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

Yep, we're seeing the death rattles and dying gasps of the Trans Ideology cult. Those on this thread with a reason to desperately cling on to the end to justify what they did to themselves know the gig is up, and they know this study is unimpeachable. They know we see through their pitiful desperate attempts to discredit it. But they cannot argue against it with any facts or data. They are fucked, basically. And they know it. The truth was always going to come out eventually, even they knew this.

Oh I do muddle up the letters ... 😄

I've been arguing with people on twitter about this for hours and every time they eventually reveal they haven't even read the study properly. Claims that the increased visits are due to GD check ups or for talking therapy. One person even claimed that the psychiatric clinic visits increase is because treatment is working so they get more of it. They had no concept that its usual for appointments to decrease when you are stable/improving and increase when worsenening, or that public health systems aren't going to give unnecessary expensive appointments to healthy people.

ChatAGP 😀

One would hope the NHS and UK.gov would not set much store in ChatAGP arguments posted on Twitter.

The TRA strategy has at least evolved into produce guff with sciency-sounding terms to bamboozle the kids into saying here is 12 arguments as to why the study sucks but don’t study them too deeply.

You mean they have refined their AI prompts but still not read the study.

This is doing the rounds. A brief scan of it and I think it is highly repetitive (AI?) and seems to be tautological.

Its arguments seem specious and are putting the cart before the horse. Body dismorphia is the SYMPTOM of psychiatric distress.

Looking for a non distressed teen with body dismorphia is like looking for a unicorn. Most of the criticisms have been addressed by the Finnish team.

Anyone care to take it apart argument by argument? Apparently this is the work we still have to do. The exercise does serve the purpose of making the unfamiliar familiar. The TRA strategy has at least evolved into produce guff with sciency-sounding terms to bamboozle the kids into saying here is 12 arguments as to why the study sucks but don’t study them too deeply.

Oh yes and a bonus ad hominem of GCs are dullards.

Attempt to highlight methodological flaws in Finnish Study

Therefore those critical of the study apparently didnt bother to read it before writing their "criticism".

Where have we seen that before? 🤔 Oh yes, pretty much anywhere the evidence disagrees with their position. Cass was a major one - even politicians were raising false issues presented to them by activist. Plus of course FWS, and GLP’s recent loss.

Men who threaten sexual violence and assault using splintery rolling pins should seek psychiatric help immediately. It's a shame their parents didn't intervene and get them that much needed help years ago when they started to exhibit such violent tendencies.

Such men should probably be included in future studies. The findings would be predictable.

People who want to discredit with misinformation aren’t interested in genuine clarifications.

Here is an update from Professor Kaltiala. Bernard Lane who has been excellent on reporting on these issues for a few years now, asked her directly about the accusation about the article linked up thread.

He reports:

UPDATE | The researchers acknowledged the limitation that their study could not analyse in detail why these patients needed psychiatric services.

Asked about this issue, Professor Kaltiala told GCN that healthcare register data used for the study included diagnoses and in-patient periods but not treatment nor information about a patient’s problems related to family life, romantic relationships or work.

One transgender journalist’s critique of the new study suggests that psychiatric appointments are part and parcel of the gender-transition process in Finland and therefore may not point to serious psychiatric morbidity.

However, Professor Kaltiala said the young people seen by specialised psychiatric services in her country would have “severe disorders”. These services were focused on “those really in need”, consistent with national criteria for health equity.

“In Finland, you do not get admitted to specialist-level services if you don’t have mental disorders at all or [have only] mild disorders and problems,” she said. “Primary-level services are available for needs related to milder disorders and psychosocial difficulties.”

She said the gender-referred youth in the new study were much more likely than matched controls to have a history of severe mental disorders, often dating back some years before they reached the gender clinic.

“Thus, many developed feelings of gender dysphoria in the context of severe disorders,” she said.

“Severe mental disorders during adolescence generally have potential to complicate identity development. It rather seems that feelings of gender dysphoria are sometimes secondary to severe mental disorders.”

If it were the other way around, and the mental disorders were secondary to the dysphoria, those disorders would be “expected to subside with medical gender reassignment”, according to the Dutch treatment protocol adopted internationally, she said.

But this did not happen in the new Finnish study.

Instead, the need for specialist psychiatric services—and therefore the scale of serious mental disorders—increased after medical transition, as the study by Professor Kaltiala and her colleagues reported.

Here is the link to the full article

https://www.genderclinicnews.com/p/transition-blues?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

Here is a link to his tweet which included the update.

https://x.com/bernard_lane/status/2041664718096756867?s=46

Maybe, people who consider themselves reputable journos should seek clarification directly from the authors as Bernard did. The Prof seems approachable and willing to make timely clarifications. If in doubt, ask is generally a good policy.

🤣 There are just so many funny touches. I love the pie chart having 2 people in both the 1/3 section and the 2/3 section. I love the reference to ‘as many as 2/3’ not having received gender care when it was 7/8. Dame Katy Denise couldn’t have produced anything funnier!

Because they see the scandal unfolding and the entire house of cards starting to slip.

The myth of the 'trans child' is an important part of the canon. Why we got fed relentless propaganda like 'butterfly' and 'I am Jazz'. Mermaids, GIDS, and LGBTYS bolstered it all and continue to try to stop the dam from bursting despite endlessly piling up evidence of abuse and careless mistreatment.

As the horror of the rainbow bullshit comes apart we can expect to see panic and hyperbole ramp up yet again. Although they've already played the ludicrously offensive 'genocide' card, so there's not really anywhere else to go.

