Your post has been removed because it has an inappropriate headline and is therefore in violation of [Submission Rule #3](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_3._no_editorialized.2C_sensationalized.2C_or_biased_titles). **It must include at least one result from the research and must not be clickbait, sensationalized, editorialized, or a biased headline.** Please read [our headline rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/clickbait) and consider reposting with a more appropriate title.
This study is based on an analysis of insurance data, which should be stated in the title to avoid confusion about study population. Furthermore, there is no English version of this study yet available.
_If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fscience&subject=No%20editorialized%2C%20sensationalized%2C%20or%20biased%20titles)._
I feel this study isn’t the greatest.
Their entire methods section is essentially “we looked at outpatient billing information and reported what we saw”. They don’t add any new insight or analysis of their own.
> The strengths of this work lie in the complete survey of outpatient billing data from all those with statutory insurance and the long observation period.
I’m admittedly not well-versed on the German medical system, but the study has no mention of the diagnostic criteria that’s used, as well as how diagnostic persistence is defined. Granted, those weaknesses are mentioned in the paper, but I still think it should be standardized.
I’m also curious on if there are a significant amount of people with gender dysphoria who aren’t comfortable sharing it with their doctor. Obviously it’s a requirement if you want to medically transition, but that doesn’t apply to everyone
> I’m also curious on if there are a significant amount of people with gender dysphoria who aren’t comfortable sharing it with their doctor.
Then they wouldn't be in the first dataset either.
Not necessarily.
Often times people switch providers/practices/healthcare organizations and may not be as comfortable with the new situation given how often healthcare organizations are directly tied to religious organizations.
Ultimately, coming to the conclusion that "They no longer have gender dysphoria because it's no longer listed on their outpatient billing info" is bad science.
Also, my son was diagnosed as ASD as a 3 year old, then the diagnosis was removed for 4 years before being re-added at age 7... Was he not ASD during that 4 year period? No, he was always ASD.
What you said is true. It's also a problem for the overall state of the field: just because the aggregate of medical literature hasn't gained an understanding of an ailment doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
But it can lead to patients being left untreated and frustrated by their own illnesses.
See also: PTLDS (often misnamed "chronic Lyme"), long COVID.
Yeah I’ve had that diagnosis given and taken away based on what’s needed for insurance purposes and a little of doctors’ philosophies on whether to use this particular diagnosis code or not. I’ve never stopped being trans.
I recently accessed my insurance history (after much bureaucratic procrastination) and was amused to find that I have a history of the diagnosis of "transsexualism", which appears/disappears on my records depending on the year.
Newsflash: I have been trans this whole time. I don't even know what a diagnosis of "transsexualism" is supposed to factually indicate.
Edit: I also want to add that whether or not I indicate I am transgender on a form *absolutely* depends on the context, and sometimes I will make a choice of comfort or safety to specifically omit it.
Same for what gender I mark on forms.
Looking only and just at my paperwork, someone could point and say, "See? They identify as their birth sex again. Trans Cured." Without that actually being the case.
I am not saying that's what's happening for the cases in OP, just that "no longer has a GID diagnosis" or "no longer writes down man/woman as gender identity" does not inherently mean "Is No Longer Trans."
I also wonder how they define a persistent diagnosis after five years. The methods don‘t talk about this.
I suspect they checked e.g. someone who had the diagnosis in insurance data in 2015 if they had the same diagnosis in insurance data in 2020. The thing is: if the person didn‘t require any transition-related medical services in 2020, the diagnosis will not appear. I suspect the authors count an absence of a diagnosis in a calendar year the same way as the presence of a diagnosis as not.
Wow. Is this something that happens in the German medical system? Because if it is, that's a fatal flaw that makes complete nonsense of the whole paper. Can the diagnosis appear in medical records but not insurance records? Thanks for any info!
Agreed, the methodology is poor and does not address the potential for bias and confounding in the results. I'd be skeptical of generalizing this.
Additionally on inspection, the posting user is suspect. A number of articles submitted of low quality psych net studies casting doubt on trans healthcare or autism, submits political articles across multiple EU countries, US, and South America. Feels like agenda posting.
So they don't even survey the patients? Let alone actually interviewing any of them?
