So many proposed anti-#trans bills contain text stating something along the lines of "most #transgender adolescents will grow up to be cisgender, so they should not be given gender-affirming medical interventions."
Let's break down the problems with this false statement 🧵 (1/6)
Let's break down the problems with this false statement 🧵 (1/6)
First, the literature they're referencing is about children who have not yet reached puberty (eg Steensma et al. JAACAP 2013). Medical interventions are not offered until trans youth reach adolescence, at which point it's rare for trans youth to later identify as cisgender (2/6)
Second, many children in these longitudinal studies may have gone back in the closet when they were exposed to more stigma. In studies before 2000. the "persistence" rate was 2-9%. After 2000, as stigma improved, it changed to 12-39%. (3/6)
Third, these studies included many kids who were referred to gender clinics but didn't meet criteria for "gender identity disorder" - the diagnosis used at the time of these studies. Many were likely cisgender tomboys or boys with feminine interests (dolls, etc.) (4/6)
Fourth, of children who met gender identity disorder (GID) criteria, 55% "persisted" in identifying as trans. But those with GID could be cisgender at T0, as the criteria are largely based on gender role rather than gender identity (gender dysphoria in DSM-5 changed this) (5/6)
The number of ways in which "most transgender kids grow up to be cisgender without medical intervention" is not true makes it extremely frustrating to see this kind of misinformation come up in policy debates. I often don't even know where to start. (6/6)
More on the epidemiology of transgender youth and these questions is available in our textbook (chapter 2).
jackturban.com/textbook
jackturban.com/textbook
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
