Steve Warren at CBN writes California Mother Defends Letting 4-Year-Old Son Transition to a Transgender Girl. Warren actually does a fairly good job outlining the issues:
A San Francisco, California, mother of a now 7-year-old boy is defending his transition to being a girl.
The child, now named “Gracie,” began the transition process at age four.
The boy’s mother, Molly, told public radio station KQED she and her husband tried to discourage their son at first. They “filled her world with trucks and dinosaurs and superheroes,” she told the station.
“Like, ‘No, you can’t be Elsa for Halloween. You have to be Superman. No, you can’t have the dolls for Christmas. …”
Certainty is very characteristic of trans kids:
“As soon as Gracie could tell us, it was, ‘I’m a girl. I’m a sister. I’m a daughter. I’m that girl on that show. I’m that girl in that book. I’m the princess.’ …”
A therapist encouraged the couple to allow the boy to transition to a girl even though the parents questioned whether or not the child might change his mind as he grew older.
But a therapist told them: “What will happen, and what I’m hearing when you describe the insistence of Gracie, is you’re going to end up with a child who’s anxious and depressed and feels ashamed.”
With all that, Warren still manages to explore the mythology:
Research shows 73 to 98 percent of transgender children revert back to their biological gender.
Wrong on both counts. Research demonstrates that a large number of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of the condition. The actual percentages are unknown. However, according to recent research (Dr. Kristina Olson, TransYouth Project), once the condition is severe enough that the child insists on a cross-gender presentation, the desistance rates are minuscule.
Quoting Stanton is never a good idea:
“This is the primary reason the major clinicians who work with such children in the Americas and Europe do not recommend that parents facilitate their children’s desire to transition to the other gender before puberty,” Glenn T. Stanton, director of family formation studies at Focus on the Family, wrote in an article for the Federalist.com. “It would require a troubling and traumatic ‘second transition’ back to their natural gender when they do desist.”
Stanton is not qualified to weigh in on the matter. What he is suggesting is dangerous, untruthful and wrong. Stanton does not name those “major clinicians” because they do not exist. Most children must be treated prior to puberty if the severity of their condition is such that they start to feel compelled to present as their gender. Otherwise, without puberty blockers, they will develop physiology consistent with their natal sex (trans boys developing breasts for example). This creates significant distress. Distress that is unnecessary.
It is obvious that Mr. Stanton has not read the current research.
When the American Association of Pediatrics recommended the gender-affirmative care model, they note:
Often, pubertal suppression creates an opportunity to reduce distress that may occur with the development of secondary sexual characteristics and allow for gender-affirming care, including mental health support for the adolescent and the family. It reduces the need for later surgery because physical changes that are otherwise irreversible (protrusion of the Adam’s apple, male pattern baldness, voice change, breast growth, etc) are prevented. The available data reveal that pubertal suppression in children who identify as TGD generally leads to improved psychological functioning in adolescence and young adulthood.
Who to believe? The Christian crackpot or the world’s leading association of pediatricians?