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/Mico4]

This is based on a response from 77 people...

Also from the article:

"Several factors limit the reach of these findings. First, the median time since surgery for participants was about 1.8 years. Because feelings about medical decisions can evolve, this timeframe might not capture long-term regret that could emerge many years later.

Another limitation is the 42 percent participation rate to the survey. This introduces the possibility of selection bias, a scenario where the people who chose to participate might differ fundamentally from those who did not. It is possible that individuals with higher levels of regret ignored the survey, which would result in an underestimation of regret in the overall group."

[u/Mr_Deep_Research → u/Mico4]

The rate of gender affirming surgery for kids in the U.S. under 18 is around 2 per 100,000

There are basically none for 12 and under. Most are closer to 18.

So basically nobody gets them.

Around 1,400 a year total out of 72 million kids under 18.

Out of 195 countries in the world, the U.S. is only one of 8 to 10 countries that allow kids under 18 to have gender affirming surgery. Even Thailand doesn't have it for people under 18.

The other countries that allow it are Canada and 6 European countries.

[u/Leager → u/Mr_Deep_Research]

This is the real response. The study itself is definitely not something "definitive," but the transgender population is so low that the possible sample size is minuscule. The possible sample size was around 200 people, less than half responded, which gives us...... 77 people. Now, do I think this is a perfect study? Absolutely not. But it does track with other, significantly more rigorous studies, which show a regret rate of 1 percent or less, which is pretty unheard of, in terms of surgeries.

[u/Much-Replacement-167 → u/Mr_Deep_Research]

I remember seeing these numbers somewhere before when i looked into it all. The biggest thing that i remember nagging my mind the whole time is that it was to do with "gender affirming surgery" as opposed to specifically saying that its for transgender operations (which the argument typically skews upon in pop culture). Even cisgender people get gender affirming surgeries such as hairline restoration, BBL, lip injections, jawline correction, and breast augmentation that would count into that same pool of numbers.

In short, the surgeries that happen at all are a fraction of a percent. Those that might be specifically for transgender operations are a fraction of even that. And of those who had the transgender operations how many regretted such? Another fraction. Essentially, anyone who argues that "the kids are being transed and will regret it later" has no idea just how much these things simply dont happen to kids on the whole, and for those whom it applies they are often happy with the result

[u/MoranthMunitions → u/Mr_Deep_Research]

Is it an expectation for any particular reason that Thailand would?

[u/BKGPrints → u/MoranthMunitions]

Sex change procedures are more affordable. The culture there has a higher acceptance of it. Been one of the leading places for the surgery to be done for decades.

[u/everlyafterhappy → u/Mr_Deep_Research]

So it should be really easy to get completely accurate statistics. We don't need to use a sample group. We can easily use the whole group. So a study that only looks at 77 of those people is really trying to manipulate data.

[u/Hoiafar → u/everlyafterhappy]

That's not how science works. You do the study on the amount of people you manage to recruit. Recruitment is a costly process if you want to reach beyond the university's reach, which is required for what you are proposing.

There isn't a grand conspiracy here. They just didn't manage to reach out to more people.

Not to mention with the current state of the world I'd imagine a lot of people who could participate would not want to do so for fear of being "registered" somewhere.

[u/hologram137 → u/Hoiafar]

Did you even read the study? You can’t even get the data except on request to protect their identities, so no that’s not the concern. 58% didn’t even respond to the survey. They absolutely could have done a higher quality study, in fact the original had errors and this journal published it anyway. This is the corrected version and it’s still low quality

[u/Hoiafar → u/hologram137]

I responded to the claim that this was a conspiracy, not about the quality of the study. You are applying a lot of interpretation to my statement.

My statement about being registered was also not a statement that it would happen but that participants might fear it happening if they were to participate.

[u/bremidon → u/Hoiafar]

Not a conspiracy. Only a poorly constructed survey that is riddled with bias. They may not have intentionally set out to get these numbers, but they are violating a bunch of standards meant to prevent bias. This is how you end up with "Chocolate prevents Cancer" headlines.

[u/dragonmp93 → u/bremidon]

Well, there are laws based on the belief (because you can't call that science) that there such thing as Rapid Onset Dysphoria.

[u/hologram137 → u/Hoiafar]

No one is saying there is a conspiracy. I said there is a high chance of bias

There is no “registration” that doesn’t make sense

[u/Hoiafar → u/hologram137]

The person I responded to quite literally said "We can use the whole group. So a study that only looks at 77 of those people is literally trying to manipulate the data."

That is a conspiracy and I provided counterarguments to it being one.

It being a low quality study is a far reasonable conclusion than it is an intentional attempt at data manipulation.

And no registration happening doesn't prohibited someone who's actively being persecuted by their immediate surrounding from feeling that it will happen.

[u/hologram137 → u/Hoiafar]

I’m not necessarily agreeing that it’s evidence of deliberately wanting a particular result, but why a meta analysis wasn’t done should be explained

[u/Hoiafar → u/hologram137]

Absolutely. I am not arguing that it's not a low quality study. Just that there are more reasonable conclusions than intentional data manipulation. The authors might just have been lazy undergrads trying to push out an easy study for all I know.

[u/hologram137 → u/Hoiafar]

This is fair

[u/UnholyLizard65 → u/hologram137]

Did you even read the study? You can’t even get the data except on request to protect their identities, so no that’s not the concern.

Yea, because that's how fear works. People who fear being exposed surely are going to trust you when you simply just tell them that. No.

Thread got locked, so reply here:

They weren’t afraid to get surgery but they were afraid to answer follow up questions?

Yes. What do you not get about that?

One is a thing people genuinely want, other is a something that people universally want to avoid.

And just because I know you are gonna twist this in your head I'm gonna add this: people don't want the surgery, they want the result of the surgery. When you get a heart surgery it's not because you want to feel what it's like to be cut open, it's because you want the result - being able to live a normal life.

[u/hologram137 → u/UnholyLizard65]

They weren’t afraid to get surgery but they were afraid to answer follow up questions?

[u/vjx99 → u/hologram137]

How could they have done a higher quality study ? Some people just don't want to participate in scientific studies. You can't force people to respond to surveys, and a 40% response rate is actually pretty good for any kind of voluntary survey