers.

This article in the Nederlands points out the dangers on only using a nation’s own sources with no international input or even wide review.

genspect.org/the-dutch-model-is-falling-apart/

2 . SEGM has published on Colin Wright’s substack a version of their previously published article.

5 False Assumptions Behind Youth Gender Transitions

2nd Jan 2023

www.realityslaststand.com/p/5-false-assumptions-behind-youth

Here is the original

segm.org/false-assumptions-gender-affirmation-minors

( segm.org )

[This reviewed Stephen M. Rosenthal‘s paper in Nature, 10 August 2021:

“Challenges in the care of transgender and gender-diverse youth: an endocrinologist’s view”

www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00535-9 ]

The five unproven assumptions are:

Unproven Assumption 1: Gender identity, which underlies gender dysphoria, is a fundamental personal characteristic that is biologically “ingrained.”

Unproven Assumption 2: The sharp rise in the number of youth presenting with gender dysphoria does not signal a true increase in cases—it’s merely better detection.

False Assumption 3: Medical interventions in gender-dysphoric minors have clear eligibility criteria.

False Assumption 4: Medical interventions for gender dysphoric minors have been demonstrated to be safe and effective.

Unproven Assumption 5: Detransition does not represent medical harm and is rare.

3 . This has then had quite a few interesting links.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2160396?src=

Some Limitations of “Challenges in the Care of Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youth: An Endocrinologist’s View”

from J. Cohn, Published online: 24 Dec 2022

Abstract:

There is significant disagreement about how to support trans-identified or gender-dysphoric young people. Different experts and expert bodies make strikingly different recommendations based upon the same (limited) evidence. The US-originating “gender-affirmative” model emphasizes social transition and medical intervention, while some other countries, in response to evidence reviews of medical intervention outcomes, have adopted psychological interventions as the first line of treatment. A proposed model of gender-affirming care, comprising only medical intervention for “eligible” youth, is described in Rosenthal (2021). Determining eligibility for these medical interventions is challenging and engenders considerable disagreement among experts, neither of which is mentioned. The review also claims without support that medical interventions have been shown to clearly benefit mental health, and leaves out significant risks and less invasive alternatives. The unreliability of outcome studies and the corresponding uncertainties as to how gender dysphoria develops and responds to treatment are also unreported.

4 . Then there was this review of US Military health insurance records for transition persistence. The figures simply don't seem to match what the activists want people to believe. There is something really dishonest that seems to be happening where detransition is constantly being minimised despite it appearing in unrelated studies as always being much higher than the activist figures of 1 or 2%.

academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/107/9/e3937/6572526?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

”Continuation of Gender-affirming Hormones Among Transgender Adolescents and Adults”

Christina M Roberts,
David A Klein, Terry A Adirim,
Natasha A Schvey, Elizabeth Hisle-Gorman

22 April 2022

Results
The study sample included 627 transmasculine and 325 transfeminine individuals with an average age of 19.2 ± 5.3 years. The 4-year gender-affirming hormone continuation rate was 70.2% (95% CI, 63.9-76.5). Transfeminine individuals had a higher continuation rate than transmasculine individuals 81.0% (72.0%-90.0%) vs 64.4% (56.0%-72.8%). People who started hormones as minors had higher continuation rate than people who started as adults 74.4% (66.0%-82.8%) vs 64.4% (56.0%-72.8%). Continuation was not associated with household income or family member type. In Cox regression, both transmasculine gender identity (hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.50-3.86) and starting hormones as an adult (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.14-2.52) were independently associated with increased discontinuation rates.

5. .Here is another study and review of the 'Dutch Protocol':

The Myth of “Reliable Research” in Pediatric Gender Medicine: A critical evaluation of the Dutch Studies—and research that has followed

E. Abbruzzese, Stephen B. Levine, Julia W. Mason

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346

Our analysis of the Dutch protocol has been written with three goals in mind. First, we wanted to definitively refute the claims that the foundational Dutch research represents “solid prospective research” that provides reliable evidence of net benefits of youth gender transition. In fact, it is much better described as case series—one of the lowest levels of evidence available (Dekkers et al., Citation2012, Mathes & Pieper, Citation2017). Second, we aimed to demonstrate that the type of non-comparative, short-term research that the gender medicine establishment continues to pursue is incapable of generating reliable information. And third and most importantly, we wanted to remind the medical community that medicine is a double-edged sword capable of both much good and much harm. The burden of proof—demonstrating that a treatment does more good than harm—is on those promoting the intervention, not on those concerned about the harms. Until gender medicine commits to conducting high quality research capable of reliably demonstrating the preponderance of benefits over harms of these invasive interventions, we must be skeptical of the enthusiasm generated by headlines claiming that yet another “gender study” proved benefits of transitioning youth. This time-honored concern about risk/benefit ratio is a sobering reminder that the history of medicine is replete with examples of “cures” which turned out to far more harmful than the “disease.”

