"Sex changes are not effective, say researchers", for the Huardian 2004

[AnneofGreenGables2010]

Sex changes not effective, say researchers

This medical review, commissioned by the Guardian, is rarely referenced. I only stumbled across it by accident.
Makes a fascinating read.

"Research from the US and Holland suggests that up to a fifth of patients regret changing sex. A 1998 review by the Research and Development Directorate of the NHS Executive found attempted suicide rates of up to 18% noted in some medical studies of gender reassignment."

Sorry about typo in title. Should read Guardian ironically.

Interesting and there clearly needs to be more research. Such a shame that the Tavistock didn’t think it was worthwhile following their patients long term.

The use of ‘sex change’ throughout the article was irritating. Humans can’t change sex.

What an interesting find

Its review warns that the results of many gender reassignment studies are unsound because researchers lost track of more than half of the participants. For example, in a five-year study of 727 post-operative transsexuals published last year, 495 people dropped out for unknown reasons. Dr Hyde said the high drop out rate could reflect high levels of dissatisfaction or even suicide among post-operative transsexuals. He called for the causes of their deaths to be tracked to provide more evidence.

'even suicide', bloody hell! It seems likely that even back then, before the massive increase, the treatment was oversold and under performed.

The use of ‘sex change’ throughout the article was irritating. Humans can’t change sex.

It's more annoying that twenty years later the papers (from the Guardian to the Mail) are still doing it.

The Hrauniad, FFS!

Sex changes intrinsically ineffective as sex can't be changed.

I thought the use of 'sex change' rather than 'gender reassignment' was revealing and instructive. It shows the many layers of ideology and woo that has been added to the same contentious issue over the past 20 years.

It also shows that in 2004, 'sex change' meant having significant and dangerous surgery, whereas today it just takes a change of pronouns and a bit of lippy, allegedly🙄

Thanks for finding the article and posting it, OP, it's very interesting.

But I agree with SinnerBoy - your typo was unforgiveable, every ful kno that it should have been the Hrauniad😂

Here is the follow-up. Feel very sorry for the people having the operations.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/31/health.socialcare
If anyone has one knows how to archive the article it may be useful as the Guardian does gets rid of stuff.

archive.ph/21DqO

Thank you for the archived copy, and thank you to Hermyknee for finding the follow-up article, and AnneofGreenGables2010 for the original article.
The 2004 material you have linked to gives a valuable backstory to today's trans discussions. It's also a reminder of how good Guardian journalism used to be!

It should be required reading for anybody who has, or is forming, an opinion on transgender issues. It makes so many points, answers so many questions and confirms so many concerns - in the words of 'transsexuals' themselves - that are at the centre of GC's objections to trans ideology. It's also graphic, and disturbing, and sad.

It's like the launch in 2004 of 'Operation Let Them Speak'.

Only they were speaking honestly and from the heart, not accidentally letting the cat out of the bag, in a rage.

Thankyou @JanesLittleGirl

I wonder if Arwa Mahdawi read her colleague’s work for last week’s research ?

I thought much the same reading that 2004 piece. There's plenty to criticise with twenty years of hindsight, but this is good, decent journalism, informing their readers. The sort of thing that made many of us regular Guardian readers,

Too true, Duc and exactly what has now, sad, put many of us off. I first read it in 1993, aged 23 and was very impressed, I always headed to the college library, where the librarian would day, "Here's the Guardian..."

I feel depressed and betrayed by what it's become.

Pah! You youngsters! 😀

I don't want to go on a transhunt but this person seems to be big in nursing, previous names check out.

Interestingly, that writer still works at The Guardian. Maybe he can do a ‘How’s it going?’ 21 year follow-up.

I wonder why 🙄

I've copied both articles and saved them as Word documents on my laptop, just in case they are 'disappeared' - one of them is already archived fortunately.

I think it is very important to record what has been going on in the 20 years since these articles were written.
There will be a time when future researchers will look back and say 'What possessed them?'
We have the receipts...

Good Lord, if nothing else, it shows you that the people asking for sex change surgery are a) all coming at it for completely different reasons, and b) very disturbed indeed.

It seems to me wholly unsurprising that the research can't actually get a predictable handle on whether surgery will be successful or not and result in happiness or despair.

This from the man who 'changed sex' three times.

She went back on oestrogen and had electrolysis to remove her male hair growth. This time the only surgery she had was breast implants. Without genitals, the only way to create a new vagina would be to remove a section of her bowel, which could leave her needing a colostomy bag. "I can only possibly envisage putting myself through what is very painful and risky surgery if I had a new partner and we decided it would help our relationship sexually," she says.

What sexual relationship? You don't have any genitals! Would this man really consider more mutilation and having a colostomy bag, so someone else can have sex with him that he can't even participate in? It's too fucked up for words.

Plus, every single man is preoccupied with genitals. It's all about having sex, or sexual characteristics.

They all come across as utterly obsessed.

When women say these men are objectifying them, and wanting to become the sort of woman that doesn't actually exist, they're not wrong.

"You can say you're Napoleon but unless the whole world agrees with you, you patently are not Napoleon"

Yep!

Archive of the link in the OP.

https://archive.ph/rRuud

Probably put forward for that article by Press for Change. So an activist.