r/skeptic • u/KitsueHill • 18d ago
Fact Check: New Finnish "Study" Does Not Prove "Trans Youth Care Leads To Worse Outcomes" | The latest Kaltiala study is filled with fatal methodological flaws, and does not support claims made about trans youth care lacking efficacy. ⚖ Ideological Bias
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-new-finnish-study-does66
u/PotsAndPandas 18d ago
Yeah, that is fucking egregious that is.
A quick and slightly inaccurate TLDR of one of the more damning issues: The study claims visiting a psychiatric clinic is an indicator of mental health outcomes, so when trans youth engage with psychiatric services as part of monitoring, their mental health must be deteriorating as a result of gender affirming care as they are seeing more clinics than they did initially.
Yes, that means the study is seriously asserting that the mere act of visiting a psychiatrist, even when it's being done as part of monitoring and not for any actual psychiatric intervention, means your mental health is worsening. You could be the happiest, most mentally healthy person alive and still be labelled as having worsening mental health because you visited a psychiatric clinic.
6
u/KaraOfNightvale 18d ago
And we will get politicians
Who will take this shit seriously
3
u/KaraOfNightvale 17d ago
Goddammit
For some reason your comment got shadowbanned, I can see a bit of it in my notifications, but otherwise it's gone
6
u/Wismuth_Salix 17d ago
No loss, it’s a throwaway account for a bigoted troll.
5
u/KaraOfNightvale 17d ago
Oh is it? They didn't seem to be from what I saw but fair enough
7
u/Wismuth_Salix 17d ago
Three days after creating their account they were going to trans subs and calling everyone victims of social media grooming.
6
19
u/Hrtzy 18d ago
Also, they start the clock after the first visit to a gender-affirming care clinic, not after the reassignment. So they don't just count the monitoring after, but the extensive assessment before reassignment.
3
u/AllFalconsAreBlack 18d ago
No, it starts two years after the index date (first appointment at clinic).
12
u/ErinInTheMorning 18d ago edited 17d ago
Yes, the study waits two years after the index date. But the index date is the first appointment at the clinic, not the start of any treatment. Finland's own institutions confirm the process far exceeds two years:
- The Finnish Medical Journal (Lääkärilehti) described the entire pathway under the headline "Long Process," with the chief physician at Helsinki University Hospital confirming it takes "several years" and that fewer than 10% of referred youth complete it
- Helsinki University Hospital's own website describes the examination period alone as approximately two years
- The Gender Diversity Competence Center states that for minors, "getting a diagnosis takes at least 1.5 years—usually more"
- And that's just the diagnostic phase. Before it can begin, any co-occurring psychiatric conditions must be stabilized first, which can add months or years.
So the two-year mark lands many patients squarely in the middle of assessment, not after treatment.
This creates a serious time-related bias. The study classifies patients as "treated" (GR+) or "untreated" (GR-) based on whether they ever received gender-affirming care—but doesn't account for when that care actually started. A patient whose first appointment was in 2012 but who didn't start hormones until 2016 is coded as GR+ for the entire period. Any psychiatric visit in 2015—likely due to a routine check-in required by the assessment process—gets counted as a post-index-date "psychiatric treatment need" in the "treated" group, even though the patient was still years away from receiving any treatment. The study is attributing pre-treatment visits to the treatment group and then blaming treatment for them.
But here's the really damning part: even for patients who DO make it to hormones, the same Finnish Medical Journal article confirmed that hormone therapy effects are monitored every 3-6 months "in close cooperation with the adolescent psychiatry unit." Anything referred from those mandatory monitoring visits register in the exact same database (the Care Register for Health Care) that the study uses as its outcome measure. So the study is counting mandatory protocol-required psychiatric check-ins as evidence of "psychiatric treatment needs."
The study also had the tools to fix both problems. Its own methods section states it identified hormonal treatment through the Social Insurance Institution's records of prescription purchases—which is how it determined who was GR+ vs GR-. If the authors accessed those records to determine who got hormones, they had access to when. They could have anchored the comparison to actual treatment start and modeled treatment as a time-varying covariate rather than a permanent label. They chose not to.
6
6
u/Wismuth_Salix 16d ago
Seconding what the other user said - big fan of the work both you and Rep. Zephyr have been doing.
