What these people say? It’s not science. It’s bias, wearing a veneer of science, so that people who don’t like the idea of trans kids existing can point at something other than their own internal discomfort.
Thank you for the resource. I’m unsure as to why my comment above was removed as I received no notification about it and nobody gave me an explanation. I’ll start by saying that my field of research is quite different from social sciences and that I am absolutely not an expert regarding transgender people: I am not one and I only have few friends that are. I have not read the articles from the authors mentioned in this thread, I do not know whether their research is sound or not, @daannii above was saying their research is sound and I take it at face value; but the following stands even if that is not the case.
The review you linked does not appear to address these issues that are being discussed in here. They do find that gender transition tends to be positive and that in most cases people do not regret doing it.
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.
However this does not seem to address differences across demographics, such as could be transitioning when minor vs transitioning when adult. It would be interesting to know whether people who transition as child tend to have higher regret rates than adults.
We eliminated studies, for instance, that did not assess the outcomes of gender transition, that investigated minors instead of adults
In fact they specify in the methodology that they specifically did not address research involving minors and they excluded any paper that investigated minors.
Littmans research aims to discover which trans teens will continue being trans and which will flip back to their biological based gender.
This statement from above does make sense to me. I would not see one such research as damaging towards anyone. I don’t see how that is bias. In the review you provided is stated that some people, a vast minority, do regret transitioning. I don’t see how identifying those people before they do transition would be bad.
It’s not science. It’s bias, wearing a veneer of science
That could very much be, as I said I did not read the articles from the authors above. But the review you refer to does not disprove any of their findings.
Moreover it is an article that I would never myself reference. I am from a different field of study and probably we do systematic reviews in a different way, but if I was one of the peer reviews I’d be asking a major revision. This is not a scientific publication: it is not reviewed by anyone for what I can tell. They do at the very least show the methodology on how they selected the papers, which is nice, but they do not explain at all how they analyzed and reviewed the papers. This would at most classify as a review article and not a systematic review in any authoritative journal. They have no quantitative analysis of the papers, besides number of papers with negative results and only give some qualitative analysis of the aggregate results without justifying how they got to such conclusions. I’m not saying the results are incorrect or that their research is wrong, but there is also no way to verify it is, since they do not provide that fundamental information which would be required in any peer review process. It is nevertheless a good read as a piece of diffusion, to inform people who are not actively working in the field.
Here’s what the science actually says
Given that, this statement feels a bit out of place.
I am unsure on what was your point. It is very possible that the authors of this survey are not doing a good survey or that they are manipulating results, but then you should point that out rather than another (bad) piece of research which does not address the main point of the conversation.
ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
Here’s what the science actually says …cornell.edu/…/what-does-the-scholarly-research-s…
What these people say? It’s not science. It’s bias, wearing a veneer of science, so that people who don’t like the idea of trans kids existing can point at something other than their own internal discomfort.
ranzispa@mander.xyz 4 days ago
Thank you for the resource. I’m unsure as to why my comment above was removed as I received no notification about it and nobody gave me an explanation. I’ll start by saying that my field of research is quite different from social sciences and that I am absolutely not an expert regarding transgender people: I am not one and I only have few friends that are. I have not read the articles from the authors mentioned in this thread, I do not know whether their research is sound or not, @daannii above was saying their research is sound and I take it at face value; but the following stands even if that is not the case.
The review you linked does not appear to address these issues that are being discussed in here. They do find that gender transition tends to be positive and that in most cases people do not regret doing it.
However this does not seem to address differences across demographics, such as could be transitioning when minor vs transitioning when adult. It would be interesting to know whether people who transition as child tend to have higher regret rates than adults.
In fact they specify in the methodology that they specifically did not address research involving minors and they excluded any paper that investigated minors.
This statement from above does make sense to me. I would not see one such research as damaging towards anyone. I don’t see how that is bias. In the review you provided is stated that some people, a vast minority, do regret transitioning. I don’t see how identifying those people before they do transition would be bad.
That could very much be, as I said I did not read the articles from the authors above. But the review you refer to does not disprove any of their findings. Moreover it is an article that I would never myself reference. I am from a different field of study and probably we do systematic reviews in a different way, but if I was one of the peer reviews I’d be asking a major revision. This is not a scientific publication: it is not reviewed by anyone for what I can tell. They do at the very least show the methodology on how they selected the papers, which is nice, but they do not explain at all how they analyzed and reviewed the papers. This would at most classify as a review article and not a systematic review in any authoritative journal. They have no quantitative analysis of the papers, besides number of papers with negative results and only give some qualitative analysis of the aggregate results without justifying how they got to such conclusions. I’m not saying the results are incorrect or that their research is wrong, but there is also no way to verify it is, since they do not provide that fundamental information which would be required in any peer review process. It is nevertheless a good read as a piece of diffusion, to inform people who are not actively working in the field.
Given that, this statement feels a bit out of place.
I am unsure on what was your point. It is very possible that the authors of this survey are not doing a good survey or that they are manipulating results, but then you should point that out rather than another (bad) piece of research which does not address the main point of the conversation.