Statistics Canada Collecting Data on “Transgender and Non-binary Children and Youth”

Read Genspect Canada's submission to Statistics Canada on the topic of “Transgender and Non-binary Children and Youth.

In early December, the Toronto chapter of Pflag—an LGBT+ advocacy group—sent out a survey request to its supporters on behalf of Statistics Canada. The federal agency is seeking feedback from “subject-matter experts” on how to disseminate the data on “transgender and non-binary children and youth (aged 0 to 14)” collected in the 2021 national census.

The consultation guide explains how a 2018 policy direction on Modernizing the Government of Canada’s Sex and Gender Information Practices turned reality on its head by making gender identity—a subjective and contested belief—the default statistical category, while treating biological sex as optional and to be recorded only “when required.”

---

---

After collecting data on both sex and gender identity in the 2021 census, the federal agency is seeking advice on dissemination approaches that benefit “transgender and non-binary children and youth.”

“Children and youth are often assumed to be cisgender from birth until they ‘come out’ as a different gender on their own accord,” explains the federal statistical agency, leaving no ambiguity about the ideological leaning of the consultation guide’s authors.

The guide takes as a given that transgender children exist as a coherent population and that compiling data on them is a legitimate and worthwhile exercise, asserting that “[r]esearchers also suggest that, like cisgender children, transgender and non-binary children may recognize their own gender identity as early as 2 to 3 years old,” and these “transgender and non-binary children have similar gender development compared with their cisgender peers.”

After further preamble about “gender fluidity, cisnormativity, and transnormativity,” and the suggestion that restrictions on access to experimental puberty blockers and hormones “in some provinces” reflects a lack of “understanding or acceptance for gender diversity,” the actual survey questions commence.

What follows is Genspect Canada’s official submission to Statistics Canada on the topic of “Transgender and Non-binary Children and Youth.”

---

---

1. IMPLICATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE AND IDENTIFICATION OF GENDER IDENTITY

To the best of your knowledge, what age are children able to express and communicate their gender identity to others? Do you have any comments on the information presented above?

Canada’s Department of Justice defines gender identity as “each person’s internal and individual experience of gender…their sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum.”

This definition relies on an abstract and highly contested concept that lacks empirical grounding. Although the concept emerged on the fringes of psychiatry in the 1960s, it was reframed and popularized by trans activism in the 1990s then embedded in public policy and law. There is no scientific evidence demonstrating the existence of “gender identities”; rather, the concept is belief-based, unfalsifiable, and therefore falls outside the bounds of testable science.

In light of this, it is highly inappropriate to apply this controversial political concept to children.

Decades of developmental research show that young children think concretely and lack the abstract introspection required to form a deeply felt internal sense of being a boy or a girl. While children can distinguish between the two sexes—male and female—by around age two, until roughly ages six or seven they rely on visible, external cues such as clothing, hair, and activities, and often believe sex can change with context (e.g., that a boy becomes a girl by putting on a dress).

In the current era of gender identity ideology—where children are taught that everyone possesses an innate gender identity that determines whether they are boys or girls—gender-nonconforming children are at heightened risk of misinterpreting their nonconformity as evidence that they belong to the opposite sex. Adults increasingly present children with pseudoscientific claims about being “born in the wrong body,” such as can be found in the hugely popular children’s book I Am Jazz, which contains the line, “I have a girl brain but a boy body; this is called transgender. I was born this way.” This is activist pseudoscience presented to young readers as fact. Children have a great capacity for imagination and magical thinking, and if a trusted adult presents this information, the child will believe it—yet not a word of it is true. This dangerous false messaging has the potential to confuse children and untether them from the reality of their bodies, leading effeminate boys to believe they are girls and vice versa.

Childhood-onset gender dysphoria—previously gender identity disorder of childhood—is a psychiatric diagnosis applied to children who experience significant distress related to their sex. A common but oversimplified explanation attributes this distress to an innate, mismatched gender identity, leading to the claim that such children are “transgender.” This framing is ideological and obscures the well-documented complexity of this patient population. Decades of clinical research show that extreme childhood gender nonconformity is not a marker of a transgender identity but is instead strongly associated with eventual homosexuality. In the absence of medical intervention, the majority of children now labeled “trans kids” would be expected to grow up to be gay or lesbian, provided their psychosexual development is allowed to proceed without disruption from puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgery.

In truth, there is no such thing as a transgender child. There are only gender-nonconforming children attempting to make sense of themselves amid widespread confusion and pseudoscientific messaging. These children deserve a childhood grounded in reality, with the time and freedom to grow, mature, explore, and ultimately discover their sexualities during adolescence. Statistics Canada is therefore compiling data on a category that does not reflect a real or developmentally coherent phenomenon.

2. DATA COLLECTION METHODS

What do you think about proxy data collected about the gender of children and youth? What about proxy data collected for very young children (e.g., aged 0 to 3)? At what age are proxy responses more likely to reflect a child’s gender identity rather than their assumed gender based on their sex at birth?

