- Joined
- Nov 5, 2014
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 109
Given the sample size, this describes a total of 10 mothers.
"Bound by law to offer gender affirming advice."
- Thread starter BuckeyeLove
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2014
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 109
Im surprised there are so few claims for hormone therapy (18,000) considering the estimate of 300,000 transgendered teenagers.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 18,031
- Reaction score
- 23,784
Are you saying that those were not valid criticisms of the fairly profound limitations of the study?
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 3,887
This would not be possible, as you just presented an article without presenting any argument or position for which you were using the article for support. Steelmanning would involve "attacking" the article whilst not addressing your overall position. As no overall position was presented, I could neither address nor fail to address it. Thus, my reply was nothing more than a pure criticism of the article. If you want to give me your position so that I can attempt to construct a steelman argument, I'd legitimately be happy to try. It's a pretty difficult logical fallacy to pull off, so I'd appreciate the practice!
Note that in my criticism of the article, I did not make any statements regarding the relationship between GID boys and BPD moms. That was deliberate. The real issue with with such threats to internal validity is that they can't demonstrate a functional relationship between the IV and the DV, not that they don't.
My hunch with that study is that they are picking up somewhat on the relationship between severe MI in the children of parents with severe MI. Given the non blindness of the BPD diagnostic interviews, we can't be certain of the validity of the BPD diagnoses in the moms, but Id be surprised if there weren't higher rates of some MI, as they are first degree relatives of boys receiving inpatient psychiatric care. The presence of non-GID MI in the boys was not controlled for. Thus-at best- this study is really only testing for wether or mot MI runs in families. Again- Given the small n and non-blindness of the major measure of the DV, I'm not really certain it could do that.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 18,031
- Reaction score
- 23,784
How dare you use logic and a basic understanding of research methods!
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 3,887
I will hold off on judgment of the intent of @borne_before's comment- I'm just not sure what they were getting at. Were they accusing me of steelmanning? merely suggesting I give it a try?
I do, however, enjoy (probably a little too much) logic and criticizing questionable research articles! In my "real life," I even get paid to do it.
Seriously, though- if any of my critiques of that study are unfounded, I really would like to know so that I can be better next time.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 18,031
- Reaction score
- 23,784
No, I thought you were pretty spot on. Hard to extrapolate to the general population based on a self-referred SMI sample that is an N of 16.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 1,666
No they're pretty spot on. I just meant, it's easy to criticize an article but in certain twitter spaces it's used for a certain agenda. But, does it provide any value?
Btw - my four year old was bullying me when I replied to that and my comment was cut short. I needed to open a can whoopass. Sorry for the short reply. The little hobgoblin thinks it's so funny to launch himself onto me while I'm on the couch knee first.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 18,031
- Reaction score
- 23,784
Given its methodological limitations and how much has changed in our understanding within the area since the late 80's/early 90's when the author wrote it, I can't see what use it serves for understanding anything of value.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 1,666
Maybe a spark for future research with more improved controls? I'm gonna look at it's citation history.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 827
- Reaction score
- 1,385
The fact this article is being thrown around on twitter as substantive evidence of a problem (with great vigor and reach by these twitter personalities) is legit concerning.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 18,031
- Reaction score
- 23,784
Sure, if it were designed and powered well. I imagine you'd have to expand the scope a bit as well.
Have you been on Twitter? The general populace there are functionally troglodytes. Even the professional subs are pretty ignorant. Have you seen the private psychotherapy sub? After seeing the "professionals" on there, I am no longer surprised at the state of this country's mental health.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 1,666
Dude, I get this sentiment. But, I truly think that steelmanning - knowing the other's arguments as good as your own, is the best way to fruitful convos. Plus add a little sugar in there and you might start a change.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 18,031
- Reaction score
- 23,784
There is very little redeemable value in discourse on Twitter. 99.99% of the "arguments" on twitter simply have little to no factual basis. I hardly see the value in knowing various delusions.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 1,666
Wise.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 827
- Reaction score
- 1,385
I've got nothing on my schedule this afternoon so I will definitely be taking a look now.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 3,887
My agenda in criticizing this article was to criticize the article. As I mentioned, I enjoy article reviews (and I currently teach graduate courses in research methods and experimental analysis of behavior, so it's good practice). I have a very low opinion of this article and do not think it provides much value. The non-blindness and inadequate (dare say "biased") control group are fundamental flaws that introduce a whole bunch of confounds that make any real conclusions impossible.
