Social Transition Isn't Harmless - Taking a Developmental Perspective

A blog post by EBSWA member @prof_curiosity1

Social transitioning, changing a child’s name, pronouns, and social role to reflect a cross sex identity, is often presented as a neutral or reversible act. Developmental evidence suggests otherwise. In childhood and early adolescence, social transition functions as a powerful identity intervention that can alter developmental trajectories for the child involved and reshape the social environment for their peers.

For the child, social transition risks identity foreclosure. Developmental psychology (Erikson, Marcia) shows that identity formation requires time, exploration, and cognitive maturation. When a child’s distress is interpreted as evidence of a fixed identity and publicly affirmed as such, exploration narrows. Social transition stabilises/solidifies what would be a provisional self-concept at precisely the stage when flexibility is developmentally normative. Multiple follow up studies and detransitioner accounts indicate that early social transition is associated with higher persistence of gender dysphoria, suggesting not discovery of an innate identity, but rather, consolidation through reinforcement.

Cognitive and learning theories help explain why this occurs. Children reason concretely (Piaget), rely on external cues for self understanding, and are highly sensitive to adult authority and peer feedback (Vygotsky, Bandura). Once a new identity is socially ratified, by teachers, peers, and institutions, it becomes costly for the child to question or revise. Reversal risks social loss, shame, or perceived betrayal, making natural resolution less likely even when distress would otherwise remit.

The impact does not stop with the socially transitioned child. Schools are primary sites of social learning. Introducing the concept that identity is internally self declared and can override biological reality teaches all children a contested model of selfhood at a highly impressionable age. This can blur children’s understanding of their own bodies, lead ordinary developmental differences to be treated as fixed identities, and intensify peer imitation, especially among adolescents, for whom belonging and social status matter deeply.

Peer environments are also altered structurally. Classmates may be required to participate in affirming practices they do not understand, cannot question, or privately doubt, placing them in moral and cognitive conflict. Research on conformity and authority shows that such conditions suppress honest inquiry and promote compliance over understanding. For vulnerable children, particularly those with anxiety, autism, or identity diffusion, this environment may unintentionally signal that distress is best resolved through identity change rather than psychological support.

Finally, social transition reshapes safeguarding norms. Once a child is publicly transitioned, professionals may feel constrained from exploring alternative explanations for distress or revisiting earlier assumptions. This mirrors the evidence gaps identified in the Cass Review (2024): early affirmation can foreclose assessment rather than support it. Social transitioning is not a benign accommodation. It is an active developmental intervention with foreseeable risks: for the child, premature identity consolidation leading to puberty blockers, cross sex hormones; for peers, distorted models of selfhood and constrained developmental space. Because children are still figuring out who they are, and we cannot know how they will develop, the safest approach is to keep options open: support distressed children without requiring them, or their peers, to act as though a disputed theory about identity is already settled fact.