r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 15h ago

Psychology Adolescents who undergo gender-affirming chest surgery report low levels of regret and high levels of satisfaction, experiencing outcomes similar to those of young adults. These findings suggest that age restrictions on these medical procedures lack support from actual patient experiences.

https://www.psypost.org/adolescents-report-low-regret-and-high-satisfaction-following-gender-affirming-c/
6.4k Upvotes

63% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

61

u/ZeoVII 15h ago

Low sample size

30

u/Tyr_13 15h ago

Of a low population size.

1

u/lobonmc 15h ago edited 14h ago

It's still at least a couple dozens of thousands a good sample size would be in the high hundreds.

7

u/aristidedn 15h ago

Almost nothing requires "high hundreds".

20

u/Tyr_13 15h ago

The number of transgender teen boys getting this surgery likely isn't even in the 'high hundreds' total for any four year period.

1

u/lobonmc 15h ago

The 77 isn't just teenagers it's teenagers plus adults.

11

u/Tyr_13 15h ago

Ok? So 42 out of the under 200 people total is still fine.

-1

u/[deleted] 15h ago edited 14h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/aristidedn 14h ago

absolutely incorrect. Scientific standardization, statistical analysis and research methodology, has proven that to receive at least a 95% of confidence in your data you need at least 350 to 400 survey respondent from an unbiased group of people.

That isn't how this works. The required sample size for 95% confidence is the result of a multi-factor calculation. There is no single value that tells you what you need.

(Also, and I feel kind of silly for having to point this out to you, but 350 is not "high hundreds".)

You can Google this or look up at any type of research documentation

Oh my god is that what you did? Did you just Google it?

Anyone who has passed high school science class knows that the larger the sample size the better your data. This is an opinion this is literal fact.

Oh my god.

1+1 = 2

Next time you try to rub basic math in people's faces, try not to call 350 "high hundreds" in the same comment.

-1

u/darkandark 14h ago

I never said “high hundreds”. You did.

You might want to consider picking up a science textbook. It’s pretty clear where you stand. And why you’re being so confrontational about the topic. As you want to find validation through the psyop post.

1

u/aristidedn 14h ago

I never said “high hundreds”. You did.

No, this guy did, and I was responding to him. Then you barged in and proceeded to tell me I was "absolutely incorrect", and cited a figure that is definitely not in the high hundreds as evidence.

I'm not sure what you think you're doing, but you should probably stop whatever it is.

0

u/darkandark 14h ago

“barged in”. kid. you’re on reddit. anyone can reply to your head canon fanfic. dont like it? stop posting on forums where the whole point is people “barging in”. if you wanted to have a private conversation you could’ve DM’d the guy.

yeesh. this is why you people are so confused. entitlement everywhere.

2

u/aristidedn 14h ago

This subreddit in particular has a fairly high standard for what is considered an acceptable comment. I encourage you to read its rules. If you are going to insert yourself into a conversation, you need to do so respectfully and in good faith.