Increase in the number of people identifying as transgender in the UK - UCL research from GP records

[IwantToRetire]

The research, published in BMJ Medicine, is the first large-scale study in the UK to estimate the number of people whose gender identity is different to their sex assigned at birth.

To do this, the team reviewed anonymised data from 7 million individuals aged 10 to 99 years, from IQVIA Medical Research Data, a UK primary care database, between 2000 and 2018.

Researchers looked for diagnostic codes that suggested patients had spoken to their GP about gender dysphoria (a state of stress or unhappiness that one’s gender does not match their sex at birth).

They found that overall, the number of people whose records suggested they were transgender was very low. However, there was nevertheless an increase over the last two decades – rising from about one in 15,000 in 2000, to just over one in 2,500 in 2018.

The number of individuals with a health record of being transgender increased in all age groups.

Rates were highest amongst people aged 16 to 29. In 2018, around one in every 2,200 people aged 16 to 29 were recorded as transgender.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/nov/increase-number-people-identifying-transgender-uk

Not really surprising given current social contagion, but as a study presumably it will be widely quoted to prove any number of things.

Not forgetting that "overall, the number of people whose records suggested they were transgender was very low"

So around 0.05% - about 1/10th of what the poorly designed census question came up with.

about 1/10th ... census question came up with

And yet this tiny % of the population is dictating to everyone else.

Bit worried to see the repeated use of the phrase '...sex assigned at birth ...' throughout.

The study uses the presence of various NHS coding values to determine if a person is to be considered transgender or not e.g.

Eu64.00 [X]Gender identity disorders
E22y400 Gender role disorder of adolescent or adult ...

From a first skim, I could not determine if once one of these markers has appeared on a subject's record, will they always be considered transgender for the purpose of the study - i.e. I talked to my GP for a couple of months about it but then changed my mind

Can anyone with experience comment if the categories chosen as indicators are sound - i.e. could the category be indicative of something other than transgenderism?

Is it possible that some subjects have more than one coding and are counted twice i.e. can a single person have both Eu64.00 and E22y400? In Supplementary table 1, the codings are counted individually but maybe this is just for the table

Once again, the issue of the lack of a shared or dominant definition of 'transgender' presents a problem here.

If/when adopting a broader definition, as many TRAs do, the definition includes gender non conforming people who do not have dysphoria or distress. Here, some people believe that sex is not immutable an determined at conception, but is....., well, I get stuck here as we hit incoherence and mumbo jumbo. However, the people being referred to here would have no cause to see a doctor as they don't experience distress or don't seek medical intervention (well, some might/do, but again we veer into incomprehensible word salads when it comes to explanations of why physical intervention/ treatment is needed when someone isn't I'll).

The design of the research seems to be a sensible approach for exploring prevalence of gender dysphoria and distress that reaches a level that drives 'patients' to seek medical advice, but not to explore numbers relation to those with identities that don't align with how they think they should feel about their sex.

CheckingtheNumbers I had exactly the same reaction, especially given how many teenagers and twenty-somethings dabble with gender and then desist, I’m sure a portion of them end up with these markers on their medical records

between 2000 and 2018

This undermines the data used significantly. "Trans" meant very different things over the period, and the cohort changed hugely.

people whose gender identity is different to their sex assigned at birth

This is akin to people whose eye colour is different to their shoe size.

If/when adopting a broader definition, as many TRAs do, the definition includes gender non conforming people who do not have dysphoria or distress

What possible justification can there be for invading single sex spaces and sports, and demanding others lie about your sex and change their language if you do not have dysphoria or distress? The attempted justification due to ‘distress’ is bad enough but this is like goths demanding everywhere is painted black and no one smiles.

The justification seems to have changed to include people having "gender euphoria".

The number of individuals with a health record of being transgender increased in all age groups.

a breakdown by age and sex would be useful.

How many females over 29 or 39, I wonder.

