I don't think this follows. If it's not a function of sex, then it's not male or female.

That's always been my complaint as well. Sapper had a good post recently (on this thread?) which addressed this directly and it's the only real attempt at an explanation I've ever seen. You should try to find it because it seems to advance the conversation a bit. I don't know if I agree with it. I meant to think harder about it but I got distracted as usual.

I know there's been some early study on brain structure as it relates to trans people.

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/research-on-the-transgender-brain-what-you-should-know/

What is the origin - and it is mid-20th Century - of gender as a "social construct"?

Would the popularizers of this notion - say, Dr. Money - be consistently criminally negligent in their conduct?

Redstone said:

---

Would the popularizers of this notion - say, Dr. Money - be consistently criminally negligent in their conduct?

---

How does this matter?

dargscisyhp said:

---

Redstone said:

---

Would the popularizers of this notion - say, Dr. Money - be consistently criminally negligent in their conduct?

---

How does this matter?

---

He acts as if Dr. Money (who I never see trans people cite) is the only scientist to work in this field of study. Ironically, Dr. Money's crimes against David Reimer are a great example of how gender identity is innate and not something learned, which is something trans people have long claimed and goes against the ROGD and "transing" myths. They also present a great argument for banning the practice of doctors surgically altering intersex newborns.

Your source is a rabidly anti-trans website? One that Littman used to concoct the myth of ROGD?

That's like coming to TexAgs to formulate a position on that school in Austin. Hey, did you hear what Democratic Underground had to say about the GOP?! 90% said the GOP are racist and fascist, so it must be true!

Redstone said:

---

Regarding Littman:

Social contaign is an extremely well established phenomenon.

Especially of young women terrified of puberty.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330

---

Littman's study is a study of parental perceptions of their child's gender identity. At no time did she interview a trans person, and the parents that participated in the study were harvested from 4thwavenow, transgendertrend, and another rabidly anti-trans websites.

When you actually interview both child and parent, you find that the child came to these realizations about their gender identity 2+ years prior to their parents. When the parents aren't safe places for their children to confide in, and this is evidenced by the websites these parents were found on, then their coming out will appear to come out of nowhere. In reality, it's something the kids have already been wrestling with, and have gravitated towards other kids like them.

What Parents Don't Know: Trans Youth Study Reveals Fatal Flaw at the Heart of "Rapid-onset Gender Dysphoria"

Quote:

---

Littman's study has a fundamental flaw in its methodology that broadly undermines its reported findings. According to Littman, a key feature distinguishing ROGD from classic gender dysphoria is that ROGD appears very quickly in a child who was heretofore apparently cisgender with no sign of gender incongruity. The observations of this rapidity consisted entirely of reports from anonymous parents on their own perception of their child's gender identity and development, almost universally expressing surprise at the sudden nature of their child's statement of a transgender identity. The youth themselves were not surveyed on their own experiences of gender incongruity throughout their childhood, how long they had experienced gender incongruity or considered themselves transgender, or how long they had waited to make their trans identity visible to these parents for the first time.

These secondhand parental observations are the only evidence offered by Littman for the distinct "rapid" nature of the progression of ROGD

---

Quote:

---

Littman largely failed to engage with this literature:

