What you will find is that any science that in anyway supports trans identities or affirmation of those identities will be dismissed on here - too foreign, too old, the trans people are lying, it's big pharma, etc etc,
Too Foreign- yes, it is important that we use UK data when discussing UK issues. I am not sure what is controversial about that because it is very apparent that the UK has a better record of rights compared to somewhere such as the USA, the culture is also quite different. I have also pointed out there are differences between the UK and Australia in relation to numbers etc.
Too old - in the UK there has been significant changes (and elsewhere in the world) regarding a) the demographics of those seeking treatment for this condition, there is a very high prevalence of young females, and a high proportion of those have underlying co-morbities. It really does make 'Too old' studies and data rather meaningless to be applied to the current cohort. And yes, 2017 publications may well be insignificant.
Trans people are lying - not really something I have seen much of here on this thread. We have pointed out the bias in the Trevor project data because it is self-selected AND that some terms are left undefined and are rather ambiguous for such an important study. No?
Also, it seems that clinicians with decades of experience are often discredited by trans people when those clinicians disagree with theories that are being erroneously pushed as fact.
Big Pharma - well, there is probably a whole lot of abiding suspicion around this considering which Pharma companies and their representatives have been heavily involved from the start. It certainly is not without foundation and these companies have not donated their drugs or research at all.
but never-the-less I am sure there are many lurkers here who have open minds or are trans supportive, so it's good to put the information out.
It is great to get the information out, and discussed robustly and critically. If data cannot be critically evaluated and still remain standing to support the point a poster is making, then it is not likely to be robust enough.
For instance, Dr Hilton and Tommy Lundberg's recent review of 11 studies into transwomen and the inclusion in sport, was just confirmed by another review done by Harper (a transwoman) and their associates. Those conclusions have also been supported by at least one other completely different and independent study in between these releases. That is what is great about very clearly stated data that has passed methodology reviews etc.