Zone1 Transgender redux

[Mr. Friscus]

So in conclusion 200% decreases are a thing in context. Thanks for conceding.

Here’s how The Guardian summarized the results of a review of “more than 100 follow-up studies of post-operative transsexuals” by Birmingham University’s Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility:

[The Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility], which conducts reviews of health care treatments for the [National Health Service], concludes that none of the studies provides conclusive evidence that gender reassignment is beneficial for patients. It found that most research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favor of physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other treatments, such as long-term counseling, might help transsexuals, or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time.

Overall, the quality and strength of evidence were low due to mostly observational study designs with no comparison groups, subjective endpoints, potential confounding (a situation where the association between the intervention and outcome is influenced by another factor such as a co-intervention), small sample sizes, lack of validated assessment tools, and considerable lost to follow-up.

NCA - Gender Dysphoria and Gender Reassignment Surgery (CAG-00446N) - Decision Memo

Use this page to view details for the decision Memo for Gender Dysphoria and Gender Reassignment Surgery (CAG-00446N).

www.cms.gov

Basically, you're consistently relying on activist studies that are seeking an outcome and aren't objective, are using improper methods, etc.

No wonder you're so off.

 

[JoeMoma]

Basically, you're consistently relying on activist studies that are seeking an outcome and aren't objective, are using improper methods, etc.

No wonder you're so off.

Such as a "study" that reports a 222% decrease in the "odds" of distress. What does that even mean?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

You got that having read none of it yet have you?

1. Suicide Rates Among Transgenders Do Not Decrease Thanks to Sex-Change Surgery. The suicide rates among transgenders do not drop after surgery. 41 percent of transgender people attempt suicide sometime in their life; just 4.6 percent of the rest of the population does. The suicide rate among transgender people who say they are never identified as transgender is still 46 percent. 45 percent of transgender people who undergo hormone therapy attempt suicide – higher than the general transgender suicide rate.

2. Most Children Grow Out Of Transgender Feelings. Dr. Paul McHugh, former head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, finds that 70 to 80 percent of all children with transgender feelings grow out of it. This is important because the media has already told parents that children confused about their sex should consider whether they are transgender.

3. Transgender Regret Is Very Real. Walt Heyer, a man who underwent sex-change surgery and then regretted it, writes at The Federalist:

The study commissioned by The Guardian of the UK in 2004 reviewed 100 studies and found 20 percent regret. Consider the findings of a 2011 Swedish study (not the study Ms. Costello used) published seven years after the 2004 UK review. It looked at mortality and morbidity after gender reassignment surgery and found that people who changed genders had a higher risk of suicide. In this study, all the sex-reassigned persons in Sweden from 1973–2003 (191 male-to-females, 133 female-to-males) were compared to a comparable random control group. The sex-reassigned persons had substantially higher rates of death from cardiovascular disease and suicide, and substantially higher rates of attempted suicide….Gender surgery is not effective treatment for depression, anxiety or mental disorders.

3 Facts About Transgenderism The Media Ignored To Push The Caitlyn Jenner Hero Story | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

 

[JoeMoma]

You got that having read none of it yet have you?

I've looked at it.. but I've not studied it in detail. Still, I've never seen a study before that reported it's results as a increase or decrease in odds (of distress). Studies usually report on actual results...not the odds of results.

 

[Curried Goats]

Here’s how The Guardian summarized the results of a review of “more than 100 follow-up studies of post-operative transsexuals” by Birmingham University’s Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility:

[The Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility], which conducts reviews of health care treatments for the [National Health Service], concludes that none of the studies provides conclusive evidence that gender reassignment is beneficial for patients. It found that most research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favor of physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other treatments, such as long-term counseling, might help transsexuals, or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time.

Overall, the quality and strength of evidence were low due to mostly observational study designs with no comparison groups, subjective endpoints, potential confounding (a situation where the association between the intervention and outcome is influenced by another factor such as a co-intervention), small sample sizes, lack of validated assessment tools, and considerable lost to follow-up.

