Finnish study on transition and psychiatric outcomes in sex and gender shows increased psychiatric morbidity

The mad thing is that all this was well known 15+ years ago.

I have read that old studies showed that people who had undergone genital surgery (AKA gender affirming care) felt worse 10 years after the surgery than they had before the surgery.

So, were the last few years of 'hardly anyone regrets this' just propaganda?

Agreed.

The ploppers are here to distract us from this...

Under "2.4 Variables", in the third paragraph.

Yes.

From the study: "Psychiatric treatment, excluding gender identity assessments and appointments with a multi-disciplinary team therein, subsequent to the index contact"

The study authors filtered out all contacts with gender development services when counting incidents of psychiatric treatment, so GDS visits don't count towards the result.

Oh yes. I actually find it quite entertaining that Aidap thought he could come over here and just spout lies after what he’s been saying elsewhere online.
The women here know their facts.

A reminder

Papers don't usually have "peer review markings" on them.

Source: I read a lot of papers.

Has Operation Let Them Speak been running again?

some non-peer reviewing journal

You do realise that we have access to the internet and can fact-check your lies?

"Acta Paediatrica is a peer-reviewed monthly journal". Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/16512227

It's not a control group... apparently.

https://nitter.poast.org/LGBwiththeT/status/2041580531481980976#m

That community note... 😆

I agree.

The fact that these posters are ignoring this thread speaks volumes.

An awful of posters plopping over to talk about ‘hate’ but don’t really have much to say about this very eye-opening study.

I’d like to think this study has given them a chance to think critically about whether the ‘gender affirming’ care really is the right solution but it seems crickets when discussing actual care and support.

No: there was an inverse correlation between initial morbidity and likelihood of treatment, maybe because it was felt that comorbidities were a contraindication for treatment.

Apologies I've reread the post I took the quote from and can see that although on average GR+ = low initial morbidity and GR- = high initial morbidity, it is the atypical GR+ = high initial morbidity and GR- = low initial morbidity that you would need to match.

Two things struck me from reading the study. Firstly the incredibly high rates of lifetime morbidity of those referred. Secondly how many variables there are so it's difficult to tease out any absolute certainties even when you have such a large data set .

Oh and thirdly how hard it is to read academic studies. I'm looking forward to SEGM giving their appraisal of the study.

That's the wrong way round surely?

No: there was an inverse correlation between initial morbidity and likelihood of treatment, maybe because it was felt that comorbidities were a contraindication for treatment.

@BusyAzureTraybake felt two years was long enough, but I'd like to know what treatment and assessment times were actually like. And think that recent data might be the most useful.

There is a branch of psychology, often labelled ‘narrative approaches’, that highlights how humans innately create stories. As a species, we struggle with ‘not knowing’ and with randomness. We fill in blanks and make connections so things ‘make sense’ to us.

Narrative therapists wouldn’t necessarily ask those questions directly, but they would explore alternative explanations and stories to help ‘the client’ adopt a narrative that is conducive to positive wellbeing and better functioning.

@theilltemperedamateur Suppose all the morbidity exhibited by the GR+ group occurred before, during, and just after the actual treatment period, after which the subjects enjoyed psychiatric plain sailing for many decades?

From the report (my bold):

Psychiatric treatment, excluding gender identity assessments and appointments with a multi-disciplinary team therein, subsequent to the index contact was defined as continuing two years or more after the index contact, to allow time for the gender identity assessment and potential medical GR initiation.

So the researchers, who presumably understand how the system in Finland works, seem confident that any medical GR would have been initiated by 2 years post-index contact.

'Just after' actual treatment period would apply to surgery, but not to hormonal intervention, which would be ongoing.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, just drilling down into the details

I never see any statistics, or studies, or questions asking these children about what influences them to believe they have a gender identity.

Specifically, what do they read online, and by whom.

We know transactivism proliferates and targets children. I'm assuming the authors of these studies are fully aware, but do they track it? Report it?

When I see the sorts of men who go out of their way to influence all these outcomes, and public opinion, and children, etc, including men like Aida on this thread who wants to assault women with rolling pins, I sincerely hope that someone, somewhere in these studies is linking TRA influence to the children being studied.

I suspect though that the numbers of (high initial morbidity GR+) and (low initial morbidity GR-)

That's the wrong way round surely?

I get what you are saying about a possible spike around the treatment period and the data I would have liked to seen in the study would have been a better breakdown of the lifetime number of contacts with psychiatric services for the two groups GR-, GR+ and the controls both before and after the index date +2 years. I think that would have given some indication of the severity and possible duration of any difficulties and from the data provided it looks like that would be quite simple from just crunching the numbers a little.

Yes.

This reminds me of Polly Carmichael’s argument for the discrepancy between the high conversion rate from puberty blocker to cross sex hormones compared to cross sex hormone use amongst those not prescribed PBs. She claimed it evidenced their skill at determining who should take blockers.

What is disappointing, but perhaps inevitable on social media, is the partisan way the study is received. Many of those who have serious concerns about the harms of gender affirming care (GAC) are responding to it as though the interpretation of findings are facts. Those who think GAC is beneficial are simply wanting to denigrate the study and dismiss its relevance.

Agree, but I still have a problem with the timing.

Suppose all the morbidity exhibited by the GR+ group occurred before, during, and just after the actual treatment period, after which the subjects enjoyed psychiatric plain sailing for many decades? That would look like a treatment failure, but could be corrected for by somehow incorporating (actual date of morbidity) into the study.

I also have a problem with outcomes generally. Suppose GR+ group do indeed suffer terrible outcomes, but it would have been even worse if they didn't have the GR? The way to address this is to compare GR+ with GR- but with matching for morbidity at index date. I suspect though that the numbers of (high initial morbidity GR+) and (low initial morbidity GR-) might be too low to achieve significance.

The obvious solution is a quasi-longitudinal study. Stop GAC and give psychological support only, for the next ten years, then crunch all the data for the previous forty years again. But I would say that, wouldn't I?😏

Hm. Often 'what they did.to themselves' means little more than 'wore make up and short skirts'. They may have made a fool of themselves and have often damaged the wellbeing of those around them, but men who just grew their hair out have lost very little.

It's the teenage girls who may have irreversibly damaged their bodies and possibly threatened their long term health, as well as sterilising themselves, created all the serious and difficult consequences of cross sex hormone use and unnecesssary surgeries that are the ones who have lost most. All the vulnerable, confused and damaged children who had comorbidities untreated and problems not only ignored but actually reified. I can only imagine how their physical and mental health has been affected and the long term consequences.

I hope the NHS will give some consideration to how they are going to.support these people going forward, because they are to a large extent culpable for harms done.

Any good study will have a 'limitations' section. This one does, and discussions around the limitations are entirely valid. However, imho, what is of greater importance is how this is going to land with politicians.
The diehard genderists will look to the activists to give them sound-bite 'refutations'. However, any fence-sitting politician who achieved functional numeracy in school is going to look at the percentages in the Finnish report and think - wtaf!?

Our job is to get those percentages in front of our representatives.