Also- you have actually left off a bit in your quote of the findings (I hope not intentionally). The full quote is: "Fifty-three percent of the mothers of boys with GID compared with only 6% of controls met the diagnosis for Borderline Personality Disorder on the Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines or had symptoms of depression on the Beck Depression Inventory." That last bit following the "or" is kind of important. Only 25% (4 out of 16) met criteria for BPD. The rest scored higher on the BDI. With a subject pool of 16, how do you get 53%? 8 would be 50%, and 9 would be 56% after rounding. I'll assume they meant 56% (or I'm not smart enough to figure out the maths here), and thus we have a total of 4 BPD moms and 5 high BDI moms. Is 4/16 with BPD vs. 1/17 with BPD from the control really all the practically significant? In regards to the BDI results, wouldn't you be surprised if moms of children in an inpatient psychiatric facility didn't score higher on the BDI than moms of non-psychiatrically involved children (who the authors refer to as "normal", but that's a whole other discussion
)?Getting their conclusions/discussions, they don't even that it is a correlational study and that there is no way to determine the directionality of the the effects they believe they see. They go right to a psychodynamic interpretation of causality (cross gender behavior is a defense of separation anxiety), with no acknowledgment that BPD could be a "defense" of- I don't know- fears of losing a child (as you may guess, I'm not up to date on my Freud). This one is BAD all around. It's one thing to identify limitations of a study in the conclusions, and even to label it a pilot study. It's- IMHO- very bad form when those limitations render any findings moot. Shame on the editorial board for this one.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,101
- Reaction score
- 3,090
Did anyone look at the article I posted by bmj that was recent?
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 3,887
I did. It's more of a position piece than a research article. I agree that it is important to be cautious with medical interventions and decisions really need to be made from an informed position where the benefits outweigh the costs. I do think that article presented stuff in a manner that overly equated "gender affirming care" with medical interventions (such as hormone replacement and surgery). There is certainly a lot of space between irreversible medical interventions and just telling kids to knock it off and start acting like a boy/girl. I have been pretty vocal against legislating against gender affirming care, but even I would say to proceed cautiously with medical interventions (especially irreversible ones) without some measure of certainty. Also- it's not terribly surprising/interesting to see increased professional disagreement when a topic becomes more popular, so to speak.
I was also struck by the following statement and how it applies to a lot of what I/we do:
"But without an objective diagnostic test, others remain concerned, pointing to examples of teenagers being “fast-tracked to medical intervention” with little or no mental health involvement. "
I bet I could show just that statement to 10 different psychologists and ask them to identify the topic/condition it referred to and I'd get around 5 different answers (e.g., ADHD, Bipolar, NSSI, even ASD). Problem is, at least with gender dysphoria, waiting for more more objective tests before doing anything can be untenable for many such individuals and lead to tragic outcomes.
I guess I would some up my position on this issue as follows: Individuals presenting to psychologists with gender dysphoria should be treated respectfully and cautiously, with some acknowledgement that issue really could be with the body and not the brain. These individuals should be referred to a clinician with appropriate training and experience in working with the psychological issues related to the empirically supported treatment of gender dysphoria (with some acknowledgement of the evolving nature of that research. Where such other clinicians are not readily available, the original clinician should work with the individual to identify and address and related or secondary concerns/co-existing conditions, emphasizing safety, without taking much of a stance on the gender dysphoria issue. Psychologists with appropriate training and experience should work closely with medical professionals who may or may not need to get involved with the case. Any planning for medical interventions should be done only following appropriate, research supported (with consideration to for the evolving state of such research) non-medical care. Because I am not up on the literature, I don't really have a firm stance on what should be done relative to non-adjudicated minors and medical interventions. Assuming- and maybe incorrectly- that nothing is done pre-pubescent- we are really talking about that aged 10-18 group. My reading of the literature would indicate that that is a VERY small portion of the population receiving any gender dysphoric related medical interventions.