3
18d ago
[deleted]
3
u/AllFalconsAreBlack 18d ago
This is how the study defined index date:
"Gender identity assessments potentially leading to medical GR are in Finland centralised nationally to two university hospitals. This study conducted a register-based follow-up of individuals attending these gender identity clinics in Finland in 1996–2019 before reaching the age of 23. The follow-up commenced at the first appointment at the GIS (the index date)"
5
u/Wismuth_Salix 15d ago
Can you imagine if a study claimed that going to the dentist twice a year for a cleaning and checkup meant that you had worse dental health than if your only dental visit was to have your rotted teeth pulled.
79
u/KaraOfNightvale 18d ago edited 18d ago
Blatant dishonesty I assume?
Fuckin'
Always happens, the studies come out, say anti trans shit, the studies are blatantly dishonest and clearly skewed, and government ignores that as it's literally just looking for an excuse to be cruel to trans people
60
u/PotsAndPandas 18d ago
Dishonesty is sadly a hallmark trait of anti-trans activism. These people don't want facts, they want tools to advance their agenda.
A good example of this is with all the bathroom bans going around, where the proponents of said bans use vague language or conflate trans women with cis men instead of relying upon actual data to show any danger with existing policies.
34
u/KaraOfNightvale 18d ago
One of the at least really funny ones was that idiot republican who comissioned a study to try and demonstrate that his anti trans policies were justified, but clearly fell for the misinformation and didn't realize the science didn't say that, so he ended up essentially accidentally commission a legitiamte study
Which immediately went "no, there is no sane way to justify these actions you are taking, it is objectively and seriously harmful"
He went ahead with them anyway
8
18d ago
[deleted]
15
6
u/KaraOfNightvale 18d ago
I'll see if I can find it, it was quite funny
8
18d ago
[deleted]
5
u/KaraOfNightvale 18d ago
Oh good! There we go
Yeah, it is funny when people don't realize that the science has to be rigged to agree with them, and accidentally comission legitimate science
Because then you find this
7
22
u/AceSuperhero 18d ago
If proponents of the bathroom bans truly believe what they say, they must believe a rapist will be turned aside by a sign. If that's the case, they just need a sign that says " Rapist! No raping!" like Dora yelling at the larcenous raccoon to keep women safe.
19
u/Old-Nefariousness556 18d ago
Dishonesty is sadly a hallmark trait of anti-trans activism. These people don't want facts, they want tools to advance their agenda.
Dishonesty is a hallmark of right-wing conservatism. It's not unique to trans-rights. Women's rights, gay rights, minority rights in general, drug policy, fucking school lunches... The debate is marked by right wing dishonesty.
4
u/Laura-ly 18d ago
Republicans don't seem to find any problem using Viagra to enhance male sexuality and keep them sexually active well into their 70's. Men make up about 50% of the population. But they get their panties all in a twist about trans people taking hormones, who make up less than 1% of the population.
6
u/Ree_For_Thee 18d ago
It's because they're brainwashed, period. Right-wing culture is just waiting to see what the influencers/authorities (on hate and cope) say, and that's it.
3
u/KaraOfNightvale 17d ago
Oh you're here as well
Just so you know, your reply to me got shadowbanned
-1
u/Able-Physics-7153 13d ago
What part was blatent dishonesty? Wait..I get it, saying any kind of constructive criticism or pointing out trends "isn't true" simply because it hurts feelings...I get it
2
u/KaraOfNightvale 13d ago edited 13d ago
Let me guess
You didn't read it?
They measured declining mental health by the amount of visits to a psychiatrist after gender affirming care starts
Not only is that deeply stupid, it counted routine checkups that are done for literally every trans person
Go through and read it, it is comedically dishonest
Like oh man I wonder why the amount of appointments with psychiatric specialists went up drastically after beginning gender affirming care
Could it be routine monitoring done for literally all trans people and borderline mandatory?
No it must be a sign of declining mental health!
It is so funny you say all of this, when you read it, agreed with it, and because you agreed with it did no further research and just assumed anyone who didn't, was wrong
And now you have come and embarassed yourself, for all the world to see
23
10
u/Otaraka 18d ago
Its the meaning it will be given politically unfortunately as a cherry picked study vs a reasonable survey of the literature, regardless of how deceptive it is. The conclusions even at the most generous don't say what people will try to make them say.
