Thoughts on children, desistance and opposite-sex spaces

[ahagwearsapointybonnet]

I've been having a few thoughts about this lately and wondered what you think about this question, which I've not seen talked about much specifically. Might have to spread it across a couple of posts though to make it readable, as paragraphs are currently not working, so please bear with me... So, what I've been thinking about is that we know that unless started on medication, the majority of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria (studies indicate around 80%) will eventually desist and end up "identifying with" their biological sex again. I don't know the rates for trans-identifying children without a formal GD diagnosis, but would imagine they would be even higher...

This has been discussed to an extent of course in the context of the social transition of these children - for example, whether the affirmative route (starting to use opposite-sex facilities, wear different school uniform etc etc) is likely to make it more difficult for these children to desist later, and push them towards continuing their transition. But I was thinking about it from a different point of view....

So based on these stats, if we look at any given child who is currently identifying as the opposite sex, we know there is actually at least an 80% chance (barring intervention with blockers etc) that they will revert to identifying as their bio sex. What I was thinking about is how this affects the arguments about using opposite-sex spaces, more from the point of view of the other children involved. This was partly triggered by thinking about the Guides debacle, but also applies to other things such as changing rooms etc...

For example, if a trans-identifying boy wishes to join the Guides, the girls in the troupe are to be told that this person is a girl, was always a girl, and they must squash any discomfort they feel about sharing accommodation and showers with them. But before even getting into the arguments about whether someone who persists and fully transitions can become, or should be treated as, the opposite sex (which is obviously a whole separate discussion) - what we're talking about in this case, surely, is someone who has an 80%ish chance of deciding eventually that they were a boy all along?

The same applies of course in other cases - the girls or boys who have been sharing a changing room with someone of the opposite sex and trying to persuade themselves that they were the same, or girls who may have been beaten at sports by someone who later decides that, actually, they were a boy all along. I think the two main things that were occupying my brain so far were, firstly, the fact that this is so completely glossed over in a lot of the discussions and policies. For example, the Guides policy talks about edging out girls who start identifying as boys, despite them actually being statistically MUCH more likely to desist than to end up transitioning - but doesn't allow for them to stay while they make up their minds, or mention what happens if they desist after leaving. Conversely, for trans-identifying boys who want to join, it is treated as a "done deal" that they are now girls, with again no reflection of the fact they are more likely to desist, or mention of what will happen if they do (would they then be pushed out again?).

And the second thing that was bothering me was that surely this just compounds the gaslighting of the other children involved. They are told that this person is and always was the same as them, that they must include them in their safe spaces and that they are bigoted if this makes them uncomfortable. And yet, after the other child has potentially shared rooms with them, seen them naked, sat through discussions of periods with them etc etc, there is a high likelihood that they will revert back to their own sex and the other children are presumably told it was all a mistake and they were really a boy/girl all along... I can imagine a lot of girls (and boys too?) would feel mortified in this situation, and would become even more confused and unable to trust their own beliefs.

Girlguiding seems to be a toxic place to be, at the moment, if you are a girl, because Girlguiding now prioritises people with penises. The people with penises must have free access to girls undressing, showering and sleeping. Spit. Should be illegal.

So what I was thinking, in a slightly muddly way, is whether we need to flag up more that most trans-identifying children will NOT remain that way, and that this needs to be considered more, not just in the context of those children themselves and making sure they are given space to change their minds, but also considering the effects on those around them when this happens, and ensuring that policies take this into account. In effect, that even leaving aside other arguments about what "being trans" means and how best to make provision for trans-identifying children, one of the biggest considerations from the start should be that they are at most, only "possibly" trans?

I hope that makes sense - as I said it is a slightly muddly train of thought, but one that kept coming back to me in different contexts! So I would be interested to hear what you think. [end of massive post]

I completely agree OP. Children are being used as political tools to draw attention to the gender debate- which is not fair nor practical for either side. Children as young as 3 are being sent to gender clinics for not complying with stereotypical gender norms! This is both damaging to the child in question and the other children around them who are being taught a constant collective of double negatives!

Organisations naming and advertising themselves as if they are working for the rights of girls should concentrate on the cunty born young people, not the penises.The fact that Girlguiding are now prioritising penises is an abomination.