Once again, though, being proven right isn't a joyful thing. Its a slowly unfolding tragedy that has irrevocably harmed many thousands of vulnerable children.

There are no happy endings, I'm afraid. It's all utterly grim, and those involved should be deeply ashamed for what theyve done. I suppose at least maybe we can start to look at why so many children are struggling and try to find effective ways to help and support.

Oh gosh.

'Updates from the Gender Services Clinical Programme

...

NHS England Data Linkage Study – Understanding the Needs and Healthcare Experience of Former Tavistock GIDS (Gender Identity Development Service) Patients

The data linkage study aims to improve our understanding of the needs and experience of up to 9,000 individuals who, as children, were seen by the former Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.

The study design does not involve patients directly, but instead – with a number of important safeguards in place – links and analyses data for former GIDS patients for whom digital records are available.

Individual patients will not be contacted to discuss their views or experiences, and people will be able to opt out of the study. However we are keen to make contact with people who were referred or seen by the GIDS service and would be happy to be part of a virtual lived experience advisory group to help shape and guide how the study works.

Some aspects of the study are fixed and will not be subject to consultation, but wherever possible we want to involve people to make sure we understand aspects of care received, take patient concerns into account, and explain things clearly and sensitively.

Who can get involved?

If you were a former GIDS patient, referred to or seen at the Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust from, or after, 2009 then your data will be considered as part of this study and we are keen to hear from you.

What’s the commitment?

We are committed to making involvement as flexible as possible – these are not formal committee-style roles. This could mean joining group discussions, but if preferred we can arrange one to one discussions, or you may even choose to give written feedback by email. You can let us know how you prefer to be involved, and your involvement will remain confidential.'

ABA is torture and child abuse and anyone who practices it belongs in jail.
From an aba victim.

These are shocking numbers. A medical scandal and a genuine horror. Gender medicine, as practised on minors and young adults is a crime against humanity. I disagree with others who defend Tavistock as sloppy. To me it's clear that they they could see the deterioration of mental health in their treated patients, 60% is impossible to miss, and the failure in tracking was an effort (successful) at plausible deniability.

Science absolutely does care about results - publication bias against negative results or adverse effects in the treatment group has been well known for a long time. I remember a friend was involved in a huge gold standard RCT for a popular and cheap treatment - it was found that the treatment had no impact. They struggled to get anywhere to publish it; journals just weren’t interested.

That's amazing. I heard it in the voice of Derek Zoolander.

The Equality Act stops you suffering detriment because of your PC - not gaining access to something that harms you does not cause you to suffer detriment.

Incidentally re Speech and Language Therapy, extreme autism advocates criticise anything they feel undermine your autistic identify - ABA therapy being the main target but some also extend this to speech and language therapy.

As I have said a few times previously, no one's life is made better by being incontinent.

One of the complications of genital surgery is incontinence... and that is just one way a person's life could be made substantially worse.

This is a graphic summarising much of the data from the report: it shows an interesting pattern.

The GD cohort can be split roughly into two groups. A first - GR- - group with high psychiatric morbidity both before, and more than two years after, the index date, and a second - GR+ - group with only background levels of morbidity before the index date, but a marked increase during the period commencing two years later.

The first group could be explained in terms of blaming GD for existing problems. This is supported by the fact that the group grew in size during 2010-2022 compared to 1996-2010 (see elsewhere in report), despite background levels of psychiatric morbidity remaining constant.

The second group, initially psychologically healthy, but with sufficiently marked GD to go through medical GR, could be described as genuinely incongruent, for want of a better term, but I'm not sure that we can tell from these data whether GR actually helped them or not, because we don't even know how happy and healthy they are right now.

Did they go through hell, but now they're OK? Are they in denial? Are they disappointed?

Even if incongruence is real, it doesn't follow that GR will give a better outcome than no GR. We need to be able to take psychologically healthy subjects, with a strong desire for medical GR, and split them between a GR treatment group and a control group that gets psychological support (and puberty!) only. I don't suppose that's very likely!

Thank you. That's an excellent read - devastatingly clear.

Has the author of this article misunderstood something?

Yes: they didn't read the report they were 'fact checking'. The report clearly states that the researchers distinguished between routine assessment and surveillance (which are carried out for all GD patients under the GIS, and also, amazingly, for all Finnish students!), and specialist psychiatric intervention, for which a referral is needed and which is carried out outside the GIS. There is no issue of surveillance bias.

I'm more worried about the other point raised, which is that morbidity data were collected for a period starting only two years after the index date, whereas medical GR, in GR+ subjects, won't necessarily have even started at that point. The data could theoretically be hiding a spike in morbidity early in that period, triggered by eg puberty distress, distress at having to wait for GR, or even temporary distress caused by the medical treatment itself. What I'd really like to see is morbidity data for the GR+ cohort over the most recent period when the data were collected - by which time the long-term psychiatric consequences of their treatment choices might be clearer.

You’re very welcome! It’s a good article, isn’t it? She rarely pulls her punches, but this is particularly clear. For those that haven’t had a chance to click through yet, a sample:

The Cass Paradox highlights a review that finds no reliable evidence of benefit yet still refuses to rule out the intervention.

This inability to close the door is striking. Across clinicians and researchers who describe themselves as “gender critical” but are better named “gender critical lite”, there remains a refusal to fully say no to medical transition. They tend to subscribe to an unevidenced theory - I have a name for this too - the “tiny numbers theory”; the belief that a vanishingly small group might benefit, despite the absence of evidence.

As a basis for healthcare, this is farcical.