Science Supports Trans People - Here is why

Liberty_Bear

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S174360951534443X

Psychological support and puberty suppression were both associated with an improved global psychosocial functioning in GD adolescents. Both these interventions may be considered effective in the clinical management of psychosocial functioning difficulties in GD adolescents.

This study is from the United Kingdom. They followed 101 adolescents who received pubertal suppression at the beginning of the study and 100 adolescents who, for a range of reasons, were deemed by the team not ready to start pubertal suppression and thus did not receive it over the course of the study. Both groups received supportive psychotherapy. Both groups saw improvement in mental health (As explained by Psychology Today

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-52280-009

This study suggests that gender-affirming hormones are a helpful medical intervention for transgender youth. Gender-affirming hormones were found to be associated with decreases in suicidality and improvements in general well-being. This study is especially timely given recent introduction of anti-transgender legislation.

https://www.analesdepediatria.org/en-psychosocial-assessment-in-transgender-adolescents-articulo-S2341287920300880

A significant improvement (P<.05) was found between T0 and T1 in the transgender group in terms of emotional symptoms, behaviour problems, hyperactivity symptoms, pro-social conduct, as well as in the degree of anxiety and depression measured by the SDQ-Cas test, the STAI and the BDI-II scale. There were significant differences in these scales between the transgender group and the controls at T0, however, the scores equalised at T1. The families in this sample of transgender patients provided a very favourable environment according to the scores obtained on the family APGAR scale.

_____

I am not going to waffle on and on about this. The science is fully there that has evaluated the trans cause and it appears legitimate. The studies (psychiatrists and doctors and in particular that last Spanish study) detail a lower rate of poor mental health with those who can start transitioning to the chosen sex that they desire. Cis teens who related to their biological sex were shown to be happier in comparison to teens who were trans and not taking gender affirming hormones. I am reminded that a lot of the psuedo science that TERFs and others publish is akin to the science that was out with Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism seemed superfically to appear to be a legitimiate science in proving black people were inferior to white people though this was proven later to be total bullshit. Anthropologists have studied the phenomena too over the last century of third genders in cultures most notanly India and the Polynesian cultures (References - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa%27afafine & https://www.thethinkingrepublic.com/being-counted/at-the-intersections-of-caste-and-gender )

freemickey

https://youtu.be/fg71tqpsVXY

No harm in particular, there are plenty of wacky ideas with large followings, all with their own research and proofs and arguments and conventions and so forth.

That the popularity of these ideas just so happen to be tied to the popularity of the wild west of the misinformation of the internet is striking. Or not, depending on on your starting point on the sanity scale.

I'm sure it would take me a whole 3 minutes to find internet proof of pterocatyls running aer lingus.

I find it fairly wild that they can experiment with suppressing puberty in kids.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231611#Comment_119231611

Unless that internet proof includes peer reviewed articles then you're talking rubbish.

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231611#Comment_119231611

Are the ideas supported by empirical evidence ?

A lot of people wont be able to rebuke the above I posted

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231671#Comment_119231671

101/201 people is not much empirical evidence. Very much at the more research is needed point.

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231684#Comment_119231684

Its better than absolutely no research though what so ever. Remember trans people are a very small portion of the population so it follows any sample size itself would be all relative.

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231692#Comment_119231692

Sure, but still far too small to begin to draw conclusions or to use it to back up arguments on the topic.

freemickey

If you're mad into licking people's toes, good for you, congratulations.

If you try to bend my ear about scientific rationalisation from the internet ether about why it's perfectly normal to lick people's toes and it should be taught in schools and have toe lickers shoehorned into every facet of life, no, I'm not entertaining it.

Just as I don't need to go to a flat Earth convention to "hear them out", I don't need to give heed to this either.

Again, this isn't something in particular, there are plenty of "out there" ideas that have stemmed out of the misinformation of the internet. Go lick a toe and be happy, if you're confident about it you don't need to convince anyone else.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058251182/science-supports-trans-people-here-is-why

I am not going to waffle on and on about this. The science is fully there that has evaluated the trans cause and it appears legitimate. 