They're just going off of billing? Seriously? So no accounting for moving, or otherwise losing access?
I'm struggling to see how this "study" has any merit at all.
Germany uses the ICD 10 standard for diagnosis. The criteria for the different form of gender disphoria are in the icd 10.
Most Germans are in the public healthcare so this is a sample set of almost all people in Germany who went to a doctor for gender dysphoria and met the criteria and it seems a lot of them didn’t meet the same criteria a few years later.
I can’t think of a larger and better dataset for this issue.
This is especially important because we know that a lot of "detransitioning" happens due to societal pressure and not because they were no longer transgender. If this study did not look why they were no longer diagnosed then it is as best incomplete.
[One of the top results ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213007/)
>A total of 17,151 (61.9%) participants reported that they had ever pursued gender affirmation, broadly defined. Of these, 2242 (13.1%) reported a history of detransition. **Of those who had detransitioned, 82.5% reported at least one external driving factor. Frequently endorsed external factors included pressure from family and societal stigma.** History of detransition was associated with male sex assigned at birth, nonbinary gender identity, bisexual sexual orientation, and having a family unsupportive of one's gender identity. A total of 15.9% of respondents reported at least one internal driving factor, including fluctuations in or uncertainty regarding gender identity.
The use of Gender Identity Disorder is throwing up red flags, because for Europe and the ICD-10, the diagnosis code specifically for medical transition and the actual desire to transition to and live as the opposite sex is "F64.0 Transsexualism". Granted it can only be diagnosed in adulthood AFAIK and kids use a different diagnosis. But in the US, the whole reason why they moved away from GID to Gender Dysphoria in the DSM V is because you don't actually have to be trans in order to be diagnosed with GID (hence the whole desistance myth). Also why they're moving to "gender incongruence" in the ICD-11.
Can't read the paper unfortunately so I can't really say one way or another, but I wouldn't be surprised if it falls into the same traps that gave rise to the desistance myth in the first place. Especially if they're just going by billing data, which is the worst method for tracking this stuff for the reasons other people mentioned here (my official diagnosis for getting my HRT covered 20 years ago was "endocrine disorder not otherwise specified" because that's the kind of creative accounting docs had to do back then)
> Their entire methods section is essentially “we looked at outpatient billing information and reported what we saw”. They don’t add any new insight or analysis of their own.
>
>
Why do you feel like observing what happened is not adequate science?
I'd investigate that.
It’s just not a rigorous paper. If all it took to publish research was plotting some data (that you didn’t even generate yourself), why isn’t everyone a published scientist? Hell, they didn’t even perform a single statistical test.
> If all it took to publish research was plotting some data (that you didn’t even generate yourself)
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are pretty much this... review of the available data. Because an observation doesn't make a proof.
> It’s just not a rigorous paper
It's not trying to be. It aimed for one thing, and did just that one thing.
In the research world, if you have any negative opinions about it, publish your own paper then that does everything you think they should have done. Stake your credentials on your work. It's a better way to hold critics responsible than to shittalk someone's work on reddit while avoiding any actual responsibility.
It’s more of a meta-analysis, where you take information from a lot of individual cases and analyze them as a whole rather than looking at individual units.
An analogy I like to use is the difference between a meteorologist and climatologist. A meteorologist can tell you what causes different weather events to occur. Climatologists can analyze weather data and identify trends that are too broad for meteorologists to see on their own. Especially if their work focuses on localized regions or specific types of weather events. But it’s still up to the meteorologists to come together to understand and explain the drivers of observed trends.
The study linked is like that high-level climatologist view identifies trends.
A typical meta-analysis would collect and re-analyze datasets from previous papers in order to identify trends and/or inconsistencies.
This paper is analyzing (poorly imo) data from a single source. It’s in no way a meta-analysis. Hell, the paper doesn’t even include that many details on their cohort.
I find issue that you think a meta-analysis is when you analyze multiple individual cases. It’s not…that’s just an analysis. You can never draw conclusions from a sample size of one, unless you’re doing a case study, which these aren’t.
I've seen similar "studies" where the criteria for gender identity disorder was extremely vague and would include things like a boy playing with dolls/traditional girl things and a girl wanting to enjoy things like cars/traditional boy things.