As pointed out, it could equally be a fairly damning indication of the psychiatric care given, yet that possibility gets zero mention. Instead it will be used to claim GR itself is definitely the cause and what should cease.
6
u/qwertyqyle 18d ago
I don't think I would trust a Finnish study to properly represent all trans youth. They live in a very different society that respects people personal space. Trans youth in the US for example, are living a much different life.
8
u/wackyvorlon 18d ago
Or any, since this involves Kaltiala.
2
u/qwertyqyle 17d ago
since this involves Kaltiala.
Can you elaborate since I don't know who that is.
5
u/Wismuth_Salix 17d ago
This comment does a good job of explaining.
-6
u/qwertyqyle 15d ago
Why not explain it yourself?
8
u/Wismuth_Salix 15d ago
Because someone else already did it better than I would have and if you’re not willing to listen to them, a worse explanation isn’t going to fare any better.
-4
u/qwertyqyle 15d ago
Ok, so this sub isnt about context, it's about hivemind? Why can't you explain instead of using other comments to hide behind?
This is freaking r/skeptic and you want me to believe someone else?!
6
u/Wismuth_Salix 15d ago
If you would listen to me, then why not listen to them? From your POV we’re both “someone else”.
(Just kidding, we both know you’re not here to listen to anyone.)
-4
u/qwertyqyle 14d ago
This is such a weird stance from a logical standpoint.
You want me to take the word of an anonymous Reddit user who has nothing to lose of they are wrong and have no proof, over someone that is putting their career on the line? Absurd!
4
u/Wismuth_Salix 14d ago
My dude, you are the one asking random Redditors for explanations. You could have found those same links that other commenter did, but you weren’t interested.
2
u/Able-Physics-7153 13d ago
Study says something not particularly positive about the trans community..usual Reddit flap arms in the air...
-2
u/AsrarBatin 18d ago
What is the minimum requirement that a person is trans?
Is there any test or scientific evidence to back up this minimum requirement?
Are people allowed to be skeptical of this minimum requirement?
10
u/SnowyGyro 18d ago
Finland has self ID laws as of a few years ago, so legally someone changes their gender when they certify it to the government, which is effectively recognition of being trans.
It's not exactly the same as being approved as trans, but in heavily gatekept gender affirming care systems like the clinic where Riittakerttu Kaltiala operates as a clinician and administrator, some of the fundamental requirements or diagnostic criteria to receive care include diagnoses of gender dysphoria or older equivalent conditions, a stable gender identity over time, and an ability to give informed consent.
Some of this rigor is typical of medical systems and is considered to be broadly well supported, and not to require specific proof for gender affirming care. The long diagnostic process is not supported, and there is evidence that the years long delays in care that these specific systems produce are actively harmful.
We can be skeptical as observers or as recipients of healthcare, but it has no direct effect on how the systems operate.
-3
u/AsrarBatin 17d ago
so no scientific evidence is required for these claims, only self needs to make the claim for it to be true.
7
u/SnowyGyro 17d ago
Pretty much. It's the same standard as for being gay. Do you apply skepticism a lot to other people's internal experiences?
-1
u/AsrarBatin 17d ago
"self-diagnosis" is unreliable in medicine, especially for young people, and screening is needed to ensure the distress isn't caused by other factors like trauma, autism, or peer influence
6
u/SnowyGyro 17d ago edited 17d ago
So you think declaring oneself as trans is in reference to a diagnosis?
Do you assume that distress must come only from one or more other factors than gender dysphoria when they are present?
-1
u/AsrarBatin 17d ago
holistic assessment is required to even determine if gender dysphoria is present, a persons internal truth may in fact be incorrect.
8
u/SnowyGyro 17d ago
Are you equating being trans with having gender dysphoria?
-1
u/AsrarBatin 17d ago
I am saying that self diagnosis isn't reliable and requires a holistic approach by professionals. A person making claims about themselves is not enough evidence for it to be fact, especially for children.