Proxy data on the “gender” of children and youth are not meaningful, because children do not possess gender identities nor any stable identities of any kind that can be observed, inferred, or accurately reported by a third party. For children, the concept of gender identity is developmentally incoherent, and it is absurd even to consider collecting such data for toddlers and very young children (e.g., ages 0–3). Any proxy responses that suggest a child is “transgender” simply reflect adult assumptions, interpretations, or beliefs. The only developmentally valid and empirically grounded information worth collecting for this age group is the material reality of the child’s sex. Seeking to measure or classify children by “gender identity” is therefore inappropriate and unsupported by developmental science.

Should Statistics Canada be using an age cut-off to report on gender diversity or report on people of all ages? If an age cut-off should be used, what would you suggest Statistics Canada apply and why?

For example, an age cut-off at 10 years old, with the two-category gender variable available for the entire population, including children aged 9 years and under (i.e., using boys+ and girls+).

As stated above, children do not possess gender identities and therefore “gender diversity” is not a valid or meaningful category in childhood. As a result, questions of age cut-offs are unnecessary: there is no age at which reporting on gender diversity in children becomes appropriate. For all children under 15, Statistics Canada should limit data dissemination to the material reality of sex, using standard age groupings.

3. IMPACT ON GENDER DIVERSE CHILDREN AND YOUTH

If Statistics Canada were to disseminate data on transgender and non-binary people under the age of 15, how might this be received by these populations, and their families and allies? How might this be received by the public, specialists in the fields, service providers, policymakers, or other stakeholders?

As stated above, disseminating data on “transgender” or “non-binary” children means releasing data on a category that lacks developmental and scientific validity. Among families and activist allies who subscribe to gender identity ideology, such data would likely be welcomed as institutional validation and used to legitimize early social and medical interventions. For other families, particularly those with gender-nonconforming children, it risks sowing confusion, pressure to label, and the misinterpretation of healthy childhood gender-nonconformity as evidence of a transgender identity.

Policymakers and service providers may mistakenly treat the data as objective evidence of an innate population in need of specialized services, despite the data reflecting adult beliefs rather than child characteristics. More broadly, public dissemination risks entrenching a contested ideological framework in policy and practice, lending unwarranted authority to a concept that developmental science does not support.

If Statistics Canada were to maintain the current practice of disseminating gender diversity data solely for the population aged 15 and older, how might this decision be received by these populations, their families and allies? How might this be received by the public, specialists in the fields, service providers, policymakers, or other stakeholders?

Advocacy groups would likely view this decision as exclusionary and harmful, interpreting it through a rigid ideological framework that treats gender identity as innate and fully formed at all ages, with little regard for childhood and adolescent developmental research. The broader public and many specialists with an understanding of developmental science would be more likely to see the age limit as a reasonable boundary. At Genspect Canada, we would go further and question the validity of collecting and disseminating data based on subjective, unfalsifiable identity claims even for those aged 15 and older.

What would be the benefits or risks of disseminating gender diversity information about children and youth under the age of 15? What would be the benefits or risks of not releasing this information?

As already stated above, disseminating gender diversity data for children under 15 carries significant risks and no meaningful benefits. The primary risk is that Statistics Canada would be reifying and legitimizing a developmentally incoherent and scientifically unfounded category, encouraging the misinterpretation of normal childhood gender nonconformity as evidence of a transgender identity. Such dissemination risks confusing parents, pressuring children to adopt developmentally inappropriate labels that can lead to major medical interventions, and lending institutional authority to an ideological framework rather than reflecting an objective reality.

By contrast, not releasing this information avoids embedding an ideological construct into official statistics and prevents the manufacture of misleading data that could drive inappropriate policy, services, or interventions. As noted above, withholding such data does not represent a loss of meaningful information, because the category itself does not capture a real or stable phenomenon in childhood.

4. ENSURING SAFE AND RESPECTFUL DATA USE

Information about transgender and non-binary children and youth may be considered sensitive, as these populations and their families are often marginalized—and at times targeted—by groups that seek to dismiss their existence and limit their rights. Limited access to reliable information about transgender and non-binary children and youth may create gaps in the general public’s understanding of the populations, which may lead to unintentional misconceptions.

Do you anticipate that disseminating data on transgender and non-binary children and youth under age 15 could result in a negative reaction from certain groups? If so, is there any specific data that you believe would be more likely to create such a reaction? Do you have any suggestions about how to present the information to the general population in a way that avoids potential misconceptions about transgender and non-binary children and youth?

Concern about disseminating gender diversity data on children is not about denying anyone’s existence or limiting rights, but about child safeguarding and adherence to developmental science. Applying labels such as “transgender” or “non-binary” to children means imposing ideological narratives on children before they are old enough to understand what the terms mean. This is especially harmful given that these identities so often come hand-in-hand with lifelong medicalization. Any negative reaction to this data will stem from the act of inappropriately categorizing children in this way. Avoiding misconceptions requires recognizing the developmental limits of childhood and refraining from presenting contested identity concepts as established facts about children.

