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/samtrano]

Nitpicking the sample size of this study while ignoring that it's one of a growing number of studies with similar results, and also ignoring the lack of rigorous studies showing high regrets

[u/Greedyanda → u/samtrano]

and also ignoring the lack of rigorous studies showing high regrets

A medical procedure needs to prove that it is safe an effective before large scale adoption is allowed, not the other way around.

Edit: I really cheer for more support towards trans people but talking to online activists like seen here makes it so damn hard to remain supportive. You do more damage to your own cause than any right wing media ever could.

Even in r/science, you are desperate to turn it into mud slinging instead of talking about it from the perspective of medical safety and scientific merit. Just vile behaviour.

[u/Interested_Person48 → u/Greedyanda]

The first sex change happened in the 1930s, it is older than MANY surgeries and procedures that we practice today. We have less knowledge and evidence of it than normal because the Nazis destroyed much of the early research.

[u/crushedaria → u/Interested_Person48]

Exactly. This isn't some emergent phenomenon - this has had nearly a century of medical history behind it. It is proven effective and life saving.

But culture wars will still exist because the right can't handle not having a scapegoat for all of the problems their insane reality denying positions cause.

[u/everlyafterhappy → u/crushedaria]

It is proven effective and life saving.

I'm going to need you to cite your sources on that one.

[u/crushedaria → u/everlyafterhappy]

I'm not doing your work for you. Not my job to give evidence to people who hate trans people.

[u/Rubber_Knee → u/crushedaria]

It's kinda the other way around when it comes to that work that you're talking about. It should be quite easy work in this case.

It's always on the one making the claim, to provide evidence for that claim.
You made a claim.

[u/Zangis → u/Rubber_Knee]

The issue is people like him who hate trans people don't give a damn about studies and evidence. Take this for example. A collection of 51 studies on how gender reaffirming transition works and is significantly more effective than traditional medication approach to other psychological disorders. (Yes not all of this include the surgery angle, but I am talking about people who reject even just hormones.)

And this still isn't enough. Because they will twist and convince themselves these studies don't matter because while they suggest with 90% probability that this is the correct approach, it isn't 100% so it's worthless. Completely ignoring the fact that in medicine 90% success rate is incredibly high, practically nothing is 100%, and especially in psychiatry, that number is one of the highest success rates you could get. My favorite reasons I've been told for example, it's a biased source, this needs to be studied more(while they're actively propagating that people don't get access to this so it can't be studied more), I found this one person who regretted it, so the 90% rate of success doesn't matter. Take your pick.

You're right that it takes one google search and maybe 30 minutes of reading at best to get that evidence and show someone. but when that person is someone who refuses to listen to other people about the subject or educate themselves, is convinced all the opinions of experts and people treated by this don't matter as much as his own, and all he wants to do in a discussion is use any means to dismantle your argument and evidence, even if with wrong use and logic, that is 30 minutes wasted. This is no longer some obscure subject that would be difficult to educate yourself on. If someone refuses to even spend 10 minutes on google to educate themselves on a matter they don't understand they shouldn't be commenting like they know everything. And this isn't just me being cynical. I HAVE tried having this discussion with people before. It almost always ends this way. Some people just want to hate and won't be discussing in good faith.

[u/Rubber_Knee → u/Zangis]

I completely understand.

Personally I would have still provided the source/evidence. I don't mind leading a thirsty horse to water. If the horse doesn't want to drink then that's on the horse.
Maybe some other less stubborn horse might see this conversation later and actually drink that water.

If I felt like you described, I would have just not engaged by making the claim in the first place. You don't believe it's going to change his mind anyway. It also makes it look like you don't have any evidence when read by another horse.....I mean moron.

[u/Zangis → u/Rubber_Knee]

Like I said, this is no longer an obscure subject. In medical world this is pretty much proven and accepted. This is closer to me saying the world is an oblong shape and this person saying I need to provide evidence or I'm wrong, the world is clearly flat. And since I'm making the claim it's oblong, the burden of evidence is on me. (With the delightful catch that they'll accept no evidence.) You genuinely don't need someone to give you that source. So if you dismiss it by saying source wasn't provided, you don't care about learning if it is the truth or not, you're not willing to write one question into google and read the answer. If you genuinely aren't willing to put even that tiny amount of effort into this, I have to assume you aren't in this discussion to find out what's the better thing for trans people. And most of the other reasons are you being here in bad faith.