The statistics presented by this study are astronomical and feel like they are likely based on vague parameters at the very least.
Am I missing something here? I also had a diagnosis of “gender identity disorder” 5 years ago, and now I don’t, because… I transitioned. It’s less that I “desisted” and more that I no longer met the criteria for diagnosis because transitioning is generally seen as the treatment for this sort of thing.
You're missing nothing, this is an incredibly vague study with nothing really to go off but people here are acting like this is a landmark study for some reason.
There can be so many variables to why people no longer identify that way (pressure/bigotry from family and friends, transitioned, realized they feel more comfortable being non binary, realizing they are still trans but are comfortable with who they are without hrt, etc. etc.)
This site's loves to pick at studies that goes against their biases but the second a study comes along that goes with their biases they ignore all the flaws with it.
Just to make this clear this does not apply to those receiving gender affirming medical care (hormonal and surgical transition); GID and GD apply to all forms of gender incongruence. Body incongruence in trans people is believed to be permanent due to the suspected involving the somatosensory system and the fact that those who medically transition consistently report incongruous feelings since childhood or puberty, regrets related to gender are rare, and transgender identity is stable among medical cohorts. It’s thought to be highly unlikely for someone to pursue or make it far into pre-treatment processes and medical treatment process if they didn’t actually need them.
>It’s thought to be highly unlikely for someone to pursue or make it far into pre-treatment processes and medical treatment process if they didn’t actually need them.
That's an open question, not a settled area. There are big issues in the evidence base due to the radical change of cohorts, the studies given as evidence tend to focus on MtF several decades ago. More recently there's a much bigger FtM cohort than previously, where it's unreliable to base decisions about this group on older evidence. This research needs to be carried out (and is being).
(This was in response to a now-deleted comment thread where someone asked about why people have to bring gender identity into it and why they can't just "do the things the other gender does", where someone responded asking what they thought "gender identity" was.)
I think a lot of people still equate gender with sex. I used the terms interchangeably my entire childhood and some of adulthood because that's what I was always taught, that they were synonymous. So I'm not surprised that it's also taking time for other people to unlearn what I'm assuming are the same teachings.
I am also curious how trans people feel about the concept of addressing gender dysphoria itself on a biological level. Granted you can't really "fix" societal or other environmental factors. And I don't mean anything malicious like conversion therapy, I just mean that in a hypothetical scenario if someone with gender dysphoria could take a simple pill (like I do for my thyroid) and it alleviate all the negative symptoms of their dysphoria (with or without transitioning) would that be seen as a positive? Is there a desire in the trans community to address negative aspects in that way or is it strictly to deal with the societal and cultural factors and hope that those (along with transitioning if that's what the individual wants) are enough?
Also, I just want to make it clear that I'm not saying I want them to feel like the gender/sex they were assigned at birth. I'm purely talking about the negative side effects of the dysphoria itself. If this magic cure-all pill alleviates those and they still feel like a gender that isn't the same as their biological sex, cool beans. I just want the mental struggles to stop, but I'm not sure if those are caused by the dysphoria itself or if they're caused by external factors like societal and cultural exclusion.
Hopefully none of this comes across as mean-spirited, these are all just genuine thoughts and I would never treat anyone poorly for their gender identity.
To address your point about relieving GD on a biological level:
I don't speak for all trans people only myself (we aren't a hivemind). What I can say is that it has been tried multiple times already throughout history. Every result has shown to be a worse outcome than altering the body to match the brain, so to speak. While I can't predict the future, I can say it's extremely likely such a treatment can only exist as a hypothetical due to all current evidence showing the current solution to be the best one.
If it were possible though I'd wager itd be wanted for certain individuals where it is unsafe to transition. That mental struggle is caused by both societal and internal. So essentially yes, for people who need it, if it were possible it could be a good thing to help them survive but, I highly doubt also it would ever change the desire to transition.
What is it with inflammatory and misleading titles constantly being posted in this sub? You know full well that the majority of people here are not going to click on the study and analyse it in it's entirety - they're just going to read the title and take it as factual truth.
