For those who want to take a deep dive on the "Rapid Onset Dysphoria" controversy, I highly recommend listening to this 2-part podcast (links #1 and #2; also on Spotify and Apple podcasts). Also, the links provided by the podcast are a gold mine. The third link below is one example; it's a very nuanced look at the issue of detransitioning. We don't know for sure how many trans people transition back, but it appears to be an extremely small number, and sometimes it's done for medical reasons, and/or because they find they are even less socially accepted than before transition. There are obviously still things to be learned about selection for transitioning, and I don't think the community or those who work with them want to go back to the old "gatekeeper" method. Here is what I found most disturbing in this article: "Right-wing groups and media outlets use detrans people to further a transphobic agenda, arguing that their existence invalidates all trans people. It's much like the narrative of the 'ex-gay,' which has been used by the right to argue that being gay is a choice. If it's a choice, the thinking goes, gay people don't need the right to marry, adopt, or serve in the military—they just need to cut it out. The same goes for trans folks..." Let's not go back to those days, please. Just keep learning what the best predictors are of a successful transition, while recognizing there is unlikely to be a perfect predictor, since there is no such thing in any other area of psychology or biology. That is not a reason to go backwards.
Your words…”We don't know for sure how many trans people transition back, but it appears to be an extremely small number, and sometimes it's done for medical reasons, and/or because they find they are even less socially accepted than before transition”
I do not like “we don’t know…but it appears to be”. I hope you are a layperson who has no training in the scientific method. If so, I understand. Otherwise, yikes!
The point is that we don't know because the data does not exist. That's a problem, and I stated there are still things we need to learn about factors that predict a successful transition, the implication being that more research is needed. But we do know some things:
"Sobshrink" are you a mental health professional? If so, do you work with children? I am curious about the knowledge base informing your comment here. (There has definitely been a massive shift in how these concerns are both conceptualized and taught with the move from DSM4 to 5...)
Yes, I'm a (mostly retired but still some consulting) school psychologist. As you may know, we use IDEA for identification criteria, not DSM, and gender dysphoria, rapid onset or otherwise, is not a category of IDEA. I also have a private practice license, so I did need to learn DSM. I'm familiar with the evolution of this category/classification, and it will probably continue to change as we learn more. But for now, neither DSM-5, nor ICD, nor any major professional organization, recognizes the existence of ROGD due to a lack of rigorous evidence.
"Right-wing groups and media outlets use detrans people to further a transphobic agenda,"
I'm tired of this messaging. All that does is degrade the message that many detransitioners have which is that they feel that they were rushed into transitioning, that their psychological issues which had nothing to do with gender were never addressed, and that they feel like they are the victims of medical malpractice. And in fact some of them are suing and laws in Great Britain and Europe are changing because of their experiences.
"They feel that they were rushed into transitioning." Please define "rushed" because all I hear about the British medical system is that it takes FOREVER to get ANYTHING done. We're not far behind here. I'm tired of the messaging that transitioning is rushed. In fact, it is NOT rushed, and in some countries, there are long waits to even get in for the first visit. Even in the US where wait times generally aren't as long, responsible practitioners do not "rush" people through the process, as it involves a behavioral health evaluation and presenting full time in one's chosen gender identity for 1 year before genital procedures. If the person is a minor, there are additional requirements for psychological assessment/treatment, and can only be done with parental consent. If psychological issues not related to gender are found during the evaluation, of course they should be addressed. But it is not unreasonable for people who are so often socially rejected as trans people to be anxious and/or depressed. When this is the case, if they are not allowed to have surgery until their depression/anxiety is gone, this is like a double rejection. It can and has led to suicide. Personally, I'm tired of preventable suicide. There may be exceptions, as there are always a few bad apples in every profession. If any practitioner fails to follow WPATH's Standards of Care, they SHOULD be sued.
Nope. You don't need that here. You can get prescribed puberty blockers after a single intake and no meeting with a psychologist depending on the place.
And frankly 1 year is way too short to do genital procedures. That's crazy. I wouldn't get married after dating someone only 1 year either and that's at least undoable.
Regarding the article on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, James Cantor published an article entitled “Do Trans Kids Stay Trans?” He described and posted 10 different studies which all came to a similar conclusion. 75-80% of children identifying as trans in childhood do not identify as trans by age 18-20. About half of those “desisting” identify as gay. By medicating and performing surgery on children, are we destroying the bodies of many who will later not identify as trans?
I'm now participating in my 3rd ADNI study at Yale. My Mother's family had Alzheimer's and I want to help in anyway I can to further a cure or at least materially slowing the process. I've read that the massive investment and focus in Tau and Amyloid is misplaced and there are other investments in solutions that are underfunded. I've even heard (but not read) that as funding was moving away from Tau and Amyloid a study, later determined to be flawed, put it back on track, What is your perspective and what other hypotheses should be funded? I wonder if I am wasting my time participating in ever increasingly detailed studies of a flawed hypothesis.
