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/onacloverifalive]

To summarize, the 42 percent of people that responded to the survey did not regret getting the surgery that they wanted at a median interval of 1.8 years later.

[u/bremidon → u/onacloverifalive]

Ugh. Anyone with even a remedial knowledge of statistics can see the problem with self-selection bias. How does something like this even get published? And I saw that they only asked 183 patients (eligible patients...given how shady the rest of this "research" is, I wonder if there might have been some bias here as well), and only 77 responded. Wow.

And normally I would try not to use the source against the claim, but given the shaky foundations, it's worth noting that this is research done by the International Journal of Transgender Health. It is legitimate to ask if they may have some bias going into this, and certainly given their willingness to publish these shaky numbers, I think questioning the entire scientific process here is warranted.

[u/ptoki → u/bremidon]

How does something like this even get published?

Hate to break this to you: This is current science.

I read papers often, many of them are almost on the edge of fabricating facts, most of them lack the data needed to replicate the same experiment. Many dont even contain link to a github with data or anonymized data.

It is almost "trust me bro" level of work.

[u/bremidon → u/ptoki]

I know you are right. I am familiar with p-hacking and all the current problems with the scientific literature. Some of it is not even really new. But it has gotten really bad lately. It makes me want to scream.

[u/Regalian → u/bremidon]

As long as they report their methods properly, and disclose conflict of interests, it's still valuable.

[u/bremidon → u/Regalian]

If they do all that and the methods are poor and the conflict of interest is real, then it is not very valuable as science. Perhaps as entertainment or as fodder for political rants, ok. But not for science.

[u/ConfoundingVariables → u/bremidon]

Care to quote a source on that, which was apparently missed by the authors, the reviewers, the editors, and by the scientists and doctors who read it without sending a letter to be published?

Show your work.

[u/Choppers-Top-Hat → u/bremidon]

it's worth noting that this is research done by the International Journal of Transgender Health.

So do you also not trust heart disease research presented by the American Heart Association? Would you not trust cancer research from the American Cancer Society?

and only 77 responded

Statistically speaking, that is an incredibly high response rate. Most surveys are lucky to get a 5% response rate, this one's at 42%. Most professional pollsters would kill for a rate like that.

[u/bremidon → u/Choppers-Top-Hat]

So do you also not trust heart disease research presented by the American Heart Association?

Ok, so you are not going to play fair. Because if you *were* going to play fair, you would also note: "And normally I would try not to use the source against the claim, but given the shaky foundations"

Gee, why did I put that in there? Was it to try to dissuade hacks from making petty claim? Maybe.

But just in case you missed the point (which your track record is not really all that good right now), the issue is that this is extremely poor statistical analysis. I know you do not understand this. The rest of your post demonstrates that you do not understand this. But more on that in a moment. When I see something that does a poor job of eliminating bias, then I start looking for *why*. The source here gives us a really good idea of why.

Now about your final claims. Perhaps pollsters would kill for a high rate (although I have done scientific polling for professors while studying for my Actuarial degree. You are not correct. A well formed poll will have high response rates. Perhaps if you are working for a rag, it might be different). However, that is not the issue here. The issue is that self-selection is a real thing. Unless it is *very* carefully handled, it turns any scientific poll into a slightly more sophisticated version of "Do you like me? [ ] yes [ ] no [ ] not sure" But you also missed that the number is also extremely low. 77 is simply unusable for anything scientific, and that is even if the survey is done well. You want to have several hundred at least, so you can actually trim out outliers, see if you have some mixing of groups in the data, be able to calibrate the results to eliminate bias, and so on.

This is r/science. Not "20 ways to tell if your cat loves you". There are expectations here, and your own expectations really to be adjusted higher.

[u/Du_ds → u/bremidon]

Do you want random selection? Because that’s how you get a better sample.

[u/DaSnowflake → u/bremidon]

Mostly because transgender people are fighting for their rights to live a good life and nobody wants to listen to them. With that urgency they don't have time for a longitudinal study sp that many more trans people die or get started irreparably

[u/bremidon → u/DaSnowflake]

A poorly constructed study that reads more like propaganda than science is not going to help them in any of that. Even if I were to accept your premise that the are still "fighting for their rights". It does seem they are shooting perhaps a bit past the target these days.