Legislators in at least two U.S. states are citing the decision as support for their own related proposals.

Legislators in at least two U.S. states are citing a recent decision in England to restrict gender transitions for young people as support for their own related proposals.

They weren’t the first to turn to other countries, notably in Europe, for policy and research ideas. Lawmakers across the U.S., where at least 23 states now have tightened or removed access to transgender health care for minors, have routinely cited non-U.S. research or policies as justification for their legislation.

Yet leading health organizations in the United States and Europe continue to decisively endorse gender-affirming care for both transgender youths and adults.

Among other things, they argue that restrictions on things like hormone therapy tend to single out transgender youths, even though other young people also can benefit from them. And transgender advocates and allies see a political attempt to erase them, cloaked as concern for children.

  • knightly the Sneptaur
    3·
    9 months ago

    And?

    It sounds like you’re admitting that the sampling method used by this study is biased, and that you didn’t read the conclusion:

    It can, however, be said with certainty that the vast majority of boys were seen during a particular period of time when the therapeutic approach of recommending or supporting a gender social transition prior to puberty was not made. Indeed, in the current study, there was only one patient who had socially transitioned prior to puberty (at the suggestion and support of the professionals involved in this individual’s care) and this particular patient was one of the persisters with a biphilic/androphilic sexual orientation. Second, it should also be recognized that, for the boys seen in the current study, none who were in late childhood and had (likely) entered puberty (Tanner Stage 2) had received puberty-blocking hormone treatment (GnRH analogs) to suppress somatic masculinization (142, 143) until sometime during adolescence.

    In contrast, in recent years, it has become more common for some clinicians to recommend a gender social transition prior to puberty [e.g., (69, 144–147); for discussion, see (148–150)]. It has also become more common for parents to have already implemented a gender social transition on their own, without any formal input from a health professional (151). As argued by Zucker (64, 152), this is a very different type of psychosocial treatment designed to reduce gender dysphoria when compared to the other kinds of treatments noted above that have been recommended over the years.

    The study by Steensma et al. (51), which found the highest rate of persistence, included some patients who had made a partial or complete gender social transition prior to puberty and this variable proved to be a unique predictor of persistence (see the Introduction). Rae et al. (153) recruited from a variety of community groups a sample of 85 markedly gender non-conforming children (Mean age, 7.5 years), none of whom had socially transitioned at a baseline assessment. At the time of follow-up, at a mean of 2.1 years later, 36 (42.3%) had socially transitioned and 49 (57.6%) had not. Using a composite of various metrics of gender identity and gender role behaviors, Rae et al. found that those who subsequently socially transitioned had more extreme gender-variant behavior at baseline than those who had not. Thus, this short-term follow-up study was consistent with the longer-term findings reported on by Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis (52), Steensma et al. (51), and the present study.

    Who’d have thought that trans kids who are forced through the wrong puberty would face more pressure to repress their gender variance than those who haven’t?