I believe that the positions and behaviors of certain politicians (and others) is related to morals/religion/tradition/fear/etc., rather than any understanding of the actual clinical issues, effects of treatment/no treatment. I also believe that many of these same individuals purposefully equate gender affirming care with gender reassignment surgery, and wrongfully allude to such surgeries being performed on children. Further, i believe that many of these individuals (especially the politicians) due so to primarily to strengthen their own political standings with certain parts of the populace and have no real concern for the people affected by these policies. I also believe that there are psychologists and others who overstate the actual research findings (in both directions) to make it appear that their moralistically or religiously derived positions have more empirical support than they actually do. Some do so more intentionally than others.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,101
- Reaction score
- 3,090
You read this whole one? Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement
I think I had been linking to a shorter version
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,644
- Reaction score
- 6,385
I read the longer one, and it's still not really a research article, so much as its a journalistic article that cites a lot of secondary and tertiary sources--podcasts, position statements, etc. And the conclusion seems to be that there's not yet a lot of research on this, which... of course there's not--we've only been actually acknowledging that trans youth even exist as a valid identity for maybe one or two decades tops. Of course, best practice guidelines are still evolving in this relatively novel area of medicine.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 3,887
Thanks for clarifying and posting the longer version. Phew- I was concerned that anyone (even a psychiatrist
) would've thought there was much of anything in that original version you posted!I have read the longer article. it is still a piece of journalism (as opposed to a systematic review of the literature). As such, it has some significant limitations in what conclusions can be drawn from it. As As @futureapppsy2 mentions above, it relies heavily on secondary and tertiary sources. The further we get from the original data focused studies, the less we can be sure about the original findings and the methods used to obtain those findings (regardless of the conclusions). Being a journalistic piece (as opposed to a systematic review), the author also doesn't (and doesn't have to) specify their methods for choosing which sources to cite. Typically, a journalistic piece is organized around a thesis (in this case, something along the lines of "there is a concerning amount of disagreement around whether or not medical interventions for GDD should be used or not, to the extent that we should pull back on using such intervention"). The author then seeks out sources that support this thesis. Contradictory sources are usually cited to a lesser extent, and then things are wrapped up usually with a retort to the contradictory sources, with the original thesis being restated at the end in some kind of summary. This differs from a systematic review, where the methods for acquiring sources are provided so that we can determine the extent to which those methods would lead to appropriate representation of the overall population of sources. The systematic review is typically arranged around a question (e.g., "is there evidence supporting the use of hormone blockers in reducing the negative mental health aspects of GDD"). The author then employs a method for acquiring and reviewing a specified set of sources, and then compiles (or analyzes) the results of this sources in a manner that does not give favor to overlook sources supporting a specific viewpoint. As readers, we are privy to the all of the methods used and thus (with appropriate training and experience) are able to spot potential sources of bias in source compiling, analysis, and conclusions. We can then use that to guide our own interpretations of the systematic review. (Sorry for this basic explanation of what might be obvious or know to you or other trained posters. As the mission of this forum is, in part to inform and support trainees, I don't think it hurts to highlight some basic principles regarding what is and what isn't research).
In the case of this article (assuming the author is not being purposefully deceitful), all we know is that the US and it's professional associations/govt agencies support gender affirming care, up to and including medical interventions, while similar (but not identical) agencies some other countries (e.g., Sweden) have recently shown less support. We do not know, for example, why the positions of these countries were highlighted, but not those of, say, Belgium or Japan. If we are to take the stance of national boards as evidence of the correctness of any position, we- at a minimum- need to be provided the stance of all national health boards who have such a position. This article does not do that- I don't know if Sweden or the US is the outlier here, just from reading this article. It's a similar case with the study and research groups the author cites. The only real conclusion I can draw from this type of article is that there are differing views on the issue, potentially based on different research findings. As this is a hot-button, evolving, politically heated topic with moralistic and religious underpinnings, I just find that that conclusion unsurprising and rather uninteresting. My overall view of the issue as stated earlier in this thread (or maybe the other one on this topic) is unchanged after reading this article.
The article cite someone saying (and I paraphrase): "I'm concerned about an individual leaving their second session with script for hormone blockers." I find that a bit of strawman. If that scenario does, in fact, accurately portray "gender affirming care" then I am against gender affirming care. Something tells me, however, that that is an extreme- and likely fictitious, example. Including such statement in the article, with not qualifiers regarding whether or not that actually happens is more evidence that this piece is journalism, with the decisions about what to include or not to include based on how it supports a specific pre-drawn thesis. Before you all jump in and say "the other sided does that too"- DUH! Of course they do. That is what journalism is, and what distinguishes is from research or even news. I am not familiar with the editorial policies of BJM, but this article does clearly appear in the "Feature-BMJ Investigation" section rather than the "research" section, and as such is appropriately labeled. The appropriateness or utility of including journalistic pieces in a scientific journal (if in fact BMJ is thought to be a scientific journal) is debatable and a topic for another post.
