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

[anyolddinosaur]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.70533 Finnish study shows transition did not help psychiatric morbidity. It got worse.

I suspect though that the numbers of (high initial morbidity GR+) and (low initial morbidity GR-)

That's the wrong way round surely?

I get what you are saying about a possible spike around the treatment period and the data I would have liked to seen in the study would have been a better breakdown of the lifetime number of contacts with psychiatric services for the two groups GR-, GR+ and the controls both before and after the index date +2 years. I think that would have given some indication of the severity and possible duration of any difficulties and from the data provided it looks like that would be quite simple from just crunching the numbers a little.

I never see any statistics, or studies, or questions asking these children about what influences them to believe they have a gender identity.

Specifically, what do they read online, and by whom.

We know transactivism proliferates and targets children. I'm assuming the authors of these studies are fully aware, but do they track it? Report it?

When I see the sorts of men who go out of their way to influence all these outcomes, and public opinion, and children, etc, including men like Aida on this thread who wants to assault women with rolling pins, I sincerely hope that someone, somewhere in these studies is linking TRA influence to the children being studied.

@theilltemperedamateur Suppose all the morbidity exhibited by the GR+ group occurred before, during, and just after the actual treatment period, after which the subjects enjoyed psychiatric plain sailing for many decades?

From the report (my bold):

Psychiatric treatment, excluding gender identity assessments and appointments with a multi-disciplinary team therein, subsequent to the index contact was defined as continuing two years or more after the index contact, to allow time for the gender identity assessment and potential medical GR initiation.

So the researchers, who presumably understand how the system in Finland works, seem confident that any medical GR would have been initiated by 2 years post-index contact.

'Just after' actual treatment period would apply to surgery, but not to hormonal intervention, which would be ongoing.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, just drilling down into the details

There is a branch of psychology, often labelled ‘narrative approaches’, that highlights how humans innately create stories. As a species, we struggle with ‘not knowing’ and with randomness. We fill in blanks and make connections so things ‘make sense’ to us.

Narrative therapists wouldn’t necessarily ask those questions directly, but they would explore alternative explanations and stories to help ‘the client’ adopt a narrative that is conducive to positive wellbeing and better functioning.

That's the wrong way round surely?

No: there was an inverse correlation between initial morbidity and likelihood of treatment, maybe because it was felt that comorbidities were a contraindication for treatment.

@BusyAzureTraybake felt two years was long enough, but I'd like to know what treatment and assessment times were actually like. And think that recent data might be the most useful.

No: there was an inverse correlation between initial morbidity and likelihood of treatment, maybe because it was felt that comorbidities were a contraindication for treatment.

Apologies I've reread the post I took the quote from and can see that although on average GR+ = low initial morbidity and GR- = high initial morbidity, it is the atypical GR+ = high initial morbidity and GR- = low initial morbidity that you would need to match.

Two things struck me from reading the study. Firstly the incredibly high rates of lifetime morbidity of those referred. Secondly how many variables there are so it's difficult to tease out any absolute certainties even when you have such a large data set .

Oh and thirdly how hard it is to read academic studies. I'm looking forward to SEGM giving their appraisal of the study.

An awful of posters plopping over to talk about ‘hate’ but don’t really have much to say about this very eye-opening study.

I’d like to think this study has given them a chance to think critically about whether the ‘gender affirming’ care really is the right solution but it seems crickets when discussing actual care and support.

I agree.

The fact that these posters are ignoring this thread speaks volumes.

That community note... 😆

It's not a control group... apparently.

https://nitter.poast.org/LGBwiththeT/status/2041580531481980976#m

some non-peer reviewing journal

You do realise that we have access to the internet and can fact-check your lies?

"Acta Paediatrica is a peer-reviewed monthly journal". Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/16512227

Has Operation Let Them Speak been running again?

Papers don't usually have "peer review markings" on them.

Source: I read a lot of papers.

A reminder

Oh yes. I actually find it quite entertaining that Aidap thought he could come over here and just spout lies after what he’s been saying elsewhere online.
The women here know their facts.

Yes.

From the study: "Psychiatric treatment, excluding gender identity assessments and appointments with a multi-disciplinary team therein, subsequent to the index contact"

The study authors filtered out all contacts with gender development services when counting incidents of psychiatric treatment, so GDS visits don't count towards the result.

Under "2.4 Variables", in the third paragraph.

The ploppers are here to distract us from this...

Agreed.

The mad thing is that all this was well known 15+ years ago.

I have read that old studies showed that people who had undergone genital surgery (AKA gender affirming care) felt worse 10 years after the surgery than they had before the surgery.

So, were the last few years of 'hardly anyone regrets this' just propaganda?

@theilltemperedamateur But we are always told that people with gender incongruence experience distress when waiting and euphoria after treatment after which they get on with quietly living their lives and not attacking women. So those who have got through their assessment and started treatment should, according to the activists, be fine and dandy from the start. This study shows that is not the reality.

CassOle
were the last few years of 'hardly anyone regrets this' just propaganda?

It does rather look like it, yes.

I'd be happier with the data if I was certain that every subject was assessed, and treatment well under way, within two years of the index date. Maybe they were - but the report doesn't say so.

Why does anyone give these men even the smallest consideration.

Other than stay away from me and everyone I know you creepy man

Wow, yes, almost like they are still mentally ill after the surgery…..

Hopefully this will start a move towards proper mental health therapy for dysphoria.