Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

I'm not sure that a review of 55 articles in the USA that indicate outcomes is the slam dunk you think it is. It's a bit of a distraction anyway. The biggest concern is with offering surgery to young people, so you would need to differentiate that group (say 16 to 25) from older people who might have a very different outlook (see Caitlin Jenner for example).

The 'study' isn't new material. It's a narrative review of old research. A few points:

1. The author is a gender reassignment surgeon who is currently being sued by a patient for performing a mastectomy without informed consent. So a clear conflict of interest and hardly an unbiased reviewer.

https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/...-over-gender-affirming-surgeries/71437329007/

2. The studies being reviewed were not graded for quality. All studies were given the same weight and taken at face value despite many being criticised as being of low quality. It does not meet the criteria for a 'systematic' review; it's a narrative one.

This is different from Cass where studies were independently graded and more weight given to high quality research.

3. The reason some of the studies are poor quality are things like having a very narrow definition of regret and detransition (eg the Bustos review). Another cited was a survey with only a 30% response rate of WPATH-affiliated (ie gender association) surgeons, taking at face value their self-reports about how many patients regretted their procedures. This is open to bias and ignores that detransitioners and regreters may not go back to the doctors who harmed them.

Another issue is that most studies cited on regret/detransitioning are short term, eg 5 years or under. IIRC Cass found that the average time before detransition was 7 years so we need to be looking at 10 years later not 2 or 5.

Importantly, as I Cowden pointed out, the cohort for many of these studies are male adults who transitioned late on - often after years of persisting in their gender identity. They are less likely to regret surgery. This is very different from those who now make up most gender clinic patients, which is children and young people.

Further, this overview only looks at surgical regret. There will be others who have desisted/detransitioned from either meds or their social transition who will never appear in such studies because they simply dropped off the radar of their clinics.

In short, research is limited, most studies are poor and few clinics do follow ups - the Tavistock did zero follow up in 30 years.

Reviews like this show exactly why the evidence for gender medicine needs to be far more rigorously examined. Which is exactly what Hilary Cass did and found it lacking.

 

[icowden]

F*ck it, I don't know why I bother posting positive news stories.
You'd think that celebrations womens' and girls' records would be a good thing, but apparently not.

Maybe it might have been better in the Good News thread?

 

[AndyRM]

Maybe it might have been better in the Good News thread?

Yeah, that's fair I suppose. Shouldn't have to, but makes sense.

 

[classic33]

The 'study' isn't new material. It's a narrative review of old research. A few points:

1. The author is a gender reassignment surgeon who is currently being sued by a patient for performing a mastectomy without informed consent. So a clear conflict of interest and hardly an unbiased reviewer.

https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/...-over-gender-affirming-surgeries/71437329007/

2. The studies being reviewed were not graded for quality. All studies were given the same weight and taken at face value despite many being criticised as being of low quality. It does not meet the criteria for a 'systematic' review; it's a narrative one.

This is different from Cass where studies were independently graded and more weight given to high quality research.

3. The reason some of the studies are poor quality are things like having a very narrow definition of regret and detransition (eg the Bustos review). Another cited was a survey with only a 30% response rate of WPATH-affiliated (ie gender association) surgeons, taking at face value their self-reports about how many patients regretted their procedures. This is open to bias and ignores that detransitioners and regreters may not go back to the doctors who harmed them.

Another issue is that most studies cited on regret/detransitioning are short term, eg 5 years or under. IIRC Cass found that the average time before detransition was 7 years so we need to be looking at 10 years later not 2 or 5.

Importantly, as I Cowden pointed out, the cohort for many of these studies are male adults who transitioned late on - often after years of persisting in their gender identity. They are less likely to regret surgery. This is very different from those who now make up most gender clinic patients, which is children and young people.

Further, this overview only looks at surgical regret. There will be others who have desisted/detransitioned from either meds or their social transition who will never appear in such studies because they simply dropped off the radar of their clinics.

In short, research is limited, most studies are poor and few clinics do follow ups - the Tavistock did zero follow up in 30 years.

Reviews like this show exactly why the evidence for gender medicine needs to be far more rigorously examined. Which is exactly what Hilary Cass did and found it lacking.

Which one?
There's three listed, one male.

You're now an expert on the other works done for that review. You do after all say they weren't graded for quality.
What's your qualification(s) that enables you to say that. Or is it just another copy and paste?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Which one?
There's three listed, one male.

The one in the link, obviously. The lead author.

You're now an expert on the other works done for that review. You do after all say they weren't graded for quality.

I didn't say I was an expert. I said this paper is not a systematic review because it does not weigh the quality of any of the studies it considers, instead it takes them all at face value. Thus it adds nothing to the evidence on regret after surgery because it simply repeats the conclusions of previous poor research.

(Explanation of what a systematic review should entail here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024725/).

What's your qualification(s) that enables you to say that. Or is it just another copy and paste?

I don't think you need any qualifications to know that asking the surgeons who remove healthy breasts and genitalia to do a survey about whether their patients regret it is a pretty poor and unscientific way of assessing outcomes. How many people who have terrible tattoos go back and complain?

If you genuinely cared you'd be pressing for such studies to be held to a high standard so that outcomes could be accurately measured to ensure people got appropriate, evidenced treatment. Which is what the Cass report said needs to happen.