NCA - Gender Dysphoria and Gender Reassignment Surgery (CAG-00446N) - Decision Memo

Use this page to view details for the decision Memo for Gender Dysphoria and Gender Reassignment Surgery (CAG-00446N).

www.cms.gov

Basically, you're consistently relying on activist studies that are seeking an outcome and aren't objective, are using improper methods, etc.

No wonder you're so off.

Activist studies? Your guardian article is from 2004 and does not link to the conclusions found by the ARIF nor can any research on gender dysphoria be found on their website. The other link a Medicare website.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Here's a link to the actually study, you can download the pdf from there.

Access to gender-affirming hormones during adolescence and mental health outcomes among transgender adults

We may talk past each other now. I read the study but not the article while I suspect you only read the article.

There were some methodological problems with the study. Yes it had a "control group" in a layman's meaning, but it would not be an experimental study since all events studied happened prior to the study.

To have an actual experimental study with a control group, a large group of similar individuals would have to be divided into two subgroups with one subgroup getting whatever treatment is being studied and the other subgroup being provided some sort of placebo for that treatment. I'm not sure that can ever ethically be done in the case of hormones for children, so I don't know that you will ever have such evidence. All of this study was based on self reports, that is Self-reports of Desiring hormone replacement, self-reports of getting or not getting hormone replacements, and self-reports of suicidal ideation.

Since the participants are all young transgender adults, one would not expect them to be unbiased in reporting those things. Someone who may have been annoyed as an adolescent for being denied hormone replacement, or someone who looks back and wishes he had gotten hormone replacement, would have a motivation to claim suicidal ideation in such a study. Obviously when you do a study like that, the participants know exactly what kind of result you are hoping for.

Why would the researchers hope for a certain result instead of Simply seeking the truth? There is an easy answer if you look toward the end of the study at who funded the study. It was Pfizer, the very company that makes money from selling these hormones. I am tempted to give a lengthy explanation of why that could lead to bias, but instead I think I'll just say give me a break.

Suppose they did a study of 20-year-olds who had wanted a motorcycle when they were kids (sponsored by Yamaha). Suppose they divided those 20-year-olds into those who received a motorcycle and those who did not receive a motorcycle. No doubt many of the non motorcycle recipients would say that they had suicidal ideation. "I'll kill myself if I don't get what I want" is a common immature attitude among people who are actually supposed to be immature because - and this is the point the Democrats seem to miss - they are kids.

That study would not be evidence that every kid that wants a motorcycle should be given one. Because other important data for that group of kids might be how many of them died on a motorcycle before they became old enough for the study? How would we know if they are dead? Well, that is the problem with calling a study of past events an experiment.

If they had started with a group of children who wanted motorcycles and 10 years later looked at motorcycle deaths among those who got one and among those who did not, I think it's safe to assume that the ones who got a motorcycle would be found to be more likely to have died on a motorcycle.

An important Point missed in all of this is that the human brain does not develop to the point of full maturity and making decisions like that until the mid 20s. Many decisions like going to college or joining the military or getting married can safely be made by 18-year-olds. But that's because the options are somewhat limited, and there is plenty of guidance from society as a whole including parents Educators and Friends to point them in the right direction.

It seems that the only guidance adolescents get about transgender treatment comes from highly agendaized educators and profit motivated Healthcare providers, and from social media.

The study you linked said that the results presented were "after adjusting for potential confounders." Can you explain that in your own words what were the "confounders" and why were the adjustments valid?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It seems that the only guidance adolescents get about transgender treatment comes from highly agendaized educators and profit motivated Healthcare providers, and from social media.

That's really the bottom line.

It's just another sprint to perceived compassion in the name of virtue signaling while recklessly getting the science/facts wrong.

We see it so often... COVID lockdowns, police shootings... events/issues where the sprint is to assume, condemn, and report before anything is known. Then, by the time the actual facts come out, the low information folk are already programmed with the desired misinformation.

