Huge meta-study finds that transition helps trans people

Oh sorry we would also need:

General young adult controls: who would go through Arm 1
Same sex attracted young adult controls: who would go through Arm 1.
(Ideally they would be randomised into Arm 1 and Arm 2 but again that would be unethical).

We can't just compare pre to post, we have to compare pre and post to the general population if we want, as too many say these days, that transition is a cure.
Well really, we should compare:
GNC individuals who think they might have gender dysphoria randomised into:
Arm 1 "Non-affirmation treatment" (general mental health treatment, advising against transition, educating on the prevalence of same sex attraction in GNC individuals, affirming same sex attraction where relevant)
Arm 2 "Affirmation mental health treatment" (general mental health treatment, advising on social transition and affirming social transition when chosen).
Arm 3 "Affirmation plus active cross sex hormones" (as arm 2 with active treatment cross sex hormones if still desired)
Arm 4 "Affirmation plus placebo" (as arm 2 but placebo, double blind if hormones still desired).
Arm 5 as arm 3 but offered surgery.

And outcomes for all individuals including measures that are objective (e.g. questionnaires where the person conducting the questionnaire and analysing the data never sees the patient).

But that would be totally unethical (except that we actually don't know the outcomes of a properly controlled study... so it wouldn't).

It is OK that some in some arms would move to another arm spontaneously because it would be an "intention to treat" design.

Dhejne's study ended around when gender dysphoria moved from symptom to diagnosis, her better cohort went through medical evaulations and therapy and to transition would have been diagnosed not just with gender dysphoria. The concern is for those who came after, those with reduced if any evaluations or therapy, and we simply won't have good data on that yet. The concern is that things will have gone back to like Dhejne's worse cohort as there is evidence that there was more dodgy buying of hormones during the '70s and 'early 80s than later as more countries brought in better controls and proper access. As self medicating on hormones is having resurgence today and dysphoric people get less and less face time with professionals, it's likely the current cohort will differ from Dhejne's better cohort

This is a really interesting point.

Neither of those studies compare pre-transition trans people with post-transition trans people so are not relevant to their study. You might like to see this interview with Cecilia Dhejne discussing the way people "misunderstand" her study here

While they, like all studies including the meta-study you posted, are too often taken out of context for a variety of reasons, if you're going to say 'transition helps trans people' then those studies are relevant. We can't just compare pre to post, we have to compare pre and post to the general population if we want, as too many say these days, that transition is a cure. Neither Dhejne nor the meta study seperate transition done with therapies to those done without because, as pointed out by Cornell, it would be unethical to encourage people to not use effective treatments. We'll only be able to look at such groups in hindsight.

At most, the Cornell study and the Dhejne study show a correlation between transition in dysphoric adults who choose and enabled to do so and improved well-being. None of it shows a causal link. The vast majority of dysphoric people don't transition and Cornell itself doesn't claim it as a cure or even best practice for those with gender dysphoria.

As Dhejne says in the link, there is a big noticeable differences in cohorts, those need to be recognized, treating things from 1991 to 2017 makes no sense when so much changed during that time on the topic at hand. Dhejne's study ended around when gender dysphoria moved from symptom to diagnosis, her better cohort went through medical evaulations and therapy and to transition would have been diagnosed not just with gender dysphoria. The concern is for those who came after, those with reduced if any evaluations or therapy, and we simply won't have good data on that yet. The concern is that things will have gone back to like Dhejne's worse cohort as there is evidence that there was more dodgy buying of hormones during the '70s and 'early 80s than later as more countries brought in better controls and proper access. As self medicating on hormones is having resurgence today and dysphoric people get less and less face time with professionals, it's likely the current cohort will differ from Dhejne's better cohort.

Also 56-73 studies isn't really 'huge'. Many meta-studies look at hundreds. This is a small-medium one. Making things bigger than they are doesn't make them look more important.

I've bumped it in FWR.

Oh excellent! Thanks for finding!

I was wrong - although I only got there via Google. Must try and do this next time a Mumsnet search brings me an oops page. Maybe my MN search is broken? Would make me a lot happier than thinking OPs are having threads deleted if they don't go their way...

Anyway, here is the April thread on the same study:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3218027-Huge-new-study-of-trans-people-released

YetAnotherSpartacus

I know! I went looking for it coz I was in that thread too (not doing the debunking) and got an oops the page is gone, immediately wishing I had saved the pages. That thread was excellent.

Have noticed this before btw, that some of the threads started by our resident TRAs posting supposedly incontrovertible proof of this or the other which get thoroughly debunked by our resident scientists then disappear.

I can only guess that the OPs in question ask for the thread to be deleted after a certain amount of time has passed to make sure such dangerous writing never shows up in Google...