As does most research until it has been investigated by unbiased and professional independent analysis. A lot of modern research is funded by interest groups, or by governmental offices with their own agendas to push, and that is reflected in the papers that have been released over the years. The fact that American psychology and Medicine have done a complete U-turn in regards to Trans "science" in a relatively short period of time, and also in a time when the woke/PC movements were at their strongest in their society, is worrying. There is far too much politics involved.

Also, in spite of the research done, the samples done tend to be small, and there is no interest in determining the long-term effects of Trans beliefs on the development of individuals, both in terms of their mental health, and their social development. There have been many cases of Trans who have transitioned, regretting the procedures, and reverting. There has been very little research into the why's of that, and whether the negatives those people experienced, are relevant on a wider scale.

Lastly, there has also been extremely little consideration or research into external influence which might bully/force/manipulate people into becoming "trans" and how that affects them over extended periods. It would be perfectly logical to assume that some of those encouraged to become trans, by people in authority (parents, teachers, psychologists etc) have unduly influenced minors into believing that they are trans due to their own personal beliefs rather than the true feelings of the child. It's well established in other areas of society, where parents force their kids into cheerleading, pageants, etc. Along with the emotional manipulation and conditioning over time.

And for all your research above there is no single definition of what is entailed by supporting trans. Are we discussing those who undergo physical surgeries, and hormonal treatments? How about those who have a single surgical change vs those who do the full transition? Those who believe themselves to be gender fluid? Those who believe themselves to be male in a female body? Instead, there is a generalised and broad approach taken, lumping them all under one phrase, and seeking to justify them all together, even though the factors involved are incredibly complex and different depending on the individuals circumstances.

So.. yeah.. I'll wait for another one or two decades to see how stable all these teens who have been encouraged to believe themselves to be trans, and see how they've developed.. before I start to accept that all this research which is so wonderfully positive, is even remotely accurate. Which I don't, right now, believe it to be. Nothing is that positive. Everything has negatives.. and yet, somehow the only negatives associated with Trans research is externalised. That's not realistic.

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231713#Comment_119231713

So as per the post above, the idea that black people are lesser than white people could be correct?

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231704#Comment_119231704

Not in the least mate, this is the start of a conversation about the evidence we have on front of us.

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231728#Comment_119231728

As per the links most of the research is laid out and transparent, rather than attacking the credibility of it ad hominem , what from the above is there that would make you think that this is incorrect? The push back against people like neuoscientist Jack Turban has come from mostly quarters where there is no science background, titling that as a push back against Trans Science is a stretch. What I want to know is how, a whole community of psychologists and psychiatrics could be possibly hoodwinked? The DSM that is used to classify mental illness has delisted it. Has been for quite a while. No one appears to be able to attack the science yet...which makes me think most of boards.ie who appear on these threads are mostly bluster and empty chambers...

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231746#Comment_119231746

Are you suggesting that paediatric endocrinology is not a hard science?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231735#Comment_119231735

Evidence is more than a bit strong... theories would be more appropriate.

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231754#Comment_119231754

The data from which science is based shows us otherwise. Again there is no one refuting the evidence here.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231809#Comment_119231809

you quoted something that happened before most of us here were even born. It has no relevance.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231774#Comment_119231774

No, it doesn't. Psychology, and the social sciences are notorious for needing to revise what research has supposedly "proven".

And yes, people are disputing your "evidence" here. How many posters have accepted your claims and evidence on the thread?

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231820#Comment_119231820

Has no relevance? Care to explain why?

Also you conveniently ignored my other 2 links on studies showing that puberty blockers for "gender dysphoric" children leave them with stunted growth and no psychologically better off. Any comment on that?

And as for Dr John Money, well he defined gender as we know it today. I think its very relevant when people use the term, and advocate for trans-gender status, gender reassignment, gender dysphoria etc. It's all based on his theories and hypotheses about gender not being innate but rather learned. Unless you know more than the leading researchers in the field?

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231809#Comment_119231809

Now that is what Im talking about in terms of looking at the research

I can go along with the Tavistock study having read it. The research indicates that there is no significant psychological improvement in those 12 to 15. When you have the Tavistock institute coming out with this and these are the biggest proponents of it then I can respect that as straight from the horses mouth.