Same as here. We have people sprinting to recklessly encourage children in the name of being "nice" and "supportive" when outside of the propaganda we are mutilating their genitals and reproductive systems. This activist movement is using incorrect methods/studies while aggressively ignoring counter-evidence and clinical evidence, and is flooding programming and culture much like North Korea represents Kim Jung's family line in their history books.. as infinitely pure, good, innocent, etc.

 

[JoeMoma]

We may talk past each other now. I read the study but not the article while I suspect you only read the article.

There were some methodological problems with the study. Yes it had a "control group" in a layman's meaning, but it would not be an experimental study since all events studied happened prior to the study.

To have an actual experimental study with a control group, a large group of similar individuals would have to be divided into two subgroups with one subgroup getting whatever treatment is being studied and the other subgroup being provided some sort of placebo for that treatment. I'm not sure that can ever ethically be done in the case of hormones for children, so I don't know that you will ever have such evidence. All of this study was based on self reports, that is Self-reports of Desiring hormone replacement, self-reports of getting or not getting hormone replacements, and self-reports of suicidal ideation.

Since the participants are all young transgender adults, one would not expect them to be unbiased in reporting those things. Someone who may have been annoyed as an adolescent for being denied hormone replacement, or someone who looks back and wishes he had gotten hormone replacement, would have a motivation to claim suicidal ideation in such a study. Obviously when you do a study like that, the participants know exactly what kind of result you are hoping for.

Why would the researchers hope for a certain result instead of Simply seeking the truth? There is an easy answer if you look toward the end of the study at who funded the study. It was Pfizer, the very company that makes money from selling these hormones. I am tempted to give a lengthy explanation of why that could lead to bias, but instead I think I'll just say give me a break.

Suppose they did a study of 20-year-olds who had wanted a motorcycle when they were kids (sponsored by Yamaha). Suppose they divided those 20-year-olds into those who received a motorcycle and those who did not receive a motorcycle. No doubt many of the non motorcycle recipients would say that they had suicidal ideation. "I'll kill myself if I don't get what I want" is a common immature attitude among people who are actually supposed to be immature because - and this is the point the Democrats seem to miss - they are kids.

That study would not be evidence that every kid that wants a motorcycle should be given one. Because other important data for that group of kids might be how many of them died on a motorcycle before they became old enough for the study? How would we know if they are dead? Well, that is the problem with calling a study of past events an experiment.

If they had started with a group of children who wanted motorcycles and 10 years later looked at motorcycle deaths among those who got one and among those who did not, I think it's safe to assume that the ones who got a motorcycle would be found to be more likely to have died on a motorcycle.

An important Point missed in all of this is that the human brain does not develop to the point of full maturity and making decisions like that until the mid 20s. Many decisions like going to college or joining the military or getting married can safely be made by 18-year-olds. But that's because the options are somewhat limited, and there is plenty of guidance from society as a whole including parents Educators and Friends to point them in the right direction.

It seems that the only guidance adolescents get about transgender treatment comes from highly agendaized educators and profit motivated Healthcare providers, and from social media.

The study you linked said that the results presented were "after adjusting for potential confounders." Can you explain that in your own words what were the "confounders" and why were the adjustments valid?

Another problem with the study is that it surveys those that currently transgender as adults. It does not consider anyone who thought he/she was transgender but worked out those feelings by adulthood and no longer considered himself/herself transgender and was not surveyed.

 

[DudleySmith]

Where are the women's rights groups?

Trying to pretend they didn't cause most of this crap by having Pity Parties for faggots since the 1970's and voting Democrat, and instead snivel about the results of their dumbassery.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Another problem with the study is that it surveys those that currently transgender as adults. It does not consider anyone who thought he/she was transgender but worked out those feelings by adulthood and no longer considered himself/herself transgender and was not surveyed.

Yes, a very good point.

A recent study made the rounds in the left-leaning literature, with most articles claiming "only" about 3% of transgender children change their minds within five years.

