I'm reposting my thread on the dubious origins of the American gender-affirmative model for anyone who wants it unrolled with the corrected Olson names. 🧵
The founders of the affirmative model wrote: "We... acknowledge that the majority of gender-nonconforming children presenting for clinical care related to gender dysphoria are desisters unlikely to mature into transgender individuals."
5 years later, a young, inexperienced pediatric psychiatrist named Jason Rafferty wrote a document that would become the basis for the @AmerAcadPeds's position, as well as that of other medical orgs and, through their endorsements, state & federal policymakers.
According to Rafferty, "children who are prepubertal and assert an identity of TGD [transgender and gender diverse] know their gender as clearly and as consistently as their developmentally equivalent peers who identify as cisgender and benefit from...
the same level of social acceptance. This developmental approach to gender affirmation is in contrast to the outdated approach in which a child’s gender-diverse assertions are held as 'possibly true' until an arbitrary age... when they can be considered valid."
In other words, Rafferty and the AAP took a position explicitly at odds with that of the clinicians who promoted the affirmative approach in 2013.
Rafferty provides a single citation in support of this departure: K. Olson et al., "Gender Cognition in Transgender Children," 2015.
The Olson 2015 study was about gender self-perception in kids ages 5 to 12. The study claims to have found that, when matched with their same-gender-identity "cisgender" peers, "transgender children" show indistinguishable and consistent levels of gender self-cognition.
In other words, a 5 yr-old boy who identifies as a girl has the same subjective self-perception of girlhood (defined, of course, through stereotypes) as a 5 yr-old girl.
This study is purely about subjective self-perception. The author's underlying and never-argued-for assumption is that a consistent subjective self-perception of "girl" *is* what makes one a girl. You may agree with this assumption, but it's ideology, not science.
But here's the crucial part: Olson et al. note that the use of the "early gender cognition" test for predicting persistence "remains a provocative possibility, though one that would need substantially more testing before the [implicit association test] could be used in this way."
In other words, the AAP's and the American medical establishment's position on childhood social transition rests *in its entirety* on a single study whose authors explicitly say that it CANNOT be used in the way the AAP has used it.
And, of course, as @JamesCantorPhD has shown, Rafferty misrepresented sources when advocating against "watchful waiting" (the sources counseled "watchful waiting") and omitted all existing studies on rates of desistance/persistence in prepubertal GD.
There simply is no other way to say it: a small group of ideological/activist clinicians, operating with the imprimatur of prestigious medical organizations, have lied to their colleagues, policymakers, and the general public.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The @ACLU in G.G. v. Gloucester: "Because research indicates that gender identity is itself rooted in biology, the term 'biological sex' does not accurately distinguish between gender identity and sex assigned at birth.'"
Let's follow the ACLU's own citations.🧵
There's only one: a 2015 law review article by legal scholar M. Dru Levasseur, which, the ACLU said in its brief, "summariz[es the] research" on this question.
In 2013, a group of clinicians that included M. Hidalgo, D. Ehrensaft, S. Rosenthal, N. Spack, and J. Olson wrote an article called "The Gender Affirmative Model: What We Know and What We Aim to Learn," in which they explained the basics of the affirmative approach.
🧵
The founders of the affirmative model wrote: "We... acknowledge that the majority of gender-nonconforming children presenting for clinical care related to gender dysphoria are desisters unlikely to mature into transgender individuals."
5 years later, a young, inexperienced pediatric psychiatrist named Jason Rafferty wrote a document that would become the basis for the @AmerAcadPeds's position, as well as that of other medical orgs and, through their endorsements, state & federal policymakers.
As a reminder, prominent trans activists, including ones who happen to wear white coats (e.g. @jack_turban), have argued that “social desirability” is not driving the dramatic increase in trans ID among youth. That position is now out of step with WPATH and its president. 🧵
WPATH SOC-8 recognizes “susceptibility to social influence” as a possible determinant of trans ID.
Dr. Marco Bowers, WPATH’s president, also recognizes “peer influence on some of these decisions” (to reject one’s sex).
The research on social contagion is, to be sure, limited. But it is supported by data from clinics on the dominance of ROGD presentation, health authorities in Europe acknowledging that the Dutch research likely doesn’t apply to the current cohort,…
The Dutch research is considered the gold standard even by American "gender affirming" docs and orgs. Recall Dr. Aron Janssen (@LGBTDoc) saying that the Dutch research is "the best we have" and that American clinics are practicing the Dutch protocol.
WPATH Standards of Care v. 7, which was the operative version when "gender affirming care" was disseminated, also recognized the Dutch research as the best available evidence. Even SOC-8 implies that the Dutch research is the best we've got.
The fact that sex categories--male and female--can be broken down into their underlying parts/domains/layers does not prove that sex categories are nothing more than the sum of their parts. This is the fundamental fallacy underlying the sex-as-spectrum thesis. 🧵
If you believe that male and female are merely combinations of various parts, then it's easy to see why combinations that do not fit the statistically common mold would lead you to believe that sex is not binary. Thus, the deeper issue is the ontological status of "combination."
In fact, it's not even possible to recognize the parts of sex (gonads, hormones, external genitalia, etc.) as parts, without assuming the whole of which they are parts. The whole is logically and ontologically prior to the parts.
Judge Jill Pryor, dissent in Adams v. Sch Bd of St John's Cty (11th circuit): "The majority opinion... disregard[s] ...evidence... which demonstrates that gender identity is an immutable, biological component of a person’s sex."
"[A]s a child Adams played with race cars, airplanes, & dinosaurs... He refused to wear skirts & dresses.... Inconsistent with Adams’s consistently 'masculine' behavior was the fact that the doctor who attended Adams’s birth 'assigned' him the '[f]emale' sex at birth." (J. Pryor)
Pryor: "more than 50% of transgender students report attempting suicide. It therefore should come as no surprise that Adams and his parents sought to treat his gender dysphoria."
Source is the notoriously unreliable US National Transgender Survey of 2015.