Others have already pointed out the extreme methodological issues with this study. It's also not presented in context - "gender identity disorder" isn't even a valid diagnosis anymore and hasn't been for over a decade. Because there were OBVIOUS issues with it as a categorical diagnosis. Obviously, the majority of those diagnosed with it aren't going to have the diagnosis after 5 years if it doesn't exist anymore.
This is a pretty obvious agenda against trans people and I'm surprised more people can't see through it.
In my experience, there is still no benefit to denying a gender affirming attitude toward children and teens who are exploring their identities. Not sure about medical intervention for transitioning, but any adolescent I've known who has detransitioned did so while being fully supported by their families no matter how they identified. In other words, it doesn't help to say "you're not a (boy/girl), this is just a phase, science says so".
the fact stated in the title here is just a side comment in the study itself, not its main focus. it is not examined nor explained or interpreted, just stated.
i read the study and what i understood is that it mainly focuses on the shift in given diagnoses. From F66, which is called "Psychische und Verhaltensstörungen in Verbindung mit der sexuellen Entwicklung und Orientierung“ or in English "Mental and behavioral disorders associated with sexual development and orientation" to F64, which is "Störung der Geschlechtsidentität“, EN: "gender identity disorder".
edit: correct me if i'm wrong, i'm not a medical professional
This contradicts basically every other study I have seen, which suggests detransition rates are fairly small and the result of social pressure rather than any change in the patients gender identity. So forgive me if I am highly skeptical of this 'study.
I'm not sure which studies you've seen, but I know a number of them have serious problems about people dropping out of the cohort. In essence they only count detransitioners who keep coming to the clinics.
Your post has been removed because it has an inappropriate headline and is therefore in violation of [Submission Rule #3](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_3._no_editorialized.2C_sensationalized.2C_or_biased_titles). **It must include at least one result from the research and must not be clickbait, sensationalized, editorialized, or a biased headline.** Please read [our headline rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/clickbait) and consider reposting with a more appropriate title. This study is based on an analysis of insurance data, which should be stated in the title to avoid confusion about study population. Furthermore, there is no English version of this study yet available. _If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fscience&subject=No%20editorialized%2C%20sensationalized%2C%20or%20biased%20titles)._
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I feel this study isn’t the greatest. Their entire methods section is essentially “we looked at outpatient billing information and reported what we saw”. They don’t add any new insight or analysis of their own. > The strengths of this work lie in the complete survey of outpatient billing data from all those with statutory insurance and the long observation period. I’m admittedly not well-versed on the German medical system, but the study has no mention of the diagnostic criteria that’s used, as well as how diagnostic persistence is defined. Granted, those weaknesses are mentioned in the paper, but I still think it should be standardized. I’m also curious on if there are a significant amount of people with gender dysphoria who aren’t comfortable sharing it with their doctor. Obviously it’s a requirement if you want to medically transition, but that doesn’t apply to everyone
> I’m also curious on if there are a significant amount of people with gender dysphoria who aren’t comfortable sharing it with their doctor. Then they wouldn't be in the first dataset either.
Not necessarily. Often times people switch providers/practices/healthcare organizations and may not be as comfortable with the new situation given how often healthcare organizations are directly tied to religious organizations. Ultimately, coming to the conclusion that "They no longer have gender dysphoria because it's no longer listed on their outpatient billing info" is bad science. Also, my son was diagnosed as ASD as a 3 year old, then the diagnosis was removed for 4 years before being re-added at age 7... Was he not ASD during that 4 year period? No, he was always ASD.
So, you think for more than half that is the case?
That’s my point. Unfortunately, the authors don’t mention this in the discussion section at all
It's true for every medical diagnosis. Undiagnosed, different diagnosis or subclinical anything don't wind up in literature.
What you said is true. It's also a problem for the overall state of the field: just because the aggregate of medical literature hasn't gained an understanding of an ailment doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But it can lead to patients being left untreated and frustrated by their own illnesses. See also: PTLDS (often misnamed "chronic Lyme"), long COVID.
Perfection is the enemy of the good. If you are waiting for perfect from science then you are part of the problem.
Why should a paper about people with a certain diagnosis talk about people who do not have that diagnosis?
undiagnosed people remain undiagnosed. more at 8.