Dr John Money didnt coin the term gender but did coin gender identifcation and gender roles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058251182/science-supports-trans-people-here-is-why

Except that that kind of therapy is close to being banned. The problem with trans isn’t the well defined GD (gender dysphoria). That’s been around for a while. Gender identity is a different ideology, while the former (GD) sees a mental condition to be rectified, the latter (GI) sees gender identity as trumping biological sex. In fact it sees people who are born into the same sex as their identity as an oppressor class, oppressing those who are in a different sex to their identity. It is anti medicine, and doctors are the bad guys, “assigning” sex at birth, in fact medical transitions are not even recommended, just a nice to have. No medical cert is needed. This is Irish law

GI promotes self identification, even in children. Therapy to ascertain whether somebody has GD is considered conversion therapy. And of course there being no way to tell, or not, any body of any sex can self identify at will.

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231864#Comment_119231864

Firstly a thanks for that post, thats a very engaging post I want to respond to (and apologies if I sound patronising , not meant that way)

The evidence for gender dysphoria is few and far between but one study (and albeit a small sample number) put forward based on the evidence before us, that it is more than likely a genetic trait where there is a mismatch between the brain and the body. The study looked at twins as a whole and drilled down into the finer points. It said (note GID is Gender Identity Disorder)

https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1743609515339060

Results

Of 23 monozygotic female and male twins, nine (39.1%) were concordant for GID; in contrast, none of the 21 same‐sex dizygotic female and male twins were concordant for GID, a statistically significant difference (P = 0.005). Of the seven opposite‐sex twins, all were discordant for GID.

Conclusions

These findings suggest a role for genetic factors in the development of GID. Heylens G, De Cuypere G, Zucker KJ, Schelfaut C, Elaut E, Vanden Bossche H, De Baere E, and T'Sjoen G. Gender identity disorder in twins: A review of the case report literature. J Sex Med 2012;9:751–757.

Whatever about the politics of it, I dont agree that those who are cis (a term I hate) are oppressors as a lived experience is different for most people thus no real comparisons can be drawn.

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231954#Comment_119231954

I have not seen much to the contrary of what I posted in terms of studies. We have pointed out here that psychological well being improves on gender affirming hormones and puberty blockers dont appear to work and established its no longer classified as a mental illness in cases. There hasnt been a study that has said its all shite..this ad hominem campaign again doesnt attack the evidence.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231692#Comment_119231692

It matters when you come to a firm conclusion in the title of this thread.

Seems your mind is made up no matter how bad the extant evidence base is.

The thread isn't about science. It's about preaching a foregone conclusion that you've personally arrived at.

Put another way, if science overwhelmingly rejected your conclusion, you wouldn't have started a thread called Science Rejects Trans People.

And science doesn't support or reject anything. It's a method of inquiry.

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232059#Comment_119232059

I dont think I have ever seen you tackle the science behind it but just repeat mantras ad nauseum , reminded of Animal Farm by George Orwell - four legs good, two legs bad (or whatever is equally as applicable in this case). At any point feel free to post the facts and engage in the science.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232082#Comment_119232082

Ironic that you've brought up Orwell.

Men are women and women are men is exactly the kind of doublespeak that Orwell warned about in 1984.

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232059#Comment_119232059

And Science doesn't support or reject anything. It's a method of inquiry.

Science is the basis of drawing conclusions from observations and / or experiments

I dont want to get into the habit of correcting you every time ...

donaghs

Are you sure this wasn't "Political Science"? e.g. "gender-affirming hormones".

Actually Political Science is a serious discipline. This sounds more like a fore-gone conclusion.

Always suspicious when someone talks about what "the science" says.

Nonetheless, if this is an independent and verifiable study, it does add weight to the argument in favour of these treatments.

On the other hand, these treatments eventually become irreversible, which is a huge price to pay if someone decides they didn't make the right choice. Is that kind of harm worth the other benefits?

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232091#Comment_119232091

And Orwell also painted out the hypermasculinised society that existed in 1984 with all male Pigs at the top table running an autocracy...do you really want to tell us that he speaks to the true nature of equality?

