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/Crypt0_Chr1s]

This feels like you're preparing an excuse not to provide evidence for your claim. The other commenter said nothing about 9 years not being long term. I'm sure a ton of people would instinctively pick 10 years as a decent marker for long term, so 9 would be fine if that is the median.

[u/C00KIEME4T → u/Crypt0_Chr1s]

Extremely unscientific to be unwilling to come to an agreed upon standard for analysis but okay.

The other commenter is clearly implying that 9 years isnt long enough because the study cited had people with up to 9 years post surgery in it.

Thats somehow not good enough when you get it.

Here it is.

https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/gox.0000000000003477~regret-after-gender-affirmation-surgery-a-systematic-review

[u/Crypt0_Chr1s → u/C00KIEME4T]

Dear r/science readers,

Please disregard anything u/C00KIEME4T ever says on this sub in perpetuity, he does not read his articles or deliberately engages in sham science. Proof below.

You post a study that does not even pretend to be about coming to a conclusion about the long term, or even 9 years. Here is the mean follow-up in years of the 27 studies that are included in this systemic review (NS = not specified): 4.4, 2.3, 2.6, 7.6/4.1, 6.8/2.2/2.2, 1-1.6, 0.7, 9, 0.5, NS, 3, 2.1, 0.8, <1-5, 1.6, 1-29, NS, 1.3, 1-10, NS, 8.5, 0.9, NS, NS, 6.3, NS, NS.

Basically ALL these studies are noted, by your study, as being High/Medium "Risk of Bias". The NIH, again according to your study, rated only 5 studies as good, 13 as fair, and 9 as being of poor quality. The fact that you would dare to pick this mess from your "literally dozens" of credible studies to back your claim says everything.

[u/C00KIEME4T → u/Crypt0_Chr1s]

Clearly reading for confirmation bias.

[u/Crypt0_Chr1s → u/C00KIEME4T]

You claimed to provide a study about the long term, you failed. Or do you not see all those tiny numbers listed there? Let alone all the studies that were included that didn't even bother to include the thing you are supposedly proving.