Here you go (from BMJ paper the article references):

What possible justification can there be for invading single sex spaces and sports, and demanding others lie about your sex and change their language if you do not have dysphoria or distress?

The 'justification' involves clown fish and the enlightened having a seventh sense that gives them knowledge about themselves that overrides material evidence.

Am I missing something? (Quite possible, eyesight is currently crap.)

Is there a breakdown by male and female?

Doesn’t seem to be. they probably no longer have an accurate record of sex

But it is clear that the vast majority of the increase is down to teenagers who are being indoctrinated in school; social contagion.

The research "estimate[s] the number of people whose gender identity is different to their sex assigned at birth"

So why can't they disaggregate by "sex assigned at birth"?

I'm still curious to know what number of middle-aged people "assigned female at birth" crops up in the study.

If we take the numbers as sound, that suggests that maybe 10% of the people now classified as "trans" are those who in the past had crippling gender dysphoria and the other 90% are something else. Have they made any effort to investigate what the "something else" might be?

The campaign to conflate identifying as trans with being gay has managed to influence the discourse. Without any further critical thought some people now just assume some people are "born trans" - as if it is an inherent condition rather than a way of framing one's identity.

Rates were highest amongst people aged 16 to 29. In 2018, around one in every 2,200 people aged 16 to 29 were recorded as transgender.

This is still very small. I don't understand how this squares with the stories most of us have heard from parents of teenagers, who often report that there are several trans-identifying children amongst their peer group. Certainly teachers will tell you that in any typical large secondary school there will be numerous children identifying as trans. I'd expect the number among 16-29 year olds to be nearer 1 in 100.

I wonder if the reason is that lots of young people don't bother telling their doctor that they identify as trans because, deep down, they don't really think they are - they are trying the identity on as a costume that they can discard later.

I think the difference is that by using medical data they're going some way to identifying those with meaningful gender dysphoria and this group is small. However, over the time period of the study, particularly the latter part, "trans" has come to mean something much broader, RebelliousCow's "way of framing one's identity" where some of the identities are very much outside the mainstream. This group is huge compared to the meaningful gender dysphoria group. This would all be fine were it not for the astonishing grip gender identity ideology has got on society in terms of it needing to reconfigure itself to suit a (still small) group of people going on their own explorations of their own identities, some of which really should be kept in the privacy of their own homes.

Also that fairly exponential increase amongst teenagers has continued over the last five years. Even five years ago the situation was very different in schools to what it is today.

I could not determine if once one of these markers has appeared on a subject's record, will they always be considered transgender for the purpose of the study - i.e. I talked to my GP for a couple of months about it but then changed my mind

There are a couple of problems here.

Firstly, is there a code for detransition/desistance? I've not checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't - especially for the latter, which requires no action from the NHS.

And secondly, even if there is a code it would only be in the records if the person has gone back to their doctor and said 'Actually ....'. Whereas we known from other studies that in many cases even if they are actively attending gender services they are likely to simply drop out rather than discussing leaving. If they've only got to the 'talking' point rather than having had interventions that need reversal, there is no reason for them to record their change of mind with their doctor.

You know that when they talk about "people" they're trying to hide the shameful increase in girls & social contagion. Pretending that there hasn't been a systematic assault on girls, gaslighting them that their uncomfortable pubertal bodies are wrong and can be fixed with drugs and surgery. Because if people could really see what we all know - that this is a homophobic, sexist assault on the safety & wellbeing of girls - more questions would be asked.

Well the actual percentage of transgender people will be far less than this study indicates as it’s not captured that data.
This is 0.05% of population has expressed symptoms of gender discontent at some time. A completely different thing to actually being transgender which my totally random guess would put at a maximum of 20% of those patients, so 0.01% max.

This is just a shorter way of saying what's already been said, but...

Men who picket feminist conferences/join the women's football team/photograph themselves in the ladies

= people with the PC of gender reassignment under the ea, but

=/= people who ever see their gp, probably.