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232095#Comment_119232095

I thougt the study posted above on the Tavistock piece about how puberty blockers dont work was quite interesting, indeed Ive my own reservations about them in a sense. The science from my purview is independent, there is no stigma attached to it and if it is not independently reviewed then its open to further enquiry sans ad hominem attacks . I understand very few regret transitioning but there are a small number who do so yes that has to be taken account of .

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232128#Comment_119232128

Tavistock is a gender identity clinic that helps people with gender dysphoria.

In fact, the children's transgender clinic has had 35 resignations of clinical specialists in three years as psychologists warn of gender dysphoria 'over-diagnoses'.

So if we're going to talk about what's happening objectively on the ground, I think this must also form part of the debate.

The whistleblowers said too many children were being put on puberty-blocking drugs when they should not have been given the diagnosis.

Former staff said they were unable to properly assess patients over fears they will be branded "transphobic".

The concerns were raised by six psychologists who have resigned from London's children's gender-identity service in the past three years.

One psychologist, who wished to remain anonymous, said: "Our fears are that young people are being over-diagnosed and then over-medicalised.

"We are extremely concerned about the consequences for young people... For those of us who previously worked in the service, we fear that we have had front row seats to a medical scandal."

This question is more complex than you've made out in the title of this thread.

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232220#Comment_119232220

Thank you for that. I dont deny as above that Tavistok is a huge issue. Ive reservations myself about puberty blocking drugs in the long run and the effects it has on the body of people not old enough to vote. What I am concerned with though that the giving of puberty blocking drugs was not the sole reason for it. A clinician was faced with pushy parents who considered in some of the cases that their kids might be gay. All of this aside

Going back to the original question - is there actual science there that refutes my point

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232092#Comment_119232092

Yes, but there is science and there is empirical science.

Psychology isn't evolved enough as a science to become an empirical science. That means all of the "scientific" conclusions are open to question and debate.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232238#Comment_119232238

Yes, because this question is extremely complicated and drawing simplistic conclusions from tiny numbers does not suffice.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232275#Comment_119232275

This, too.

Psychiatry and psychology has a wrought history compared to say, chemistry or physics, when it comes to establishing objectivity. Social factors, among others, are an enormous complicating factor. But certainly not limited to this factor.

The one group of people who have to leave the debate straight away are those who claim with almost certainty that they are absolutely right.

Montage of Feck

I dont have a clue what's going on here.

eskimohunt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232092#Comment_119232092

And what is science? You're pointing to aspects of psychology and the social sciences, both of which are still barely understood, and the methods of research often comes up for criticism.

"Science" is the chemical mix to send a rocket to the moon. It's the molecular composition of something. The splitting of the atom. The development of mathematics. And so on. All things that can be taken, tested, and have the same result each time. Reliable. Quantifiable.

Trans science is based on social science and modern psychology.. neither of which is a guarantee of anything. Psychological research often gets discredited after being initially approved. It regularly get's proven in the supposedly sterile research conditions, but fails to meet the same results when applied in the real world, under real world conditions. And psychology is full of maybes. Plenty of research for the assumptions used, but due to the individuality of people, can't be proven with the exactness that science usually does.

And there is a glaring absence of long-term research tracking the effects of trans ideas on subjects over extended periods of time.. in any kind of controlled manner.

You're pushing this as science, when it's not science. It's a heap of theories within limited conditions. And as eskimohunt said, your bias is showing.

briangriffin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058251182/science-supports-trans-people-here-is-why

So I guess we should follow the science and affirm all children who say they are born in the wrong body and allow them socially transition before putting them on the medical pathway to transition.

Social contagion doesn't happen so this will all work out great for all our children. Glad to have those unequivocal scientific studies.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232396#Comment_119232396

I often think of many of the social sciences as the real-life equivalents of quantum physics. By observing what is happening, you influence and change the outcomes, making it that much more difficult to verify. Furthermore, you have to go to extremis in order to get verifiable results which means you instantly doubt them.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232633#Comment_119232633

Maybe. I think the social sciences are often corrupted by confirmation bias.. affecting the outcome of the research due to what you expect to believe to be true. Sure, some researchers are honest enough to acknowledge their own bias, but the remainder? I'm not so sure. Our society has shifted so much over the last few decades, and we're to believe the researchers so dedicated to these topics don't have their own expectations for results? yeah. right. At least with actual science, results can be repeated, and be proven to be true. That's not the case with the social sciences, or even psychology.