I just listened to a podcast on that topic that just came out. I highly recommend it, and the first link below will take you to a summary, and from there you can click on Spotify, Apple podcasts or YouTube to listen. Dr. Dayspring is one of the top lipidologists in the country, and it has become increasingly clear that cardiovascular health and brain health go hand in hand. The other doctor interviewed, Kellyanne Niotis, is the first and so far only preventive neurologist in the country who specializes in preventing dementia. She explains the current thinking about Amyloid and Tau. They plan to do a follow-up podcast because they didn't get to all of the 14 modifiable risk factors mentioned in the recent Lancet article (2nd link).
1. Dr. Chris Exley was using bioavailable silica (Fiji water or Volvic water) to remove Alumiminum from the body including the brain. My understanding is that he's had a couple of Alzheimer's patients who've improved after 1 month of drinking these.
2. Paleo/low carb diet on the theory that Alzheimer's is "diabetes type 3". Again, it sounds like some people have had success with this as a treatment. I haven't gotten to reading this yet, but this is the book:
The End of Alzheimer's Program: The First Protocol to Enhance Cognition and Reverse Decline at Any Age Hardcover – Illustrated, August 18, 2020 by Dale Bredesen
Kim, have you looked into phosphatidyl choline? I did genetic testing and came back as APOE E3/E4 which means higher risk of Alzheimer's, AND two of four genes (PEMT) for lower phosphatidyl choline. My understanding is that the two may be linked.
I'm 53, going through menopause, and have been having memory issues where I search for words or names (could take 5-15 minutes to recall). I started taking PC and - only 1 week in, so data is limited - I have not had any incidents this week. Normally I have them every 2-3 days. I've had a couple of times this week where I was talking to my kids and had to stop what I was doing on the computer and think of the word, but it only took 2-3 seconds once I focussed on what I was trying to say.
Wondering whether this was a good strategic move to say it was strategic :)
For those who want to take a deep dive on the "Rapid Onset Dysphoria" controversy, I highly recommend listening to this 2-part podcast (links #1 and #2; also on Spotify and Apple podcasts). Also, the links provided by the podcast are a gold mine. The third link below is one example; it's a very nuanced look at the issue of detransitioning. We don't know for sure how many trans people transition back, but it appears to be an extremely small number, and sometimes it's done for medical reasons, and/or because they find they are even less socially accepted than before transition. There are obviously still things to be learned about selection for transitioning, and I don't think the community or those who work with them want to go back to the old "gatekeeper" method. Here is what I found most disturbing in this article: "Right-wing groups and media outlets use detrans people to further a transphobic agenda, arguing that their existence invalidates all trans people. It's much like the narrative of the 'ex-gay,' which has been used by the right to argue that being gay is a choice. If it's a choice, the thinking goes, gay people don't need the right to marry, adopt, or serve in the military—they just need to cut it out. The same goes for trans folks..." Let's not go back to those days, please. Just keep learning what the best predictors are of a successful transition, while recognizing there is unlikely to be a perfect predictor, since there is no such thing in any other area of psychology or biology. That is not a reason to go backwards.
https://maintenancephase.buzzsprout.com/1411126/episodes/15036559-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-part-1-the-cooties-theory-of-transgender-identity
https://maintenancephase.buzzsprout.com/1411126/episodes/15267093-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-part-2-panic-at-the-endocrinologist
https://www.thestranger.com/features/2017/06/28/25252342/the-detransitioners-they-were-transgender-until-they-werent
Your words…”We don't know for sure how many trans people transition back, but it appears to be an extremely small number, and sometimes it's done for medical reasons, and/or because they find they are even less socially accepted than before transition”
I do not like “we don’t know…but it appears to be”. I hope you are a layperson who has no training in the scientific method. If so, I understand. Otherwise, yikes!
The point is that we don't know because the data does not exist. That's a problem, and I stated there are still things we need to learn about factors that predict a successful transition, the implication being that more research is needed. But we do know some things:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213007/?fbclid=IwAR0ygYkzhbnO4Gnhy4Wf2arvy3hF9OVDh03CB2KhJi7z5NvraWzux5outjQ
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9516050/
"Sobshrink" are you a mental health professional? If so, do you work with children? I am curious about the knowledge base informing your comment here. (There has definitely been a massive shift in how these concerns are both conceptualized and taught with the move from DSM4 to 5...)
Yes, I'm a (mostly retired but still some consulting) school psychologist. As you may know, we use IDEA for identification criteria, not DSM, and gender dysphoria, rapid onset or otherwise, is not a category of IDEA. I also have a private practice license, so I did need to learn DSM. I'm familiar with the evolution of this category/classification, and it will probably continue to change as we learn more. But for now, neither DSM-5, nor ICD, nor any major professional organization, recognizes the existence of ROGD due to a lack of rigorous evidence.