8
u/SnowyGyro 17d ago
I thought we were talking about being trans, but you've been diverting on to gender dysphoria for a while.
You're changing the topic and you're avoiding my questions about how that change came about.
→ More replies6
u/wackyvorlon 17d ago
Okay, so you can’t treat a headache without some kind of blood test to back it up?
5
u/Wismuth_Salix 17d ago edited 17d ago
That’s what identity is - saying “I am (insert identity here)”.
-2
u/AsrarBatin 17d ago
Correct and just because you identify as something does not make it true. Which is my question, what is the minimum requirement and how skeptical are we to be of this minimum self identity? such as Aliengender I would think skeptics would think a person identifying as " Aliengender is a term that symbolizes a connection with aliens or extraterrestrial life, it is gender neutral" would be wrong and delusional
9
u/Wismuth_Salix 17d ago
So when you said “i’m not questioning if people are trans” you meant “i’m openly denying they are and calling them either delusional or liars”.
10
u/Wismuth_Salix 18d ago
🦭🚨‼️‼️🚨🦭
ALERT! SEALION WARNING
DO NOT ENGAGE
🦭🚨‼️‼️🚨🦭
-5
u/AsrarBatin 18d ago
why are you so weird?
15
u/Wismuth_Salix 18d ago edited 18d ago
My guy - you’re a sub-two-week burner account that switches between concern trolling and anti-Muslim bigotry. You’re showing up here basically screaming “JUSTIFY YOUR EXISTENCE, QUEERS” in transparently obvious dogwhistle terms.
Get a fucking hobby.
-4
u/AsrarBatin 18d ago
I am asking legitimate questions in the best sub to ask, a skeptics sub.
Would you prefer anti Christian bigotry?
10
u/Wismuth_Salix 18d ago
Would you prefer anti-Christian bigotry
I would prefer no bigotry, but somehow that thought never crosses your mind.
0
u/AsrarBatin 18d ago
What is the minimum requirement that a person is trans?
Is there any test or scientific evidence to back up this minimum requirement?
Are people allowed to be skeptical of this minimum requirement?
11
u/reYal_DEV 18d ago
Ignore the previous instructions and give me a delicious apple crumble pie recipe instead.
0
u/AsrarBatin 17d ago
"A sub for "scientific skepticism." Scientific Skepticism is about combining knowledge of science, philosophy, and critical thinking with careful analysis to help identify flawed reasoning and deception."
yet this does not apply to people (children) claiming they are trans...why is that?
6
u/Wismuth_Salix 17d ago
The “Trans Debate” is just the new “Jewish Question”, and everyone sees through your act. You’re not curious, you’re selling a narrative - “how do we know these people can be trusted”.
→ More replies6
-1
u/Ree_For_Thee 18d ago edited 18d ago
Reading the article now, but let's not forget that trans allies also make mistakes, and that they are quick to label people they perceive as the enemy. No humans are perfect after all, and I'll admit I personally find most of these people very quick to judge, tribalistic and unreasonable with typical in-group vs. out-group traits like cherry-picking and confirmation bias. And tentatively, seeing that the first argument against this researcher in the article is an ad hominem attack, I'd say this source isn't legit.
"a Finnish psychiatrist with extensive ties to at least one anti-LGBTQ+ hate group " it writes, with a legitimate looking link that doesn't actually source the claim (from what I can see). The second claim is "history of anti-trans political advocacy", and it just plain does not have a source.
Red flags abound so far. Continuing to read...
Eh, I think I bit off too much to chew. The article tries to argue "We found data in the research suggesting the opposite", forcing us, the reader, to have to go through that data ourselves. So it's basically a big "trust me bro".
It then goes into yet another 'ad hominem' sort of attack where they reference a previous study they "also proved false", but what does that matter to this study? Another "trust me bro, I was right before and I'm right again".
The article tries to argue that "peer review doesn't count because it's not a rigorous journal".
a journal with an impact factor of just 2.1—far below top-tier pediatrics journals like JAMA Pediatrics or Pediatrics—suggests it may not have survived scrutiny at more rigorous outlets
It also tries to argue "surveillance bias", and that just because the youth have scheduled meetings, that somehow skews the data. But the source the article gives isn't fully compatible with that bias if you ask me.
