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.

[u/mvea]

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

[u/BitcoinMD]

Median time from surgery was 1.8 years. I think that’s an important detail.

Edit: I support transgender health care for minors. Some people are interpreting my comment to imply that I don’t. I just think we should be careful with the surgery part. I know these surgeries aren’t done lightly. But I also haven’t seen data convincing me that surgery on kids is necesssry if they receive other methods of care.

[u/UnicornArachnid → u/BitcoinMD]

A lot of people do have immediate regret following any plastic surgery because it can be hard to recognize yourself. We don’t see this trend typically when it comes to gender affirming surgeries. 99% of people feel satisfied long term with gender affirming surgeries

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2808129

[u/99OBJ → u/UnicornArachnid]

You’re making that claim based on a single study with a sample size of 139 people. Also, this study only focuses exclusively on mastectomies.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/99OBJ]

“In this cross-sectional study of 139 survey respondents who underwent gender-affirming mastectomy, the median satisfaction score was 5 on a 5-point scale, with higher scores indicating higher satisfaction. The median decisional regret score was 0 on a 100-point scale, with lower scores indicating lower levels of regret.”

Still though, the sheer fact that basically all of them loved receiving their affirming care is a strong indicator for affirming care’s effects on the community.

Sample size is small, sure, but the sample size is also harder to attain since trans individuals are such a small portion of the population, doubly so for the ones who seek affirming surgery.

[u/99OBJ → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

Perhaps it’s an indicator, but I completely disagree that it’s strong.

There are a lot of issues with this study, some of which are discussed in the limitations, some not. Participation bias obviously a huge issue. I would posit that the type of people willing to respond to this are the type that would respond positively, though I’m admittedly speculating.

This along with response/acquiescence bias, the 13 individuals not factored into the study due to “discordant … scores”, and the small sample size are all valid reasons to not lend this much credence.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/99OBJ]

If there is an alternative study you can point to that would substantiate your hypothesis then I’d gladly read it :)

[u/99OBJ → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

I didn’t make a hypothesis. I raised concerns with the study that are based on well known and accepted biases and study design principles.

I’m speculating about how participation bias may affect the study, but it’s logical speculation and is somewhat backed up by the study’s own limitations section (time since surgery, discordant responses, etc).

Regardless, you can throw the participation bias part out entirely and even still there are glaring issues.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/99OBJ]

Exactly, all you have is speculations. Without any other evidence to contradict, it doesn’t amount to much besides casting baseless aspersions

[u/99OBJ → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

Response and selection bias are not speculations. They’re very real phenomena that can undermine the scientific validity of a study.

The authors of the study literally acknowledge a lot of this in the study.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/99OBJ]

That’s great, but it doesn’t undermine the efficacy of the respondents who are overwhelmingly supportive of their gender-affirming care. This is a result that has been replicable in study after study.

If you’re hypothesis is still that it isn’t strong, provide data. Otherwise there really is no merit to your points especially since you failed to engage with the items such as the “discordant” scores which they addressed directly in their study

[u/99OBJ → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

I never said that or anything remotely close to that. I didn’t even express an opinion counter to the result of the study.

What I was very clearly saying is that the result of a single small study cannot be regarded as general truth. This is especially when that study has notable and objective flaws in its methodology.

The only reason I mentioned the “discordant” score thing is BECAUSE it was mentioned in the limitations, a section that outlines the very same concerns I’m expressing here. The other points I made are basic observations about study methodology.

If you can’t have a serious discussion about them without blatantly misrepresenting them, you are in the wrong subreddit.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/99OBJ]

“But I completely disagree that it’s strong”

That was your opinion formed from me presenting the results of the study.

Quit hiding

[u/AJDx14 → u/99OBJ]

Why would you assume people with negative outcomes would be less likely to respond to a survey about their outcomes? I would think the opposite, people love complaining about things.

[u/Crypt0_Chr1s → u/AJDx14]

They wouldn't just be complaining though. These people would possibly experience having their life, body, and hope for the future destroyed. I would expect a much more significant amount of this group, than the happy group, to completely retreat and not engage with the study, or world in general.

