The myth of persistence

Temple Newhook et al. (2018) provide a critique of recent follow-up studies of children referred to specialized gender identity clinics, organized around rates of persistence and desistance. The critical gaze of Temple Newhook et al. examined three primary issues: (1) the terms persistence and desistance in their own right; (2) methodology of the follow-up studies and interpretation of the data; and (3) ethical matters. In this response, I interrogate the critique of Temple Newhook et al. (2018).