Pro trans affirmation blog - any good responses?

[Jellyjunction]

I'm GC but keen to understand views outside my bubble.

This is the best referenced blog /article from a pro trans stance on the new NHS specifications consultation that I've seen:

growinguptransgender.com/2022/11/02/nhs-service-specification-a-dangerous-attack-on-trans-kids/

I have only had a chance to skim read it but can see it's a well researched /referenced piece that could be persuasive to the policy makers reading the consultation responses. I disagree with its conclusions instinctively but I want to have data to quote for my own consultation response which is of a similar quality. But I also have a full time job!

Anyone else have any thoughts on good sources to refute the conclusions in this piece? (presuming my instinct is correct that treating gender dysphoria in kids should only be with supportive watchful waiting and reduced Internet access and counselling /treatment of mental health coexisting conditions)...

I haven't finished reading this, but so far I have a couple of comments.

Firstly, they talk about 'trans children' as being distinct from gender nonconforming children. In what I've read so far they don't say how these two groups of children differ from each other. What do they think makes a child 'trans' and how is it diagnosed?

One of the papers they cite is this one:
Steensma TD, Biemond R, de Boer F, Cohen-Kettenis PT. Desisting and persisting gender dysphoria after childhood: a qualitative follow-up study. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2011;16(4):499–516

Link to free version of full text here: research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/42117778/hoofdstuk+05.pdf

They state that it says this:

Sexual attraction: In a sample of 25 people registered at the gender clinic in childhood, when interviewed in adolesence, 14 transgender people were heterosexual, 5 cisgender girls were heterosexual and 6 cisgender boys had a variety of sexual orientations.

What the paper actually says about the sexual orientation of those whose gender dysphoria persisted after childhood is this:

With regard to sexual attraction, all persisters reported feeling exclusively
attracted to persons of the same natal sex, which confirmed their gender
identity as they viewed this attraction as a heterosexual attraction. They did
not consider themselves homosexual or lesbian.

So when they say a transgender person is 'heterosexual', they actually mean that they are attracted to someone of the same sex.

I haven't read it but I see in the link the term
'trans kids'. There is no such thing as 'trans kids' or 'trans children'. They are children.
Many epithets that could be applied to children but aren't, would be more accurate and more reflective of what is going on and what is happening to children. I can think of a few.

On a quick peruse, it seems many of the research papers are from Olson, Turban, and Ehrensaft.
Jack Turban's recent paper countering the concept of social contagion was debunked (and criticised for poor methodology by people on his own side of the debate as I understand it). There are lots of links for this including:
www.wsj.com/articles/the-american-academy-of-pediatrics-dubious-transgender-science-jack-turban-research-social-contagion-gender-dysphoria-puberty-blockers-uk-11660732791
I think journalist Jesse Singal has written about Turban as an activist several times.
There's alot of dubious things I've read over the years about Joanna Olsen's work/theory (including interesting footage from a seminar I believe? ) and Diane Ehrensaft is she of the theory that baby grow unbuttoning is a sign of infant gender identity.
It's so hard to bring it all back to mind accurately and to hand- when you know these names so well from looking into all this over the years- but it's probably all here on MN, or youtube, or Google searches.
I'm sure others can give more links- this is just a quick response.

Also, the Gender a Wider Lens podcast interview with Steensma and de Boer(?) (of the Dutch desistance study quoted)- as well as Stella and Sasha's follow up discussion on this, is very interesting/informative in light of this too.
The difficulty is, if people haven't looked into and read/researched/listened to all of the pro-transition researchers and what they say themselves- it all looks so legitimate. As you say- this consultation response is very thorough and looks, at superficial glance, so legitimately evidence based. (Especially as they keep questioning the validity of the evidence base of the NHS assertions in the consultation)
There may even be some valid points in there (I would like to read it more thoroughly- and like you OP I think, it can be good to keep checking our own sense of certainty ). I just know that I was immediately alerted to the authors of the research quoted, and what I already understand about them, and I do percieve them as ideological/activist.
I imagine, from the respondants point of view, they might see researchers quoted in responses I would agree with in the same way perhaps.
It feels like it's coming down to a stand off!

Last thing!
For good sources, I recommend SEGM (Society of Evidence Based Gender Medicine):
segm.org/
Lots of recent/relevent research articles.
And maybe Genspect too:
genspect.org/news/

I have only had a chance to skim read it but can see it's a well researched /referenced piece that could be persuasive to the policy makers reading the consultation responses.

I am sure the policy makers have already looked at the available evidence in depth and won't be swayed by the authors personal interpretation of the references in that article. I also doubt that those responsible for collating the consultation would even read something that long and detailed.

As DameMaud says it's the same old handful of researchers with the authors own Phd articles thrown in.

If you follow some of the links then several of those studies are just plain ridiculous. For instance this one, Fast, A & Olson, K. (2017) Gender Development in Transgender Preschool Children, Child Development, which is supposedly proof that trans children exist. The study shows that gender non confirming, social transitioned preschool children (aged 3-5) were indistinguishable from non trans peers when it came to preferences for clothing, toys and friends. Surely that is just the definition of gender non conforming? These children were also as certain as their non trans peers of what their gender was and what it would be in the future, which isn't at all surprising as they had been socially transitioned by the parents. If a parent had been telling a child for the last couple of years that they were no longer a boy but now a girl then obviously a preschool child would believe that and repeat it back to researchers when asked.

The author of that piece is a Mermaids mum who transitioned their child at a young age. They have done, or are doing, Phd research on the experiences of 'trans children'. I have read most of this research because like you I want to understand where they are coming from. However, I always come away feeling desperately sad for this mother. She has 100% bought into this huge lie which she needs to keep defending as there is no way to go back.

The author of that piece is a Mermaids mum who transitioned their child at a young age. They have done, or are doing, Phd research on the experiences of 'trans children'.

That explains a lot. I had a look at the references for this statement to see what the evidence was:

Being transgender is now recognized by the medical establishment as a non-pathological part of human diversity, with space for trans lives to be celebrated and normalized, as a valued and important part of our families and communities (AusPATH, 2021; World Health Organisation, 2018).

The links here go to this paper by Cal Horton, but they are listed in the reference list there. (In fact, most of the links in the blog go to papers by Cal Horton, instead of the ones they are supposed to go to.) The WHO one is this: https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en which doesn't seem to mention anything about 'being transgender'. The other reference goes to a dead link, with the google scholar link going to numerous papers by Cal Horton.

Is there really any evidence for the statement "Being transgender is now recognized by the medical establishment as a non-pathological part of human diversity"?

Is there really any evidence for the statement "Being transgender is now recognized by the medical establishment as a non-pathological part of human diversity"?

I assume Cal's link should have gone through to the definition of Gender Incongruence in ICD11. The above statement would only be true if you believed ICD 11 = 'the medical establishment'. I'd also argue that anything in the ICD (International classification of Diseases) regardless of which section it goes in, is pathological by definition.

icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/id.who.int/icd/entity/344733949

I'd also argue that anything in the ICD (International classification of Diseases) regardless of which section it goes in, is pathological by definition.

Yes, and it's also bit odd to claim that something is not pathological but also requires specialist healthcare provided by the NHS. If it's not pathological it doesn't need treatment at all and we can just close all the gender clinics. Or treat it like cosmetic surgery - not funded by the NHS and only available to adults who want to pay for it,