Content uploaded by Amy C. Tishelman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Amy C. Tishelman on Aug 14, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Editor’s Corner
Human Development 2013;56:285–290
DOI: 10.1159/000355235
The Gender Affirmative Model: What We
Know and What We Aim to Learn
Marco A. Hidalgo a Diane Ehrensaft b Amy C. Tishelman c
Leslie F. Clark
d Robert Garofalo a Stephen M. Rosenthal b
Norman P. Spack
c Johanna Olson d
a Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago/Feinberg School of Medicine,
Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill. ,
b University of California San Francisco Medical
Center, San Francisco, Calif. ,
c Boston Children’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School,
Boston, Mass. , and
d Children’s Hospital Los Angeles/Keck School of Medicine, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif. , USA
In the summer of 2013, Dr. Jack Drescher published an editorial opinion about
gender-nonconforming children in the New York Times in which he stated: ‘‘Cur-
rently experts can’t tell apart kids who outgrow gender dysphoria (desisters) from
those who do not (persisters), and how to treat them is controversial’’ [Drescher,
2013, p. 1]. As members of a four-site child gender clinic group, we concur with Dr.
Drescher regarding the controversy, but take issue with his assessment of experts and
their inability to differentially assess ‘‘persisters’’ and ‘‘desisters’’ in childhood. We
would like to take this opportunity to outline the gender affirmative model from
which we practice, dispel myths about this model, and briefly outline the state of
knowledge in our field regarding facilitators of healthy psychosocial development in
gender-nonconforming children. The major premises informing our modes of prac-
tice include: (a) gender variations are not disorders; (b) gender presentations are di-
verse and varied across cultures, therefore requiring our cultural sensitivity; (c) to the
best of our knowledge at present, gender involves an interweaving of biology, devel-
opment and socialization, and culture and context, with all three bearing on any in-
dividual’s gender self; (d) gender may be fluid, and is not binary, both at a particular
time and if and when it changes within an individual across time; (e) if there is pathol-
ogy, it more often stems from cultural reactions (e.g., transphobia, homophobia, sex-
ism) rather than from within the child.
Our goals within this model are to listen to the child and decipher with the help
of parents or caregivers what the child is communicating about both gender identity
and gender expressions. We define gender identity as the gender the child articulates
Diane Ehrensaft
445 Bellevue Avenue, Suite 302
Oakland, CA 94610 (USA)
E-Mail dehrensaft @ earthlink.net
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
0018–716X/13/0565–0285$38.00/0
www.karger.com/hde
E-Mail karger@karger.com
Downloaded by:
209.6.138.29 - 3/4/2014 4:27:12 AM
Human Development 2013;56:285–290
DOI: 10.1159/000355235
286 Hidalgo /Ehrensaft /Tishelman /Clark /Garofalo /
Rosenthal
/Spack /Olson
as being – male, female, or something else. Research and our clinical experience sug-
gest that many children develop a strong sense of gender identity at a young age. In
most children, that identification will match the sex assigned on the child’s birth
certificate, but in a small minority the affirmed gender will be other than that assign-
ment. Learning from the work of Milton Diamond [2000], we understand gender
identity, both in its match and mismatch with assigned natal sex, as primarily in-
formed by a child’s cognitions and emotions, rather than by genitalia and observable
external sex characteristics. Gender identity is then to be differentiated from gender
expressions: the manner in which a child presents gender to the world – physical ap-
pearance, toys chosen, preferred playmates and activities. The category ‘‘gender-
nonconforming children’’ embraces all children exploring, questioning, or asserting
their gender identities and/or their gender expressions outside of cultural expecta-
tions. By differentiating gender expressions from gender identities, we have a tool
for sorting out the children who are insistent, persistent, and consistent in their af-
firmation of a cross-gender identity from those children who are either asserting or
exploring gender-nonconforming expressions within acceptance of their natal gen-
der assignment.
We have worked to dispel the myth that gender identity formation is synony-
mous with sexual identity formation (i.e., sexual orientation). Simply put, sexual
identity refers to the gender(s) one is romantically and/or sexually attracted to, while
gender identity has to do with what gender you are. These are two separate lines of
development, albeit ones with crossovers for certain children. For example, many
young boys explore the margins of gender identity on the way to later discovering
their gay sexual identities; these boys will often fall within the category of desisters,
shedding either their earlier gender nonconformity or dysphoria and developing into
males who identify as gay [Ehrensaft, 2011].
