VCU Study Undermines Statistical Basis for Trans-Youth Desistance Claims and Related Legislation

Virginia Commonwealth University researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 16 studies on transgender youth, including the 11 studies cited in a 2016 blog post that fueled anti-transgender legislation. Their analysis showed that “desistance” rates could be interpreted as anywhere from 0 % to 100 %, demonstrating that the existing data do not support a definitive conclusion about how many youths later reject a transgender identity.

The Advocate

The original studies, most conducted before 1990 with small sample sizes, were repeatedly cited by activists and policymakers to argue that the majority of trans-identifying youths eventually desist. Those arguments contributed to the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in *United States v. Skrmetti*, which upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care, and have been referenced in legislative proposals across 26 states.

The Advocate

Catherine Wall, an assistant professor of psychology at VCU and lead author of the new study, directed the statistical re-examination. Wall emphasized the need for rigorous, up-to-date evidence when shaping public policy.

The Advocate

The VCU team found that both desistance and persistence rates of transgender identity could be estimated at any value between 0 % and 100 % depending on analytical choices. This wide range reflects methodological inconsistencies in the source literature rather than a measurable trend in youth outcomes.

The Advocate

Wall told *Phys.org* that “we should rely on accuracy with our science, and we should rely on accurate science to guide legislation.” Major medical organizations—including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the Endocrine Society—continue to endorse evidence-based gender-affirming care and oppose blanket bans. The Supreme Court’s ruling and the pending federal bill H.R. 7661 both reference the contested desistance figures as justification for restricting care and educational materials.

The Advocate

Critics of H.R. 7661 argue that its definition of “sexually oriented material” as anything that “involves gender dysphoria or ‘transgenderism’” could trigger pre-emptive censorship in schools. They warn that the bill’s penalty—loss of federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act funding for non-compliant districts—may force districts to remove anti-bullying resources, counseling programs, and transgender-student support groups.

The Advocate

Earlier literature frequently cited a 60 %–90 % desistance rate, yet the VCU analysis reveals no reliable statistical foundation for that claim. The lack of contemporary, large-scale studies leaves policymakers without robust evidence on which to base decisions about gender-affirming care for minors.

The Advocate

• “We should rely on accuracy with our science, and we should rely on accurate science to guide legislation,” — Catherine Wall, assistant professor of psychology, VCU

The Advocate

• “We were particularly interested in examining this idea of the concept of trans identity desistance because it's a number that has been bandied about for years as if it's 100% accurate,” — Catherine Wall

The Advocate

• “The penalty is severe: districts that refuse to comply could lose federal education funding.” — Language of H.R. 7661

The Advocate

The House is advancing H.R. 7661, which would give the federal government authority to pressure schools receiving federal funds to eliminate materials addressing gender dysphoria. Simultaneously, medical societies are calling for updated research to replace the outdated studies that have informed recent legislation. The outcome of these efforts will shape the availability of gender-affirming care and related educational resources for transgender youth across the United States.

The Advocate