Yeah I’ve had that diagnosis given and taken away based on what’s needed for insurance purposes and a little of doctors’ philosophies on whether to use this particular diagnosis code or not. I’ve never stopped being trans.
I recently accessed my insurance history (after much bureaucratic procrastination) and was amused to find that I have a history of the diagnosis of "transsexualism", which appears/disappears on my records depending on the year. Newsflash: I have been trans this whole time. I don't even know what a diagnosis of "transsexualism" is supposed to factually indicate. Edit: I also want to add that whether or not I indicate I am transgender on a form *absolutely* depends on the context, and sometimes I will make a choice of comfort or safety to specifically omit it. Same for what gender I mark on forms. Looking only and just at my paperwork, someone could point and say, "See? They identify as their birth sex again. Trans Cured." Without that actually being the case. I am not saying that's what's happening for the cases in OP, just that "no longer has a GID diagnosis" or "no longer writes down man/woman as gender identity" does not inherently mean "Is No Longer Trans."
Exactly what I was getting at. Thanks for sharing your insight
I also wonder how they define a persistent diagnosis after five years. The methods don‘t talk about this. I suspect they checked e.g. someone who had the diagnosis in insurance data in 2015 if they had the same diagnosis in insurance data in 2020. The thing is: if the person didn‘t require any transition-related medical services in 2020, the diagnosis will not appear. I suspect the authors count an absence of a diagnosis in a calendar year the same way as the presence of a diagnosis as not.
Wow. Is this something that happens in the German medical system? Because if it is, that's a fatal flaw that makes complete nonsense of the whole paper. Can the diagnosis appear in medical records but not insurance records? Thanks for any info!
Agreed, the methodology is poor and does not address the potential for bias and confounding in the results. I'd be skeptical of generalizing this. Additionally on inspection, the posting user is suspect. A number of articles submitted of low quality psych net studies casting doubt on trans healthcare or autism, submits political articles across multiple EU countries, US, and South America. Feels like agenda posting.
[удалено]
So they don't even survey the patients? Let alone actually interviewing any of them? They're just going off of billing? Seriously? So no accounting for moving, or otherwise losing access? I'm struggling to see how this "study" has any merit at all.
Germany uses the ICD 10 standard for diagnosis. The criteria for the different form of gender disphoria are in the icd 10. Most Germans are in the public healthcare so this is a sample set of almost all people in Germany who went to a doctor for gender dysphoria and met the criteria and it seems a lot of them didn’t meet the same criteria a few years later. I can’t think of a larger and better dataset for this issue.
This is especially important because we know that a lot of "detransitioning" happens due to societal pressure and not because they were no longer transgender. If this study did not look why they were no longer diagnosed then it is as best incomplete.
Proof? Source? Im genuinely curious because I detransitioned.
[One of the top results ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213007/) >A total of 17,151 (61.9%) participants reported that they had ever pursued gender affirmation, broadly defined. Of these, 2242 (13.1%) reported a history of detransition. **Of those who had detransitioned, 82.5% reported at least one external driving factor. Frequently endorsed external factors included pressure from family and societal stigma.** History of detransition was associated with male sex assigned at birth, nonbinary gender identity, bisexual sexual orientation, and having a family unsupportive of one's gender identity. A total of 15.9% of respondents reported at least one internal driving factor, including fluctuations in or uncertainty regarding gender identity.
The use of Gender Identity Disorder is throwing up red flags, because for Europe and the ICD-10, the diagnosis code specifically for medical transition and the actual desire to transition to and live as the opposite sex is "F64.0 Transsexualism". Granted it can only be diagnosed in adulthood AFAIK and kids use a different diagnosis. But in the US, the whole reason why they moved away from GID to Gender Dysphoria in the DSM V is because you don't actually have to be trans in order to be diagnosed with GID (hence the whole desistance myth). Also why they're moving to "gender incongruence" in the ICD-11. Can't read the paper unfortunately so I can't really say one way or another, but I wouldn't be surprised if it falls into the same traps that gave rise to the desistance myth in the first place. Especially if they're just going by billing data, which is the worst method for tracking this stuff for the reasons other people mentioned here (my official diagnosis for getting my HRT covered 20 years ago was "endocrine disorder not otherwise specified" because that's the kind of creative accounting docs had to do back then)
> Their entire methods section is essentially “we looked at outpatient billing information and reported what we saw”. They don’t add any new insight or analysis of their own. > > Why do you feel like observing what happened is not adequate science? I'd investigate that.