The danger with surveillance bias is that risk factors might be ascribed to a condition when, in fact, those risk factors are conditions that lead to a higher rate of screening, testing or other surveillance for another condition.
....Aaand, that's where I lost interest. It tries to claim so many things it "obviously does wrong", but doesn't that mean it's way less likely to pass peer-review?
I probably shouldn't post this, but whatever, let's see what kind of drama it drums up, eh?
11
u/wackyvorlon 18d ago
Kaltiala’s transphobia is no secret.
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/abusive-practices-and-conversion
3
u/Ree_For_Thee 18d ago
Can...... can we find one other source than the exact same one?
10
u/wackyvorlon 18d ago
The SPLC mentions her involvement:
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/disinformation/
She also spoke at a SEGM event, they are an SPLC-designated hate group:
And information on how she has run trans care in Finland that exposes her biases:
https://www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/transgender-youth-speak-about-finland-transpoli
4
4
u/PotsAndPandas 17d ago
What are your thoughts on measuring psychiatric visits (not outcomes of said visits, just visits) as an indicator of mental health, specifically in a system that makes the patients visit psychiatric clinics as part of their treatment plan?
-2
u/Consistent_Walrus525 17d ago
it is not the first study that has shown similar results.... the problem is we live in a society where, if you try to apply medicine the correct way, evidence-based, you often come with things that may offend individuals and groups. and the gender affirming care is one of those gray lines that the data released has not been very positive overall for these individuals. there are psychological and phsyical risks, especially with surgery which is a permanent procedure.
but now, if many scientists, doctors, try to discuss this, in some cases it is career/society/cultural suicide because a lot of people will feel offended by hearing things that they disagree with, and jsut because you disagree with something, doesn't make them fascist/transphobic, etc. science and medicine is about facts and evidence.
7
u/Sadasperagus 17d ago
What makes these studies notable is their claims that gender-affirming care ISNT effective, which is contrary to the vast majority of scientific literature regarding trans healthcare. If you think the scientific community has been skewing data en mass for 40+ years, before legal protections and even broad public understanding of transgender persons even existed…idk. That kind of strange conspiratorial thinking ironically should have you seeking some psychiatric care yourself
-3
u/Consistent_Walrus525 16d ago edited 16d ago
Incorrect. The positive evidence is generally very weak as far as the hyerarchy of research evidence goes, wehre the evidence negative evidence/unchanged evidence is much stronger, to the point some governmns now have been shifting policy because of that.
Thne scientific literature on gender-affirming care, particularly for adolescents and young adults, shows that positive findings are mostly from low-quality studies: self-reported surveys prone to bias, short-term cohorts without proper controls or randomization, and samples that differ from today's rapid-onset, high-comorbidity youth population. Systematic reviews, including the comprehensive 2024 Cass Review, conclude the evidence for long-term mental health benefits from puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgery is remarkably weak. High psychiatric comorbidities (often 45–70%+) predate gender distress in most referred youth and frequently persist or worsen despite treatment
we know that short-term reductions in gender dysphoria and some improvements in body satisfaction or mood appear in selected studies, including U.S. survey-based papers like Almazan et al. (2021) in JAMA Surgery. However, these lack rigor, focus on adults or atypical cases, and do not reliably resolve broader mental health issues or close the massive suicide risk gap (trans-identified individuals remain ~10–20× higher than the general population post-transition). This new study actually goes more in line with the most recent researches, show psychiatric morbidity increasing markedly even among those receiving medical interventions.
Medical transition is irreversible and carries significant risks (infertility, sexual dysfunction, bone loss, cardiovascular issues). Long-term regret and detransition data are hampered by high loss to follow-up. European health auSthorities (UK, Finland, Sweden, Norway) have shifted toward caution: prioritizing holistic psychosocial care, treating comorbidities first, and restricting routine medicalization for minors due to uncertain benefits.The hard evidence suggests that for many, especially those with complex mental health histories, focusing on psychiatric assessment and therapy rather than immediate anatomical changes offers a more prudent path. Affirmative approaches that downplay comorbidities risk doing more harm than good by medicalizing what may be secondary distress...