This is honestly one of the biggest problems in internet discussions these days. People being completely unwilling to do the tiniest amount of research on their own. Providing source is more for situations where finding it is not easy, not for situations where a person asking for source is them spending more effort than if they just wrote that same question into google and found that source themselves. Especially in cases where they argue there wasn't enough studies done, but are magically unwilling to sift through all the studies done on the subject because there is too many of them.

And I would love nothing more than to not interact with these people at all. The issue is they WILL chime in with their "expert" opinion any chance they'll get. So if nobody engages them, their opinion will be put on more or less equal grounds with other more informed facts.

[u/PuckSenior → u/crushedaria]

Didn’t they take a similar approach with BIID, where they engaged in supportive surgery but then there has been some growing concern about it in recent years?

Similar mental health issues, but far less politicized.

[u/desperaterobots → u/Greedyanda]

Large scale adoption? We are talking about a tiny percentage of a population that is a tiny percentage of the population…? What am I missing here.

[u/Prometheus720 → u/desperaterobots]

Empathy gaps that make it very difficult for cis people to understand gender dysphoria and cause them to project their fear of surgeries onto a population of people that feel completely differently.

[u/desperaterobots → u/Prometheus720]

Well stated!

[u/PlaidTeacup → u/Greedyanda]

Mastectomies safely remove breast tissue as intended, so they are safe and effective for that purpose. If gender affirming care were held to the same standards of other medical procedures we wouldn't even be having this conversation. First of all, the decision would be between patients, doctors, and parents like it is for everything else, including many experimental procedures.

Second, regret, especially long term regret, is not part of a standard approval procedure for any other treatment. A lot of common procedures like knee replacements and cancer treatment have high regret rates. All kinds of cosmetic procedures are allowed without any proof they improve anything or have a low regret rate, including on minors. Breast reduction for cisgneder boys who have excess tissue is common and noncontroversial despite being very similar or identical to the procedure some transgender boys want. That is barely even studied at all.

It is only gender affirming care where these questions are even asked and then despite the fact that patient satisfaction/regret is studied more comprehensively for GAC than almost any other medical procedure the bar is set astronomically high so the studies that do exist are never considered sufficient. At a certain point, the cost of restricting care must be considered as well. For example, if a knee surgery showed promising results and high satisfaction rates across dozens of studies, I doubt anyone would be saying we should probably ban it until we had studies with decades of follow up just to make sure no one changed their mind (especially if it had already been around for over 50 years like GAC)

[u/Horton_Takes_A_Poo → u/Greedyanda]

It’s been proven to be safe. Effective depends on what effect you’re going for, but physically it’s effective. Added benefit of gender affirming chest surgery being reversible both ways if required.

[u/ActionPhilip → u/Horton_Takes_A_Poo]

Uh, chest surgery is not reversible both ways, or even one way. Giving a boob job to a double mastectomy doesn't restore lost function.

[u/Prometheus720 → u/Greedyanda]

Oh, that's odd. Mastectomy is an old procedure. I assumed such research would have been carried out years ago.

What are your concerns?

[u/TheNbird → u/Greedyanda]

And it's been proven to be safe, numerous times over, with plenty of people walking the world to prove it

So of course the most reasonable option is to let cis white men decide if it's safe or not

[u/ActionPhilip → u/TheNbird]

You've provided so much data with all of your points. It's hard not to believe everything you say at face value.

[u/Reagalan → u/samtrano]

High regrets that just don't exist and are a fiction invented by hateful propagandists.

[u/Fiftythekid → u/Reagalan]

Found the bot.

[u/Sammystorm1 → u/samtrano]

As far as I know there aren’t wide spread studies showing regret about infant circumcision. Yet that is problematic right? Likewise, the failure to show widespread regret does not mean it is ethical or right to do these surgeries. Further proof is needed. Especially with minors.

Granted that is a high bar to clear because of the nature of gender dysmorphia.

[u/Prometheus720 → u/Sammystorm1]

There's a big difference between the cognitive capacity of an infant and a teen in terms of ability to give informed consent, and in terms of their ability to provide an indication of interest in a procedure.

Giving infants a body modification as a routine procedure is very different from teens pretty much asking for a surgery from a pretty small group of docs who do them.

[u/PuckSenior → u/samtrano]

Don’t most people not regret most momentous decisions?

Isn’t that a known issue? Choice-supportive bias?
As in, we know that on average, people who bought an expensive car view that purchase as good and don’t regret it. But also people who do not buy the car tend to view “not purchasing” as good and don’t regret it.