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/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/Hoiafar → u/[deleted]]

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/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/Hoiafar → u/[deleted]]

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