Few Transgender Children Change Their Minds After 5 Years, Study Finds (Published 2022)

But the study, which began in 2013, may not fully reflect what’s happening today, when many more children are identifying as trans.

www.nytimes.com

The vast majority of the group still identified with their new gender five years later, according to the study, and many had begun hormonal medications in adolescence to prompt biological changes to align with their gender identities. The study found that 2.5 percent of the group had reverted to identifying as the gender they were assigned at birth.


There are problems with both the study and the interpretation of it by transgender activists, including the New York Times. Here is the study NYT linked:

Gender Identity 5 Years After Social Transition

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES. Concerns about early childhood social transitions among transgender youth include that these youth may later change their gender identification (ie, retransition), a process that could be distressing. The current study aimed to provide the first estimate of...

publications.aap.org

RESULTS
We found that an average of 5 years after their initial social transition, 7.3% of youth had retransitioned at least once. At the end of this period, most youth identified as binary transgender youth (94%), including 1.3% who retransitioned to another identity before returning to their binary transgender identity. A total of 2.5% of youth identified as cisgender and 3.5% as nonbinary.

So, where to begin? Clearly it was 7.3% of youths in that study who change their minds, not 3%. The fact that some of them "retrasition "at least once," should tell a thinking person that some of them are wishy-washy about their identify. What a shock it must have been to those researchers to learn that identity confusion is common among kids. I guess they were too busy studying kids to have them.

The popular magazines (all copying each other, of course) are relying on the 2.5 percent who said at the end of the five years that they were at that moment identifying as the same gender as their biological sex. I guess they didn't want to count those who identified as non-binary at the end of five years.

But that is changing one's mind if the original claim was that they identified as the opposite gender from their biological sex, and now they say non-binary. For policy purposes, that is important, because a non-binary person has no benefit at all from puberty blockers and surgeries. Besides which, if a kid who claimed to be trans changes their mind, announcing as non-binary would be a good way to avoid having counselors freak out and call them liars.

This:

Later cisgender identities were more common among youth whose initial social transition occurred before age 6 years; their retransitions often occurred before age 10 years.

So the kids who are being led by parents and other adults to claim that they are transgender commonly identify as cisgender shortly after. No kidding. Little kids don't understand transgender, or anything else about genger except waht they are told and shown. If a boy grew up in a society in which everyone wore the same coveralls (dream on Democrats!), they would have no urge to "dress like a girl," because there would be no societal convention for dressing like a boy or girl.

Catch a six year old envying his sister's easy-bake oven and an agendized adult can easily convince him to start dressing like a girl. Then when he he grows up, he gets what is happening to him and rebels.

It would be a shame if he had been poisoned with hormone treatments in the meantime, and tragic if he had been mutilated.

Research has suggested that ages 10 to 13 years may be particularly key times for retransition and that identity may be more stable after this period for youth who show early gender nonconformity.3

For. Sure. We should be waiting until well after thirteen to start any kind of hormonal or surgical treatment. Any Democrat care to dispute that?

This study did not assess whether participants met criteria for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth edition, diagnosis of gender dysphoria in children. Many parents in this study did not believe that such diagnoses were either ethical or useful, even if they had been diagnosed, and some children did not experience the required distress criterion after transitioning.

That is interesting. So they did not distinguish between children with a clinical diagnosis of Gender Dyphoria (GD) and those without. Because the parents did not believe that they were ethical and useful.

Wait, what?

The parents? The parents?

I thought parents were the ones who are ignorant and must rely on the professionals in the educational counseling field and the transgender treatment industry? If they ignore a school counselor who tells them that their child is trans and needs to start treatment at once, call CPS on them. But I guess parents are right (and very brave) if they ignore a professional in the gender dysphoria field who tells them that their child has no Gender Dysphoria. Because those Gender Dysphoria specialists are so unethical?

I'll need a Democrat to explain that one.

