Stonewall's response to Transgender Trend

Oh my days, so true. I didn't watch all but they had no rebuttals beyond 'TERF... disgusting...'

Probably scared of hearing something they all grew with. Why anyone would be bothered by the word detransition is interesting...

Ps. The guy who invented the lobotomy won a nobel prize at the time!!!

How many parents instinctively didn't want to see parts of their kids brains cut out?

How many scientists said that it was a great idea?

I'd say that mother's instincts need to be a societal guide.

This from my source bears repeating, if we're going to copy and paste:

Instead of overwhelming quantitative evidence that transition is the best treatment for gender dysphoria, many of the studies provide a qualitative sample of trans-identified persons who report that transition was beneficial for them. This is important information, but it is not definitive. In general, the studies themselves faithfully reported their methodology and were often frank about their weaknesses. Rather, it was those at the What We Know Project who chose to present these studies as dispositive proof and to ignore or downplay their faults and limitations. This was activism, not scholarship.

You can repeat your analogy as much as you want Suggestions, but as far as I see you are unable to engage with the substance of what people are saying, just plop the same old links with no discussion. This is a debate tactic I've experienced most often on other platforms, such as Twitter. And it generally indicates a lack of understanding of what the links are showing, and the limitations and context of the findings.

Absolute bullshit.

Do you actually think that pumping a body with hormones that are not designed for that body, and possibly cutting off body parts or reforming them, leading to a life of poor health including:

Possible infertility
Possible loss of sexual function
Increased chance of cancers
Lifelong dependance on drugs
Decreased life span
Decreased mental development
Decreased bone density
Countless other unlnonm effects
( This is experimental medical intervention)

If you think THAT increases a better quality of life you are utterly deluded.

A study that suggests that is the case is probably funded by an interested party. There seems to be a lot of money flying around pushing the transgender agenda. Guess what? Us genuinely concerned mums get paid fuck all!

I imagine that if you truly believe this, you are either: young and naive with little life experience, live in a city/town not very connected to nature, have never been physically unwell yourself to have felt the anxiety that goes alongside chronic illness or have vested interests in pushing this agenda. Maybe all of the above.

Anyone that is connected to nature and understand the importance of healthy, organic holistic living would realise the serious impact you have on quality of life by meddling so deeply with nature.

Shame on you for pushing such a dangerous agenda, and normalising children butchering themselves. Shame on you.

Get a better understanding before you spout any more of this dangerous shit.

Gender dysphoric children need good quality counselling that looks at their whole person, hopefully they can exit therapy being healthy, robust adults with a healthy mind-body connection. Think how much money Mermaids could donate towards therapy for children!

You are so patient with the fuckwittery aimed at you Helleofabore. I have no doubt that it is a deliberate attempt to derail the thread and drain you of energy. Hats off to you for keeping going though. You'll never change suggestions mind of course, they have a completely different agenda that doesn't align with women and children's safety. But it certainly does serve to demonstrate to the lurkers the dark side of trans ideology, and the methods it's followers employ to try and hide that.

"....
gender transition, including medical treatments such as hormone therapy and surgeries, improves the overall well-being of transgender individuals. The literature also indicates that greater availability of medical and social support for gender transition contributes to better quality of life for those who identify as transgender
."

And FFS. You think your analogy is great.

I think your analogy is flawed.

I think we're getting into the realm of conspiracy theories if people want to ignore this sort of work.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Did you even read what this 'blog' post said?

Do you unequivocally believe what this 'blog' post said? Not the studies. The overall review? Have you then also looked at the studies? What have those 51 studies got to do with the majority of teenaged female transitioners at this time? The cohort that I, and other posters, are extremely concerned about. Because this impacts our children.

@Ereshkigalangcleg ,,,o here we again ....

The What We Know Project seeks to overwhelm with numbers—fifty scientific studies! But many of these studies have serious methodological flaws. Examining the studies shatters the illusion of overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of transition. The most obvious research difficulty is the small sample sizes.

Yes, I'll refer you back to my previous analogy because it seems it bears repeating:

I'm going to give an analogy to make it easier to convey the problems with Transgender Trend's critique of studies on suicidality and completed suicide.

Imagine there is a rare ethnic minority that comprises about 1% of our population. The people come from an island we've never heard of before (I say this to make this analogy devoid of real-life preconceptions people hold).

They're living amongst us and we're worried that their population is at particular risk of domestic abuse. So we try to do some research to find out about this with the hope that this knowledge helps develop pathways that offer increased support and lessen domestic abuse.

So we try to do surveys to find out more, but this minority comprises such a small percent of the overall population that we're always going to have issues with the statistical power of the research - this is inevitable; we can't just magic more of this population up as they just don't exist in bigger numbers.

This minority are kind of wary of us as well, they're experienced general discrimination in society and are fairly mistrustful of surveys, so a lot of this population are reluctant to come forward, but thankfully we do get some and they answer the questions and sometimes we're lucky enough to get rich, qualitative data from interviews, which tells us more about their experiences.

