Dutch study proves kids grow out of gender dysphoria

[Hoardasurass]

A 15 year long dutch study has shown that gender dysphoria is temporary in most kids, I'm wondering how the activists will try and explain it 🤔

EXCL: Most kids grow out of desire to change sex, study suggests https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13263725/trans-kids-change-sex-adults-study.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

No it doesn't.

The study does not focus on or identify children with GD. Some children with GD may be included in the ' gender discomfort' population, but we can't say this with certainty, let alone know how many there are or whether these children are the ones who cease having gender discomfort.

Its entirely theoretically possible that the cohort of children who not desist in their feelings of gender discomfort are entirely composed of all the children in the study who would meet the criteria for a diagnosis of GD. However, we will can never know this as the study did not attempt to identify children with GD in particular.

However, the OP is not one of the study's authors, and is perfectly entitled to use dysphoria in a more general sense

As for this, well! That's not really justifiable when she is using it to refer to a study which is deliberately not using that term itself for what it is studying. That is surely common sense.

Using words to have a different meaning from that which others use it for, and thinking you are entitled to do so, is surely what trans activists have done with the words ' woman' and 'man'. That's not a path we want to do down.

Problem is that there is no agreed diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria. No, not even in the hallowed DSM V (which is used more in the US than the UK, and is compiled under the influence of a LOT of pharmceutical company lobbying).

The main criterion is entirely self-reported: the patient "feels that they should be a member of the opposite sex".

This is problematic for a number of reasons:

1. The diagnosis must be entirely based on self-reported symptoms which is not the case for the vast majority of psychiatric illnesses where there are also externally empirical markers which the doctors can observe e.g. weight loss at least 15% below expected range (anorexia, DSM V); limited or flat affect, observed dysfunction in daily life (clinical depression, DSM V); Russell's Sign (bulimia nervosa, DSM V).
2. In the UK and also in the US, there are many cases where the diagnosis of gender dysphoria was not made by a psychiatrist but by some allied health or social care professional - but, scandalously, hormonal treatment still followed! Totally unacceptable from a regulatory POV.
3. The self-reported "feeling like a member of the opposite sex" relies, in DSM V, on outdated stereotypes which lack evidence e.g. liking pink more than blue toys, liking knitting more than football. Meaningless.
4. The diagnostic criteria in DSM V are too wide and do not properly link to known comorbidities like autism

Basically, all the signs are that it's a made up disorder which is really actually a symptom of body dysmorphia. And only made its way into DMS V under massive lobbying from pharma companies who've been making bank from PBs and hormones. It's the opposite of that dreadful phrase, "trusting the science".

The study may be useful in its own right but it did not study gender dysphoria or gender identity. The authors distinguish between a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and what they looked at which is gender non-contentedness:

To illustrate the relation between these concepts; a young adolescent girl who mostly likes things seen as typical for boys and who dislikes the changes she goes through during puberty, might (temporarily) experience gender non-contentedness, although she might not experience gender dysphoria or wish to transition from female to male.

However, a girl that expresses gender non-contentedness, today, is encouraged by many, on social media and in real life, to self-diagnose as gender dysphoric, and is told that transition is the only pathway to relieve gender non-contentedness. This, in my way, can solidify a self-identification, where more neutral information would have left the situation more fluid.

Yes, agree. The study is useful in that it indicates a degree of unhappiness with one’s gender is often a normal part of adolescence.

Sure, but this study is not even going this far. There is no self reported, ' feeling like the opposite sex', for example. All this study is doing is asked people if they wish they were the opposite sex, and then answering with a Likert scale on frequency. This means children who do not have feelings of being the opposite sex, but wish they could be because they like the stuff kids of the opposite sex do, or they think the opposite sex has an easier ride, could answer in the affirmative. But these children could still have no sense of a 'trans identity'.

This study is not really seeking to discriminate between types of gender discontent ( other than in a simple scale of frequency) and we should not add layers of interpretation onto it, as if it did. Nor should we feel entitled to change the words the authors are using for what they are studying.

Precisely this.

Which is why dismissing the significance of this study on the basis that it is not a study of those diagnosed with gender dysphoria is to downplay it.

In the climate we've been in children have been actively encouraged to self identify as being gender dysphoric/ trans on the basis of not conforming to rigid sex based stereotype.

What is the difference between 'wishing one were the opposite sex' and 'feeling as though one is the opposite sex'?

Because according to you, one is transitory and one is worthy of medical intervention.

So what's the difference, and why is one meriting a diagnosis and the other not?

I contend there is no difference, and that gender dysphoria per se is a non-existent condition. Interested in your view.

I've not clicked on the link, given my views on the said newspaper.