Final identity classification for these analyses was based on our most recent interaction with the child and/or their parent before January 1, 2021.

If it is just the most recent interaction with the child, how is it the "final identity classification?"

Because some families have not participated recently, we also separately report (Table 2) the results of the n = 291 youth with whom the research team had an interaction within the 2 years before that deadline. This additional analysis allows us to assess whether those who retransitioned were more likely to have missed their more recent appointments with our team.

Of course they were more likely to have missed the more recent appointments if they had realized how inappropriate the whole thing was and felt like suckers for falling for it.

Importantly, only 1 of the 26 families with whom we did not meet in the past 2 years has formally dropped out of the study;

Why is that important? You can't find them, because they don't want to be found by you and they felt no obligation to "formally drop out."

the others often did not complete participation during these 2 years because of personal circumstances at the time we attempted re-recruitment.

In other words, they told you that it was "personal" to avoid telling you that they realized it was a scam to begin with. And since they "re-transitioned" you think it was imperitive to "re-recruit" them. That's the right word, I'd say.

We anticipate that many in this group will participate again in the future.

I anticipate that this will go away with the next moronic fad. I sure hope it doesn't persist like wearing pants below the butt. Meanwhile, we need to make sure as few kids have their lives ruined as possible.

When I first taught, it was at a high school and the fad then was for girls to claim to bisexual to get attention from boys. That fad has gone away, but this one takes its place. Next it will be kids getting attention by claiming to be aliens, or reincarnations of famous people.

This study is marginally better than the one posted by Curried Goats in his OP. But it's conclusions in no way support the Leftie media's interpretation of it.

 

[jotathought]

1. Suicide Rates Among Transgenders Do Not Decrease Thanks to Sex-Change Surgery. The suicide rates among transgenders do not drop after surgery. 41 percent of transgender people attempt suicide sometime in their life; just 4.6 percent of the rest of the population does. The suicide rate among transgender people who say they are never identified as transgender is still 46 percent. 45 percent of transgender people who undergo hormone therapy attempt suicide – higher than the general transgender suicide rate.

2. Most Children Grow Out Of Transgender Feelings. Dr. Paul McHugh, former head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, finds that 70 to 80 percent of all children with transgender feelings grow out of it. This is important because the media has already told parents that children confused about their sex should consider whether they are transgender.

3. Transgender Regret Is Very Real. Walt Heyer, a man who underwent sex-change surgery and then regretted it, writes at The Federalist:

3 Facts About Transgenderism The Media Ignored To Push The Caitlyn Jenner Hero Story | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

These results make perfect sense. An individual can feel like whatever they want to be, yet reality will not always agree. As an example, a man can dress like a woman, have breast implants, mutilate their genitals and create a facade for the public to see ... yet .. the reality is they are still a man.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

These results make perfect sense. An individual can feel like whatever they want to be, yet reality will not always agree. As an example, a man can dress like a woman, have breast implants, mutilate their genitals and create a facade for the public to see ... yet .. the reality is they are still a man.

The best analogy I’ve heard as far as a mainstream issue that qualifies as an identified “FAD”, or social contagion, yet addresses their perceived identity, is anorexia… a woman believes she’s too fat despite everyone she knows identifying her as unhealthy and too thin based on medical standards and observable common sense. Yet, she feels she needs to continue to lose weight based on her warped self-image.

Trans activist logic would encourage her to continue to starve herself because it feels right, while the rest of us “hateful conservatives” would want her to not starve herself, as doing so causes irreversible harm. We “hateful conservatives” would also want those with gender dysphoria to not mutilate their genitalia or take steps to make themselves infertile at an early, impressionable age. It’s the same thing.

 

[jotathought]

The best analogy I’ve heard as far as a mainstream issue that qualifies as an identified “FAD”, or social contagion, yet addresses their perceived identity, is anorexia… a woman believes she’s too fat despite everyone she knows identifying her as unhealthy and too thin based on medical standards and observable common sense. Yet, she feels she needs to continue to lose weight based on her warped self-image.

