Continuation of Gender-affirming Hormones Among Transgender Adolescents and Adults

LINK: Continuation of Gender-affirming Hormones Among Transgender Adolescents and Adults | The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

The amount of de-transitioning doesn't really surprise me. Though it is much higher than many of the left would have you believe. What I do find interesting however is the difference between adults being more likely to de-transition than the children. Of course it makes sense. Children really don't know themselves and haven't found themselves where as adults have a clearer picture of themselves. As such kids are less likely to feel less out of place with themselves than adults would be in transitioning and staying transitioned.

What this tells me is that transgenderism, at least to a degree, IS something that is "taught". It is a learned behavior. It is something that can be "gotten comfortable with" for lack of a better word usage. Getting comfortable with something is a learning process. You have to adjust yourself consciously to become comfortable with something you were originally uncomfortable with. And it is much easier to teach a child to be comfortable with something than it is an adult. That is why many schools use a rewards system for kids who do good. Parents do to. Doing such even starts out the moment that child starts to get into things.

So, when you start children on hormone blockers, puberty blockers or what have you, you are literally teaching children to be transgender. All of them? Probably not. There's really no way to tell definitively though as we cannot go back in time and do something different with that same child. But it is definite that there are children that are being taught to be transgender when they aren't really transgender. As such the safest course of action would be to deny "gender affirming care" (a misnomer imo) to children.

 

Hi, Kal'Stang.

The argument presented is compelling. We certainly do not permit children to drink or drive before reaching an age when we deem them to be capable of doing so. The US Army does not consider people able to serve until they've reached the age of 17.

Curiously, through a political quirk, gun possession's not as well regulated.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Hello Torus34,

While I do appreciate that you find my argument compelling, I'd rather keep the topic about learning to be transgender and not get derailed onto any other subject, like guns, or serving in the army (which btw is 18, not 17) etc etc.

Thanks in advance, and be well.

 

Hi again, Kal'Stang.

Sorry 'bout that. I'll pay attention to your preferences for chatting.

Regards, best wishes to you and yours.

 

Oddly enough, gender transition was a "controversial subject" I picked out at random as something to write an essay on in college many years ago. At the time, the research pointed to younger people being more satisfied with results and less likely to express regrets than older people as earlier intervention tended to produce better physical results than attempting to intervene later in life. I don't recall particular research on de-transitioning at the time.

The linked article (or what is visible without login) provides no explanation for why younger people continue with hormones at a bit higher rate than older people after 4 years. It does not describe reasons for any age group initiating or stopping hormone therapy. Doubtless there has been research, albeit likely very new research, into the reasons people choose to transition and choose to detransition. Why therefore do you see fit to suppose a reason for why adolescents choose to remain on hormones at a higher rate than adults, rather than simply finding research that examines these reasons and see if those tend to confirm your proposition or not?

As a courtesy, here are a few that appear more relevant:

Factors Leading to “Detransition” Among Transgender and Gender Diverse People in the United States: A Mixed-Methods Analysis

Individuals Treated for Gender Dysphoria with Medical and/or Surgical Transition Who Subsequently Detransitioned: A Survey of 100 Detransitioners

Is Social Gender Transition Associated with Mental Health Status in Children and Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria?

 

Note Europe where socalled gendered affirming care began is now backing away from it as fast as they can. You arent finding much info about detransitioning in US literature because the trans NAZI'S won't permit it.

Europe has apparently figured out fairly early in the game that normalizing neuroses and psychosis isn't a really good idea.

 

Of course it is taught. The image of femininity/masculinity is a social construct. Thats why these images are different in other parts of the world.

 

My opinion, and I firmly believe this, is that kids are encouraged to switch sides, either because it’s trendy, it’s the left’s agenda, and so men can compete against women. The left, the media and woke companies should stop pretending this is normal because impressionable kids will it is normal.

 

Not really no. Almost all cultures have clearly defined gender roles going back the earliest days of written history. Note this does not mean there are not the occasional exceptions. There is a reason trans women tend to dominate women's sports.