6 the NICE finding stating clearly that there is little evidence that the current treatments are improving the lives of the children they are being used to treat.

arms.nice.org.uk/resources/hub/1070905/attachment

The summary of the conclusion is

Conclusion
The results of the studies that reported impact on the critical outcomes of gender dysphoria and mental health (depression, anger and anxiety), and the important outcomes of body image and psychosocial impact (global and psychosocial functioning), in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria are of very low certainty using modified GRADE. They suggest little change with GnRH analogues from baseline to follow-up.

New FDA warning for PBs:

publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/20636/Risk-of-pseudotumor-cerebri-added-to-labeling-for?autologincheck=redirected

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a warning about the risk of pseudotumor cerebri (idiopathic intracranial hypertension) to the labeling for gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists that are approved for the treatment of central precocious puberty in pediatric patients. These products include Lupron Depot-Ped (leuprolide acetate), Fensolvi (leuprolide acetate), Synarel (nafarelin), Supprelin LA (histrelin) and Triptodur (triptorelin).

The new warning includes recommendations to monitor patients taking GnRH agonists for signs and symptoms of pseudotumor cerebri, including headache, papilledema, blurred or loss of vision, diplopia, pain behind the eye or pain with eye movement, tinnitus, dizziness and nausea.

And

Six cases were identified that supported a plausible association between GnRH agonist use and pseudotumor cerebri. All six cases were reported in birth-assigned females ages 5 to 12 years. Five were undergoing treatment for central precocious puberty and one for transgender care. The onset of pseudotumor cerebri symptoms ranged from three to 240 days after GnRH agonist initiation.

I think it is a good short explainer on why affirming only is problematic.

www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/now-i-m-hopeful-we-can-we-talk-about-teens-and-gender-20211031-p594q6.html

Now I’m hopeful we can talk about teens and gender

Dr Sandra Pertot

I found this very clear as an explanation

Although there is agreement across all clinicians working with gender-questioning adolescents that they typically report a history of mental health problems, increasingly some clinicians will consider the possibility that the client has come to the belief they are transgender as a way of providing an explanation for and resolving their pre-existing problems. In my experience, gender-affirming therapists strongly disagree, believing that anything other than immediately affirming the client’s expressed belief they are transgender will compound the harm. My view is that it is precisely because of the high rate of mental health problems in this group that a careful and comprehensive mental health assessment is required as a first step. Shepherding all of these vulnerable young people down the same pathway is poor clinical practice.

Bone density issues caused by GnRH (Puberty Blockers)

Bone Health in the Transgender Population
Published online 2019 Jul 2.

Micol S. Rothman and Sean J. Iwamoto

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6709704/

This

Also unknown are the long-term effects of puberty blockade, the effect of changes in body composition and the optimal type, timing, dosage, and route of administration of GAHT for bone outcomes.

Conclusion
The results of the studies that reported impact on the critical outcomes of gender dysphoria and mental health (depression, anger and anxiety), and the important outcomes of body image and psychosocial impact (global and psychosocial functioning), in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria are of very low certainty using modified GRADE. They suggest little change with GnRH analogues from baseline to follow-up.

And

GnRH analogues are frequently employed to provide puberty blockade in adolescents with gender incongruence or gender dysphoria. From their use in other medical conditions such as prostate cancer, their deleterious effects on the bone are well known, although these have the potential to be reversible if treatments are stopped or add back therapies can be given

And

However, Z-scores in the trans boys also showed an expected drop during GnRHa treatment. Similarly, they did not fully make up their bone loss as Z-scores at age 22 were still lower than baseline

Meaning, the authors acknowledge little is known about the lasting effects of puberty blockers. In this study, they propose some positive effect from cross sex hormones for females but ths results show that it doesn’t really make up the loss from puberty blockers.

PLUS

Just adding this piece about bone density for young transitioners here:

segm.org/the_effect_of_puberty_blockers_on_the_accrual_of_bone_mass

1st May 2021

Dr Michael Biggs (an advisor to SEGM) has been calling for the release of data from the Tavistock’s experiment since 2019. A subset of the data were finally released following the judicial review into puberty suppression at the Tavistock clinic. Biggs’ reanalysis has just been published in the Journal of Paediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism. It finds that after two years on GnRHa, the Z-scores for a significant minority of the children had declined to a level that should trigger clinical concern.