The result of the study does not surprise me though. As does the point that being different (tomboys for example) should not lead to an encouragement to claim gender dysphoria.

This.

By god, the layers of (erroneous) interpretation you have put on what I said are staggering.

Firstly, I have already answered this What is the difference between 'wishing one were the opposite sex' and 'feeling as though one is the opposite sex'? I also refer you to @Fieldofgreycorn's answer.

Because according to you, one is transitory and one is worthy of medical intervention Nope, never said this. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? Or perhaps, simply because I am prepared to disagree with some of the things my 'own' side say and challenge them, you have made a whole bunch of assumptions about who I am actually am and what I think?

Yes the daily mail have of course put their own slant (understatement) on it and misrepresented the study. Not helpful.

Particularly as there will still be a diagnosis of gender dysphoria for some. Although we know most of them desist as well.

In fact the Daily Mail could be making it worse because in their headline they’re calling all these examples ‘trans’!

A link to the paper was given earlier in the thread. It's open access so you can read the whole thing. Better than reading a news article.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-024-02817-5

Firstly, I have already answered this What is the difference between 'wishing one were the opposite sex' and 'feeling as though one is the opposite sex'?I also refer you to@Fieldofgreycorn's answer.

Nope, that doesn't answer the question.

I think I've characterised your stance quite well. Do let me know exactly where I've got it wrong, though.

Given that this study was started 15 years ago, it wont be representative of the current cohort of gender confused young people, many of whom have been exposed to a lot more social contagion than existed back in 2009.

It's not unreasonable to surmise that desistance levels for the today's teens could be even higher.

Didn't the doctor who came up with the Dutch Protocol of affirmation state that she never intended it to be applied to the current cohort of young people with rapid onset gender dysphoria?

We've got all kinds of charities and accounts on social media at the moment telling kids that if they think they might be trans then they probably are trans.

Exactly. And this is the point I'm making to @Nomorenomores . At no point to our knowledge has any 'trans healthcare provider' or TRA ever tried to make even the slightest distinction between gender dysphoria and gender discontentedness. Instead, the prevailing TRA narrative has been that any passing sign of dissatisfaction with one's gender means that one is probably trans. So I don't know why there are some on this thread desperately trying to split hairs now.

And that's even before we get onto the fact that there are no externally observable or patient-reported symptoms of gender 'dysphoria' that don't rely on meaningless and made-up stereotypes.

You'll have to explain why it does not answer the question.

You'll also have to provide quotes as to where I said those with gender dysphoria should be medically transitioned.

All you are doing at the moment is making assertions without providing any evidence or argument.

I am eating then out soon though, so may not be back to answer today.

Given that this study was started 15 years ago, it wont be representative of the current cohort of gender confused young people, many of whom have been exposed to a lot more social contagion than existed back in 2009.

Yes specifically the idea that it’s a life style thing if you’re bored of being ‘straight’ and ‘cis’ rather than a fairly rare medical diagnosis.

Er...no. I don't "have" to trawl back through your baseless assertions to show you where you went wrong. I'm not doing the work for you. Enjoy your meal!

While, as a scientist, I totally understand @Nomorenomores point of view (do not extrapolate from this study more than it says! understand its limitations!), parents, schools, therapists, policymakers etc. have to take decisions and provide information now, in the absence of conclusive answers to many open questions. That's the reason why I consider this paper important - maybe more socially than clinically.

Imagine this study being presented in schools, in the context of PHSE lessons, in an easy format, rather that some other material which circulates now. Imagine the new guidance for school in the context of the results of this study.

Sorry, but this is an incomprehensibly stupid reply.

You made a claim, twice, that I said something that I never said ( and actually do not believe, which is why I know I did not say it). Being as you are insisting I did say that, I am asking you present your evidence that I actually said that.

It shows a staggering failure to show how debate works. If you want to enter into a debate, be prepared to have evidence and argument to defend what you say, because people will reasonably ask you to do this. Debate is not a pantomine ' No you didn't!' 'Yes you did!'.

I am genuinely flabberghasted by the illogical stupidity of this repost. Its the sort of incomprehensible unreasonableness I expect from a TRA, tbh. And delivered with the same baseless smug certainty of a TRA too. And the same flouncing mentality, dressing up failure to evidence your claims as some sort of virtue or assertiveness.

Shameful.

Oh well, I guess that's a useful reminder that you get the same personality types on both sides of any debate.

I agree its an important study, that adds to the evidence base that affirmation is not the right approach, as I have said upthread. As PP said, it illustrates that adolescence is a time when noticeable minority of children/ young people will experience gender discontent. And this will pass for most of these.

I think its useful enough as it stands for this purpose.