• Grossman et al. (2005) found among 55 trans people aged 1521, trans girls felt "different from others" at a mean of 7.6 years old, considered themselves transgender at 13.4 years, and first came out to anyone else at 14.2 years. Trans boys on average felt different at 7.5 years, identified as trans at 15.2, and first told someone at 17. For trans youth and young adults, this was a course of awareness and identity development lasting several years.
• Restar et al. (2019) found in 298 trans women aged 1629, their average age of "initial self-awareness of transfeminine identity" was 9.9 years old, followed by "transfeminine expression in private" at an average of 12.9 years. They also first disclosed their trans identity to someone else at 15.8, presented as feminine in public at 17.4, and began taking feminizing hormone therapy at an average of 20.4 years old. Again, this process of identity development was not brief or passing, but lasted for a majority of their childhood.
• Kuper, Lindley, & Lopez (2019) found that in 224 trans youth aged 617, trans girls first self-identified as their gender at an average of 9.9 years old and first disclosed to their immediate family at 12.2 years. Trans boys similarly self-identified at 10.7 years old and disclosed to family at an age of 13.1 on average.
• Puckett et al. (2021) studied 415 Millennial trans people (born 19811996) and 196 Generation Z trans people (born 19972012). Millennials reported their gender first felt "different" at a mean age of 11.6 years, recognized themselves as having a transgender identity at 19, started living part-time as their gender at 20.8, lived full-time at 22.2, and accessed their first medical transition treatment at an average of 23.1 years old. Gen Z likewise experienced years of developmental milestones: feeling different at 11.5, identifying as trans at 15.2, living part-time at 16.1, full-time at 17 and medically transitioning at 17.6 years old on average.

---

Quote:

---

A recent study fills in ROGD's missing pieces, joining trans youth and parent reports of gender milestones
Sorbara et al. (2021) surveyed trans youth receiving care at a youth gender clinic as well as their parents or caregivers, asking each of them to describe the child's (perceived) age of self-recognition as trans and age of first disclosure of their gender to others. 121 trans youth and 121 of their caregivers responded:

• Trans youth who first presented for evaluation at 14 years or younger reported self-recognizing as trans at a median age of 9.5 years and first coming out at 12.6, a span of over 3 years. Meanwhile, this group's caregivers reported perceiving that their child first privately self-identified as trans at age 12 and came out at age 12.4, little over four months later.
• Similarly, trans youth who presented for treatment at age 15 or over reported identifying themselves at a median age of 12.5 years old and first coming out at 14.3, but their caregivers believed they first identified as trans at 14.3 the same median age as their first coming out and first came out at 14.7 years old.

The distance between parent and youth perspectives can be measured: For trans youth, what took two to three years appeared to their parents to take place over perhaps a season. The overall pattern is dramatic. While the youth self-identified as trans at 11.3 years, their caregivers said this happened at 13.

Youth reported a median time of 2 years from self-recognition to first coming out. Their caregivers perceived a median time of 0 years (as in 0.0 years). The caregivers believed that gender self-recognition and coming out were happening at the same time an apparent rapid onset.

---

In summary, her "study" is bullocks with a methodology that is fatally flawed. She only interviewed non-affirming parents, and never once interviewed the trans child. When you do interview both parent and child, you get a drastically different result which shows that the "social contagion" aspect is a myth. But it's been a profitable myth, especially for people like Abigail Shrier who don't care how many children are harmed by her peddling her book based on this junk study.

Her "study" is akin to building a theory about Republicans by going to the DNC and asking for their thoughts on them. It's laughable, and the fact that it's taken seriously really just points to how people long for anything that confirms their preconceived notions.

Redstone said:

---

Let me say that I don't care in the slightest about corrections, retractions, ect

Not in this field.

Why?

Because I know the story of Bailey (Man Who Would Be Queen).

And it's a common one, if a researcher "steps out of line."

---

It has nothing to do with Littman "stepping out of line". It has everything to do with her methodology being fatally flawed. She only interviewed parents found on anti-trans websites, and didn't interview a single trans child or their clinician. It was solely a study on parental perceptions, and she selectively used anti-trans websites in order to generate the result she desired.

How many of those other studies never interviewed an actual trans person? Littman's study was one of only parental perceptions. The parents were harvested specifically from anti-trans websites. I know Littman defends her nonsense, but one doesn't need to be a scientist to see just how flawed a study on gender dysphoria where the only respondents are non-affirming cisgender people.

But it's made her, and charlatans like Abigail Shrier, household names in the anti-trans crowd, so there's that.

Redstone said:

---

Shrier Is a charlatan why exactly? Because she summarizes research, heavily footnoted, and documents the MANY cases of regret of healthy young people who irreversibly mutilated themselves?