Plus, where the funding comes from is important. It's no different to the research which "proved" for decades that Tobacco & Alcohol in the US weren't dangerous or addictive. The US has so much invested in Psychological disorders whether it's the management of those disorders through Psychology/counselling, or the Pharmaceutical companies pimping their wares. The fact that doctors and psychologists sell the medicine (as they often have connections with the Pharma companies) to patients is disturbing.

What are Transpeople so heavily involved in? Psychology, social science, and... drug/medicine usage. Anyone seeking to transition will spend a lot of money on hormones and other medicines over the course of their transition... along with a lot of counselling/psych evaluations to manage their transition. Plenty of money there to be made.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232766#Comment_119232766

Confirmation bias is an excellent point.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232766#Comment_119232766

The thing is, I don't disagree with Gender Dysphoria, it certainly exists, and I certainly think that in a general sense, a population under pressure and stress, such as the human one is currently, will have an increased incidence of Gender Dysphoria, that is a perfectly natural situation.

However, and this is where I agree with you. Confirmation bias in relation to treatment and outcome looks like it could be an issue, based on the Tavistock situation. The BBC report from last year is sobering reading.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56539466

Based on what I can find out, the science of Gender Dysphoria is proven, the usefulness of puberty blockers in treating some sufferers appears to be proven, however, the science of identifying those who should be treated and separating them from those who have other issues, as well as determining whether there are more appropriate treatments has just been one big trial and error so far, with nobody knowing the long-term consequences.

John Doe1

By all means, if it makes these people happier they can get as much chemical and surgical enhancement as they need (although giving such strong and life-changing drugs to children is child abuse in my opinion).

Still though, a trans man is not the same as a man and a trans woman is not the same as a woman.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232808#Comment_119232808

Yes, but I can appreciate Transhumanism though. It's based on the use of technological advancement to achieve their goals. Not relying of soft science, and belief. When they achieve what they want, they'll turn around and prove it to us using science. Not pop science. Not social science. But hard science.

Whether it's morally right or wrong.. it's far too early to tell. I remember the "Lawnmower man", quite well. 😁

StupidLikeAFox

If you are a grown adult and want to make these changes I'd say fair enough.

But kids are so young - they believe in toy story, superheroes and aliens and all sorts of stuff, how could you trust them to understand the complexity of gender, let alone put them through life changing surgery to change their genitals and block the natural course of puberty? They legally can't be trusted to drink a beer, drive a car, vote, consent to sex - I really don't understand it

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232861#Comment_119232861

The thing is, I don't disagree with Gender Dysphoria, it certainly exists, and I certainly think that in a general sense, a population under pressure and stress, such as the human one is currently, will have an increased incidence of Gender Dysphoria, that is a perfectly natural situation.

Of course it exists. It's existed for centuries, in one form or another. However, the Trans movement has taken what happens to a miniscule number of people and used it to justify their claims, as if it's something that is far more common. Which I don't believe it to be.

Based on what I can find out, the science of Gender Dysphoria is proven, the usefulness of puberty blockers in treating some sufferers appears to be proven, however, the science of identifying those who should be treated and separating them from those who have other issues, as well as determining whether there are more appropriate treatments has just been one big trial and error so far, with nobody knowing the long-term consequences.

Some people. It works for some people. Or it alleviates the problems for some people. It's not a solution. It's a suggestion for an extended period of treatment. And what happens to those that it doesn't work for? What are the wide range of side effects like your kidneys shutting down, or pissing blood? Because that's what these kind of medical drug treatments do. They all have side effects, that the doctors are, somehow, not responsible for..

There is so much when it comes to medicine that is taken on faith. Or simply trial and error. I spent 6 months suffering through different cocktails of drugs provided by specialists in their fields, just to try resolve my shaking disorder. They didn't resolve it, and I'm left with permanent damage to my kidneys, and lungs because of the drug infusions they prescribed/administered.

It is shocking just how much is allowed to pass... and when it comes to puberty blockers, they're messing with something more complicated, and less understood than "common" conditions, which still involves a lot of trial&error, and unintended consequences.