- Joined
- May 6, 2018
- Messages
- 115
- Reaction score
- 30
Still, inter sex is a medical condition that affects an astoundingly small portion of the population, much like kleinfengers syndrome and in those cases individuals still have a clear sex. This is obfuscating the real point of the argument of gender identity and trans identity today and how likely 99% of what were seeing is rapid onset gender dysphoria affecting vulnerable teenagers who have never exhibited any symptoms of dysphoria and politicians and activists and even our own field is pushing for medical intervention (which is not reversible and is harmful) for children as young as 13. While pushing the great lie to parents "would you rather have an alive daughter or a dead trans son". We know that in the overwhelming majority of cases, I think it was around 80% youth questioning their gender will either grow out of it (less likely) or actually wind up being gay (more likely). We are not seeing males or females who simply push the bounds of gender being attacked for following the law and the argument is far greater than bathroom bills. It is true that some individuals get caught in the gray areas of these discussions in which I think a valid solution is simply more gender neutral bathrooms and in cases or larger venues where any type of assault is highly unlikely just mind your business and let the person do their business.
zestyzigzagoon
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2023
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 227
I highly recommend reading this methodological critique of the study that gave rise to the ROGD hypothesis: Methodological Critique of Littman’s (2018) Parental-Respondents Accounts of “Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria”
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2014
- Messages
- 2,463
- Reaction score
- 4,872
In terms of empirically-supported treatment of people with gender dysphoria I think I saw an article on use of DBT strategies published a couple of years back...will need to look it up.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 3,887
Yeah. Many people who should- by nature of their training as doctoral level psychologist- don't read past the abstracts (or the titles, for that matter) of the papers they cite in support of or against certain positions. Whereas all research studies have there limitations, some- like the Littman one- contain such major threats to internal validity so as to be pretty useless. The big issue with Littman is that, given the methods and subject recruitment procedures, it would be very surprising if they DIDN'T find what they did. I struggle as to whether this is intentional? Willful ignorance? Lack of research training?
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,644
- Reaction score
- 6,385
“These people i recruited from forums for parents who don’t think their kids are trans don’t think their kids are trans.”
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,644
- Reaction score
- 6,385
Any source for 99% of these kids having ROGD? Fwiw, again, no one’s giving any medical transition treatment to kids, where the treatment is largely social transition. Adolescence gets a bit hairier, because the hormonal effects of puberty start coming into play, but the ROGD proponents I’ve seen rarely say “let’s hold off on medical treatment but I’ll totally support my child in dressing and identifying how they want and socially presenting in their preferred gender” but rather “my child could never be trans! I refuse to acknowledge it!” I’ve read ROGD perspectives to better understand them, and I have to say, the vast majority essentially boil down to transphobia when you scratch the surface even a bit, because they aren’t saying “let’s take a cautious approach with initiating medical treatment” (which has pros and cons with anything you treat medically, especially something with emerging literature like this), but rather, “no way are these people trans! Nope! Never!”
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 3,887
When someone quickly switches between "we need to protect our women and children from men masquerading as women" and "99% of it is ROGD, and 80% will outgrow it" I start to think that person just doesn't like trans individuals and is searching for anything to support a moralistic positions. Moralistic positions are ones prerogative, I just wish people would own up them. I shall now do so:
I have ho moral or religious objections to trans or any other LGBTQ related issues. I believe our world would be a better place if we stopped persecuting LGBTQ individuals. I feel my community is a better, more interesting, and more vibrant place when it includes LGBTQ individuals who feel free to be who they want to be, openly and freely. I don't believe myself, my children, or other children in my community are at risk of harm because of this, not do I feel anyone is risk of "being recruited to this lifestyle. I also acknowledge that the media I consume, discussions I engage in, and work I do is influenced by my beliefs. I also admit to having no active religious beliefs related to this- or any other- topics.
