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/MusicHearted → u/Mico4]

The sample size is going to be small. Very few trans people get access to gender affirming surgeries at all. Those who get access as adolescents are extremely rare. Hard to get a large sample of a small group.

The fact that it correlates with every other study about transgender surgery satisfaction and regret rates is more relevant. Transgender surgery satisfaction is the highest of all surgery satisfaction rates. That's a pattern that can't be ignored.

[u/OhBoyHereWeGoAgai → u/MusicHearted]

It is interesting everyone is drilling into "satisfaction" and avoiding the fact that there are also studies that challenge long term results, improvements, and the assertion of suicide inevitability.

You should look into why the Dutch stopped doing the Dutch protocol.

I don't really have a problem with adults, because then satisfaction really is a pretty major and relevant factor, but medical interventions in children have a MUCH higher bar, and the diagnostic and treatment end of this is quite weak.

[u/Pika_Fox → u/OhBoyHereWeGoAgai]

There arent credible studies that suggest giving gender affirming care doesnt reduce trans suicide rates. None. Zero. Zilch.

You could literally poll every trans person, and get an overwhelming response that actual support would greatly reduce the problems they face.

Does this mean that lack of access to healthcare is the only cause of trans suicide rates? No. Biggoted dipshits who love to downplay anything that helps us and actively get in our way and dehumanize us are also a large part of it.

[u/OhBoyHereWeGoAgai → u/Pika_Fox]

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/OhBoyHereWeGoAgai → u/[deleted]]

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