Sex Matters has done a 3 part series on current treatment options and the issues around them.

https://sex-matters.org/advice/resources-for-parents/

Here is an article by a Finnish specialist.

‘Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It.’
https://www.thefp.com/p/gender-affirming-care-dangerous-finland-doctor

From Dr Riittakerttu Kaltiala, Finnish Psychiatrist who developed the treatment plans for Finnish Gender Clinics.

And

Here is Dr Az Hazeem saying he had about 26% of his patients regretted transitioning.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12623643/Being-trans-non-binary-new-sub-culture-risk-raising-nation-chemically-castrated-children-Doctor-spent-12-years-working-vulnerable-teens-Tavistock-warns-gender-ideology.html

He said 26 per cent of his patients at the Tavistock and Portman regretted transitioning.

Another look at puberty blockers and whether the current treatments are effective, let alone safe.

A documentary on the Dutch Protocol

There are currently almost 3,000 young people on the waiting list for gender care in the Netherlands. They are vulnerable adolescents who are frequently subjected to discrimination. Many of them suffer severe mental distress. Doctors at the gender clinic in Amsterdam are pioneers in care for transgender young people. The treatment developed here years ago is now used worldwide. Now, criticism is growing. International experts are questioning the scientific evidence put forward by the clinicians in Amsterdam. Zembla investigates the Dutch transgender protocol.

What this covers is that no gender clinic has been able to replicate the results of the Dutch paper. One patient of the group died due to the surgery complications of gender surgery and even de Vries questioned why no one seemed interested in that patient while accepting the study. Dr Riittakerttu Kaltiala (Professor of Pschyiatry, Tampere and who set up gender clinics) and Mikael Landen (Professor of Pscyhiatry, Gotenberg) and Dr Angela Samfjord (Head of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the University of Gotenberg ) all are interviewed about the quality of the study behind the protocol and its flaws that became apparent later. Ie. The 55 patients is so small and de Vries acknowledges that they are not really similar to todays cohort of adolescent transitioners. That only 32 filled in the survey with positive results. The others were not chased up and one died.

Gerard van Breukelen, a professor of Methodology at Maastricht university goes on record to say that the methodology of that initial study was weak. There was no control group so the conclusions should not have been considered as strong as the gender clinicians claimed. Other academics declined to be interviewed due to fear for their employment as it is such a contentious issue. When talking to de Vries, she mentions that many more studies have been done by other countries now. And the doco makers mention that all those studies de Vries refer to have stated that the evidence is low quality. A Swedish team led by Landen was asked to do a full review by the Swedish government and he confirms that the evidence was just not there. Hence the Swedish government withdrew treatment.

The mention the Cass review and discussion ‘locking in’ of identities contradicts the ‘time to think’ narrative. They interview three transitioners. One detransitionered before surgery and one is happy with transition but not with the process the team followed. The one who detransitioned was put on hormones despite not even socially transitioning as he felt wearing a dress was ‘a man wearing a dress’. But was put on hormones but didn’t go through surgery after all. It also wraps up with Lucy who was stuck on the waiting list and who believes that if she was given PBs, she would not have ended up transitioning. She has obviously detransitioned now after double mastectomy and testosterone, then ovaries and uterus removal.

The newly released peer reviewed reanalysis of the UK study. McPherson & Freedman both worked on the initial analysis of the patient clinical data. This was mentioned in the documentary and came out very shortly after the documentary was released. Note that this was released only a couple of months ago.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2023.2281986

Psychological Outcomes of 12–15-Year-Olds with Gender Dysphoria Receiving Pubertal Suppression in the UK: Assessing Reliable and Clinically Significant Change

Susan McPherson & David E. P. Freedman

Published online: 29 Nov 2023

Abstract

The evidence base for psychological benefits of GnRHA for adolescents with gender dysphoria (GD) was deemed “low quality” by the UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Limitations identified include inattention to clinical importance of findings. This secondary analysis of UK clinical study data uses Reliable and Clinically Significant Change approaches to address this gap. The original uncontrolled study collected data within a specialist GD service. Participants were 44 12–15-year-olds with GD. Puberty was suppressed using “triptorelin”; participants were followed-up for 36 months. Secondary analysis used data from parent-report Child Behavior Checklists and Youth Self-Report forms. Reliable change results: 15–34% of participants reliably deteriorated depending on the subscale, time point and parent versus child report. Clinically significant change results: 27–58% were in the borderline (subclinical) or clinical range at baseline (depending on subscale and parent or child report). Rates of clinically significant change ranged from 0 to 35%, decreasing over time toward zero on both self-report and parent-report. The approach offers an established complementary method to analyze individual level change and to examine who might benefit or otherwise from treatment in a field where research designs have been challenged by lack of control groups and low sample sizes.