Trans activist logic would encourage her to continue to starve herself because it feels right, while the rest of us “hateful conservatives” would want her to not starve herself, as doing so causes irreversible harm. We “hateful conservatives” would also want those with gender dysphoria to not mutilate their genitalia or take steps to make themselves infertile at an early, impressionable age. It’s the same thing.

I have no doubt it's a fad, especially when you look at the growth in statistics over the last decade as it's become socially acceptable. Interesting theory on anorexia that I've not heard.

 

[DudleySmith]

That's really the bottom line.

It's just another sprint to perceived compassion in the name of virtue signaling while recklessly getting the science/facts wrong.

We see it so often... COVID lockdowns, police shootings... events/issues where the sprint is to assume, condemn, and report before anything is known. Then, by the time the actual facts come out, the low information folk are already programmed with the desired misinformation.

Same as here. We have people sprinting to recklessly encourage children in the name of being "nice" and "supportive" when outside of the propaganda we are mutilating their genitals and reproductive systems. This activist movement is using incorrect methods/studies while aggressively ignoring counter-evidence and clinical evidence, and is flooding programming and culture much like North Korea represents Kim Jung's family line in their history books.. as infinitely pure, good, innocent, etc.

Well, it's obvious they know they're lying; they're just sick deviants and could care less about any 'science' or welfare of children. The so-called 'mental health professionals' caves a long time ago, over threats to their plush incomes, so as professions both psychiatrists and psychologists have completely abandoned any credibility on these sick freaks and their fetishes; most of them are nuttier than their patients. It's a field that attracts a lot of sociopaths and loons as 'practitioners', including demented fetishists.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I have no doubt it's a fad, especially when you look at the growth in statistics over the last decade as it's become socially acceptable. Interesting theory on anorexia that I've not heard.

If it was purely an issue of "Society hates us so we're afraid to expose ourselves"... the ratio of those of all age groups would be similar. But it isn't. This is clearly a social pressure put upon confused people.

 

[DudleySmith]

I have no doubt it's a fad, especially when you look at the growth in statistics over the last decade as it's become socially acceptable. Interesting theory on anorexia that I've not heard.

Yes, it has thousands of percent increases in claims, all as a result of educational institutions being infested with sick fucks peddling the nonsense to kids.

 

[Curried Goats]

We may talk past each other now. I read the study but not the article while I suspect you only read the article.

There were some methodological problems with the study. Yes it had a "control group" in a layman's meaning, but it would not be an experimental study since all events studied happened prior to the study.

Sure you read it. Of course you won't ever actually discuss the findings in this entire post.

To have an actual experimental study with a control group, a large group of similar individuals would have to be divided into two subgroups with one subgroup getting whatever treatment is being studied and the other subgroup being provided some sort of placebo for that treatment. I'm not sure that can ever ethically be done in the case of hormones for children, so I don't know that you will ever have such evidence. All of this study was based on self reports, that is Self-reports of Desiring hormone replacement, self-reports of getting or not getting hormone replacements, and self-reports of suicidal ideation.

Well when we are gauging mental health their input on their mental health is kind if important.

Since the participants are all young transgender adults, one would not expect them to be unbiased in reporting those things. Someone who may have been annoyed as an adolescent for being denied hormone replacement, or someone who looks back and wishes he had gotten hormone replacement, would have a motivation to claim suicidal ideation in such a study. Obviously when you do a study like that, the participants know exactly what kind of result you are hoping for.

So they are biased and annoyed. That sounds like you attacking the participants and not addressing the findings.

Why would the researchers hope for a certain result instead of Simply seeking the truth?

Did they? Have you proven that?

There is an easy answer if you look toward the end of the study at who funded the study. It was Pfizer, the very company that makes money from selling these hormones. I am tempted to give a lengthy explanation of why that could lead to bias, but instead I think I'll just say give me a break.

And more innuendo.