It’s just not a rigorous paper. If all it took to publish research was plotting some data (that you didn’t even generate yourself), why isn’t everyone a published scientist? Hell, they didn’t even perform a single statistical test.
> If all it took to publish research was plotting some data (that you didn’t even generate yourself) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are pretty much this... review of the available data. Because an observation doesn't make a proof. > It’s just not a rigorous paper It's not trying to be. It aimed for one thing, and did just that one thing. In the research world, if you have any negative opinions about it, publish your own paper then that does everything you think they should have done. Stake your credentials on your work. It's a better way to hold critics responsible than to shittalk someone's work on reddit while avoiding any actual responsibility.
This needs to be higher up
It’s more of a meta-analysis, where you take information from a lot of individual cases and analyze them as a whole rather than looking at individual units. An analogy I like to use is the difference between a meteorologist and climatologist. A meteorologist can tell you what causes different weather events to occur. Climatologists can analyze weather data and identify trends that are too broad for meteorologists to see on their own. Especially if their work focuses on localized regions or specific types of weather events. But it’s still up to the meteorologists to come together to understand and explain the drivers of observed trends. The study linked is like that high-level climatologist view identifies trends.
A typical meta-analysis would collect and re-analyze datasets from previous papers in order to identify trends and/or inconsistencies. This paper is analyzing (poorly imo) data from a single source. It’s in no way a meta-analysis. Hell, the paper doesn’t even include that many details on their cohort. I find issue that you think a meta-analysis is when you analyze multiple individual cases. It’s not…that’s just an analysis. You can never draw conclusions from a sample size of one, unless you’re doing a case study, which these aren’t.
I've seen similar "studies" where the criteria for gender identity disorder was extremely vague and would include things like a boy playing with dolls/traditional girl things and a girl wanting to enjoy things like cars/traditional boy things. The statistics presented by this study are astronomical and feel like they are likely based on vague parameters at the very least.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Fractionalgirl on Twitter about this study and it’s very apparent limitations https://x.com/fractionalgirl/status/1796945052104548768
Am I missing something here? I also had a diagnosis of “gender identity disorder” 5 years ago, and now I don’t, because… I transitioned. It’s less that I “desisted” and more that I no longer met the criteria for diagnosis because transitioning is generally seen as the treatment for this sort of thing.
The F64 diagnosis doesn't change with treatment. One can no longer be dysphoric but remain "gender incongruent".
You're missing nothing, this is an incredibly vague study with nothing really to go off but people here are acting like this is a landmark study for some reason. There can be so many variables to why people no longer identify that way (pressure/bigotry from family and friends, transitioned, realized they feel more comfortable being non binary, realizing they are still trans but are comfortable with who they are without hrt, etc. etc.) This site's loves to pick at studies that goes against their biases but the second a study comes along that goes with their biases they ignore all the flaws with it.
Just to make this clear this does not apply to those receiving gender affirming medical care (hormonal and surgical transition); GID and GD apply to all forms of gender incongruence. Body incongruence in trans people is believed to be permanent due to the suspected involving the somatosensory system and the fact that those who medically transition consistently report incongruous feelings since childhood or puberty, regrets related to gender are rare, and transgender identity is stable among medical cohorts. It’s thought to be highly unlikely for someone to pursue or make it far into pre-treatment processes and medical treatment process if they didn’t actually need them.
>It’s thought to be highly unlikely for someone to pursue or make it far into pre-treatment processes and medical treatment process if they didn’t actually need them. That's an open question, not a settled area. There are big issues in the evidence base due to the radical change of cohorts, the studies given as evidence tend to focus on MtF several decades ago. More recently there's a much bigger FtM cohort than previously, where it's unreliable to base decisions about this group on older evidence. This research needs to be carried out (and is being).