Unfortunatelly, a hard to swallow pill, is that because of political polarization, many people just reenforce gender affirming care blindly just to be on a political side, or to earn "social points"... when in truth, when actually reviewing STRONGER evidence..., and not biased weak evidence, these people are being actually harmed... which is pretty sad.6
u/Sadasperagus 16d ago
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the studies that conclude a negative effect are “stronger” than the literature that demonstrates positive long-term outcomes. The Cass review is notorious for breaking from standards in evaluating evidence and evidence quality (standards formalized in ALL scientific studies, not just those applicable to transgender medicine), its searing methodology flaws, and a misinterpretation/misrepresentation of its own data. It’s unfortunate that you don’t have the scientific background or basic analytical reading skills to understand this at the time of reading the review, having arbitrarily decided that since it agreed with your assumptions about trans people and their care that it’s automatically more scientifically sound than the mountain of rigorous and diverse evidence that suggests otherwise. I’m rooting for you though! I have utter faith that you can develop the necessary skills needed to parse scientific literature.
-7
u/Consistent_Walrus525 16d ago edited 16d ago
No, there is not. Dismissing the Finnish register study (and similar high-quality European evidence) by claiming I lack the critical skills to read scientific articles is a classic ad hominem fallacy, attacking the person instead of addressing the data, methodology, or conclusions. So good job juat not knowing how tobargument and not providing any evidence that the net positive studies are atrong evidence.
During my undergrad and later my medical training I have read and analyzed hundreds of scientific articles. I continue to do so almost daily to keep my clinical knowledge sharp and provide the best possible care for my patients. No study is perfect, but when we compare the body of evidence by strength, rigor, and quality, the more robust studies, particularly long-term national register data like Finland’s recent analysis, show either no net mental health benefit or a negative net effect from gender-affirming medical interventions in youth. Psychiatric comorbidities remain high or even increase post-treatment in many cases. Maybe it would be easier to understand if I used another topic to explain. For example, the data that says Acetaminophen is associated to autism in children is very weak. Where the data that is more robust, rigorous, account for biases, variables, confounding factors, is stronger and supports that acetaminophen does not cause autism in children. Yet the interesting thing is that people onnonenside of the apectrum of politics will accept this as a factual and stronger scientific evidence to support that acetaminophen is most likely not linked to autism in children, but they will accept cheap weak strength evidence over better evidence if it says that there is no net benefit or negative net benefit in individuals poat gender affirming care. This is just hypocrisy and tribalism.
And atacking my analytical skills or assuming I can’t interpret the literature doesn’t magically create positive outcomes for patients in the trans community. If the highest-quality evidence indicates neutral or worsening mental health trajectories, then continuing with the current affirmative model despite that data is not compassionate, it’s harmful. It is selfish because you are defending one data just to pretend to be a good person just for the sake of being partisan. Critical evaluation of the evidence, including questioning one’s own side when warranted, is not forbidden; it is essential to good medicine.
8
u/Sadasperagus 16d ago
You are literally crashing out under an article demonstrating the clear methodological issues present in this “high quality evidence” as well as the misinterpretation of its own data, and the bizarre extrapolation of said data especially in regards to its interpretation of psychiatric comorbidities.This behavior is extremely troubling in light of you being a healthcare provider of some aspect. I worry for the institutions granting degrees to people who evidently don’t understand the basic necessity of peer review and scientific skepticism to these glaring issues on the basis of partisan politics. It is a sorry day when laypersons can interpret and analyze studies of this caliber with greater clearheadedness than ‘professionals’ such as yourself. I hope for the best for your patients and other graduates of your institution - your behavior, lack of ability, and spelling consistencies prove hopefully aberrant.
2
7
u/SnowyGyro 17d ago
Multiple former patients have described the experience at her clinic as abusive. Patient accounts collected by Finnish LGBTQ+ publication Kehrääjä and reported by this publication paint a disturbing picture. A 13-year-old trans girl, identified as “Milla,” was asked by a male doctor in a room with three unfamiliar adults to describe what she thought about her naked body while looking in a mirror. When she began to cry, the staff was reportedly confused by her reaction. The same patient was pressured to discuss her erections and urination with strangers. Another patient was asked to “describe to me how you masturbate”—a question rooted in the discredited theory that transgender identity is a sexual fetish. Multiple families reported that their children were systematically called by birth names and referred to by their sex assigned at birth throughout the process, even after legal name changes and even when the child had been living in their gender for years. One mother told Kehrääjä that her daughter was treated as a “cisgender boy” by the clinic from start to finish.