I have ho moral or religious objections to trans or any other LGBTQ related issues. I believe our world would be a better place if we stopped persecuting LGBTQ individuals. I feel my community is a better, more interesting, and more vibrant place when it includes LGBTQ individuals who feel free to be who they want to be, openly and freely. I don't believe myself, my children, or other children in my community are at risk of harm because of this, not do I feel anyone is risk of "being recruited to this lifestyle. I also acknowledge that the media I consume, discussions I engage in, and work I do is influenced by my beliefs. I also admit to having no active religious beliefs related to this- or any other- topics.
I would find many of the arguments against gender-affirming care more palatable if it came with an attitude of "These procedures aren't easily reversible so let's just make sure we are erring on the side of caution with youth while still respecting their feelings and fully supporting their desire to live life as they choose once they become adults."
While I'm certain there are people out there with that attitude, I have seen extraordinarily few opponents to gender-affirming care in children who are truly supportive or welcoming of adults transitioning. It certainly makes me question their real motives.
While I'm certain there are people out there with that attitude, I have seen extraordinarily few opponents to gender-affirming care in children who are truly supportive or welcoming of adults transitioning. It certainly makes me question their real motives.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2014
- Messages
- 2,463
- Reaction score
- 4,872
I have that attitude. That is, I think it is prudent for clients to be cautious about committing to irreversible surgeries (or even hormone treatments, by the way...I have worked with a veteran who decided to de-transition due to adverse health effects some of which may be permanent according to the medical folks...weight gain, breast enlargement, muscle atrophy, low T, difficulty with erections and even when achieved, painful erections, genital atrophy).
I am not ideologically 'against' anyone transitioning nor am I 'for' anyone transitioning. I am 'for' my clients making up their own minds and charting pathways of recovery consistent with THEIR deeply held beliefs, values, goals, etc.
Fortunately, I don't work with the kids. I think that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I am neither 'pro' or 'con' this area...to me this is such a complex and emotionally-charged topic I feel like I need to get a whole lot more information on it and also need to think very deeply about all the ethical/moral and legal issues involved. But, as far as adults are concerned? They're free to do as they wish and I would support them pursuing any path they think would allow them to thrive. However, I think it would be irresponsible for me to encourage them to transition or not to transition based on my particular beliefs or values. I also think it would be irresponsible for me (as their therapist) not to ask open-ended Socratic questions or encourage them to think critically about their choices or for them to receive true and comprehensive informed consent including known or possible risks/benefits, alternatives, etc. But this feels like the one area of clinical practice where you're expected as the therapist to somehow just 'agree with' and endorse/encourage clients to transition vs. being more impartial and Socratic and measured. It doesn't feel right to me and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that and I don't believe it makes me bigoted; I believe it makes me adherent to some of the most central and sacred tenets of responsible delivery of psychotherapy, but people are sure to differ on this. I'm more comfortable considering my approach to be 'client-affirming' or 'person-centered' rather than 'gender affirming.' The term 'gender affirming' could imply that if a biological/natal male comes to you saying that they are considering transitioning to female that you are supposed to immediately strive to 'affirm' that 'choice.'
Here's what really concerns me about these discussions, though. We used to be a profession that celebrated and encouraged dissent, controversy, and debate in the field. However, all too frequently in this area, any dissent, differing opinions, questions, hesitations, doubts, Socratic questions or basically anything other than full-throated support for a particular position puts the person raising the questions at risk of being labeled any number of negative labels either explicitly or by insinuation, joke, remarks, etc.
If we're ever going to be able to truly establish any scientific consensus in this (or any other) area in the field, we're only going to be able to get there via embracing questions/critiques, dissent, 'controversy,' debate, and alternate theories or ways of trying to understand the clinical phenomena or the research database.
Last edited:
I don't know you, but I would wager you also aren't out there vocally advocating in support of the anti-trans bills!
I would wager > 95% of those advocates fall somewhere on the "This isn't a decision to be taken lightly" spectrum. Random TikTok videos that may or may not be real aside, I'd wager nearly all people considering surgical transition do take it seriously.
RE: Socratic questioning, I think it really depends on the provider and where they are coming from. A provider you have a strong rapport with who says "I will wholeheartedly support you and advocate for you whatever direction you decide to go, but this is a big decision. Let's talk about it." socratic questioning is going to be perceived very differently than the one with a crucifix on the wall who immediately starts peppering the person with "Whether they really think this is a good idea, have you read about all the side effects, Tucker Carlson told me everyone who gets the surgery ends up regretting it and burns in hell for eternity, etc." socratic questioning.
