LGB NewsPeer-reviewed research article: Among 139 boys formally diagnosed with gender dysphoria, 88% total desisted, and 64% total were either bisexual or gay.

submitted by reluctant_commenter from self.LGBDropTheT

TLDR Research article about a large group of boys who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria found that the majority were bisexual/gay and the majority desisted.

Study link: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632784/full

^ Paraphrased from the abstract:

Boys clinic-referred for gender identity concerns in childhood had a high rate of desistance and a high rate of a biphilic/androphilic sexual orientation.

Short list of facts

See Table 1, with demographics: https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/632784/fpsyt-12-632784-HTML/image_m/fpsyt-12-632784-t001.jpg

139 boys total were diagnosed with gender dysphoria (at an average age of 7 and a half years old), and researchers followed-up with them (at an average age of 20 and a half years old).

Of these boys...

  • Desistance rate: 88% desisted. (n = 139)

  • Sexual orientation (fantasy): 64% had "biphilic/androphilic" (bisexual/gay) fantasies, 33% had "gynephilic" (straight) fantasies, 3% had no fantasies (asexual?) (n = 129)

  • Sexual orientation (behavior): 47% had "biphilic/androphilic" (bisexual/gay) behaviors, 27%% had "gynephilic" (straight) behaviors, 26% had no sexual behaviors (asexual? inexperienced?) (n = 108)

Broad points

  • This is a longitudinal study design. A cohort of young boys were referred with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and researchers followed-up years later to see if they had desisted or not and what their sexual orientation was, etc.

  • This study has a way bigger sample size than previous ones.

  • This study found pretty much the same results as previous ones. (They summarize this in the introduction.)

  • The article talks about how previous studies were criticized with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: "The rate of desistance is too high, these boys must not have actually had gender dysphoria in the first place, so you can't say it went away!"

Potential misinformation!!!

  • Note: The study authors defined "gynephilic" (straight boy) as being either a 0 or a 1 on the Kinsey scale. When really, I think most of us here would say a 1 on the Kinsey scale is "biphilic" (bisexual). So it's possible they are underestimating the number of bisexuals in this study by reporting it that way. Take it with a grain of salt.

  • This Twitter post about the study is incorrect. It's 64% bisexual/gay, not 64% gay. As usual, people forget bisexuality. Post: https://mobile.twitter.com/Transgendertrd/status/1376453938992578560

Citation

Singh D, Bradley SJ and Zucker KJ (2021) A Follow-Up Study of Boys With Gender Identity Disorder. Front. Psychiatry 12:632784. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632784

Let me know if you see a mistake, have a suggestion for a statistic or fact to add, or have formatting suggestions. Thanks!

edit1: typos

edit2: Accidentally reported wrong sample size for sexual orientation behavior data, now fixed

all 39 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]odiusgay man 24 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 0 fun25 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Research going back decades has shown this to be the case. People started transitioning children despite knowing most would grow up to be well adjusted lgb adults if left alone.

The article talks about how previous studies were criticized with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: "The rate of desistance is too high, these boys must not have actually had gender dysphoria in the first place, so you can't say it went away!"

This has been the sort of response of gotten when I've shared articles about children with gender dysphoria desisting in the past. I doubt this article will get a different response.

[–]GConly 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

these boys must not have actually had gender dysphoria in the first place, so you can't say it went away!"

If you read through the Singh thesis, she groups them into two groups, some which are borderline for GD, Vs the hardcore. Desistence was almost identical in both sets

It's why Temple Newhook omitted this piece of research when she wrote "the myth of desistence". Basically it blew her bullshit to pieces.

It's why Steenmsa and Zucker both wrote harsh criticisms of her paper. She basically just left out data that didn't support her argument, and argued something unprovable.. "they didn't really have GD!"

[–]SnowAssMan 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The findings are pretty much the same as past studies have shown. I'm surprised the desistance rate isn't decreasing in the current climate. There are three other such studies that I'm aware of. The one with the lowest estimate of desistance was still over 60%. It was only as low as that because their follow-up age wasn't as high as the studies with higher desistance rates. The higher follow-up age ones had a desistance rate around 88%, just like this one.