---

Because her book is based on the myth of ROGD.

Redstone said:

---

So a proposed socially mediated type of gender dysphoria, one with significant evidence that has generated significant controversy, is a myth because you say so.

Notice I didn't say it exists (though I believe it does). I said there is strong evidence.

Go back and read what you just write about preconceived notions.

At least I admit my religious notions and assumptions.

---

There is no evidence. That's the thing. I mean, do you not see how problematic it is that this is a "theory" that was created by only interviewing parents that were found on anti-trans websites? That no trans kids were ever interviewed? Especially given that we have a study in which both are interviewed, which shows that trans kids knew 2+ years prior to their parents.

So that's your "strong evidence"? The perceptions of non-affirming parents? Heck, you ask my parents and they'll say this came out of nowhere for me, and that was with me transitioning at 40.

We are seeing an increase in the number of trans children because trans children have a luxury previous generations of trans people didn't...much more cultural support and openness to who they are. It's safer to come out, so they do. There's no actual evidence of some "social contagion".

Quote:

---

At least I admit my religious notions and assumptions.

---

If there was a study that had a control group, or that interviewed actual trans kids, then you may have a point if it produced the results Littman concocted. We have her flawed methodology, and we have a study that sought a fuller picture that included the trans kids. I'll take the fuller picture. Also, I'm not sure what your "religious notions" are. I'm also a Christian.

Redstone said:

---

I'm not questioning your religious beliefs because I don't know you. The point is your ridiculous wholesale dismissal of a controversial and growing field of study.

You dismissed with a religious fervor.

I provided 2 resources, the site research link and the references of the book.

I hope people look, and also listen to the MANY testimonies of regret.

---

I've explained the dismissal, and it's entirely due to the fundamentally flawed methodology behind Littman's study. Every theory stemming from Littman's study, is suspect given how flawed her study is.

I've shared a study that directly contradicts Littman's study, and it actually interviewed trans people...which is kind of important for a study on trans people.

Another plausible explanation is the internet where subgroups now find each other and reinforce such norms, providing each other support they wouldn't have found previously. And social media which feeds addictive behavior (ahem, 'engagement').

That's why we have black and Asian white supremacists (like legit ones who have been tried in fed and state courts). That's why you can find middle class white supremacists in perfectly normal homes where the parents aren't racist at all (forget the anti-racism idiocy for now with this argument). Any subgroup that wants to see if there are others out there will find themselves and they no longer have to think they're odd. Look at furries. I hear this from a fed almost weekly - this stuff sounds crazy until you see these groups all get validation for their behaviors that wouldn't have existed previously and thus there's far more persistence.

Should we really be surprised that this happens? No, and we should be slow to assert that growth in any subgroup today is simply as you describe it, a luxury that they now have rather than just as much a function of the world they inhabit.

Embracing racist ideologies is not the same as being transgender. This is the problem with the term "transgenderism", as the -ism implies this is some ideology that is assented to or rejected. It's an apples and oranges comparison. I think it's completely logical that the prevalence of young people coming out is due to it being safer to come out. I know had I come out as a kid (and yes, I knew as a young child), I would have been beaten and sent off to a Lester Roloff school or to conversion therapy. Even though far too many families will kick out their LGBTQIA youth, there are far more safety net type programs available to them today as well. The risks are just not nearly as severe as they used to be. When people feel safe to be honest, they're more likely to be honest.

A better comparison than "racism" would be "left-handedness". It used to be considered a negative to be left-handed. 100 years ago, roughly 3% of the population was left-handed. Now it's around 11%. Are there more left-handed people being born, or does it simply not carry the social stigma that it used to?

But this "social contagion" myth all stems from a study on gender dysphoria in which not a single person with gender dysphoria was interviewed, and the only participants were their non-affirming parents. We have a study that does interview both sides, and it paints a much different picture.