In this model, gender health is defined as a child’s opportunity to live in the
gender that feels most real or comfortable to that child and to express that gender
with freedom from restriction, aspersion, or rejection. Children not allowed these
freedoms by agents within their developmental systems (e.g., family, peers, school)
are at later risk for developing a downward cascade of psychosocial adversities in-
cluding depressive symptoms, low life satisfaction, self-harm, isolation, homeless-
ness, incarceration, posttraumatic stress, and suicide ideation and attempts [D’Au-
gelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2006; Garofalo, Deleon, Osmer, Doll, & Harper, 2006;
Roberts, Rosario, Corliss, Koenen, & Bryn Austin, 2012; Skidmore, Linsenmeier, &
Bailey, 2006; Toomey, Ryan, Díaz, Card, & Russell, 2010; Travers et al., 2012]. While
the developmental impact of our approach has yet to be rigorously studied, some
evidence suggests that gender-nonconforming children are negatively impacted
when given the message by therapists, doctors, or families that their gender expres-
sion must conform to traditional gender roles associated with their birth-assigned
gender [Hill, Menvielle, Sica, & Johnson, 2010]. Psychotherapies attempting to
tweak a child’s gender identity or expressions have been shown to suppress authen-
tic gender expression and create psychological symptoms [Bryant, 2006; Green,
Newman, & Stoller, 1972]. What we can deduce is that these psychotherapies are
unsuccessful because they aim to alter a child’s emerging gender identity (i.e., an in-
ternal sense of self) by attempting to change the child’s nonconforming gender ex-
pression (i.e., a behavior). Similar behavioral efforts to change aspects of sexual iden-
tity (i.e., reparative psychotherapies for homosexuality) have also proven unsuccess-
Downloaded by:
209.6.138.29 - 3/4/2014 4:27:12 AM
Gender Affirmative Model
287
Human Development 2013;56:285–290
DOI: 10.1159/000355235
ful, deleterious, and lacking in efficacy [for a review, see Anton, 2010]. Professional
health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the
American Psychiatric Association (APA), and the American Psychological Associa-
tion, recommend against implementing such change efforts in clinical care [AAP,
1993; Anton, 2010; APA, 2000].
Newly emerging evidence indicating the positive influence of family acceptance
on the psychosocial well-being of gender-nonconforming and transgender youth
supports our gender-affirming model of care [Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Díaz, & Sán-
chez, 2010; Travers et al., 2012]. In a study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
young adults, reports of family acceptance related to sexual and gender identity/
expression during adolescence were associated with positive self-esteem, increased
social support, and overall health in early adulthood [Ryan et al., 2010]. Family ac-
ceptance was also found to protect youth against negative psychosocial health vulner-
abilities commonly faced by gender-nonconforming and transgender youth (includ-
ing depression, substance abuse, and suicidality). More recently, in a sample com-
prised exclusively of gender-nonconforming and transgender youth, those who
reported their families as being strongly supportive of their gender identity and ex-
pression in childhood endorsed more positive mental health, less depressive symp-
toms, high self-esteem and life satisfaction in later adolescence compared with those
whose families were non-supportive [Travers et al., 2012]. As concluded by the au-
thors: ‘‘… anything less than strong support may have deleterious effects on a child’s
well-being’’ (p. 3). If that is so, we need to dispel the myths that confuse families and
prevent that support from occurring.
Myths about the Gender Affirmative Model
Two myths regarding a gender-affirming approach misrepresent its underlying
beliefs and assumptions. We outline these myths here.
Myth No. 1: Gender-affirming approaches conflate gender identity and gender ex-
pression; therefore, any child who exhibits gender nonconformity is believed to be trans-
gender.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Given that the gender affirmative mod-
el purports that gender presentations are diverse and varied, gender identity itself is
multiple in its possibilities, and can be paired with infinitely varied presentations. We
recognize that non-transgender individuals express their identities in manifold ways,
and embrace the welcome diversity that this facilitates. We also acknowledge that the
majority of gender-nonconforming children presenting for clinical care related to
gender dysphoria are desisters unlikely to mature into transgender individuals [de
Vries, Steensma, Doreleijers, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2011; Drummond, Bradley, Peter-
son-Badali, & Zucker, 2008; Green, 1987; Steensma, McGuire, Kreukels, Beekman, &
Cohen-Kettenis, 2013; Wallien & Cohen-Kettenis, 2008; Zucker & Bradley, 1995].