We can discuss nuance, ideal phrasings for responses, etc. for the former, but looking at the big picture I don't think most in the psychology community are likely to take major issue with such an approach if done in good faith in a believable way (even from a provider with strong religious leanings). 99% of things take place in varying shades of grey, that's just not where the public debate takes place.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2014
- Messages
- 2,463
- Reaction score
- 4,872
Serious question, though...how many doctoral-level psychologists do you think there are who are 'anti-trans' (however that is defined)?
Crucifixes on walls? Really? Clinical psychology is just about the most politically liberal and low percentage orthodox religious profession around.
And considering the observation that 'This isn't a decision to be taken lightly' to be a 'spectrum' (of 'pathology?') which is abundantly populated with rabid 'anti-trans' (politically ultra-conservative) activists just strikes me as silly. If a careful clinician makes the observation that these things aren't to be taken lightly then he/she is on a slippery slope towards arch-conservative fascism? LOL. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Last edited:
Think I might have explained myself poorly if that was your takeaway.
I think there are very few doctoral-level psychologists that are "anti-trans" (however defined, I agree this is amorphous). However, I also think there are very few doctoral-level psychologists in the "You played with your sister's barbie once so let's get you in for surgery tomorrow" camp. In general, we're varying shades of reasonable, intelligent people who care about others. Gun to my head, I'd still guess there are substantially more transphobic psychologists than there are ones encouraging people to impulsively get bottom surgery, but I don't have numbers to back that up.
My point wasn't that a clinician who says "This isn't a decision to take lightly, let's talk about it" is on a slippery slope to fascism. Actually quite the opposite. My point is I think that's the overwhelmingly modal response and some version of that (nuance TBD) is probably the "correct" response.
Now politicians and activists are another matter entirely. That's where my original comment came from. I very, very sincerely doubt the prototypical politician sponsoring/advocating for these "protect the children" bills springing up all around the US right now would be supportive and respectful of an adult deciding to transition.
For what its worth, I have known multiple clinicians who had crucifixes in their office. I have lived in the bible belt for some time now.
I think there are very few doctoral-level psychologists that are "anti-trans" (however defined, I agree this is amorphous). However, I also think there are very few doctoral-level psychologists in the "You played with your sister's barbie once so let's get you in for surgery tomorrow" camp. In general, we're varying shades of reasonable, intelligent people who care about others. Gun to my head, I'd still guess there are substantially more transphobic psychologists than there are ones encouraging people to impulsively get bottom surgery, but I don't have numbers to back that up.
My point wasn't that a clinician who says "This isn't a decision to take lightly, let's talk about it" is on a slippery slope to fascism. Actually quite the opposite. My point is I think that's the overwhelmingly modal response and some version of that (nuance TBD) is probably the "correct" response.
Now politicians and activists are another matter entirely. That's where my original comment came from. I very, very sincerely doubt the prototypical politician sponsoring/advocating for these "protect the children" bills springing up all around the US right now would be supportive and respectful of an adult deciding to transition.
For what its worth, I have known multiple clinicians who had crucifixes in their office. I have lived in the bible belt for some time now.
- Joined
- May 6, 2018
- Messages
- 115
- Reaction score
- 30
Im sorry, "no one is giving medical transition to kids" is just not correct. The evidence is clear from whistleblowers and verified reports that there are places prescribing hormone treatment and puberty blockers or pushing parents on surgical transition despite the lack of evidence of benefit. You literally have medical professionals telling people if we dont transition kids they will commit suicide. How can you say "ROGD boils down to transphobia?" Its not transphobic to be against transitioning kids and teaching young children that sex is generally fluid which is false. This was not an issue until kids became the subject. I agree with you, there exists people that hide their bigotry behind platitudes but to use that as a broad brush is not correct. We have almost a 100 year diagnostic history of gender dysphoria and gender confusion, its not new. What is new is the rates at which children, young children mostly teens are out of the blue saying "im trans" at 12,13,14 ,15 with ZERO signs or gender related distress until then. In some cases, children are in the midst of puberty with no added stress. You cannot say that a girl who developed large breasts during early puberty but doesn't experience any additional distress related to puberty is really GD. We do have studies pointing to GD having a social contagion component like eating disorder, especially in young girls. The research hasnt been invalidated its just been criticized for being insensitive . GD has for a very long time been something we've seen in young boys 2-4 adamant in not wearing boy clothes or playing with boy toys (which is something that is not socially constructed but largely related to the amount of testosterone or estrogen they get in utero and is cross cultural). I said "likely have". Given the incredibly low rate of individuals who remain trans into adult hood vs those who grow out of questioning their gender (which is a big issue for vulnerable populations like those with ASD) and those who just grow up homosexual the number is certainly 85-90%+. Well have to respectfully disagree here
zestyzigzagoon
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2023
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 227
So…no source. Got it.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 1,666
"In the three years ending in 2021, at least 776 mastectomies were performed in the United States on patients ages 13 to 17 with a gender dysphoria diagnosis, according to Komodo’s data analysis of insurance claims. This tally does not include procedures that were paid for out of pocket."
