Correction: Transgender Surgery Provides No Mental Health Benefit

I’ve blogged about this before, but it bears repeating.

An influential study on the value of treating gender-dysphoric patients with gender-affirming care has been corrected, not retracted, after the authors admitted flaws in their research.

The study, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, initially claimed that gender-affirming care led to significant improvements in mental health outcomes. However, after widespread criticism and a 10-month review, a major correction was issued.

The corrected conclusion states that there was no improvement in mental health after surgical treatment.

According to this critical reading of the study in Public Discourse, the study’s original results were significantly altered when proper statistical methods were applied. Additionally, the limited data collection (only one year of data) would result in worse findings with better data.

The corrected research now suggests, at best, no improvement in mental health outcomes for patients receiving gender-affirming care. Some research even indicates that such care can lead to worse outcomes over time, with anxiety, depression, and suicide rates 19 times higher than the general population.

The correction undermines one of the pillars supporting the claim that puberty blockers, hormones, and gender reassignment surgeries improve mental health in patients.

The major flaws in the study, including an extremely biased population and a high rate of loss to follow-up required a correction. The revised statistical analysis, even with this biased sample, found no benefit in providing puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery to gender dysphoric patients.

One issue was the significant loss to follow-up; many patients who participated in the study were considered “lost,” leaving researchers with an unreliable data sample. Additionally, the authors only measured three outcomes and overlooked key data, such as completed suicides and other healthcare visits, potentially related to gender-affirming treatments.

Sounds like cherry-picking data to obtain desired results.

The Public Discourse article also references a 2011 study from Sweden, which analyzed 324 patients who underwent sex reassignment over thirty years. This study found that when followed for more than ten years, the sex-reassigned group had nineteen times the rate of completed suicides and nearly three times the rate of all-cause mortality and inpatient psychiatric care compared to the general population.

Finally, the article discusses the delay in publishing critical letters regarding the study, and the resulting correction that revealed no advantage to surgery for the subject population. The authors of the original study admitted that their conclusion was too strong, which contributed to the momentum for gender-affirming treatments that may not actually provide benefits.

I’d say that correcting “too strong” is not nearly strong enough. Bodies were mutilated. Young people were sterilized. But studies like this were used to provide the pretext that allowed Professional Medical Associations like WPATH to elevate these dangerous treatments, that provide NO BENEFIT, as our latest, “wisest” “standards of care.”

A Great Reckoning is coming. I hope and pray.

+++

The Problem is in the Mind. Not The Body.

“Are You There, God? It’s Me Margaret”

A Once-Controversial Story Now Appears Conservative

A wonderful review of a movie I’ve not seen, but you might want to. Two actresses you may recognize are Kathy Bates, and Rachel McAdams.

The reviewer is Mark Judge. The movie is “Are You There, God? It’s Me Margaret

While the film is based on the seminal book of the same title by Judy Blume, in the 1970s the book was controversial for its honest depiction of religion and female puberty. Today the same story comes across as downright conservative. 

After all, one of the dramatic themes driving the story, and something that was scandalous even in the 70s, was the tremendous, life-altering significance of being a young woman after getting her first period. The girls in Are You There God? ask each other constantly if they have gotten “it.” They write notes about “it,” they see cringe movies about “it” at school, they buy the proper supplies at the local drug store in anticipation of the moment “it” finally arrives.

The message is clear: girls are different from boys in a cellular, soulful, and metaphysical way. The difference is not slight, it is vast. It is life changing for them in ways puberty cannot be for boys.

Transgender women do not get periods. Despite makeup, dresses, and surgery, in an elemental way they can never be part of the sisterhood. This is the kind of argument one hears these days on Fox News, not MSNBC.

[A Once Controversial Story Now Appears Conservative]


+++

Celebrate Real Girls & Women! And Have Compassion For The Rest (Including Mountain_Men)

Origin of Life: Energy Harnessing

Video by Discovery Science

Chemical evolution would have required a continuous supply of energy to create the first life. But are the energy sources that have been proposed for chemical evolution realistic? In this episode of Long Story Short, explore some of the challenges chemical evolution would have faced in order to harness the energy needed to originate the first life. This is one of several episodes about the origin of life.

[Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5] [Part 6]

+++

Celebrate God’s Good Creation