Reader's Note:
The 'regret' rate of transition is NOT around 1 %. This poster likes to repeat this bit of misinformation on every thread they can and will continue to deny ever seeing any evidence posted that counters that.
The regret rate may be much much higher between 26-30%. Remember that 'regret' rate is actually different from the detransition rate. Some trans people cannot 'detransition' because they have had genital surgery.
The detransition rate is also much higher than 1 %. There are studies starting the detransition rate at 8.3%. And that is from BEFORE affirming only care was insisted upon AND the exponential increase of the current numbers of children and adolescents which also coincides with the clear change to the majority of female children and adolescent patients being seen in the children and adolescent gender clinics around the world.
This poster has been on this board for years and has seen these links. They are determined however to not read the studies, they repeat the dangerous misinformation. Plus they have never once posted evidence to support even that number.
This poster also declares that they are a trans ally, yet, there is no care shown in their posts which continue to post misinformation on many topics about child and adolescent gender services. Their aim seems to be only to scold readers and posters who disagree with them.
For further information, please see the following links:
This is a review of US Military health insurance records for transition persistence.
academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/107/9/e3937/6572526?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
”Continuation of Gender-affirming Hormones Among Transgender Adolescents and Adults”
Christina M Roberts,
David A Klein, Terry A Adirim,
Natasha A Schvey, Elizabeth Hisle-Gorman
22 April 2022
Results
The study sample included 627 transmasculine and 325 transfeminine individuals with an average age of 19.2 ± 5.3 years. The 4-year gender-affirming hormone continuation rate was 70.2% (95% CI, 63.9-76.5). Transfeminine individuals had a higher continuation rate than transmasculine individuals 81.0% (72.0%-90.0%) vs 64.4% (56.0%-72.8%). People who started hormones as minors had higher continuation rate than people who started as adults 74.4% (66.0%-82.8%) vs 64.4% (56.0%-72.8%). Continuation was not associated with household income or family member type. In Cox regression, both transmasculine gender identity (hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.50-3.86) and starting hormones as an adult (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.14-2.52) were independently associated with increased discontinuation rates.
Note here the discontinuation rate of people who started hormones was minors was only 25%.
Here is another study showing desistance rates:
Distress: A Prospective Follow-Up Study
by Joseph Elkadi, Catherine Chudleigh, Ann M. Maguire, Geoffrey R. Ambler, Stephen Scher and Kasia Kozlowska
www.mdpi.com/2227-9067/10/2/314
This prospective case-cohort study examines the developmental pathway choices of 79 young people (13.25–23.75 years old; 33 biological males and 46 biological females) referred to a tertiary care hospital’s Department of Psychological Medicine (December 2013–November 2018, at ages 8.42–15.92 years) for diagnostic assessment for gender dysphoria (GD) and for potential gender-affirming medical interventions. All of the young people had attended a screening medical assessment (including puberty staging) by paediatricians. The Psychological Medicine assessment (individual and family) yielded a formal DSM-5 diagnosis of GD in 66 of the young people. Of the 13 not meeting DSM-5 criteria, two obtained a GD diagnosis at a later time. This yielded 68 young people (68/79; 86.1%) with formal diagnoses of GD who were potentially eligible for gender-affirming medical interventions and 11 young people (11/79; 13.9%) who were not. Follow-up took place between November 2022 and January 2023. Within the GD subgroup (n = 68) (with two lost to follow-up), six had desisted (desistance rate of 9.1%; 6/66), and 60 had persisted on a GD (transgender) pathway (persistence rate of 90.9%; 60/66). Within the cohort as a whole (with two lost to follow-up), the overall persistence rate was 77.9% (60/77), and overall desistance rate for gender-related distress was 22.1% (17/77). Ongoing mental health concerns were reported by 44/50 (88.0%), and educational/occupational outcomes varied widely. The study highlights the importance of careful screening, comprehensive biopsychosocial (including family) assessment, and holistic therapeutic support. Even in highly screened samples of children and adolescents seeking a GD diagnosis and gender-affirming medical care, outcome pathways follow a diverse range of possibilities.