I agree that the seemingly unstoppable march of this ideology has very harmful potential consequences for the mental health & well-being of young people; their notions of self, what is normal and boundaries. In The Times last Saturday, there was an article about a new app called 'Meetoo' that has been set up by their columnist, Suzi Godson to help anxious teens. They can post about problems + concerns and receive messages of support - everything highly moderated. She has also written a book "Meetwo Teenage Mental Help Handbook" Two of her comments in the interview struck me (apologies I don't have share tokens). The whole thing is very detrimental to young people in my opinion.

this just compounds the gaslighting of the other children involved

This sums up trans ideology. It is entirely about gaslighting. Gaslighting both the confused and distressed people who try out transition, and those around them. It puts huge barriers in the way of desisters.

That's why the two-year, medically supervised gatekeeping period is so important. Transexuals like Miranda Yardley have made it clear that they know that transition is about changing their outward appearance to fit more closely with their inner feelings, not actually changing sex.

I don't think we can extrapolate from previous figures as the environmental risk factors are so different now.

Take a parallel with disordered attitudes to food. No child is born with an eating disorder, a child whose parents would traditionally be strict about food might have developed one but now you have parents asking kids every day "do you feel fat, do you worry about your tummy..." etc. It is an entirely different risk model.

My 4yr old has a classmate who has transitioned recently. The parents didn't force gender norms, as would be a risk for GD traditionally. Instead, they were so worried by the things they read online/ the press that they started asking their DD regularly if she thought she was really a boy. This is a type of exposure that previous generations didn't have.

IME the real battle should be increasing the acceptance of girls who don't like pink because people (nice, if a little insecure, people) are being told that's a sign of a deeper problem. I don't think focusing on people coming out the other side is as effective against people who have been aware of their transgender status since preschool.

I'm not a new poster/journalist - just a name changer who gave away their academic specialty on other threads.

I agree though, I have struggled with explaining it to my DDs (both have a transitioned child in their classes and there's a member of staff and a neighbour). I am grouping it in with religions, as we are in a diverse but "progressive" area. They know that people believe funny things and it makes them feel happier to believe them. It's more important to be kind than right, so don't tell them they are still girls, or that God isn't real, or that the Mormon underpants aren't magic... I feel like I am asking them to treat the adult transitioners with a different level of "definite-ness," than the kids but I don't think I've explained why very well. I'd love to hear how other people are approaching it.

I hate that the school is pretending they really have become the other sec though.

Yeah I'm also a namechanger, though I don't tend to post loads anyway. Barely have time to keep up with reading everyone else's!
I was thinking about this again when I caught the Guides discussion on ITV this morning. SG kept saying "a trans girl is a girl" over and over, and I kept thinking, well, even IF you accepted TWAW, you still just CAN'T accurately say that about kids when we know many /most of them will eventually desist and therefore even by her own standards, were not really "a girl" (or boy) while they were identifying that way. Unless she believes they keep literally switching between the two when they change their minds?!

This is why it is so important for the TRAs to set the children off on the medicalization route - because they are more likely to persist. Similarly, affirmation and making sure everyone is complicit in the delusion that little Johnny really has magically become Jane.

They are determined to reduce that 80% number because it is fatal for their argument that everyone has a preordained immutable gender identity. They really don't care about the shattered lives this will leave.

Sorry, just to add:
Pawsome, a 4 year old! I feel sick.

It is hard because I feel, in the four yr olds case, the parents are coming from a place of concern. However, I don't actually know how their DD can come back from it.

They tend to put a lot of pressure on her to decide everything, what she eats, when she sleeps etc. She wants to do gymnastics, they sign up and pay, before the class they go on and on and on "are you sure you want to go, it's so brave, are you sure..." when she says "yes" they keep asking but when she says "no," they take it seriously and she doesn't go. The same pattern has happened here:" are you a boy?" Until she says yes, then they stop asking and run with it. It's almost like they wait for her to confirm what they are worried about. It's too big for her, but they are essentially showing her that now she has given the right answer. Traditional "growing out of it," didn't have parents so scared as they are now, and that is a problem I can't see a solution for. I thought this is a fad that will pass in a couple of years, but not if we're setting up the next generation.

The parents know I think it's nonsense as I used to try and reassure them about it before the transition, as my DD isn't very feminine either. Now we're not as close. Another parent has contacted Transgender Trend to send info to our school, as there are a number of them transitioning, but everyone is acting like she really is a boy. She hasn't settled well into school at all, so I can't see what evidence they are using that this is the right thing for her. I actually don't care about the name, but the pronouns and pretence goes against what they were told by medical professionals. I hate the pressure DD is under to keep the secret that she doesn't understand, I hate it.