Thanks for posting this. Members of the self-ID cult can't be reasoned with though. They'll find some reason to dismiss it, like they don't like Zucker, or something equally stupid like that. Then they'll go back to pointing out that trans-womxyn have gay men's brains, meaning they're all women blah blah blah.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm surprised the desistance rate isn't decreasing in the current climate.

I think it's probably because they're looking at transgender-identified people who had gender dysphoria severe enough that they were diagnosed with it (a clinical population of trans-identified people, not a general population). That doesn't include the trenders who have no gender dysphoria and identify as nonbinary for fun.

Thanks and thank you for reading it! Yes, the most extreme will not be reasoned with. Hopefully we can get through to some of the passive bystanders on the fence, though.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Then they'll go back to pointing out that trans-womxyn have gay men's brains, meaning they're all women blah blah blah.

Does anyone ever respond that, with so-called "straight trans-womxyn", this just shows they ARE gay men? Thus not women (or "trans") at all? And ask if, by "gay man's brain = woman", self-ID cultists mean that gay men are all women? Thus all "trans"? And wouldn't that make all women... gay men? But then how can "transbians" exist? Don't they need to eschew pussy and learn to love dick, like the "gay-man-brained-women" they must really be? And what about "gay transmen"-- their brains have GOTTA be like gay men's, of course, but then... how can you tell them from women's???

It's like the transists are striving to achieve the Platonic ideal of idiocy.

[–]SnowAssMan 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Of course they never admit that gay men have the same brain similarities with women that homosexual (same-sex attracted/exclusively androphilic) trans-womxyn have, otherwise they'd be too close to knowing the truth: that trans-womxyn are just gay men who failed, for whatever reason, to grow out of their cross-gender identification phase.

Predictably, the straight/bi ones lack said similarities.

[–]GConly 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ah, the Singh doctoral thesis.

Educational reading, study towards rear, IIRC.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Interesting, didn't realize there was an unpublished version of this for so long. It was just published in Frontiers today.

[–]GConly 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah. Temple Newhook pretended it didn't exist because it went against every clam she made in the myth of desistence.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

https://archive.ph/TyFjA

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If the article gets taken down from Frontier, then that's when things get REALLY crazy. I appreciate you archiving in case, though!

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think there are numerous recent historical justifications for being thorough. :-)

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Very true!! :) I don't mean to discourage you at all. The thought of this getting pulled after being published is kinda freaky, though. But then, so is Reddit hiring Challenor...

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I just assume nothing is guaranteed at this point. That was always true but we've had times where we could sleepwalk much more than lately.

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This will probably get buried. Anything that shows that gender identity is not innate and that dysphoria can get better gets squashed.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree, it will on social media, but it is something I can share with my acquaintances who do actually care about science, and it will probably have some bearing on legal decisions.

edit: typo

[–]insta 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Not to be blackpilling or anything but just about nobody cares about studies.

If you think the majority of people on twitter or reddit are reading anything beyond the abstract (if not just the title of a news story covering it) you're fooling yourself.

Studies are good to have in your back pocket but just about nobody changes their mind about something because the Brookings institute released a new peer reviewed piece of shit. The whole "Believe in Science" crowd is complete bluff. They agree with positions out of moral issues and they just pull up a study that agrees with them to confirm their bias. You're also never going to "out science" the TRAs. For any study we might squeak out there will be 10 more telling us how transwomen make the best tops.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I understand the sentiment! I know that diehard TRAs, much like diehard fundamentalist Christians, don't give one flying fuck about science.

However, I wanted to give people here a heads up about it because:

  • Ultimately, science does inform public discourse and also legal decisions. Like the Keira Bell case-- the Tavistock had no evidence and so the jury ruled accordingly.

  • Also there are a lot of fellow science nerds on here who find this stuff interesting. :)

It's gonna take more than one study to make a dent, but the fact that this got through peer review and is being publicized is awesome.

edit: Also, I wouldn't say it's a bad thing that people read just the abstract-- usually that's supposed to cover the main points, anyway. And, transwomen may have a ton of money behind their movement but they don't have objective reality behind it, and that's what matters. It took like 60 years for the sugar industry's research manipulation and corruption to be widely publicized, but it did have to come out eventually.