"Right-wing groups and media outlets use detrans people to further a transphobic agenda,"
I'm tired of this messaging. All that does is degrade the message that many detransitioners have which is that they feel that they were rushed into transitioning, that their psychological issues which had nothing to do with gender were never addressed, and that they feel like they are the victims of medical malpractice. And in fact some of them are suing and laws in Great Britain and Europe are changing because of their experiences.
"They feel that they were rushed into transitioning." Please define "rushed" because all I hear about the British medical system is that it takes FOREVER to get ANYTHING done. We're not far behind here. I'm tired of the messaging that transitioning is rushed. In fact, it is NOT rushed, and in some countries, there are long waits to even get in for the first visit. Even in the US where wait times generally aren't as long, responsible practitioners do not "rush" people through the process, as it involves a behavioral health evaluation and presenting full time in one's chosen gender identity for 1 year before genital procedures. If the person is a minor, there are additional requirements for psychological assessment/treatment, and can only be done with parental consent. If psychological issues not related to gender are found during the evaluation, of course they should be addressed. But it is not unreasonable for people who are so often socially rejected as trans people to be anxious and/or depressed. When this is the case, if they are not allowed to have surgery until their depression/anxiety is gone, this is like a double rejection. It can and has led to suicide. Personally, I'm tired of preventable suicide. There may be exceptions, as there are always a few bad apples in every profession. If any practitioner fails to follow WPATH's Standards of Care, they SHOULD be sued.
https://www.hcplive.com/view/suicide-risk-reduces-73-transgender-nonbinary-youths-gender-affirming-care
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(24)00236-0/fulltext
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-61605588
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644
"as it involves a behavioral health evaluation"
Nope. You don't need that here. You can get prescribed puberty blockers after a single intake and no meeting with a psychologist depending on the place.
And frankly 1 year is way too short to do genital procedures. That's crazy. I wouldn't get married after dating someone only 1 year either and that's at least undoable.
Regarding the article on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, James Cantor published an article entitled “Do Trans Kids Stay Trans?” He described and posted 10 different studies which all came to a similar conclusion. 75-80% of children identifying as trans in childhood do not identify as trans by age 18-20. About half of those “desisting” identify as gay. By medicating and performing surgery on children, are we destroying the bodies of many who will later not identify as trans?
I was wondering about that :) Thanks for letting us know.
I'm now participating in my 3rd ADNI study at Yale. My Mother's family had Alzheimer's and I want to help in anyway I can to further a cure or at least materially slowing the process. I've read that the massive investment and focus in Tau and Amyloid is misplaced and there are other investments in solutions that are underfunded. I've even heard (but not read) that as funding was moving away from Tau and Amyloid a study, later determined to be flawed, put it back on track, What is your perspective and what other hypotheses should be funded? I wonder if I am wasting my time participating in ever increasingly detailed studies of a flawed hypothesis.
I just listened to a podcast on that topic that just came out. I highly recommend it, and the first link below will take you to a summary, and from there you can click on Spotify, Apple podcasts or YouTube to listen. Dr. Dayspring is one of the top lipidologists in the country, and it has become increasingly clear that cardiovascular health and brain health go hand in hand. The other doctor interviewed, Kellyanne Niotis, is the first and so far only preventive neurologist in the country who specializes in preventing dementia. She explains the current thinking about Amyloid and Tau. They plan to do a follow-up podcast because they didn't get to all of the 14 modifiable risk factors mentioned in the recent Lancet article (2nd link).
https://theproof.com/cholesterol-and-dementia-dr-kellyann-niotis-md-and-dr-thomas-dayspring-md/
https://www.thelancet.com/infographics-do/dementia-risk
PS: Other things I've heard can help -
1. Dr. Chris Exley was using bioavailable silica (Fiji water or Volvic water) to remove Alumiminum from the body including the brain. My understanding is that he's had a couple of Alzheimer's patients who've improved after 1 month of drinking these.
2. Paleo/low carb diet on the theory that Alzheimer's is "diabetes type 3". Again, it sounds like some people have had success with this as a treatment. I haven't gotten to reading this yet, but this is the book:
The End of Alzheimer's Program: The First Protocol to Enhance Cognition and Reverse Decline at Any Age Hardcover – Illustrated, August 18, 2020 by Dale Bredesen
Kim, have you looked into phosphatidyl choline? I did genetic testing and came back as APOE E3/E4 which means higher risk of Alzheimer's, AND two of four genes (PEMT) for lower phosphatidyl choline. My understanding is that the two may be linked.
I'm 53, going through menopause, and have been having memory issues where I search for words or names (could take 5-15 minutes to recall). I started taking PC and - only 1 week in, so data is limited - I have not had any incidents this week. Normally I have them every 2-3 days. I've had a couple of times this week where I was talking to my kids and had to stop what I was doing on the computer and think of the word, but it only took 2-3 seconds once I focussed on what I was trying to say.
I want to thank you. Kim
What is PC?
phosphatidyl choline