Thus, we dispute the notion that any child who exhibits nonconforming gender ex-
pression be considered transgender. Our stance, as gender-affirming practitioners, is
that children should be helped to live as they are most comfortable. For a gender-
nonconforming child, determining what is most comfortable is often a fluid process,
Downloaded by:
209.6.138.29 - 3/4/2014 4:27:12 AM
Human Development 2013;56:285–290
DOI: 10.1159/000355235
288 Hidalgo /Ehrensaft /Tishelman /Clark /Garofalo /
Rosenthal
/Spack /Olson
and can modify over time. Therefore, in a gender affirmative model, gender identity
and expression are enabled to unfold over time, as a child matures, acknowledging
and allowing for fluidity and change. Support, problem-solving, communication and
acceptance can facilitate a child’s self-understanding and choices, and allow time and
space for exploration and self-acceptance within an infinite variety of authentic gen-
der selves, whether it be in identity, expression, or both. To the extent possible, par-
ents and others should be supported to endure what can be a confusing and socially
challenging period.
Myth No. 2: The gender affirmative model asserts that gender identity and gender
expression are immutable and removed from social context or influence.
This myth of ‘‘essentialism’’ suggests that our approach endorses gender iden-
tity as fixed at or before birth and that no outside forces help shape or influence a
child’s identity or expression. To the contrary, we recognize that all elements of a
child’s sense of self – their self-beliefs, emotional responses, cognitions, perceptions,
expressions and assertions – develop and are informed by a complex interplay of cul-
tural, social, geographic, and interpersonal factors [Bronfenbrenner, 1979]. The gen-
der affirmative model holds central an awareness of prevailing societal norms per-
taining to gender identity and gender expression. These norms, present even in lan-
guage and pronoun structures, support a binary interpretation of gender (e.g., male
vs. female). Children with nonconforming gender expression (whether or not they
exhibit gender dysphoria) are at odds with prevailing gender norms. Those whose
behaviors (and/or dysphoria) ‘‘persist’’ do so even while vulnerable to facing consid-
erable isolation and disdain from family, peers and others, and often without many
media models or others with whom to identify. This suggests a strong constitutional
component for gender-nonconforming children, albeit one never exempt from envi-
ronmental forces. Our objective is to support gender-nonconforming children in
what may be fundamental to all elements of their sense of self. This understanding
informs our model’s premises that gender presentations are fluid and changing over
time as well as our orientation that, to the extent possible, children should be com-
fortable to freely explore a range of gender identities and expressions without external
and rejecting forces impinging upon them.
From Shattering Myths to Taking Action
The fields of medicine and psychology are only beginning to uncover the devel-
opmental trajectory of gender identity and expression in gender-nonconforming
children. We have much to learn about the healthy development of these children
and their families. For example, what are the comparative developmental outcomes
of the various approaches for treating gender-nonconforming children and youth?
Can we provide a fuller, accurate developmental picture distinguishing gender-non-
conforming children who are transgender from gender-nonconforming children
who may not be transgender? Is there any psychological harm done if a child transi-
tions from one gender to another and then transitions back? What are the outcomes
of receiving (or not receiving) psychosocial or medical interventions characteristic
of gender-affirming support, which may include reversible pubertal suppression
Downloaded by:
209.6.138.29 - 3/4/2014 4:27:12 AM
Gender Affirmative Model
289
Human Development 2013;56:285–290
DOI: 10.1159/000355235
therapy and irreversible cross-sex hormone therapy? Can we identify resilience fac-
tors and psychosocial risk factors in gender-nonconforming children and their fam-
ilies? What are the effects, both positive and negative, of the family, peer, socio-eco-
nomic, and socio-cultural systems in which gender-nonconforming children devel-
op? Are there instances in which a child’s beliefs about gender identity can become
confused by family and social forces, and how can we help to account for and coun-
ter such forces?
We invite other theoreticians and practitioners to consider the premises we have
laid forth for the gender affirmative model, and the rationale supporting them. We
also encourage the development of informal, multidisciplinary networks, such as our
own, comprised of providers who abide by a gender-affirming model of care, are cu-
rious about finding answers to the questions about the gender-nonconforming chil-
dren and youth we serve, and are eminently guided by the oath of our professions: to
‘‘do no harm.’’ Together, we hope to make a positive difference in the lives of these
children and families and in society at large so that gender in all its iterations can
flourish.
References
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (AAP) (1993). Homosexuality and adoles-
cence. Pediatrics, 92, 631–634.