Suppose they did a study of 20-year-olds who had wanted a motorcycle when they were kids (sponsored by Yamaha). Suppose they divided those 20-year-olds into those who received a motorcycle and those who did not receive a motorcycle. No doubt many of the non motorcycle recipients would say that they had suicidal ideation. "I'll kill myself if I don't get what I want" is a common immature attitude among people who are actually supposed to be immature because - and this is the point the Democrats seem to miss - they are kids.

And a red herring.

That study would not be evidence that every kid that wants a motorcycle should be given one. Because other important data for that group of kids might be how many of them died on a motorcycle before they became old enough for the study? How would we know if they are dead? Well, that is the problem with calling a study of past events an experiment.

If they had started with a group of children who wanted motorcycles and 10 years later looked at motorcycle deaths among those who got one and among those who did not, I think it's safe to assume that the ones who got a motorcycle would be found to be more likely to have died on a motorcycle.

An important Point missed in all of this is that the human brain does not develop to the point of full maturity and making decisions like that until the mid 20s. Many decisions like going to college or joining the military or getting married can safely be made by 18-year-olds. But that's because the options are somewhat limited, and there is plenty of guidance from society as a whole including parents Educators and Friends to point them in the right direction.

It seems that the only guidance adolescents get about transgender treatment comes from highly agendaized educators and profit motivated Healthcare providers, and from social media.

The study you linked said that the results presented were "after adjusting for potential confounders." Can you explain that in your own words what were the "confounders" and why were the adjustments valid?

For someone who read the study you managed to provide a critique of it without ever actually addressing it.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yes, a very good point.

A recent study made the rounds in the left-leaning literature, with most articles claiming "only" about 3% of transgender children change their minds within five years.

Few Transgender Children Change Their Minds After 5 Years, Study Finds (Published 2022)

But the study, which began in 2013, may not fully reflect what’s happening today, when many more children are identifying as trans.

www.nytimes.com

The vast majority of the group still identified with their new gender five years later, according to the study, and many had begun hormonal medications in adolescence to prompt biological changes to align with their gender identities. The study found that 2.5 percent of the group had reverted to identifying as the gender they were assigned at birth.


There are problems with both the study and the interpretation of it by transgender activists, including the New York Times. Here is the study NYT linked:

Gender Identity 5 Years After Social Transition

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES. Concerns about early childhood social transitions among transgender youth include that these youth may later change their gender identification (ie, retransition), a process that could be distressing. The current study aimed to provide the first estimate of...

publications.aap.org

RESULTS
We found that an average of 5 years after their initial social transition, 7.3% of youth had retransitioned at least once. At the end of this period, most youth identified as binary transgender youth (94%), including 1.3% who retransitioned to another identity before returning to their binary transgender identity. A total of 2.5% of youth identified as cisgender and 3.5% as nonbinary.

So, where to begin? Clearly it was 7.3% of youths in that study who change their minds, not 3%. The fact that some of them "retrasition "at least once," should tell a thinking person that some of them are wishy-washy about their identify. What a shock it must have been to those researchers to learn that identity confusion is common among kids. I guess they were too busy studying kids to have them.

The popular magazines (all copying each other, of course) are relying on the 2.5 percent who said at the end of the five years that they were at that moment identifying as the same gender as their biological sex. I guess they didn't want to count those who identified as non-binary at the end of five years.

But that is changing one's mind if the original claim was that they identified as the opposite gender from their biological sex, and now they say non-binary. For policy purposes, that is important, because a non-binary person has no benefit at all from puberty blockers and surgeries. Besides which, if a kid who claimed to be trans changes their mind, announcing as non-binary would be a good way to avoid having counselors freak out and call them liars.

This:

Later cisgender identities were more common among youth whose initial social transition occurred before age 6 years; their retransitions often occurred before age 10 years.

So the kids who are being led by parents and other adults to claim that they are transgender commonly identify as cisgender shortly after. No kidding. Little kids don't understand transgender, or anything else about genger except waht they are told and shown. If a boy grew up in a society in which everyone wore the same coveralls (dream on Democrats!), they would have no urge to "dress like a girl," because there would be no societal convention for dressing like a boy or girl.