To the best of your knowledge, are there any legislative or legal considerations or risks of both releasing or not releasing information about transgender and non-binary children and youth under age 15?

We do not know of any.

5. RESEARCH AND LIVED EXPERIENCE

Are there scientific articles that provide important insights into gender identity development among transgender and non-binary children and youth that could inform this research project?

The following is a list of scientific articles demonstrating why it is inappropriate to apply the label of transgender to children and adolescents:

Jorgensen, S. C. J., Athéa, N., & Masson, C. (2024). Puberty Suppression for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria and the Child’s Right to an Open Future. Archives of sexual behavior, 53(5), 1941–1956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02850-4

Levine, S. B., Abbruzzese, E., & Mason, J. W. (2022). Reconsidering Informed Consent for Trans-Identified Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults. Journal of sex & marital therapy, 48(7), 706–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2046221

Zucker, K. J. (2018). The myth of persistence: Response to “A critical commentary on follow-up studies and ‘desistance’ theories about transgender and gender non-conforming children”. International Journal of Transgenderism, 19(2), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2018.1456390

Byrne, A. (2022). Another myth of persistence? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02183-9

Singh, D., Bradley, S. J., & Zucker, K. J. (2021). A follow-up study of boys with gender identity disorder. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 632784. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632784

Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82–173). Stanford University Press.

Piaget, J. (1954). The Construction Of Reality In The Child (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315009650

Do you have lived experiences about your own gender identity development that you would like to share?

At Genspect Canada, we think the concept of gender identity is a harmful oversimplification that impedes self-understanding and prevents gender-distressed individuals from accessing safe, ethical, non-invasive care.

Do you have experiences related to the gender identity development of family members or close friends that you would like to share?

At Genspect, we regularly hear from families in our parent support groups. A consistent pattern reported by parents is that previously well-adjusted, often gender-nonconforming adolescents—particularly girls—suddenly announced a transgender identity after extensive exposure to online trans influencer content and/or after a peer announced a transgender identity. Many parents describe rapid shifts in identity, language, and beliefs that closely mirror prevailing online narratives, rather than emerging gradually from long-standing distress.

We also hear from detransitioners through our Beyond Trans support group who describe having interpreted ordinary adolescent discomfort, mental health struggles, or same-sex attraction through the lens of gender identity ideology, often encouraged by adults and peers. These experiences highlight the powerful role of social influence and online messaging in shaping identity claims, and underscore the importance of caution when interpreting such claims as evidence of an innate or stable identity, particularly in young people.

6. KEY DATA GAPS

This consultation also seeks to determine if the type of data collected by Statistics Canada meets the needs of data users.

Do you, your department or organization require data specific to transgender and non-binary children and youth to inform, develop, or improve research, programs, policies or services? Are there specific research topics of interest to you, your department or organization? If so, what are your data and research needs?

Neither Genspect Canada nor the families we support require data categorizing children as “transgender” or “non-binary” to inform programs or services. What is urgently needed instead is rigorous research into the social, cultural, and technological factors driving the recent and unprecedented rise in young people identifying as transgender.

Of particular interest are the roles of social media platforms, online peer communities, and digital algorithms in shaping identity formation. In 2019, when German clinics observed a sudden surge of adolescent girls presenting with Tourette-like symptoms, researchers quickly identified popular TikTok influencers with Tourette syndrome as the transmission vector and coined the term mass social media-induced illness (MSMI) to describe the phenomenon. A similar level of scientific urgency is warranted here.

Research priorities should include the impact of exposure to gender identity ideology on child development, the mechanisms of social contagion in adolescent transgender identification, the influence of parental ideological beliefs on children being labeled transgender, and the effects of celebrating trans-identified influencers and celebrities as role models for vulnerable youth.

It is essential to study these upstream cultural drivers; downstream data collection is meaningless.

7. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Is there anything else that Statistics Canada should consider prior to disseminating information on transgender and non-binary children and youth? Please include any additional feedback that you may have.

At Genspect Canada, we ask that Statistics Canada not dismiss our perspective as “denying the existence of trans kids.” The position outlined above is grounded in well-established developmental science, psychosocial theory, and child-safeguarding principles, and seeks to better understand, rather than erase, the vulnerabilities of gender-distressed children and adolescents. Reducing complex developmental phenomena to an oversimplified identity risks obscuring consideration of causation and limiting scientific inquiry. Engaging seriously with our evidence-based viewpoint would provide a richer, more accurate understanding of this young cohort than the current oversimplified and inappropriate concept of gender identities ever could.

Genspect Canada

Mia Hughes is Director of Genspect Canada and author of the WPATH Files

---