"At least 14,726 minors started hormone treatment with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis from 2017 through 2021, according to the Komodo analysis."
Number of transgender children seeking treatment surges in U.S.
About 42,000 U.S. children ages 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2021, nearly triple the number in 2017, a unique data analysis for Reuters found.
zestyzigzagoon
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2023
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 227
The original assertion was that 99% of these kids have ROGD. No one is denying that there are more children using gender-affirming care services than in previous years."In the three years ending in 2021, at least 776 mastectomies were performed in the United States on patients ages 13 to 17 with a gender dysphoria diagnosis, according to Komodo’s data analysis of insurance claims. This tally does not include procedures that were paid for out of pocket."
"At least 14,726 minors started hormone treatment with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis from 2017 through 2021, according to the Komodo analysis."
Number of transgender children seeking treatment surges in U.S.
About 42,000 U.S. children ages 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2021, nearly triple the number in 2017, a unique data analysis for Reuters found.www.reuters.com
zestyzigzagoon
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2023
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 227
"In 2021, about 42,000 children and teens across the United States received a diagnosis of gender dysphoria""In the three years ending in 2021, at least 776 mastectomies were performed in the United States on patients ages 13 to 17 with a gender dysphoria diagnosis, according to Komodo’s data analysis of insurance claims. This tally does not include procedures that were paid for out of pocket."
"At least 14,726 minors started hormone treatment with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis from 2017 through 2021, according to the Komodo analysis."
Number of transgender children seeking treatment surges in U.S.
About 42,000 U.S. children ages 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2021, nearly triple the number in 2017, a unique data analysis for Reuters found.
U.S. patients ages 6-17 with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis initiating hormone treatment in 2021: 4,231
4231/42000...AKA 90% of children who were diagnosed in 2021 did not receive hormones and far less got chest surgeries.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 1,666
Attachments
zestyzigzagoon
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2023
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 227
GD treatment isn’t one size fits all. HRT reduces dysphoria (primary outcome). It’s also expected that suicidality, anxiety, and depression will decrease in turn but it’s not always that simple. I agree more robust data is needed. But it’s foolish to imply that if a trans person undergoes medical transition and still experiences symptoms of mental illness, that the transition was unnecessary when their continuing symptoms could just as easily be a result of the increasingly focused attacks on trans people in America by the media
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 3,887
I think you'll find that most reasonable folks around here, regardless of their personal feelings on this issue, would and have acknowledged that the rates of GDD and related issues are increasing, including in younger populations. Additionally, there are relatively low, but certainly non-zero rates of medical interventions with minors. To deny so would be misinformed, at best, and potentially disingenuous. Most of the same reasonable people would agree that any medical intervention should be undertaken cautiously, after appropriate counseling and social transitioning. Are there cases of minors being prescribed potentially un-reversible medical interventions after a few sessions, with clinicians threatening parents that it's this or suicide? I, as would most (all?), Reasonable folks around here would definitely see this as highly problematic. If that is the norm in a clinic or with a specific practioner, that clinic/clinician is, imho and probably that of most reasonable people around here, unethical. The evidence for that happening has, as far as I can tell, been alluded to as coming from "whistleblowers" by a poster who expressed concerns that trans men are often just pretending to be women so as to assault women and girls in restrooms, as well as stating that 80-99% of people de-transition (both assertions without evidence, even after having been asked directly for sources). You have provided statistical data on one issue, while other reasonable folks are asking for evidence of something else entirely. Careful- lie down with dogs...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 3,887
Just to clarify some terms, I think some posters are using "kids" to represent all minors, while others are distinguishing between adolescents (near or at puberty), teens, and children. In an exchange above, @futureapppsy2 states "no one is giving medical transitions to kids," It is clear that that by "kids" they mean "pre-adolescents," as in the next sentence they say "Adolescence gets a bit hairier." @futureapppsy2 's post is then challenged first by a poster who says that the statement "no one is giving medical transitions to kids" is incorrect, but then goes on to reference "12, 13, 14, 15", referring to this group as "young children mostly teens." This creates confusion about which specific population the posters are arguing about, and creates a situation where both sides of the argument could be correct. @futureappsy clearly make the distinction between "kids" and "adolescents", while the other poster seemingly lumps the groups together.