Catch a six year old envying his sister's easy-bake oven and an agendized adult can easily convince him to start dressing like a girl. Then when he he grows up, he gets what is happening to him and rebels.

It would be a shame if he had been poisoned with hormone treatments in the meantime, and tragic if he had been mutilated.

Research has suggested that ages 10 to 13 years may be particularly key times for retransition and that identity may be more stable after this period for youth who show early gender nonconformity.3

For. Sure. We should be waiting until well after thirteen to start any kind of hormonal or surgical treatment. Any Democrat care to dispute that?

This study did not assess whether participants met criteria for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth edition, diagnosis of gender dysphoria in children. Many parents in this study did not believe that such diagnoses were either ethical or useful, even if they had been diagnosed, and some children did not experience the required distress criterion after transitioning.

That is interesting. So they did not distinguish between children with a clinical diagnosis of Gender Dyphoria (GD) and those without. Because the parents did not believe that they were ethical and useful.

Wait, what?

The parents? The parents?

I thought parents were the ones who are ignorant and must rely on the professionals in the educational counseling field and the transgender treatment industry? If they ignore a school counselor who tells them that their child is trans and needs to start treatment at once, call CPS on them. But I guess parents are right (and very brave) if they ignore a professional in the gender dysphoria field who tells them that their child has no Gender Dysphoria. Because those Gender Dysphoria specialists are so unethical?

I'll need a Democrat to explain that one.

Final identity classification for these analyses was based on our most recent interaction with the child and/or their parent before January 1, 2021.

If it is just the most recent interaction with the child, how is it the "final identity classification?"

Because some families have not participated recently, we also separately report (Table 2) the results of the n = 291 youth with whom the research team had an interaction within the 2 years before that deadline. This additional analysis allows us to assess whether those who retransitioned were more likely to have missed their more recent appointments with our team.

Of course they were more likely to have missed the more recent appointments if they had realized how inappropriate the whole thing was and felt like suckers for falling for it.

Importantly, only 1 of the 26 families with whom we did not meet in the past 2 years has formally dropped out of the study;

Why is that important? You can't find them, because they don't want to be found by you and they felt no obligation to "formally drop out."

the others often did not complete participation during these 2 years because of personal circumstances at the time we attempted re-recruitment.

In other words, they told you that it was "personal" to avoid telling you that they realized it was a scam to begin with. And since they "re-transitioned" you think it was imperitive to "re-recruit" them. That's the right word, I'd say.

We anticipate that many in this group will participate again in the future.

I anticipate that this will go away with the next moronic fad. I sure hope it doesn't persist like wearing pants below the butt. Meanwhile, we need to make sure as few kids have their lives ruined as possible.

When I first taught, it was at a high school and the fad then was for girls to claim to bisexual to get attention from boys. That fad has gone away, but this one takes its place. Next it will be kids getting attention by claiming to be aliens, or reincarnations of famous people.

This study is marginally better than the one posted by Curried Goats in his OP. But it's conclusions in no way support the Leftie media's interpretation of it.

Another long diatribe where you enter your own commentary as if it was a trans patients.

At the end of the study 94% still identified as trans and the majority who didn't identified as non binary. Only 2.5 transitioned back to their biological gender.

Also important to note is that when they say transition back that is a very loose term. With kids this age that could just mean dressing more like the biological sex and changing their pronouns because kids at 6-10 they have not gone through puberty and so have not been put on puberty blockers.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yes, it has thousands of percent increases in claims, all as a result of educational institutions being infested with sick fucks peddling the nonsense to kids.

Ooo a thousand percent increase.... that sounds scary. I'm sure you can back that up as well...

 

[DudleySmith]

Ooo a thousand percent increase.... that sounds scary. I'm sure you can back that up as well...

More like 4000%, and yes it's a fact.