 

None of your links is about learning transgenderism. There is no such study as far as I know. The reason I came to the conclusion I did is because there is no other logical explanation as to why those that start the transitions at an earlier age stay being transgender longer than adults. Even the explanation in your first paragraph does not fit because a person can be made to look exactly like a woman regardless of any hormone or puberty blockers and regardless of age (hormone blockers help keep the cosmetic surgery more permanent, stop those and the body starts reverting as much as it can). In fact "better results" would just further show that its a learned thing. It would fall under the same category that I mentioned in my OP about "gotten comfortable with".

 

Clear argument from ignorance fallacy. You can't think of any other explanation, so you have pigeonholed yourself into the assumption that something you have no evidence for is correct. "Parents forcing their kids to stay on the meds" is just as valid an explanation with no evidence behind it. But you have apparently gone further to the complete conviction that any research will just reinforce your own unfounded belief.

The explanation in my first paragraph, by the way, did not refer specifically just to appearance. It has to do with physical changes. Such as, for example, being able to sense feeling in your new parts post operation. Something that, at the time, was described as having better success when done while the body is still developing vs after it has fully developed. I do not pretend to believe this is the whole story. Just a small nugget of information that is likely part of a much bigger whole.

 

Odd that you disagree followed by acknowledging the fact that gender identity is culture. They learn from the existing culture. In the USA, the image of femininity is a dress, lipstick, and long eyelashes. In other parts of the world, an elongated head and neck is considered feminine.

The guy cheating at womens sports is still a man.

 

The difference is that the same sort of gender differentiation, exist in almost all cultures so is it cultural is it cultures adapting to what is?

 

Yes, people learn about the image of femininity/masculinity from their environment. It is learned.

 

Correct. It is not all, - not even close. Its a tiny fraction of a percentage.

How tiny?

Very tiny.

About 1000 out of 49 million school age kids are taking hormone blockers, so we are talking about a very small fraction of a percentage, but if you listen to the RW talking heads you'd think nearly all 49 000 000 kids are being force fed hormone blockers, which is why its literally all they ever talk about.

 

You misunderstood his usage of the term all.

He did not mean all children, he meant that amongst the tiny subset that start hormone blockers, it was not a learned behavior for all of them.

Nobody is going around acting as if all or even a significant percenatge of all children are starting hormone blockers. That is a strawman argument if ever there was one.

 

The primary cause of "detransitioning" is lack of social support. And it's no wonder that adults who weren't allowed to transition before puberty would be more likely to "detransition" as their transitioning will be even LESS accepted. But any excuse for the anti-trans authoritarian garbage, I guess.

 

Do you have evidence to back up this statement or is it just your hunch?

 

I'll try to find the stats once again, but from the stats I've seen ~8% of people who transition as minors end up detransitioning and the majority of those do so because of lack of support. So far I haven't seen ANY data from the ant-trans crowd, no matter how much I ask. Yet trans folks and pro-trans folks are willing to talk evidence. Hence why I lean toward them.

 

I just wonder how it is that one would make that determination? I would like to see your link to see if they describe their methodology. That sounds like a dubious claim to me. I can understand someone offering as a possible explanation, but to say it definitively seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

I'll try to find the research paper again. Meanwhile, can you reveal where you are getting your info from?

 

What info? Did I say something you are seeking a proof source for?

 

Here's somewhere to start: https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf

 

For me to start? You are expecting me to go through that 291 page document in the hopes that what you claimed is contained within? To expect a quote and page number is certainly not too much to ask.

You wouldn't be trying to send me on a wild goose chase would you?


Oh wait....I see what you are saying. You are telling me to go read that presumably because I didnt say anything needing a proof source but instead of acknowledging that obvious reality, you are trying to falsely pretend like therefore I know nothing about the topic.

In truth, I have read several articles on the topic, and in other threads on the subject, I have provided proof sources for claims I have made on the subject. I pretty much alwasy do so when stating something as a point of fact, or am certainly willing to provide if asked because I do not make statements of fact unless I know where I found that claim.

I have no interest in reading these 291 pages of propaganda pushing the concept.

 

The number of kids on blockers is such a tiny fraction of a percentage that its literally meaningless, so to make that a top priority and something to obsess over is absurd to say the least, but serves as an example of how effective political propaganda can be.