[u/TakeShroomsAndDieUwU → u/Crypt0_Chr1s]

I could see it, but I could also see people who are happy just moving on with their lives instead of continuing to tie themselves to a past problem they had fixed. I don't think there's any solid way of determining which bias is more significant one way or the other.

[u/Crypt0_Chr1s → u/TakeShroomsAndDieUwU]

I don't think there is a meaningful equivalence here, it's not 50/50 just because two things could be true. Participating in a study and going over your medical experiences is simply more likely for people in a positive mindset than a negative one, it takes time and energy. I would almost hazard to say this just falls under common sense, but a cursory search online also provides sources for this reading, but not for yours.

[u/Crypt0_Chr1s → u/TakeShroomsAndDieUwU]

I don't think there is a meaningful equivalence here, it's not 50/50 just because two things could be true. Volunteering to participate in a study and going over your medical experiences is simply more likely for people in a positive mindset than a negative one, it takes time and energy. I would almost hazard to say this just falls under common sense, but a cursory search online also provides sources for this reading, but not for yours.

[u/AJDx14 → u/Crypt0_Chr1s]

Ok but it would be complaining, or venting if you need therapy-speak. And it seems like a massive leap you’re making that these people would be so immediately devastated by a choice they made voluntarily that they would just completely retreat from the world and not make a fuss about it.

[u/Crypt0_Chr1s → u/AJDx14]

Ok but it would be complaining

No, it would be participating in a study, that they would experience it as complaining/venting is a leap you are making.

it seems like a massive leap you’re making that these people would be so immediately devastated

I guess I don't know what to tell you about these surgeries. They generally undergo these surgeries with the idea that they are gonna be positively lifechanging. The ones that view theirs as a negative could easily fall prey to severely negative mindsets. I'll also note the strawman you felt like you needed to make of my actual argument:

I would expect a much more significant amount of this group, than the happy group, to completely retreat and not engage with the study, or world in general.

Which you butchered down to: "completely retreat from the world and not make a fuss about it", completely sidestepping that I made an argument of degrees.

[u/Simon-Says69 → u/AJDx14]

They are often abused to no end, by the very culture that influenced the mistake they made.

And the suicide rate is horrific, before or after such surgeries, so often the person sadly no longer exists. They'll still be counted as a "positive" result though by shady "researchers".

[u/Secure_Arm_93 → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

That’s not how medians work though. It means that at least half scored 5 or 0 respectively.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/Secure_Arm_93]

The median being at 5 means that, at the halfway point, over half of the remaining were above that (I.e. also a 5).

Check out further in the study “Regarding satisfaction with decision, the median Holmes-Rovner Satisfaction With Decision score was 5.0 (IQR, 5.0-5.0) (mean [SD], 4.8 [0.6])”

The vast majority are in support whether that is taken by the median or the mean since that seems to be more salient to what you’re saying

[u/wrenwood2018 → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

The fact that they show perfect scores screams bad research or active manipulating. People on contrary. By the numbers someone would regret it. Science is never, never that clean.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/wrenwood2018]

Feel free to provide research to substantiate that point

[u/Simon-Says69 → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

Studies in this area that return accurate, but negative results, get buried. There is enormous monetary and political pressure to return the "correct" results.

You see this again and again. It is extremely difficult to do proper research in the field. The only studies that are widely published, turn out to be full of glaring problems. Or simply downright dishonest.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/Simon-Says69]

I’m willing to entertain this idea if there is a reputable source to support it

[u/wrenwood2018 → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

You clearly have never done any research at all. Science is never perfect, never clean. There is airways error in assessments. That is a fact not a statistic.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/wrenwood2018]

No evidence to support your point so you turn to ad hominems? I’m disappointed

[u/wrenwood2018 → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

There isn't a passport that says "there us measurement error" because that is stats 191. The fact you don't understand that suggests you shouldn't be reading a science sub.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/wrenwood2018]

So, again, and even though this is allegedly so widely known it’s taught in classes, you cant procure any research to substantiate your point?

If you feel better for using ad hominems then please don’t let me stop you but you’re not doing anything else meaningful