I can't think of any other medical or surgical area that is allowed to tout such poor evidence to promote invasive life changing treatment for what is mental distress.

Here's an explanation of why the studies that this 'new' review depends on are poor quality:


View: https://medium.com/@JLCederblom/another-day-another-blatantly-false-piece-of-academic-writing-on-transition-regret-2c7935d0531f

 

[icowden]

Which one?
There's three listed, one male.

She did provide the link - Gast is the one being sued.

What's your qualification(s) that enables you to say that. Or is it just another copy and paste?

I'm guessing she read the article?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/

There is a similar study here, but with free access and better methodology. The findings are similar but the studies were pretty much all on older people who had had transition surgery.

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1784687053717774449?t=L7Nf7lWcDO-2oTcCg-1WnA&s=19

 

[CXRAndy]

Women have been telling you this for so long


View: https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1785081880817393934?t=q7s9hGYdHEaCTPB5xFZlqw&s=19

 

[CXRAndy]

No longer parents/clinical/teachers will be intimidated into silence by this ideology

View: https://youtu.be/F4Nhqf2vppw?si=b5npaXpq49hvgnfJ

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://twitter.com/thelincolnite/status/1784658945581179385?t=RvwGSpcgLwYQzRXiw8FS0A&s=19

 

[multitool]

This is how Andy spends his mornings

 

[AndyRM]

It's a bit sad really.

Although imagine if he actually put any time and effort into actually giving a f*ck, rather than regurgitating his social media for us?

 

[monkers]

She did provide the link - Gast is the one being sued.

I'm guessing she read the article?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/

There is a similar study here, but with free access and better methodology. The findings are similar but the studies were pretty much all on older people who had had transition surgery.

Ah but make a point in reply to an anti-trans activist with their specific ideology, and in reply all you get is ''but look at Karen White'', but look at Isla Bryson, ''but look at poor poor Keira Bell'', ''but look at Fallon Fox''.

When the truth is put in front of them in each of these cases, the truth is rejected in favour of the propaganda in turn.

This is why the likes of CXRAndy repeat propaganda ad nauseum, because they wish to capture people to their side because they are consumed with hate. The more successful they are, the more they celebrate their success. And yes they are successful, and that is why more people need to start using critical thinking skills. The country operates on the basis of making sure that people don't have enough time on their hands to know what is really going on.

Very few people know how London works as a financial centre, or how the media operates. If they did, there would be a rebellion. It's important to keep people's lives filled with other things to distract them from the truth. The most 'developed nations' are the ones with the biggest wealth gaps. This is how the UK maintains itself as a serf country.

We used to have sock puppet governments in thrall to billionaires, but we are returning with Sunak to pre Bill of Rights days, with the wealthy having absolute control, and the people having few rights. We have an unelected billionaire son of immigrants hell-bent with a Rwanda plan not supported by public opinion, who spends his time in parliament taunting Starmer with 'he doesn't even know what a woman is' in answer to questions at PMQT.

The anti-immigrant narrative, and the anti-trans narratives are just the means of control. Only fools believe it is anything but. Meanwhile the very healthy are delighted that that is all that appears in the Daily Express or on GB news every day. They are taking the country for fools - and collectively what fools we have proved to be.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Ah but make a point in reply to an anti-trans activist with their specific ideology, and in reply all you get is ''but look at Karen White'', but look at Isla Bryson, ''but look at poor poor Keira Bell'', ''but look at Fallon Fox''.

When the truth is put in front of them in each of these cases, the truth is rejected in favour of the propaganda in turn.

This is why the likes of CXRAndy repeat propaganda ad nauseum, because they wish to capture people to their side because they are consumed with hate. The more successful they are, the more they celebrate their success. And yes they are successful, and that is why more people need to start using critical thinking skills. The country operates on the basis of making sure that people don't have enough time on their hands to know what is really going on.

Very few people know how London works as a financial centre, or how the media operates. If they did, there would be a rebellion. It's important to keep people's lives filled with other things to distract them from the truth. The most 'developed nations' are the ones with the biggest wealth gaps. This is how the UK maintains itself as a serf country.

We used to have sock puppet governments in thrall to billionaires, but we are returning with Sunak to pre Bill of Rights days, with the wealthy having absolute control, and the people having few rights. We have an unelected billionaire son of immigrants hell-bent with a Rwanda plan not supported by public opinion, who spends his time in parliament taunting Starmer with 'he doesn't even know what a woman is' in answer to questions at PMQT.

The anti-immigrant narrative, and the anti-trans narratives are just the means of control. Only fools believe it is anything but. Meanwhile the very healthy are delighted that that is all that appears in the Daily Express or on GB news every day. They are taking the country for fools - and collectively what fools we have proved to be.

Everyone who's not fully on board with @monkers, they're all the same?
Sounds like one of @CXRAndy's arguements - I don't vote for politicians, they're all the same.

 

[AndyRM]

Everyone who's not fully on board with @monkers, they're all the same?
Sounds like one of @CXRAndy's arguements - I don't vote for politicians, they're all the same.

He doesn't have any arguments though.

He just laps up whatever sh!te he's been spoon-fed by whichever piece of sensationalist nonsense has grabbed the headlines in his internet algorithm and posts it for us here as some kind of truth.

It's a very generous, but totally unnecessary service.