[–]insta 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Also, I wouldn't say it's a bad thing that people read just the abstract

I do. For the vast majority of studies (that I can read for free, I ain't paying no psych journal $20 to read something some Twitter dot com user linked me) I go right to the methodology. Generally that's where the biases are hidden. IMO lots of corrupted social science starts with a faulty premise that's hidden somewhere in the methodology. Just reading the abstract isn't enough.

science does inform public discourse and also legal decisions

I'll give you legal decisions, I agree. However, for the most part I think public discourse is informed by a handful of empty talking points that people just repeat back to each other to sound like they didn't come to their decision emotionally. I think the big flaw, especially in online discourse, is us all pretending that humans are just robots that can take data X and come to conclusion Y.

I don't need some study to tell me that gay marriage should be legal, I don't need a study to tell me free speech is a good thing. I think far too many people delude themselves into thinking that their positions are rational and not just a gut instinct. We then go back to rationalize our political opinions with some half baked study we didn't read that we found on Twitter dot com.

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman🇬🇧🌳🟦 8 insightful - 7 fun8 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

You take your well-grounded training in the scientific method and begone, TERF! Recant your findings. The earth revolves around the sun? Transphobia. The planets revolve around wherever the grand wizard of Trans happens to be that day.

☀️🏳️‍⚧️☀️

[–]emptiedriver 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

However, for the most part I think public discourse is informed by a handful of empty talking points that people just repeat back to each other to sound like they didn't come to their decision emotionally.

But where do the emotions come from - I think a lot of people have very general and therefore malleable emotions, and will be convincible based on how something is framed. A bunch of people may want to do what's fair and good and allow everyone to love who they love, right? If trans rights are seen as another aspect of that, and people against it are seen through a lens of oppressors who are trying to stop trans people from living their happy lives, then emotionally they will want to support Trans Rights! and when the Bad Guys say anything they are presumed to be making it up or skewing statistics or otherwise just lying. But if enough information comes out to show that the view the "Bad Guys" were trying to communicate was actually sensible and irrefutable, and really, to support love and fight oppression you have to fight Big Pharma and not support trans... then the whole perspective has to shift. And people go through that kind of mental switch all the time. Sure, it's all emotional, and people don't do a lot of rational comparison to reach conclusions, but they can switch paradigms.

And I'd think studies like this can make people peak, bc the orthodoxy is that the percentage of detransitioners is incredibly small, a few percent or something, and that those who do are forced into it due to peer pressure and are less happy than they would be if they had been allowed to remain trans. I never looked into it that far since I was mostly concerned with the issue that even after transition you're still the same sex, but, these numbers are way different from what I've heard people claim. So I'd have to think it would be harder to ignore the contradiction.

[–]insta 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But where do the emotions come from

I’d argue the majority of them come from cultural influence and/or peer pressure. I think Jordan Peterson is correct in his overtones of “You would’ve been a concentration camp guard and you would’ve been okay with it”. I think people’s ethics and what they’re willing to live with are extremely malleable. I think COVID-19 restrictions are also a good example of this. People will live with things simply to get along.

when the Bad Guys say anything they are presumed to be making it up or skewing statistics or otherwise just lying.

This will happen no matter what. This happens frequently with the wage gap and with the whole 13/50 argument. The majority of people don’t care about studies or statistics and will just dismiss them outright with some talking point.

the "Bad Guys" were trying to communicate was actually sensible and irrefutable

I don’t think that will never happen without cultural or social power. The studies around children’s hormone blockers is murky at best yet there are powerful political segments that are willing to go full steam ahead with risking children’s health and future. The studies & reality don’t matter.

And I'd think studies like this can make people peak,

I think men competing in women’s sports makes more people peak. I think cultural issues like that are far more impactful than some random study nobody will ever read or know about.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I go right to the methodology. Generally that's where the biases are hidden. IMO lots of corrupted social science starts with a faulty premise that's hidden somewhere in the methodology. Just reading the abstract isn't enough.

Totally agree on reading the methods sections! Have you tried SciHub? A lot of papers are posted on there for free.