Finally, here is the link to interim Cass review. Dr Hilary Cass is one of the UK highly respected paediatrician specialists and was given the task of independently evaluating the issues with the GIDS here in the UK. And about what was happening with our children.

The Cass Review Interim Report - stating there is not enough evidence!

cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/The-Cass-Review-Interim-Report-Final-Bookmarked.pdf

Her next report is due in the next months.

Yes, they're much better terms.
I've never heard TRAs logically and calmly explain exactly what a woman is if not her biology or what makes someone feel they are not meant to be their biological sex if not stereotypes.

All you get is shouting, threats, stereotypes from the 70s, demands you be arrested, demands you not be allowed to ask such questions, no platforming (aka fingers in ears lalala not listening can't hear you - My kids grew out of that shit before they hit double digits) and my personal favourite eDucAte YouRseLf. Well yes. That's what asking questions is literally an attempt to do 🤷

I believe if someone cannot provide an articulate argument free from shouting and insults then they have no argument. That's how children argue. Adults should not be trying to argue like children. We should be teaching children how to debate like adults and the importance of being able to support your argument with well reasoned views and facts and the ability to exchange those with others without having a tantrum.

What kind of world do we have when a response to someone believing in biological sex and the rights of women is rape threats, death threats and demands to go kill yourself. I'm just waiting for people to start stomping up and down while screaming "you're a poo poo head, I don't want to be friends any more, it's my ball and I'm taking it home, I'm telling on you, my parental unit of unspecified gender will come and beat your parental unit of unspecified gender up.

Sadly the All Terfs Must Die brigade will never ever agree to read any of that @Helleofabore

They'll scream transphobia and try to organise a mob. They won't actually read anything that they suspect will not tell them what they need to hear in order to validate their delusion.

I think this point needs highlighting:

What this covers is that no gender clinic has been able to replicate the results of the Dutch paper. One patient of the group died due to the surgery complications of gender surgery and even de Vries questioned why no one seemed interested in that patient while accepting the study.

A patient in the original group died and no one thought it worth investigating, no one thought it might be worth pausing the study?!

This is a good reference for Dentons…

Dentons

The 18 year old male died from necrotising fasciitis. Because he had been puberty blocked there wasn’t enough penile growth to invert to make a false vagina, so they used colon instead. This became infected with a variant of E.Coli that progressed to necrotising fasciitis, a condition where the tissue turns rapidly gangrenous. Because this was where a false vagina was, the tissue turned rapidly gangrenous within the pelvic cavity and could not be removed (unlike a leg, for example) and the patient died.

Aged 18. As a result of puberty blockers, oestrogen and surgery.

Only read the first couple of pages of this thread and found it interesting to hear the view of teachers about when trans became more mainstream amongst teens.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how this movement has gotten away with what it has.

No debate
No scrutiny
No following of regular protocols
No proper clinical trials
Safeguarding norms thrown out the window

What the fuck happened?

The Denton document demonstrates some very clever and sinister thinking behind all this. But even the people behind that must have been surprised at how readily society fell for it.

Gives me a good opportunity to share this again.

Kit and Edie go into this whole shebang, this is just the first episode.

Yes. If you get to watch the documentary De Vries is very matter of fact about it. Yet, she STILL seemed to just plough through doing the same thing.

The dissonance that I got watching the documentary was clanging so loudly.

And yet, still today we continue to see very heavily invested activists diminish and dismiss the severity of the these treatments. Because to them they consider the treatment to be a transgender specialised care. Yet to me, these treatments are brutal to female bodies and are treating a physical body that is generally healthy to begin with and creating life long medical patients with many significant future physical negative side effects. Those side effects then continue to diminish the person's physical health.

You only have to listen to the detransitioners talk to understand. The female detransitioners are blunt in that Testosterone has significantly damaged their bodies. Many have bladder and kidney damage that is never discussed. It is completely ignored and swept under the 'it is just a normal side effect of gender medicine' rug. No fucking way should this be dismissed in this way. But it is.

I was reading a twitter interaction the other day where a woman announced her friend had committed suicide. Why? Because she could no longer live with the damage to her body done by testosterone.

But I am just waiting for some of the regular posters we usually get who will simply come onto the thread, declare they are experts and that these negative self effects are nothing to be worried about because Gender medicine is very effective. Despite the complete lack of evidence that it is and despite country after country now stating that fact very clearly after having their teams do the world wide search of every single study that can be found.