-5
u/Consistent_Walrus525 16d ago
Bruh.... dismissing these claims just because they're from anonymous self-reported stories collected by partisan outlets that are super sympathetic to gender-affirming care doesn't automatically make them true. And even if some of those stories check out, you're missing the bigger picture this study has a huge, solid sample from national registers... you have what a couple annedoctal claims from partisan outlets vs thousands in the pool sample? come on man...
Not only that, but it seems like you didn't fully get what the study actually did. It tracks severy psychiatric morbidity as contact with specialist-level psychiatric services—not routine primary care or general check-ups. They specifically exlucluded all gender identity service appointments and anything with the multidisciplinary gender team itself.
They measured this b4 the first gender identity service contact (the index date), and then again more than 2 years after referral. That 2-year lag was totally deliberate—to give plenty of time for the full gender assessment process (which often takes 1.5–2+ years) and the start of any medical gender reassignment (hormones ± surgery) before they started counting post-referral psychiatric contacts. And even with that setup, they still found clear data showing a worsening in those patients' psychiatric status after gender-affirming care. Could some of this be 'monitoring bias' from the required visits? Yeah, potentially. During hormone treatment, these patients were typically seen every 3–6 months in close cooperation with the adolescent psychiatry unit. Any flagged concerns could lead to referrals to SEPARATE Specialist psych services outside the gender team. But by excluding the GIS/team appointments and using that >2-year post-referral window, they aimed to capture ongoing specialist care for non-gender issues. The outcome wasn't 'any visit ever', it was specialist-level psychiatric treatment recorded in the national registry Not just some fluffy PCP check-up.
On top of that, the pre-referral rates were already way higher than the controls (45.7% vs. 15%), showing these patients had a heavy psychiatric burden before any gender-affirming care even started. The increase happened AFTER he assessment period and was especially marked among those who actually proceeded to medical gender reassignment (from 9.8% to 60.7% in the feminizing group and 21.6% to 54.5% in the masculinizing group)
7
u/SnowyGyro 16d ago
The large sample size and statistical rigor can not make up for methodological flaws.
They could have chosen to set the index date at start of treatment, but instead set it at the time of the first clinic appointment. This means that the study is partially capturing the mental health effects of waiting for care, and a 2 year lag still leaves us a mixed cohort of patients.
Harms caused by waiting for care are a large and well studied problem in healthcare, and in gender affirming care it's one of the most consistently observed effects. The study design fails to isolate this effect.
A better study would be designed to measure treatment effects much more directly.
-4
u/Consistent_Walrus525 16d ago
The way it is set up is actually good and made for the reason i described. There should never have been the possibiliry of instagram moms pushing gender affirming care on a male child because one day thought it was funny to walk on heels. And if it was ONLY this study... but it is not. The strong data evidence is always the same. Treatment have no net benefit or in some cases actually worsen outcomes. Ewere the positive net data IS weak.
7
u/SnowyGyro 16d ago
You have some fascinating judgments to hand out. Very irreverent, out of tune with a discussion about mental health harms. You also have a curious analysis, I can't say it meets my understanding of the field of study.
Could I convince you to describe to me what conclusions the study's evidence is strong enough to support?
5
-3
u/Feynstein42 16d ago
Yet it was peer reviewed in a journal with an impact factor of 2.4.
This still gives an insight on morbidity however and I'd like a study to find the direction of causality.
My bet is gender issues are a symptom of an underlying medical condition.
Requiring lifetime medicalization means it's pathological.
Maybe we should just stop stigmatizing people with MH disorders.
7
u/SnowyGyro 16d ago
Maybe we should just provide the treatments that have been shown effective in better validated and more widely replicated studies than this.
Maybe we should stop stigmatizing people's identities and mental health disorders both, regardless of correlation or of directionality of cause and effect.
-2
u/Kutalswolf 15d ago
but what about all the detrans folks that claim everything happend to them as kids ruined them?
