Claim 1: “Studies show that 60-90% of transgender children 'desist'—stop identifying as transgender.” ¹

Claim 2: “Most kids who think they're trans are actually just gender-nonconforming or going through a phase.” ²

Claim 3: “The high desistance rates prove that we shouldn't affirm young people's gender identities.” ³

Any claim suggesting:

• Most trans-identified youth “desist” and return to identifying with their sex assigned at birth
• Childhood gender dysphoria rarely persists into adulthood
• Early social transition leads to regret
• Gender diversity in childhood is typically a phase or confusion

All of these claims rely on the same misapplication of outdated research, conflation of different populations, and misreading of study findings. We'll break down how this narrative distorts the actual evidence.

The critical problem: The studies cited to support “high desistance rates” did not study transgender children or measure persistence of gender dysphoria. They studied something fundamentally different. ⁴

What the early studies actually examined: Earlier research recruited children who showed “gender-variant behavior”—not necessarily children with persistent gender dysphoria. ⁵ These studies classified gender identities using initial visit data, which displayed signs of gender identification and preferences, along with parent-reported cross-gender preferences. ⁶

The distinction matters enormously:

• Gender-nonconforming behavior = acting in ways stereotypically associated with a different gender (e.g., an effeminate boy, a masculine girl)
• Gender dysphoria = persistent distress from incongruence between gender identity and assigned sex
• Gender identity = one's internal sense of gender

These are not the same thing. ⁷

Anti-trans advocates frequently cite old studies showing that “most gender-variant children” don't maintain a cross-gender identification into adulthood, claiming this proves most “trans kids” are going through a phase.

The actual finding from desistance studies:

Most children in these studies were NOT persistently dysphoric in the first place. ⁸ Fewer than 17% of participants met DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Gender Dysphoria in Childhood. ⁹ 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. ¹⁰

Translation: 83% of children in these studies didn't meet modern diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria. They were gender-nonconforming children, many of whom later identified as gay or lesbian.

The studies were predicting sexual orientation, not gender identity persistence. ¹¹

The desistance narrative suggests that childhood gender dysphoria is inherently unstable and most children will grow out of it.

Even within the desistance studies themselves, there is clear evidence contradicting this:

“Intensity of early GD appears to be an important predictor of persistence of GD.” ¹²

What this actually means: Children with stronger, more persistent gender dysphoria were more likely to maintain their gender identity into adulthood. ¹³

The contrast is striking:

• Non-socially-transitioned boys who didn't persist: Most had mild gender dysphoria
• Persisters: Had significantly higher intensity of dysphoria and gender-variant behavior

If you examine the actual data: “Of the 67 boys who had not socially transitioned, only 13 (19.4%) were classified as persisters.” ¹⁴ But this doesn't mean desistance is inevitable—it shows what happens when dysphoric children aren't socially affirmed.

Some versions of the desistance narrative suggest social transition is irrelevant to whether gender dysphoria persists.

This is where the desistance narrative completely falls apart.

The actual Steensma finding: “Formerly nonsignificant and unstudied factors (a cognitive and/or affective cross-gender identification and a social role transition) were associated with the persistence of childhood GD.” ¹⁵

This is the opposite of what opponents claim. Social transition—not medicalization, not puberty blockers—is the strongest factor predicting persistence. The desistance studies show that social affirmation strengthens gender identity persistence, not weakens it. ¹⁶

Recent studies must show higher desistance rates, justifying caution about affirming youth.

The Trans Youth Project provides the most rigorous modern data:

“No hormonal or surgical interventions are involved in transitions at this young age.” ¹⁷ This is crucial: the high persistence rates occurred without puberty blockers or hormones.

The actual finding: “An average of 5 years after their initial social transition, 7.3% of youth had retransitioned at least once.” ¹⁸

This means: 92.7% of socially transitioned youth maintained their gender identity 5 years later. ¹⁹

Compare the populations:

The difference isn't methodology—it's the population being studied. ²⁰

“Desistance” is a legitimate scientific concept for understanding gender development.

A recent systematic review concluded the opposite:

“Desistance is a concept that has been poorly defined in the literature, yet greatly impacts the arguments for and against providing gender-affirming care.” ²¹

Why?