So as researchers we think, this has been really hard to get evidence on because of these difficulties that are out of our control, but, here we've got this information, we've got some with good statistical significance, it is in line with what we thought and the evidence we've got suggests this population are at particular risk of domestic abuse. Our research has also given us some ideas about support that can be offered and strategies that might help minimise domestic abuse.

But then the Men's Rights Activists come in, and they say "Hey, wait up, you haven't got any good evidence at all!! The numbers are too small, those people that answered the survey self-selected and were not chosen at random. And we think they're all lying anyway to push a particular agenda. In short, there is no evidence this population is at increased risk of domestic abuse over any other."

Do you agree with those Men's Rights Activists in this analysis?

This is how TransgenderTrend are approaching the studies they have analysed, and it is shameful and dangerous. When read by people who are not in business of evaluating studies their approach can seem convincing.

But they are dismissing good evidence that does exist - there are hundreds of good quality but small studies, and meta-analysis and systematic review approaches are in the process of synthesizing the evidence.

That doesn't answer my question.

What are the numerous studies you are posting meant to be showing us?

whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

Trans WellbeingOverview
We conducted a systematic literature review of all peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1991 and June 2017 that assess the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being. We identified 55 studies that consist of primary research on this topic, of which 51 (93%) found that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people, while 4 (7%) report mixed or null findings. We found no studies concluding that gender transition causes overall harm. As an added resource, we separately include 17 additional studies that consist of literature reviews and practitioner guidelines.

Bottom Line
This search found a robust international consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that gender transition, including medical treatments such as hormone therapy and surgeries, improves the overall well-being of transgender individuals. The literature also indicates that greater availability of medical and social support for gender transition contributes to better quality of life for those who identify as transgender.
_

I think we're getting into the realm of conspiracy theories if people want to ignore this sort of work.

Furthermore, the largest studies had some of the weakest methodologies.

Yes like the different 'interpretations' that we are seeing of the very large survey of the USA that was self selected and incentivised. I am not saying there is no purpose for that survey, but it cannot be used as robust data for setting policy or guidelines. It can be used to look at further areas to study, absolutely it can.

Another thing. My own teen and I have discussed 'suicide ideation'. I am really not sure that teenagers understand when thoughts cross over to suicide ideation and when it is just depressive thoughts. And therefore asking these questions in a survey, is really not going to produce robust data. Asking these questions in a clinical environment where the interviewer can be sure that there is an understanding of what it means, yes.

Further:

The What We Know Project seeks to overwhelm with numbers—fifty scientific studies! But many of these studies have serious methodological flaws. Examining the studies shatters the illusion of overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of transition. The most obvious research difficulty is the small sample sizes. Excluding studies with fifty or fewer subjects would leave thirty papers; removing studies with fewer than 100 subjects would leave only twenty-four.

Furthermore, the largest studies had some of the weakest methodologies.

Overall, the research is more limited than the hype surrounding them would suggest, and reveals a much more complicated reality than the simple pro-transition narrative. Even the Obama administration came to similar conclusionss^ about the poor quality of much of the research on the efficacy of transition.

Instead of overwhelming quantitative evidence that transition is the best treatment for gender dysphoria, many of the studies provide a qualitative sample of trans-identified persons who report that transition was beneficial for them. This is important information, but it is not definitive. In general, the studies themselves faithfully reported their methodology and were often frank about their weaknesses. Rather, it was those at the What We Know Project who chose to present these studies as dispositive proof and to ignore or downplay their faults and limitations. This was activism, not scholarship.

I'm not claiming this as a credible source, it's a blog, but if we are doing blogs it's quite an interesting read about the Cornell paper and I have posted it before:

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/04/51524/

Of the fifty relevant papers identified by the project, only five studies (10 percent) had more than 300 subjects, while twenty-six studies (52 percent) had fewer than 100. Seventeen studies (34 percent) had fifty or fewer subjects, and five of those had a sample size of twenty-five or less. Smaller studies can still be useful, but when a paper’s findings are presented as authoritative, it matters whether it had a sample size of 2800, 280, or twenty-eight. Unfortunately, the creators of the What We Know Project made no effort to distinguish between study types and sizes. Thus, among the studies touted as providing overwhelming scientific evidence for the efficacy of transition were a qualitative studyy^ based on interviews with eighteen subjects and a studyy^ of twenty-two trans-women (who were compared to twenty-two women as controls) that examined the utility of occupational therapy in transition. The “mounds of scholarly studies” that Frank cites turn out to include a lot of academic molehills.

Lol at posting stationery collector Zinnia Jones as a credible source.

There is a fuck load of studies. We have seen many of them. But the way these studies are being plopped onto this thread makes no sense. What are they for? What are we learning from them?

Steensma actually refuses to treat teenagers. To much risk of doing irreversible damage.

@Helleofabore

I’m no clearer as to what exactly is being advocated for/argued either.

Fairly certain affirmation and social transition on self-ID, but not clear after that.

Can I ask what all these links are meant to be showing by the way?

Sorry

Van de Grift, Cerwenka, Cohen-Kettenis, De Cuypere et al August 2017

Is this link

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580378/