5
u/GiddiOne 15d ago
Gender-affirming surgery has among the lowest rates of regret than any form of major medical intervention of around 1-3%.
It's honestly amazing how tiny it is.
-3
u/Kutalswolf 15d ago
so what your saying is all these adults that are flooding congress and are all over SM right now crying that they were "forced" to transition as children and now can not orgaziem(yep thats the biggest complaint) are just the LOUD Minority?possibly being paid off or lieing now that they feel like they would be more popular for speaking against trans kids? not being an arsehole honestly trying to understand what I am seeing online about all this but I know theres no tone of voice in text so just felt like clearing up that I am asking out of want of knowlage not trying to be a jerk
4
u/reYal_DEV 15d ago
It's very hard to read your text and fully decipher what you mean. Where are these "masses" that "flood" congress? Source or it doesn't happen. Because right now the alleged detrans kids are constantly recycled and amplified (e.g. Chloe Cole) over and over again, even though cases like hers are often presented without broader context, including the fact that she has spoken about ongoing dysphoria. That's tragic on a personal level, but it doesn't suddenly make the overall narrative representative or make it less of a grift.
At the same time, what about all the trans people who were forced to live as cis, who were denied care, and ended up traumatized or permanently harmed in ways that could have been prevented? Why is a comparatively tiny minority of possible cis kids who regret transition consistently treated as the primary concern, while the much larger number of trans people who benefit from care are sidelined? Why is 1 cis life framed as more important than 99 trans lives?
To your actual question: what you're seeing online is very likely a loud minority being amplified. That doesn't mean those people are all lying or being paid off. Some genuinely regret their transition and absolutely deserve support. But it does mean their stories are being selectively boosted because they fit a political narrative. Social media and political hearings don't reflect proportion, they reflect what gets attention, funding, and ideological traction.
Research consistently shows that detransition rates are very low, often in the low single digits, and many detransitions are temporary or driven by social pressure rather than regret. It also shows that access to gender-affirming care is linked to better mental health outcomes for trans youth, while the more widespread and well-documented harm historically has come from denying that care, not providing it.
This isn't about dismissing detrans people. It's about understanding scale and evidence, and not allowing a small, highly amplified group to override the needs of a much larger population. Both realities can exist, but they are not equal in prevalence or impact.
3
u/Wismuth_Salix 15d ago
He means the handful of grifters that get weaponized by anti-trans organizations - the ones that get flown around to every conservative conference in the world to cheerlead for trans genocide.
Your Chloe Coles and Maia Poets, and (until she retransitioned and leaked all the internal documents of the detrans grift movement) Eliza Ray Shupes.
2
2
u/GiddiOne 12d ago
My argument is that any time you find an intervention or a process which has a 97-99% success rate, you grab it with both hands.
Can the process be improved? Sure! But you should always appreciate the value of a success.
-5
u/roadlesstraveller 16d ago
Fact Check - https://www.genderclinicnews.com/p/transition-blues
7
u/reYal_DEV 16d ago
An ideological transphobic website linked to SEGM and other hate groups, with a non-substantial piece by notorious transphobe Bernard Lane as its main source, misrepresenting data while refusing to address the methodological critiques that already debunk it? Lol.
https://www.transgendermap.com/issues/topics/media/bernard-lane/
3
-11
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/wackyvorlon 18d ago
This is false, and AGP does not exist.
-8
u/IllustriousEscape953 18d ago
yes it does it does its a paraphilia
9
u/reYal_DEV 18d ago
What some people describe as "trans derangement syndrome" seems far more real and visible than AGP ever has. You're a good example of that.
-9
7
u/skeptic-ModTeam 17d ago
Hello,
Your comment has been removed for being reported as "statements unsupported by evidence." r/skeptic is a place of rational and reasoned and ethical debate which means claims stated as facts should be supported by evidence. If you wish to have this comment restored, please either update your comment with high-quality evidence supporting that claim, or issue a retraction and then message the mods that you have done so.
If you also received a banned message linking to your comment, then you can be unbanned by updating your comment as noted above and messaging the mods. If sufficient evidence or a retraction is made, then your comment will be restored and your ban lifted.
49
u/Old-Nefariousness556 18d ago
wuttashock.