Stonewall's response to Transgender Trend

[Eachpeachporch]

I wonder if anyone has had the experience of sharing the Transgender Trend schools resource pack and getting Stonewall's response to it as a reply? Does anyone have any thoughts on what Stonewall says here? Any help much appreciated! www.stonewall.org.uk/node/62946

Poor Max seems to be suffering from a bad case of the stereotypes.

@suggestionsplease1 It’s a bit awkward if I have to explain to you how to identify suitable control cohorts. Your view is simplistic, pre-determined, and short-term.
You posted links to a number of studies, without sharing your considered view of these studies and what you gleaned from each one, but plonked them en masse as evidence,
While they may be good enough for market research, they are not sufficiently robust on which to define psychological and clinical treatment policy for minors.

I have written a great deal here, as have others, looking at the wider frame, and long-term considerations. You answer with a case study.
I’m out.

@DoubleTweenQueen

I'm not going to write out everything again which is already visible to you through simple research - I thought you said research is your area?

I really don't know why you are finding this so hard or why you expect me to devote hours of my life when the information is at your fingertips with a 5 second internet search.

Here we go:

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

Here's also an in depth account of issues with historic research on desistance. I think you posted a study about that earlier?

zinniajones.medium.com/when-desisters-arent-de-desistance-in-childhood-and-adolescent-gender-dysphoria-90a0857f2472

It is difficult to conduct prospective studies or randomized control trials of treatments for gender dysphoria because of the individualized nature of treatment, the varying and unequal circumstances of population members, the small size of the known transgender population, and the ethical issues involved in withholding an effective treatment from those who need it.

@suggestionsplease1 If you cut and paste, it’s protocol to cite the source.

So I am wondering:

When young people are faced with others refusing to use preferred pronouns and name they might double down on their stance - eg. "What do I have to do to convince others that I am male/female? They won't accept me as a male/female now, but perhaps if I take the hormones and have the surgery they'll have to acknowledge me for who I really am."

This kind of implies that if a male child that feels they are female, gets told they can't use the girls changing room as that is for female children, this pushes the male child down the medical pathway. So basically let male children in the girls or you are responsible for the child going down a path that will harm their body and destroy their fertility. I am sure that that was not the intention of suggesting as that would be cohersion and blatant manipulation.

I see we have the link again that often appears on these threads of the 51 study review. I will also point out that this review is actually not very meaningful for the current batch of young female transitioners. I have been through these 51 studies in the past looking for the relevant to young teenaged female transitioners that form this current cohort.

These studies are pre 2017 and therefore did not really capture a true snapshot of what is currently effecting young female transitioners in the UK, or indeed anywhere in the world.

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

Overview

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.

Sorry. Are you really posting a review of studies that states this position. And you believe it still applies?

That "We found no studies concluding that gender transition causes overall harm."

So.... detransitioners are, what? non-existent? That bone density issues and other health issues encountered by transitioners are also what? didn't happen? I can post a link to the detrimental bone density for female transitioners on medicalised pathways here if you wish.

I mean these are just two situations that make that statement less than credible.

Speaking of detransition

There was a European study published in Aug 2017 and released that showed that 8.3% females detransitioned and 8.8% male transitioners detransitioned.

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

135 natal males (119 living in the female role, 12 in the male role, 4 did not report their current gender role) and 66 natal females (60 living in the male role, 5 in the female role, 1 did not report a current gender role)

So... 8.88% of males and 8.33% of the females (this does not include those who did not answer the question which if the answer was to detransition would make these figures higher). And in Figure 3. 22.2% of those who socially transitioned, detransitioned.

That study seems to counter this claim.

Regrets following gender transition are extremely rare and have become even rarer as both surgical techniques and social support have improved. Pooling data from numerous studies demonstrates a regret rate ranging from .3 percent to 3.8 percent. Regrets are most likely to result from a lack of social support after transition or poor surgical outcomes using older techniques.

Considering that 'blog post' from Cornell includes a citation from 2018, it certainly should have included the study I have linked.

Although, I did have to pull those figures out myself.

I personally find that Cornell collection very dangerous in that it clearly shows absolutely no balance and the 'findings' have not seemed to be updated. I would be very hesitant to ever recommend it as a balanced overview at all.

[quote suggestionsplease1]@DoubleTweenQueen

I'm not going to write out everything again which is already visible to you through simple research - I thought you said research is your area?

I really don't know why you are finding this so hard or why you expect me to devote hours of my life when the information is at your fingertips with a 5 second internet search.

Here we go:

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

Here's also an in depth account of issues with historic research on desistance. I think you posted a study about that earlier?

zinniajones.medium.com/when-desisters-arent-de-desistance-in-childhood-and-adolescent-gender-dysphoria-90a0857f2472[/quote]
Is that your answer to a request for "your considered view of these studies and what you gleaned from each one"?

An anonymous literature review on a university website and a medium article?

Did you write both of them?

@suggestionsplease1 Actually, you probably did make up that spiel, which is nonsense on a number of levels. Are you trying to get to grips with clinical drug trials protocol and attempting to shoehorn your opinion into a similar framework? Ok!

And the Zinnia Jones is also from 2017 and doesn't cite the Van de Grift, Cerwenka, Cohen-Kettenis, De Cuypere et al case.

Although Jones pulls a lot from Steensma.

And Steensma has also recently pointed out that the current cohort of young female transitioners have different needs to those of the past. And that the 'Dutch protocol' may not be a good fit for their needs.

Sorry

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

Is this link

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

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

@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.

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

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?

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

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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

I questioned the relevance of a blog appearing. But figured that suggestions must have a very good reason.

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.

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.

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.

@Helleofabore

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

I posted to a systematic literature review by an Ivy League University : _______ What does the scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being?

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.

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

That doesn't answer my question.

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

@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.