I really, fundamentally hate that I feel compelled to do so much research on this subject; but, I do think that this is a part of history upon which we'll look back and have to apologize to a younger generation of people who are owed more than just an apology.
So, "detransition" and "desistance" are different words because they mean different things. Surprise! Right?
Blurring the lines between these words and concepts is common among the child butchers in our society, because it's the only way that they can pretend that they're not mutilating children.
Yes, under some definitions, very few trans people regret transitioning. Chloe Cole and KC Miller are statistically rare examples of people who started transitioning as minors and decided to go back slightly later in life.
This is the first layer to peel back though. The child butchers like to dismiss these people because they're allegedly so rare. I've know people who used to be so proud of their dismissals of these young women, who had their breasts removed at thirteen or fifteen, and got pumped full of drugs because they thought that they wanted to be men during a confusing time in anyone's life, that they would comment on links to these stories proudly declaring that they wouldn't look at it. There justification of the wilful ignorance was always that the stories are rare.
Well, the stories are becoming less rare. They're gonna get a lot less rare if we butcher more children on the basis of gender ideology. Still, even if we are only talking about 2%, why don't they matter as individuals? Why shouldn't we care that Chloe Cole and KC Miller may never be able to have kids, and that they'll definitely never be able to breast feed those kids, all because of decisions that they made far before they could legally consent to a tattoo, or to have sex, or anything like that?
At this point, any honest person who has done any reading knows that the question of, "Would you rather your kid be dead or trans?" is psychological abuse of both the parents and the children. It should be absurd on its face to receive a claim that the choice is between cutting off your child's breasts or having the child kill herself. It should raise red flags if somebody tells you that chemically sterilizing a child is the only way to save his or her life. Yet, there are always people ready to beat this drum.
I don't think that people are being honest that their dismissiveness of detransition stories is based out of a measurable factor of rarity. I think that detransitiononers are simply viewed by these people, not as individuals with real stories, but apostates to their religion.
Even if I'm wrong there, and I'm not. But, even if I am, it's hard to miss that most leftist media outlets downplay desistance rates. Most conflate the words. A lot label talking about desistance rates as being right-wing.
The reality is that we have to actually look at this, and be honest.
Most of the desistance numbers regarding gender-dysphoria start at a prepubescent age, and show that above sixty percent desist through puberty. The majority of males grow up to be homosexual. The jury is still out on females; because, female to male transition has always been a much smaller dataset.
I don't think that any of these people are being honest when they conflate the terms, or label desistance numbers as "right-wing."
If you bury desistance and bolster detransition numbers, you get to cook the books.
Detransition is obviously going to be rare while we still have our brains attached. So long as we're only drugging and cutting open adults, we're only polling people who have reached sexual maturity and still decided to transition.
Next to nobody in the Western World cares if a thirty-year-old male decides to get his balls cut off and his shaft turned inside out, because he wants to live life as a woman. Even legitimate bigots aren't gonna be crusading against that.
Almost everybody has bigger concerns in life.
The other way that they get to cook the books is by reducing the dataset to people who started all of these drugs and hormones and surgeries as minors, and never got to sexually mature. It's hard to regret something that you can never and have never experienced. If you ignore desistance, you get to point to all the kids that you brainwashed before the age of twelve, who "hopefully" are still somewhat ignorant of sex, never experienced sexual maturity, and were never mentally mature enough to decide what their sexual and reproductive futures may look like, before the people who should have been the adults in the room pumped the breaks on all of this abuse.
The numbers regarding desistance are deeply important because they include kids who had adults in the room who weren't pedophiles, diddlers, and ideologues.
You don't need a PhD or an MD to know that sexual maturity is largely physical, it happens through puberty. You would have to be off your fucking rocker to think that puberty blockers and hormones will throw a biological male into female puberty, or vice-versa.
The kids who eventually desisted are the kids who were allowed to go through puberty, and reach physical sexual maturity rather than having that process ripped away from them by adults who should know better. They're kids who were allowed to become adults and make their own decisions about their own bodies.
The physical differences between boys are minute before puberty. Puberty sucks for everybody. Still, it should be a surprise to nobody that prepubescent boys who want to wear dresses and play with dolls, and girls who want to play sports and play with trucks, may think differently after their bodies do what they're naturally supposed to do.
That's why most kids who are properly left alone desist.
So, why the lies?
I don't know.
It definitely makes the wokester talking points more palatable if desistance isn't in our vocabulary.
This is incredibly useful manipulation by the wokesters. They get to say, "This person made the decision never wanting kids." while knowing full damn well that the kid was deprived of the choice. It forces good people to do more work.
Yes, I do think that some of these people are just sick in the head. If a kid can consent to adults mutilating his or her genitals, what can't a kid consent to?
Every kid that's convinced to medically transition is a guaranteed quarter of a million dollars thrown at the medical establishment.
"OH, now you're going full conspiracy theorist on us."
Well, yeah.
It's not get hard to find out that there at "medical" conferences giving lectures about how to perform a vaginoplasty on a micro-penis. That means that there's robust research on bottom surgery regarding males who are either children or adults who never went through male puberty. They're not totally out and proud about these conferences being held. You can find them; but, they know that what they're pushing is immoral.
Rachel Levine didn't dodge Rand Paul's questioning out of genuine concern regarding complexity on the issue. Levine dodged the questions because he knows that his answers would be regarded as evil in the minds of anybody with a moral compass. This is a person who has publicly acknowledge that he has his own children, and wouldn't give them up for anything, while publicly pushing at least the chemical sterilization of children on us, and won't deny opposition to physical genital mutilation.
Jeffery Epstein didn't kill himself, and there are people out there who want to get at your kids. These are two conspiracies that are actually true.