@borne_before then provides a journalism piece. The main body reports data on hormone therapies in minors aged 13-17, The article, overall, looks at a population between ages 6-17. In some summary statements, they say "A total of 17,683 patients, ages 6 through 17, with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis initiated either puberty blockers or hormones or both during the five-year period." As all the data they previously presented specifically on hormone therapy was for the 13-17 age group, this can be a bit misleading, implying that children as young as 6 are undergoing hormone related therapies.
I also think there is some vagueness in the term "transition therapy" . Some may lump together MH therapy and social transitioning with medical interventions. Furthermore, if you separate out non-medical interventions from the meaning of "transition therapy," I think it is still important to make the distinction between puberty blockers, other hormonal therapies, and surgeries, as these involve different levels of intrusiveness, risk and irreversibility. For example, saying "there is evidence of transition therapies being used on children" is not specific enough, and some would construe this (or at least disingenuously use it) as meaning, "potentially harmful or irreversible medical transition therapies are being used with 8 year olds."
@borne_before then provides a journalism piece. The main body reports data on hormone therapies in minors aged 13-17, The article, overall, looks at a population between ages 6-17. In some summary statements, they say "A total of 17,683 patients, ages 6 through 17, with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis initiated either puberty blockers or hormones or both during the five-year period." As all the data they previously presented specifically on hormone therapy was for the 13-17 age group, this can be a bit misleading, implying that children as young as 6 are undergoing hormone related therapies.
I also think there is some vagueness in the term "transition therapy" . Some may lump together MH therapy and social transitioning with medical interventions. Furthermore, if you separate out non-medical interventions from the meaning of "transition therapy," I think it is still important to make the distinction between puberty blockers, other hormonal therapies, and surgeries, as these involve different levels of intrusiveness, risk and irreversibility. For example, saying "there is evidence of transition therapies being used on children" is not specific enough, and some would construe this (or at least disingenuously use it) as meaning, "potentially harmful or irreversible medical transition therapies are being used with 8 year olds."
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 1,666
I don't think anyone who has honestly looked at the issue think a six year old is getting medical treatment. I do think that the general public see a kid socially transition at six, or before age six, and conflate the two. But, also there narrative on the pro puberty blocker side is that "they have no side effects."
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 1,666
Is anyone else over this, yet?
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 3,887
Agreed, but some (maybe one) are not honestly looking at the issue. Also, if that narrative is incorrect.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 3,887
it can be tedious, but i think it's a good topic for looking at not only what we take as evidence, but also for checking our own professional/scientific views against what we feel more personally/emotionally about an issue. For me, it's a challenging endeavor and a a nice diversion from the more mundane research I'm typically reviewing (usually titled something like "The differential effects of picture vs. model prompts on blah blah blah"). Also, being a heathen myself, I am not encountering situations where prevailing wisdom or scientific evidence is going against any of my own spiritual beliefs (of which I basically have none!). I imagine that can make this issue difficult for some, and I think it's helpful to keep it going.
- Joined
- May 6, 2018
- Messages
- 115
- Reaction score
- 30
What would you like a source for exactly? Considering you're not rebutting anything with valid evidence of your own. If you would like evidence of medical transitioning of minors, just read the American college of pediatrics take on the manner and its incorrect to say "oh thats not happening."
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 3,887
Any chance you could provide a URL? I've tried searching their website, but the search function links to multiple position pieces and it would be difficult to go through them all and try to interpret/identify which you are talking about.
zestyzigzagoon
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2023
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 227
Once again…I’m NOT saying that trans kids taking hormones isn’t happening. I’m just saying that ROGD and social contagion are not valid explanations when studies use convenience samples of parents who already don’t accept their child’s gender identity. If you believe social contagion is why kids are trans and it’s a fleeting phase, then the burden of proof falls on YOU
Similar threads