But that's just speculation on my part, of course.

thread now deleted but it still shows up in search weirdly enough

Why was THAT thread deleted? There was some fantastic debunking on that thread some of it was mine.

Contrary to what is claimed above, this US meta study (which was indeed discussed at length and taken apart by our resident scientists in April - thread now deleted but it still shows up in search weirdly enough) makes no difference to the legal right of trans people in the UK to access medical treatment.

Therefore it does not matter to the FWR board.

And all this guff about different kinds of women from Gibberty - there is only one kind of woman. And that is an adult human female. That's it.

Transwomen are not a kind of women, they are transwomen. Born male, now adult human males ie men. They will die as men. Their skeletal remains will be identified as male. Their DNA will show them to be male up until the point where their remains have disintegrated into atoms. And even then they still don't become female, they have simply ceased to exist.

Gosh this is getting boring... So, take your study elsewhere. Maybe entertain a trans forum with it? It would seem a much more suitable place for this.

And kindly do not put words iny mouth and say what I want.

I wonder if he'd apply the same standards to studies which support his worldview

Why is this relevant? The bad science is there laid out for all to see.

So when you want to enter one of these mythical same-sex spaces how are you going to prove your right to be there to the door-keeper? Are you going to prove your sex? I doubt it. And if the door keeper asked for proof of sex I bet you would be terribly offended. I suspect you expect to be admitted based on your gender presentation? So really what you have is spaces with an entrance policy based on gender, not sex at all. And actually that is what you want.

Luckily I'm not in charge. And I would expect those of the other sex to me to be honourable and use a unisex or opposite sex facility. However. I wouldn't call them out on it (as I suspect most women wouldn't) if they used the women's facility as long as they behaved appropriately. But women should retain the right to protest and have ejected a male, in a female only space, who is behaving in appropriately - eg leering, perving, wanking, flashing, etc and them not be protected from being removed by claiming to be female. I really don't think that's unreasonable?
I do think you should have to prove your sex for intimate care/health work, refuges, prisons etc however. But discretely to employers, not all and sundry.

Me too. What's funny is reading when Wakame posts in the comments on Feminist Current articles. They take no prisoners.

Innit!

Wikipedia on gender is written by transactivists.

'mythical same sex space' - I've seen that used on Reddit.
And not on the feminist boards.

"Matthew Greenfield on Twitter did a marvellous take down of each and every one of the 56 studies referred to by Cornell:
twitter.com/doormatt134/status/984339908658651138"

I wonder if he'd apply the same standards to studies which support his worldview

"Of course all the peer reviews data backs a certain position, universities will specifically disallow research into anything that might challenge this narrative. As indeed the chap who wanted to study those who detransitioned. THATS how humanities academia work nowadays they promote a certain political agenda and only look into things that support their chosen narrative and subvert or hound out any dissident or challenging voices. Now they get to wave around their “findings” and try to pretend the red of us are stupid."

Not true. For a long time JHU took a very different position on transition but they now accept their work has been discredited.

Although, they are useful for peak transing folk.

My heart sank when I saw them posting here.

Me too. What's funny is reading when Wakame posts in the comments on Feminist Current articles. They take no prisoners.

"Just popped over to #mumsnet for a quick browse & noticed the thread from Wakame on transition studies. Women should know he's a well known troll from other boards"

Indeed.

My heart sank when I saw them posting here.

"But I am saying that women have the right to same-sex spaces just as men do. And the fact that transition helps transgender people is fantastic for them, and I'm genuinely happy if it does, but still does not mean that women should just roll over and allow invasion into same-sex spaces. Sex does not equal gender otherwise the term transgender is meaningless!"

So when you want to enter one of these mythical same-sex spaces how are you going to prove your right to be there to the door-keeper? Are you going to prove your sex? I doubt it. And if the door keeper asked for proof of sex I bet you would be terribly offended. I suspect you expect to be admitted based on your gender presentation? So really what you have is spaces with an entrance policy based on gender, not sex at all. And actually that is what you want.

Of maybe you would like to have to prove your sex - whatever that means - every time you want to swim or go to the gymn. What a terribly retrograde step that would be for feminism.

In case this has been missed this has already been posted and debunked.

Maybe I'm just a bad influence but I feel like if everyone is still woke at the end it can't have been much of a party...

I love you!

Also not validating this bollocks (word chosen deliberately) any further.

Of course all the peer reviews data backs a certain position, universities will specifically disallow research into anything that might challenge this narrative. As indeed the chap who wanted to study those who detransitioned. THATS how humanities academia work nowadays they promote a certain political agenda and only look into things that support their chosen narrative and subvert or hound out any dissident or challenging voices. Now they get to wave around their “findings” and try to pretend the red of us are stupid.