1. Poorly defined: Different studies define “desistance” differently (stopped identifying trans? No longer met criteria? Changed presentation?)
2. Conflates populations: Mixes children with actual dysphoria with gender-nonconforming children
3. Cherry-picks outcomes: Focuses on “desistance” while ignoring sexual orientation findings (many became LGB)
4. Stifles understanding: Prevents nuanced analysis of gender development

The field is moving toward abandoning “desistance” language precisely because it conflates too many different phenomena. ²²

Early childhood gender-nonconformity is just normal behavior variation that will resolve on its own.

There is an important distinction:

Children who show gender-nonconforming behavior alone without persistent gender dysphoria often do not continue to identify as transgender. ²³ This is true and not contradicted by the evidence.

However, the critical caveat:

“Children and adolescents who showed gender-atypical behaviour (see below) without intense gender dysphoria did not generally show gender dysphoria in adolescence.” ²⁴

The key word is “intense.” Children with clinically significant, persistent gender dysphoria—the population modern care serves—maintain their identities at high rates when affirmed. ²⁵

This distinction is routinely erased in anti-trans narratives that lump all gender-nonconforming children together.

Children should not be allowed to socially transition because they might regret it later.

Socially transitioned youth show excellent mental health outcomes:

“Transgender children who have socially transitioned, that is, who identify as the gender 'opposite' their natal sex and are supported to live openly as that gender… showed no elevations in depression and only slightly elevated anxiety.” ²⁶

“Transgender children reported depression and self-worth that did not differ from their matched-control or sibling peers.” ²⁷

Actual regret rates:

The Trans Youth Project found that 7.3% of socially transitioned youth had retransitioned at least once after 5 years. ²⁸ This does not mean regret—it includes youth who explored different identities and returned to their affirmed identity, or made adjustments to their identity expression.

True regret requiring reversal of transition is extremely rare in the literature, while the mental health benefits of affirmation are consistent. ²⁹

“The evidence is too uncertain to recommend affirming care.”

By age 10-13, gender dysphoria shows clear patterns:

“For most children with GDC, whether GD will persist or desist will probably be determined between the ages of 10 and 13 years, although some may need more time.” ³⁰

Intensity is the predictor:

- High-intensity dysphoria = high persistence rates - Low-intensity gender-nonconformity = variable outcomes

The modern approach appropriately reflects this:

Younger children receive social support and affirming therapy. Puberty blockers are offered only to adolescents with sustained, clinically significant dysphoria. ³¹ This is not “uncertain”—it's evidence-based risk stratification.

Critics argue: “If 80% desisted in the 1980s, the same should be true today.”

The populations are fundamentally different:

1970s-1990s studies: ³²

1. Examined children referred for “gender identity concerns”
2. Primarily measured “gender deviant behavior” (effeminate boys, masculine girls)
3. Used DSM-III/IV criteria that did NOT require distress or dysphoria
4. Children were not socially transitioned (no medical pathway existed)
5. Most were later classified as gay/lesbian (not dysphoric)

Modern context: ³³

1. Examines children with persistent, clinically significant gender dysphoria
2. Uses DSM-5 criteria requiring documented distress
3. Children are socially transitioned (affirmed in their identity)
4. Most maintain their identity over 5+ years

The key distinction: ³⁴ Prior to the late 1990s, treatment of children or adolescents with gender dysphoria was not considered. ³⁵ Social affirmation was not part of standard care.

You cannot use outcomes from a non-medicalized, non-socially-transitioned era to predict outcomes in a socially-affirmed era. These are incomparable populations.

Key Finding: Children affirmed in their gender identity show mental health outcomes comparable to their cisgender peers. ³⁶

What this means: The evidence base doesn't support “watchful waiting” or withholding affirmation. It supports gender-affirming care from the beginning. ³⁷

When you examine the actual research carefully:

1. Children with persistent gender dysphoria maintain their identity at high rates when affirmed
2. Social transition (not medicalization) predicts persistence
3. The old “desistance” studies were examining different children entirely
4. Modern, rigorous research shows affirmation works
5. Socially transitioned youth show comparable mental health to cisgender peers

The “desistance” narrative relies on conflating gender-nonconformity with gender dysphoria and comparing incomparable eras. When the actual evidence is examined closely, it supports gender-affirmative care, not caution about affirmation.