Nah. While I agree that Gender Dysphoria exists for a tiny number of people, I would say that people have been influenced/encouraged to claim it for themselves, when they wouldn't have done so normally. And the treatments administered are often poorly considered, and those involved aren't terribly concerned with the long-term effects.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232946#Comment_119232946

I agree. They're adults, and can do whatever they want to themselves. But that stops when it involves other people. Then, they're a minority playing by the rules that suits the majority.

And totally yes.. giving any of this **** to children, or encouraging children to declare themselves to be Trans, should be a criminal act, and dealt as harshly as an abuse case.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232396#Comment_119232396

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119232396#Comment_119232396

One of the papers linked to was done by a paediatric endocrinology clinic. Is that not real science?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119233447#Comment_119233447

Sure, it is..

...and as I said there is a rather large amount of trial/error along with assumptions made within western medicine.

Also, it a repeat of other examples of behaviour. Take one example of acceptance or scientific reasoning and use that to justify a wide range of other treatments which are completely unrelated to the first study.

conorhal

AhHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaaaa....

Keep it up OP, continue to push to allow munchie parents to have their children's natural development arrested. The more you push this angle the quicker people will wake up to the harm this is doing to both to individuals and society and the quicker it will be banned. It's just sad that we will have destroyed thousands of young people’s lives in the meantime, but I suppose that will be the basis for enriching a whole generation of lawyers when the inevitable tribunals of enquiry begin and the question, 'how did the state allow this to be inflicted on children?' is asked.

30 years from now the reputation of many an LGBT organization will be no better then that of the Catholic church today.

UID0

Based on the abstracts, both of those papers have significant issues in how they were performed. Costa uses the CGAS as the measure of effectiveness of the treatment, but this is a qualitative number determined by the clinician after an interview with the child. To be used effectively, the rating should be done by a clinician who is unaware of the treatment plan in place for the child. If not, there is the risk of bias (conscious or subconscious) being introduced into the measurement.

Allen has no mention of any other supports put in place, which means there is no attempt to control for the beneficial effect of other aspects of treatment.

The data presented doesn't support the conclusion that hormonal treatments are an effective treatment for Gender Dysphoria or other gender incongruency issues in adolescents. To adequately support that would require a double blind test, for which obtaining ethical approval would be very difficult.

The Lancet Puberty suppression in transgender children and adolescents - The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology quotes research showing that 39% of pre-pubescents referred for gender incongruency had a persistent transgender identity in adolescence or young adulthood. Without medical intervention, their identity issues either resolve or get worse. Figures like that show that there is a requirement to be very careful about the use of permanent medical interventions for children who present as transgender. What is needed is therapy where the child is allowed to explore what their identity means to them, and to come to terms with who they are and to explore the positives and negatives of any future plans they are considering. It is important that his is done in a non-judgmental, but also not unequivocally affirming and reinforcing form, as ultimately the child will have to make a choice on if their best option is to learn to live in their biological sex, or to transition to their preferred gender.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119231892#Comment_119231892

On the article quoted in this, opposite sex twins in multiple species can have issues to to the hormones to which they are exposed in utero. In cattle, there is the freemartin (Freemartin - Wikipedia) which is an infertile female animal with male behaviours due to the exchange of genetic material with their male twin. This article is interesting, but the conclusion is slightly over-reaching, in that there is no attempt to remove the nature v nurture possibility, and would be better expressed as "These findings suggest the possibility of a role for genetic factors in the development of GID, which requires further research"

plodder

Research in the social sciences is notoriously difficult with results often found to be unrepeatable. Contentious subjects like this are even worse. I don't know anything about the studies mentioned in the OP, but some recent studies* have been criticised for their data not supporting the published conclusions

The ongoing Cass review in the UK is studying the science. So far, they've said that there are "gaps in the evidence base" so they can't recommend one way or the other yet, with respect to medicating children.

Also, Sweden and Finland have stopped the use of blockers and hormones in children, due to concerns about the poor quality of the science. I think France may be going the same direction.

https://cass.independent-review.uk

* https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/researchers-found-puberty-blockers