You're continuing to conflate different terms and groups, posting in what appears to be an intentionally confusing way. My hunch is that this is to cover up the fact that you really don't have much to contribute to the convo except complaints about the info you say others haven't provided - and gripes about research you whinge that others haven't done, in part because activists and ideologues on your side would scream bloody murder if they tried.

The study Fleurista linked to is about females who had been assessed between ages 3-12 and diagnosed at that time with what clinicians called childhood GID/GD, and who desisted later on during adolescence. You say this is "not the relevant statistic" - but that's because the only group you seem to think matters in the debate over youth with gender issues are males who develop GD during adolescence (and adulthood too?). Then you say

Childhood desistance doesn’t demonstrate that adolescent dysphorics will desist in any number.

When, LOL, the study at issue was not about "childhood desistance." It was about desistance in adolescence, FFS. Then you say

And since that’s [adolescence] when anything not simply reversible is even on the table.

WTF? How can you make such a claim after you've just been given ample evidence by me and others that children of both sexes are being put on medications (development blockers and CSH) that have irreversible effects as young as 8, and that girls are getting their breasts amputated as young as 13. Once a girl has her breasts cut off, there's no way to get them back. That's the definition of irreversible.

Also, when children are put on development blockers at 11-12 like Jazz, Jackie and Trinity, then they go on to take CSH, their gonads never mature, so these children end up sterile. Irreversibly sterile.

Since you seem only to care about males, then it should be of interest to you that the use of development blockers starting at 11-12 in males like Jackie, Jazz and Trinity, followed by CSH, left them with the penises and testicles of little boys - and with undeveloped sexual function and capacity too. This means impaired or no ability to orgasm (and in the case of Jazz, no sexual function, ability to orgasm or any libido either) AND it meant they didn't have enough penile and scrotal skin to use customary techniques when they had their "gender affirming" genital surgeries at age 16 (in Jackie's and Trinity's cases), and at 17 in Jazz's. Not having enough material to work with means these young males had to have surgeries using tissues from other parts of the body, which in the case of Jazz we know didn't turn out well. How this is supposed to help these young males "pass" better is beyond me.

As for young people who develop GD during adolescence, I agree more research is needed. But again, these kids are not a monolith, and they are developing adolescent GD for very different reasons. The females are generally fleeing from sexual objectification, whilst the males are generally pursuing what the females are running from. A lot of females who develop GD in adolescence do seem to desist from it later in adolescence or in early adulthood. But in males, adolescent-onset GD is a thornier problem that might well turn out to be more permanent because in males, adolescent GD is usually caused by AGP - and AGP is driven by two incredibly powerful forces: the human male sex drive and narcissism. Moreover, when indulged instead of being treated in other ways, AGP seems to be a progressive disorder that overtakes the lives of those who develop it.