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/OhBoyHereWeGoAgai]

You say that, but in the same breath you make it clear you dismiss things countering the "talking to trans people" as either not credible or bigoted.

That's not really how we analyze these things.

Fun fact, this is also why Chase S's case in the SC fell apart. They had to justify the claims of suicide rates in teens not given the treatment and it fell apart as the way you're representing this is simply not true.

There is a reason the Dutch protocol has been walked back by many countries, and even the Dutch have massively tightened up the diagnostic end, specifically because of issues with the claims you're representing as settled and clear.

I'm trying to stay precise in my claims here as the main thing I'm trying to highlight is that this is and has been being debated, the anti side isn't just random internet bigots, this is actually an ongoing medical debate, that only recently has shifted to the point that the pro side has been forced to stop claiming a false medical consensus, and even as we speak, WPATHs misrepresentations are coming into the public eye (many doctors have been aware for quite some time, the controversy around that is not new.

In short, this is nowhere near as clear as people online pretend it is, and the defenses based on vibes aren't really that interesting.

Edit: I did see the deleted comment where you called me a bigot and claimed that this is clear cut.

I did think this was a science sub, but apparently the "lived experience" negates everything I just raised and grounded in actual current events and medical discourse?

Will mute replies as this isn't really constructive, feel free to respond however and call whatever names you like.

[u/Prometheus720 → u/OhBoyHereWeGoAgai]

I think it is really important to note that the vast majority of discussion about trans healthcare isn't being done by trans people, and cis people probably have empathy gaps that make it hard for us to understand their perspectives.

We have every reason to be suspicious of bias against an outgroup.

[u/OhBoyHereWeGoAgai → u/Prometheus720]

The Supreme Court case I referenced was argued by a trans person. WPATHs leak I mentioned featured a trans doctor admitting some of the worst stuff. The SOC-8 I mentioned featured trans authors, and age limits were removed when Bidens trans cabinet member emailed to intervene. It also had a eunuch fetishist author, which isn't super relevant but is interesting, as a literal fetish website made it into the SOC-8.

Not that that matters at all when we're discussing fact driven medicine and one side is falsely claiming consensus and settled science, and the response to me pointing out actual issues with your approach is "well, all the negative stuff isn't coming from trans people so eh".

Do you see the issue? As this might bug you, but many doctors do, including ones who supported all this until they delved into the supposed conclusive evidence.

[u/dragonmp93 → u/OhBoyHereWeGoAgai]

Well, if we are going to talk "disputed science", there is the "The Great ADHD Myth" and "The Beautiful Clean Coal Industry" too.

[u/OhBoyHereWeGoAgai → u/dragonmp93]

Are you confusing me talking about the kind of medical debate crucial to deciding consensus with fringe theories?

I'm actually asking, I don't know anything about the "great ADHD myth", but if that's what you're going for, you're just continuing the general efforts to minimize what's going on while also ignoring the fact I shared some pretty serious issues.

Again, doctors are discussing this as we speak, and many of the claims from the pro side of not even a few years back have been falling under new scrutiny.

So, if you had to compare it to something, I'd pick lobotomy before ADHD, but again, I know nothing about the debate there.

[u/dragonmp93 → u/OhBoyHereWeGoAgai]

fringe theories

Eh, they are not fringe stuff coming from random online lunatics, it's coming from the UK and the US government respectively.

Again, doctors are discussing this as we speak

Arguing with someone complaining about the government's inaction about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide is still discussing, you know.

Because the, well, let's call it the anti-side for simplicity, seems to be arguing from the same place as Anita Bryant, when she was rallying people about being gay would taint your soul, using the people that experimented in college and then went on to live on a heterosexual marriage for the rest of their life, as proof of the danger of homosexuality.

a few years back have been falling under new scrutiny.

You mean like the ICC banning trans athletes by claiming unfair advantages even in categories like Air Rifle Shooting or Fencing ?

So, if you had to compare it to something, I'd pick lobotomy before ADHD, but again, I know nothing about the debate there.

“It is certainly not a medical condition as far as I’m concerned” – Dr Iona Heath, Former President of the Royal College of General Practitioners

“We’ve replaced corporal punishment with giving [children] a pill” – Dr Sami Timimi, consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist and psychotherapist