Evan Urquhart

Yeah, we could have a good old convo about the desistance numbers (spoiler alert- I've directly interviewed Steensma), but I was just talking about adults, here.

I was making reference to your addressing "trans kids" and sports in your article. If most of them do not become trans adults, it's not honest to label them that. "Confused kids likely fixated on something they'll grow out of..."

Most important word in this tweet is "if". Like I said, I've personally interviewed Steensma. He agreed that desistance numbers have been going steadily downward as diagnostic criteria have improved, and really downplayed the difference between his method and affirming methods.

He believes approaches should be individualized and blockers etc can be good tools in the right context, but you have to look at what's best for the individual child & family.

And, he's the desistance guy. He might be a bit more conservative in his watchful waiting approach but it's not the complete different paradigm it's made out to be.

The uncertainty around the issue (w/kids) underscores the ethical problems around sports. Contrary to your claims in the article, many kids participate in sports for reasons other than just health and comaraderie. Not fair to them to blur categories based on self-ID.

If you mean they compete to earn college scholarships, then I reckon you'd be for full inclusion of trans girls as long as they were inelligible for scholarships? I agree that there are complexities to the question, I just don't think there's any justification for outright bans.

Not just concrete things like scholarships, simply the rewards that come from fair competition for a kid's personal development. (Activists only seem to consider the emotional and developmental needs of the "trans" kids and dismiss others.)