Conclusions
The data from this study show that when young people with gender distress present to health services seeking medical interventions, they end up following a diverse range of developmental pathways. The availability of gender-affirming medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria is a recent one, evolving from the work of clinicians in the Netherlands. Early studies have suggested that medical interventions were associated with positive outcomes. This early body of work consequently served as the foundation for subsequent treatment guidelines and became established in medical systems via streamlined assessment processes and treatment pathways. The concept of medical affirmation was embedded in the broader culture by media and internet channels.
Together, these processes gave young people with gender-related distress a clear message: “This is the best way to proceed,” and “The medical affirmation pathway will take away your gender dysphoria.” For many young people and their families, however, these messages favouring medical interventions, coupled with professionals’ affirmation of this pathway, potentially displaced their consideration of other options or other pathways.
The young people and families who presented to our service typically came to us with settled ideas concerning their prospective treatment pathways. In particular, based on what was known at the time, and given the severity of the young persons’ distress, they and their families considered medical treatment for gender dysphoria to be the single best option. In the last five years, however, the gender-affirming medical model has been questioned by both clinicians (who have highlighted the current lack of a solid evidence base and detransitioners (who have highlighted the potential for adverse outcomes). The current evidence suggests the need for a much more nuanced and complex approach. As research data pertaining to long-term outcomes continues to accumulate, “the best way to proceed” is likely to be seen as ranging over a much more diverse range of treatment options and pathways, with each supported by a stronger evidence base than is currently available.
And another couple
Here is a new study on a small sample of trans patients and the standard of care.
www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/10/1/121/htm
A few things stand out.
-the number of patients with underlying mental health issues. And how they are being completely let down by affirming only treatment.
-The number of visits before receiving hormones was 2.7 appointments.
-67 patients average age 27.8 years -range was 12- 54
-42 females, 22 males, four NB (3 f / 1 m)
-Female mean age is 18 years, male 23 years.
-Out of the 67, only 9 (13%) had NO mental health diagnosis. 10 (15%) had diagnosed ASD, 4 with ADHD (6%), 3 (4%) with OCD, 1 with Bipolar, 7 (10%) with a Personality Disorder. 13 (19%) had documented childhood abuse, neglect or violence.
The rate of detransition amongst those who had received at least hormones was 9.8%. This is in line with the European study below which showed a long term detransition rate of medicalised transitioners of males 8.8% and females 8.3%.
From this study
Nine patients had stopped hormone therapy; one related to practice policy because they had not attended any GIC follow-up (the patient has restarted since the audit). Thus, eight patients had stopped hormones voluntarily (20% stopping rate; six trans men, two trans women).
This is the other study with the figures 8.8% & 8.3%:
//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.
And these recent articles from gender clinicians .
‘Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It.’
https://www.thefp.com/p/gender-affirming-care-dangerous-finland-doctor
From Dr Riittakerttu Kaltiala, Finnish Psychiatrist who developed the treatment plans for Finnish Gender Clinics.
and
Here is Dr Az Hazeem, another psychiatrist from the UK Gender clinics, saying he had about 26% of his patients regretted transitioning.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12623643/Being-trans-non-binary-new-sub-culture-risk-raising-nation-chemically-castrated-children-Doctor-spent-12-years-working-vulnerable-teens-Tavistock-warns-gender-ideology.html
He said 26 per cent of his patients at the Tavistock and Portman regretted transitioning.
Note: Dr Az states this is patient 'regret' not detransition.
Final note: This poster, mishy, has just recently denounced Dr Kaltiala's article because Mishy feels that the media source is not trustworthy. However, this is an article from the Dr, herself. And Mishy, as usual, failed completely to address one single thing that this chief Psychiatrist had to say....
Almost.. almost like it is determined ignorance by this stage or so it appears.