American Psychiatric Association (APA) (2000). Therapies focused on attempts to change sexual orienta-
tion (reparative or conversion therapies): Position statement. http://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Li-
brary/Advocacy%20and%20Newsroom/Position%20Statements/ps2000_ReparativeTherapy.pdf.
Anton, B.S. (2010). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association for the legislative year 2009:
Minutes of the annual meeting of the Council of Representatives and minutes of the meetings of the
Board of Directors. American Psychologist, 65, 385–475.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design . Cam-
bridge: Harvard.
Bryant, K. (2006). Making gender identity disorder of childhood: Historical lessons for Contemporary
Debates. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 3, 23–39.
D’Augelli, A.R., Grossman, A.H., & Starks, M.T. (2006). Childhood gender atypicality, victimization, and
PTSD among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1462–1482.
de Vries, A.L., Steensma, T.D., Doreleijers, T.A., & Cohen-Kettenis, P.T. (2011). Puberty suppression in
adolescents with gender identity disorder: A prospective follow-up study. The Journal of Sexual
Medicine, 8, 2276–2283.
Diamond, M. (2000). Sex and gender: Same or different? Feminism
&
Psychology, 10, 46–54.
Drescher, J. (2013, June 25). Invitation to a dialogue: Gender identity. The New York Times. http://www.
nytimes.com/2013/06/26/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-gender-identity.html?_r=0.
Drummond, K.D., Bradley, S.J., Peterson-Badali, M., & Zucker, K.J. (2008). A follow-up study of girls with
gender identity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 44, 34–45.
Ehrensaft, D. (2011). Gender born, gender made: Raising healthy gender-nonconforming children. New
York: The Experiment.
Garofalo, R., Deleon, J., Osmer, E., Doll, M., & Harper, G.W. (2006). Overlooked, misunderstood and at-
risk: Exploring the lives and HIV risk of ethnic minority male-to-female transgender youth. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 38, 230–236.
Green, R. (1987). The ‘Sissy Boy Syndrome’ and the development of homosexuality . New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press.
Green, R., Newman, L.E., & Stoller, R.J. (1972). Treatment of boyhood ‘transsexualism’: An interim report
of four years’ experience. Archives of General Psychiatry, 26, 213–217.
Hill, D.B., Menvielle, E., Sica, K.M., & Johnson, A. (2010). An affirmative intervention for families with
gender variant children: Parental ratings of child mental health and gender. Journal of Sex
&
Marital
Therapy, 36, 6–23.
Roberts, A.L., Rosario, M., Corliss, H.L., Koenen, K.C., & Bryn Austin, S. (2012). Childhood gender non-
conformity: A risk indicator for childhood abuse and posttraumatic stress in youth. Pediatrics, 129,
410–417.
Downloaded by:
209.6.138.29 - 3/4/2014 4:27:12 AM
Human Development 2013;56:285–290
DOI: 10.1159/000355235
290 Hidalgo /Ehrensaft /Tishelman /Clark /Garofalo /
Rosenthal
/Spack /Olson
Ryan, C., Russell, S.T., Huebner, D., Díaz, R., & Sánchez, J. (2010). Family acceptance in adolescence and
the health of LGBT young adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23, 205–213.
Skidmore, W.C., Linsenmeier, J.A.W., & Bailey, J.M. (2006). Gender nonconformity and psychological
distress in lesbians and gay men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 685–697.
Steensma, T.D., McGuire, J.K., Kreukels, B.P.C., Beekman, A.J., & Cohen-Kettenis, P.T. (2013). Factors
associated with desistence and persistence of childhood gender dysphoria: A quantitative follow-up
study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 52, 582–590.
Toomey, R.B., Ryan, C., Díaz, R.M., Card, N.A., & Russell, S.T. (2010). Gender-nonconforming lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: School victimization and young adult psychosocial adjust-
ment. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1580–1589.
Travers, R., Bauer, G., Pyne, J., Bradley, K., Gale, L., & Papadimitriou, M. (2012, October). Impacts of
strong parental support for trans youth: A report prepared for Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
and Delisle Youth Services. http://transpulseproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Impacts-of-
Strong-Parental-Support-for-Trans-Youth-vFINAL.pdf.
Wallien, M.S., & Cohen-Kettenis, P.T. (2008). Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children. Jour-
nal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1413–1423.
Zucker, K.J., & Bradley, S.J. (1995). Gender identity disorder and psychosexual problems in children and
adolescents . New York: Guilford Press.
Downloaded by:
209.6.138.29 - 3/4/2014 4:27:12 AM
