Back in 2016 he wrote an article in The Cut titled "What's Missing From the Conversation About Transgender Kids."[1] (which, incidentally, has since been silently corrected by The Cut's editors). It draws some pretty major conclusions from a single study [2] where he seems to overlook some pretty glaring issues that contradict his conclusion. [3]

Signal, to his credit, admits the error, although he goes on to argue it actually strengthens his argument (It does not IMO).

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20171202080010/https://www.thecu...

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23702447/

[3] https://www.emilygorcenski.com/post/jesse-singal-got-more-wr... and https://emilygorcenski.com/post/jesse-singal-still-got-more-...

You can read Singal's response to these criticisms here: https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/a-sorta-quick-response-to...

The criticisms of Singal's piece are pretty weak, and often resort to refuting things he never actually wrote. He explicitly notes that data is sparse - this is one of the most controversial research subjects - but it does indeed suggest a desistance rate of 50-60% absent medical intervention. Contrast that with the common claim that desistance in gender dysphoric children is a myth which is just totally contradicted by the available evidence.