What are the demographic breakdowns of gender dysphoria in the US by age and gender?

1. What the HHS evidence review focuses on — pediatric diagnoses and care

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a comprehensive review titled Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria that emphasizes evidence about pediatric diagnosis, referral patterns, and clinical practice — including discussions of changing clinic criteria and age trends — rather than a single definitive national prevalence by age and sex ^{[1] [2]}. The HHS report and its supplement aggregate systematic reviews, peer reviews, and methodological notes; they repeatedly flag limitations in the underlying studies and the heterogeneity of measures used to define “gender dysphoria” versus broader transgender identity ^[2].

2. Population surveys versus clinic caseloads — two different pictures

Population-survey based estimates (such as the Williams Institute modeling of BRFSS and YRBS data) attempt to estimate how many adults and youth identify as transgender, and can provide age and gender-stratified estimates in principle, but those models and survey results are separate from clinic-based diagnoses and treatment counts ^[4]. By contrast, clinic and administrative claims studies report substantial increases in referrals and in the numbers seeking puberty blockers, hormones, or related care; those clinical series often show younger mean ages at diagnosis and shifts in the sex assigned at birth of clinic attendees ^{[5] [6]}. The two approaches are not directly interchangeable because survey identity and clinical diagnosis measure different phenomena ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Trends: rising identification among youth and younger ages at diagnosis

Multiple reviews and clinic cohorts document an increase in referrals and diagnoses among children and adolescents over the last decade, and some studies report that the mean age at diagnosis is decreasing ^{[3] [6]}. Clinic-based analyses note that more adolescents and young adults now present for hormone therapy than in prior years and that the demographic mix (e.g., proportions of those assigned male or female at birth) has shifted in some settings ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Gender breakdowns differ by data source — no single consensus ratio

Clinical meta-analyses historically reported higher numbers of trans women (MTF) relative to trans men (FTM) in treatment-seeking cohorts, while more recent population surveys show larger increases in those identifying as nonbinary or as transgender men among younger cohorts; different studies therefore give competing gender breakdowns depending on whether they sample clinics or the general population ^{[5] [7]}. Available reporting does not provide one harmonized, nationwide age-by-gender table; instead, papers and reports present differing patterns and emphasize methodological caveats ^{[5] [4]}.

5. Methodological limits and why numbers diverge

Studies vary in definitions (clinical DSM-based “gender dysphoria” diagnosis vs. self-reported transgender identity), sampling frames (clinic patients, inpatient databases, national surveys), and time windows; HHS reviewers and peer reviewers explicitly note heterogeneity and gaps in high-quality trial evidence and population surveillance, which constrains direct comparisons across sources ^{[2] [1]}. Because of these differences, increases reported in diagnoses or care utilization can reflect changing social acceptance, greater access to care, altered diagnostic practices, or real changes in identity prevalence — and the available sources do not settle how to apportion those causes ^{[3] [8]}.

6. Conflicting signals in recent media and secondary analyses

Media summaries and secondary analyses sometimes amplify single datasets (e.g., claims-based rises in diagnoses or single-survey drops in campus self-ID) that can suggest sharp year-to-year changes; however, other academic reviews and federal syntheses caution that such snapshots do not capture the full epidemiologic context and that some earlier high-profile claims have been questioned or retracted ^{[8] [9]}. Analysts and advocacy-aligned groups may emphasize different pieces of the literature; readers should note the institutional origin of each report (e.g., HHS review, academic meta-analyses, advocacy organizations) when weighing conclusions ^{[1] [9]}.

7. Bottom line and what’s missing from current reporting

If you want a single, nationally representative breakdown of gender dysphoria by precise age and assigned sex, available sources do not present one consolidated table; instead the best current reporting is a mix of population estimates (Williams Institute and survey modeling), epidemiologic reviews, and clinic-based studies that must be read together while noting their different definitions and biases ^{[4] [3] [5]}. For the most policy-relevant synthesis on pediatric care trends and the evidence base, consult the HHS Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria review and its peer-review supplement ^{[1] [2]}.