I think the big flaw, especially in online discourse, is us all pretending that humans are just robots that can take data X and come to conclusion Y.

I agree, people are not like this. However, I appreciate having some form of empirical evidence to bring into a discussion, because it's better than nothing. Occasionally people even consider it for a couple minutes, lol.

[–]insta 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

However, I appreciate having some form of empirical evidence to bring into a discussion, because it's better than nothing.

I can appreciate that. You’re a better person than me. I am so tired of arguing with someone and they link me some half baked study that says “11 year olds going on hormone blockers is totally reversible and has no downsides and if you disagree you’re a bigot” and having to read this bullshit to find out where they’re lying or purposefully obfuscating some fact.

It’s like an ideological version of “I, Spy” and it’s exhausting. Especially when discussing things with friends irl as you simply cannot take the time to go through their references and more often than not they can’t even find them on google. It’s all just so exhausting.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I can appreciate that. You’re a better person than me.

I don't know about that, I might just have more energy for it :) these conversations can be insanely exhausting. And they're often with people who refuse to consider evidence that threatens their beliefs. I like to remind myself: I'm arguing to convince the lurkers, never to convince the person I'm arguing with. I used to be a lurker for years before I finally felt compelled to start participating via asking questions. Plenty of people read and watch and take something valuable out of an otherwise seemingly useless discussion.

It's like an ideological version of “I, Spy” and it’s exhausting. Especially when discussing things with friends irl as you simply cannot take the time to go through their references and more often than not they can’t even find them on google. It’s all just so exhausting.

EXACTLY. You've nailed the description of it. For in-person convos, I hope to make a shortlist of resources and links at the ready.

[–]insta 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

For in-person convos, I hope to make a shortlist of resources and links at the ready.

For me, I just try to give them some perspective on the issue. I try to use myself as an example of "Hey, this issue isn't black and white. It's not hate vs love. It's not good vs evil. It's more complicated". People think if you're against these issues you're some basement dwelling troll who is just so full of hate. When in reality we have perfectly reasonable objections.

It's good for people to have someone think "Oh well, /u/insta believes these things and he doesn't want to go around putting trans people on the cross so I think you're being a little dramatic". It's powerful for people to know that they're not insane if they don't fully agree to this. They're not hateful. They're not a nazi. It's good people have examples of this so we're not all cowering in fear.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Completely agree. I'll keep that in mind as well. :)

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you think the majority of people on twitter or reddit are reading anything beyond the abstract

Which is why you post the critical paragraphs with an embedded link to the paper in bold text to make it stand out.

Until Drewiepoodle deletes it off Reddit of course.

I have literally had that happen.

[–]insta 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was more referring to their studies they send to you. They'll read a headline or maybe the abstract at most and then smugly link you to it like they did the study themselves.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is a great post, thank you.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks, and thanks for reading it!

[–]QueenBread 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Honestly, do we really need a research? I sure didn't, although it's always nice to have an objective approach on collected data. All I know it's that it's pretty OBVIOUS that the great majority of disphoric kids would grow out of their disphoria. The numbers of "transkids" raised of something like 2000% (two thousands percent!!) in something like a couple years. That alone already explains all there is to explain.

It's a mass hysteria. Not even the weirdest one. Just the most widespread one.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think we need research in order to convince straight bystanders who say "oh, the transgender movement can do no wrong" that the Democratic party is, on this specific issue, the anti-science party.

I agree though, the massive number increase should be a red flag enough.

edit: typo

[–]emptiedriver 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That alone already explains all there is to explain.

You'd think, but they are explaining it differently. There was a book that just recently came out about the history of "trans kids" (can't find it now, saw it on twitter earlier) that claimed that it was due to suppression and quieting of children but that supposedly had heaps of research backing up some kind of thesis that they'd been here all along and had just been ignored or incorrectly categorized, and only now are finally able to achieve who they really are. So, people are not going to just be convinced by that kind of disparity. There are explanations being put out there all over the place. It's important to keep expressing the common sense view, since the more people don't hear it, the more they'll start to think it isn't the common sense view after all and they must just be wrong to think that way...

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Backup of the table you cited: https://imgur.com/a/QER94ZL