They did, but if you re-watch the storyline there are many, many things they would have to do differently these days - for a start, I very much doubt they'd now be allowed to have a birth-born woman play Hayley.

In my experience in schools, it boomed with activists started to change the definition of ‘non-binary’ and ‘trans’ so that it no longer meant people committed to living life as the opposite sex to which they were born, but widened to include anyone who didn’t adhere to sexist gender stereotypes (er - all of us, then) and also anyone who had an attraction to anyone like that (again, all of us).

If you look at this NSPCC PowerPoint some of us were asked to teach, its definition of ‘non-binary’ includes anyone who understands that people aren’t always gay or straight. So, anyone in a classroom with an understanding that bisexual people exist is now - by their teacher and the NSPCC - defined as ‘non-binary.’

Have attached a screenshot for people who don’t want to visit a link. Link is there as evidence.

NSPCC Gender Stereotypes Lesson

That is true incomplete. However, I don't bother posting for those posters anymore. I post my links for those who are genuinely undecided and who don't know where to start in searching for original source information.

I am all for people reading everything they can find and reading widely. Reading experts, reading the legal papers, the studies, the policies, reading trans people's anecdotes, reading transitioners, reading the reports from the families . It is a massive fucking task, but the reality is, that if you want to get your head around an issue of this magnitude that is directly impacting our children, it has to be done where you put the effort in because it is so hard to sort the facts from the emotionally manipulative campaigns and the deliberate spreading of misinformation.

It is the misinformation that is the most harmful. Things like 'puberty blockers are a harmless pause and are fully reversible'. When you read the evidence, this is such a sleight of hand statement and was never materially true. Sure, puberty might start if they are stopped at an appropriate time, but the consequences of taking those puberty blockers are not reversible - mentally or physically.

And I am yet to read whether the brain development is ever regained after it has also been 'paused' artificially.

You are absolutely right.
Reminds me of this, talking about ancient archaeology conspiracy theorists and I think you could replace that group with TRAs and keep the rest of it word for word.

Most of us are not scientists or medical doctors. I suppose when a doctor says 'take this, it will just block some of the chemicals your body is producing and that will give you time to think' children and their parents take that at face value. They assume it must be perfectly safe, or why would a doctor be prescribing it? That very phrase, 'press a pause button on puberty' makes it sound like something we all do all the time without even thinking about it - we start watching something on an electronic device, have to break off, so we pause and come back to it when it's convenient.

But our bodies are far more complicated than that and if things don't happen at the right time and in the right sequence, how can anybody be sure they will happen later on? What consequences will that have for the child's health in later life?

Also, if the body isn't maturing, you're asking a child to use a childish brain to consider a massively complex decision that involves understanding what it's like to be an adult - viz, whether or not to take drugs that will mean losing your fertility and (almost certainly) your ability to have a normal sex life including the ability to orgasm. How do you explain those things to a child? How can a child truly understand what she or he would be giving up?

I wish I could find the paper written by a Swedish fertility specialist who wrote about the start of a significant rise in women attending his clinic seeking diagnosis for their infertility. The commonality they were seeing was the use of testosterone. Even for a short period. Women who detransitioned in Sweden and had severely damaged their fertility.

But all apparently acceptable risk in the eyes of heavily invested activists. Because no treatment is risk free apparently. While forgetting that these treatments have no evidence that they improve long term mental health for the majority of patients. Particularly for female patients.

Remember the discredited study where a Yale researcher tried to convince the world that gender treatments improve mental health of transitioners.

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/?fbclid=IwAR1qhY36S81bxLIL-Gm04MemcwA8R0OBpG5iCy_CrUM6tGttrO98Un-WLTE

A major correction has been issued by the American Journal of Psychiatry. The authors and editors of an October 2019 study, titled “Reduction in mental health treatment utilization among transgender individuals after gender-affirming surgeries: a total population study,” have retracted its primary conclusion. Letters to the editor by twelve authors, including ourselves, led to a reanalysis of the data and a corrected conclusion stating that in fact the data showed no improvement after surgical treatment. The following is the background to our published letter and a summary of points of the critical analysis of the study.

I just looked up the biography of the trans boy whose life story the film was based on, Brandon Teena.
Seems like both Brandon and his sister were sexually abused by their uncle as young children, for several years.
So there might have been some more complex reasons behind his desire to identify out of womanhood than just ‚trans kids always existed‘.

The Cass Interim Report confirmed that many children seeking to transition had backgrounds of trauma. It is well worth a read. There is also a significant over representation of children in care who are seeking treatment and those who are same sex attracted or bisexual.