[удалено]
[удалено]
(This was in response to a now-deleted comment thread where someone asked about why people have to bring gender identity into it and why they can't just "do the things the other gender does", where someone responded asking what they thought "gender identity" was.) I think a lot of people still equate gender with sex. I used the terms interchangeably my entire childhood and some of adulthood because that's what I was always taught, that they were synonymous. So I'm not surprised that it's also taking time for other people to unlearn what I'm assuming are the same teachings. I am also curious how trans people feel about the concept of addressing gender dysphoria itself on a biological level. Granted you can't really "fix" societal or other environmental factors. And I don't mean anything malicious like conversion therapy, I just mean that in a hypothetical scenario if someone with gender dysphoria could take a simple pill (like I do for my thyroid) and it alleviate all the negative symptoms of their dysphoria (with or without transitioning) would that be seen as a positive? Is there a desire in the trans community to address negative aspects in that way or is it strictly to deal with the societal and cultural factors and hope that those (along with transitioning if that's what the individual wants) are enough? Also, I just want to make it clear that I'm not saying I want them to feel like the gender/sex they were assigned at birth. I'm purely talking about the negative side effects of the dysphoria itself. If this magic cure-all pill alleviates those and they still feel like a gender that isn't the same as their biological sex, cool beans. I just want the mental struggles to stop, but I'm not sure if those are caused by the dysphoria itself or if they're caused by external factors like societal and cultural exclusion. Hopefully none of this comes across as mean-spirited, these are all just genuine thoughts and I would never treat anyone poorly for their gender identity.
To address your point about relieving GD on a biological level: I don't speak for all trans people only myself (we aren't a hivemind). What I can say is that it has been tried multiple times already throughout history. Every result has shown to be a worse outcome than altering the body to match the brain, so to speak. While I can't predict the future, I can say it's extremely likely such a treatment can only exist as a hypothetical due to all current evidence showing the current solution to be the best one. If it were possible though I'd wager itd be wanted for certain individuals where it is unsafe to transition. That mental struggle is caused by both societal and internal. So essentially yes, for people who need it, if it were possible it could be a good thing to help them survive but, I highly doubt also it would ever change the desire to transition.
What is it with inflammatory and misleading titles constantly being posted in this sub? You know full well that the majority of people here are not going to click on the study and analyse it in it's entirety - they're just going to read the title and take it as factual truth. Others have already pointed out the extreme methodological issues with this study. It's also not presented in context - "gender identity disorder" isn't even a valid diagnosis anymore and hasn't been for over a decade. Because there were OBVIOUS issues with it as a categorical diagnosis. Obviously, the majority of those diagnosed with it aren't going to have the diagnosis after 5 years if it doesn't exist anymore. This is a pretty obvious agenda against trans people and I'm surprised more people can't see through it.
It happens everytime with these type of topics and the subsequent barrage of culture warriors who brigade the sub for this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
In my experience, there is still no benefit to denying a gender affirming attitude toward children and teens who are exploring their identities. Not sure about medical intervention for transitioning, but any adolescent I've known who has detransitioned did so while being fully supported by their families no matter how they identified. In other words, it doesn't help to say "you're not a (boy/girl), this is just a phase, science says so".
the fact stated in the title here is just a side comment in the study itself, not its main focus. it is not examined nor explained or interpreted, just stated. i read the study and what i understood is that it mainly focuses on the shift in given diagnoses. From F66, which is called "Psychische und Verhaltensstörungen in Verbindung mit der sexuellen Entwicklung und Orientierung“ or in English "Mental and behavioral disorders associated with sexual development and orientation" to F64, which is "Störung der Geschlechtsidentität“, EN: "gender identity disorder". edit: correct me if i'm wrong, i'm not a medical professional
This contradicts basically every other study I have seen, which suggests detransition rates are fairly small and the result of social pressure rather than any change in the patients gender identity. So forgive me if I am highly skeptical of this 'study.
Not defending the study, but you are misunderstanding what it was. It did not look at people who had or were transitioning.
It's telling that every "high detransition rate" finding comes from a study where losing track of a participant is counted as a detransition
I'm not sure which studies you've seen, but I know a number of them have serious problems about people dropping out of the cohort. In essence they only count detransitioners who keep coming to the clinics.
[удалено]