Redstone said:

---

"social contagion" myth " ….
really does discount the lived experience of MANY (always capitalized because it's a lot, check it out) who regret the "transition", and the MANY parents who witnessed the phenomenon.

Ironic?

---

I don't discount the experiences of the small percentage of detransitioners. Not at all. It's sad, especially given that the primary reasons for detransition are due to pressure from family, school, work, or society in general". According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, the most common reasons for detransitioning were lack of support at home, problems in the workplace, and harassment and discrimination. Only .4% of trans people detransition because transition was not right for them. Those .4% shouldn't be dismissed, but neither should the 99.6% who either experience no regret, or detransition due to external pressures.

And yes, I will dismiss non-affirming parent's perspectives on this issue, especially when they don't match the perspective of their trans child. Their unhappiness over their child being trans has no bearing on the validity of their child being trans.

Media's 'detransition' narrative is fueling misconceptions, trans advocates say

Quote:

---

While the information regarding how many trans people detransition is sparse, those who work with the trans community say it is uncommon. "The actual numbers around them are significantly low," Asquith said.

The information that does exist appears to corroborate Asquith's claim. In a 2015 survey of nearly 28,000 people conducted by the U.S.-based National Center for Transgender Equality, only 8 percent of respondents reported detransitioning, and 62 percent of those people said they only detransitioned temporarily. The most common reason for detransitioning, according to the survey, was pressure from a parent, while only 0.4 percent of respondents said they detransitioned after realizing transitioning wasn't right for them.

The results of a 50-year survey published in 2010 of a cohort of 767 transgender people in Sweden found that about 2 percent of participants expressed regret after undergoing gender-affirming surgery.
The numbers are even lower for nonsurgical transition methods, like taking puberty blockers. According to a 2018 study of a cohort of transgender young adults at the largest gender-identity clinic in the Netherlands, 1.9 percent of adolescents who started puberty suppressants did not go on to pursue hormone therapy, typically the next step in the transition process.

---

Redstone said:

---

Quote:

---

non-affirming parent's perspectives on this issue, especially when they don't match the perspective of their trans child.

---

Now here's something, isn't it.

Do you - as do MANY in the advocate community, including those on Forum 16 who refused to engage me on this question last year - ….

Advocate for (sterilizing, by the way) puberty blockers as "treatment" for …. children? For minors?

Do you support this? Puberty blockers?

---

Puberty blockers don't sterilize children. They simply delay the onset of puberty. Hormone therapy will, however. And yes, I do support this. We have a close friend who has a trans son. He started puberty blockers, and is now on hormone therapy. Prior to that, he was suicidal and angry. Now, he's a happy, healthy young man.

Puberty blockers were already being used safely for cisgender kids with precocious puberty.

Redstone said:

---

There you have it, posters and lurkers.

I'm not sure how we can continue our conversation.

What you just detailed is fundamentally evil. That is NOT "treatment."

---

So puberty blockers are evil...except for cisgender children with precocious puberty? This is a weird spike. I mean, you don't even understand that puberty blockers don't impact fertility, so yeah where can we go from here when you are spiking the football after saying things that are factually incorrect.

It's like playing chess with a pigeon.

Redstone said:

---

There you have it, posters and lurkers.

I'm not sure how we can continue our conversation.

What you just detailed is fundamentally evil. That is NOT "treatment."

---

I get it. You'd rather these children take their lives so they can be part of a statistic to further your narrative.

I mean, if we're just tossing out random statements.

Redstone said:

---

Puberty blockers and "hormone therapy" FOR CHILDREN.

We call this good? This is very evil.

This is Satanic. And yes I mean that very literally.

---

That's not what you said. Your exact question:

Quote:

---

Advocate for (sterilizing, by the way) puberty blockers as "treatment" for …. children? For minors?

---

Puberty blockers don't sterilize children. I'm sorry you put your ignorance of the subject on display, even after you cling to a fundamentally flawed study based on non-affirming parents opinions.