Brown University researcher first to describe 'rapid-onset gender dysphoria'
113 replies, posted
What does natural puberty even mean and why is it valuable?
Also, sometimes puberty does get intentionally delayed in cis children anyways if they have early puberty (to prevent psychosocial issues and potential height problems.)
No 12 year olds are getting sex changes. The most an underaged patient will receive (barring extreme situations) are puberty blockers until they reach 18.
A lot of them use choice quotes that allude to these studied without directly citing them i.e. "did you know that the suicide rate of trannies doesn't go down even if they transition?"[sic] and other choice horrible quotes.
Yeah there are many flaws in this study as other people in this thread have pointed out. It's bad even by usual "pop science" standards. Gender dysphoria is a real thing it's not a choice/phase unlike what alt-righters, conservative soccer parents, and "trans-trender" types would like to tell you. Though even if we point out the flaws in this study, edgy alt-right types who would use this kind of study to deny transgender folk equal rights will just respond with "lol u triggered kek" or some other shit.
For ftm people it does - their voice breaks when they take testosterone, it just doesn't un-break the other way.
This article has spread like wildfire and is being shared all over social media and multiple discord channels that I'm on, rip facts.
Looks like being trans is going to be a whole load of fun for the next few weeks or months. Fucks sake.
This is a terrible study but it's about something that should be studied. I hope this garbage paper doesn't discourage people from doing actual research on us.
Reviewers are not drawn from the pool of editors, the editors are there to decide what submissions to send for review, and ultimately what gets published. Reviewers are typically experts picked from the appropriate field. Regardless PLOS ONE has a pretty bad reputation of allowing a fair amount of junk through, and a glaring example is the very "study" cited here. Another example in a field I'm more familiar with is this article, published in 2013 but only catching the attention of two high-profile chemistry bloggers (See Arr Oh and Derek Lowe) in 2015, the latter of which sent in his concerns to the editors. It took a good 3 years for the paper to finally be retracted. Fraudulent NMR spectra aside, that structure should have raised eyebrows with anyone remotely familiar with organic chemistry and one has to wonder who the hell the editors invited to review that paper.
Cis peole making sweeping statements about what it means to be trans without asking a single trans person about it? Who would've guessed!
my bad on the first part B, but this isn't limited to OA journals like PLOS1. I've been doing some digging around this morning and the majority of what I've seen is either luke-warm or positive towards PLOS One. The issues you're describing seem to be a problem with peer-review in general, rather than specifically PLOS-One.
While PLoS One has a retraction rate on par with the average across all journals, it has a much higher correction rate of 5% vs 1.5%. In general it's known for putting out some questionable articles, even if they are not later retracted.
I actually have seen this among depressed groups of people. When you're in that state of mind it's easy to think that changing genders is a great idea because "the grass is greener on the other side".
Interestingly a decent chunk of those corrections are the fault of the publisher, but none of this sounds as damning as Atomicsans or you are making it seem (unless I’m misinterpreting you).
As well, I’m curious if the fact their correction rate is higher because they’re more willing to issue corrections than other publications - but I don’t have the data for that one way or the other.
They seem to face a large editorial challenge, and as that article points out there is no central body - quality varies based on both the editor and peer-reviewer. I’m sure if they issued page proofs (which they don’t for some reason) you’d see a dramatic drop in errors anyway. While it’s an odd policy, I don’t find it all that damning.
Anecdotally, I think the study has a kernel of truth to the idea, despite the biased and poor research methods.
I think that it's something that requires some proper research, but not if it's going to be done badly and be cited as a way to gatekeep transpeople.
The thesis is essentially: "easily swayed or vulnerable people might be jumping into gender dysphoria as a way to solve this problems" which isn't a bad topic because people will search for any answer to solver third problems
because its as idiotic as saying "rapid-onset brony syndrom". You answered the riddle yourself, its not that transgender ideas are infectious like the article is trying to state, its depressed individuals turning to SOMETHING as hope for a positive change. Transgender people have always been in human society since the dawn of civilization, and we know for sure its not infectious.
Oh I agree but you could argue it's infectious in a way since it's a wide spread into depressed groups when it's not what they need
The reality is you don't know what you're talking about. If someone is under 18 and wants to be identified as trans, majority of the time they are just given therapist meetings and eventually hormones. Hormones are key to prevent early puberty and bone growth which can lead to more manly features for MtF. Best part is, you could cut the hormones later if they change their mind and there's no real affect. Sexual reassignment is probably the very last step and is never considered when the person is a minor.
Besides that, its still idiotic to say tansgenderisim is a fucking virus that makes people gay/trans. Its people clinging onto something to improve their life. The piece is woefully trying to paint it as trans related things are the sole perpetrator, when its literally any societal/fandom based change. Just look at the furry fandom for instance or the brony fandom.
You aren't even disagreeing with him by the way, you're just attacking defensively because he's saying the same thing as you form the outside.
The problem is that gender dysphoria is a more severe symptom to be picked up by individuals turning to comfort and conforming to their peers. Fandoms and fads within peer groups eventually die - but gender dysphoria is a hell of a thing for a peer group to disseminate as a coping method when it can cause issues later on down the line.
It can be a very self destructive thing, but it's great for the people who actually need it. Which is why most places require some counseling before you start it. It's not right to start some panic over it unless there's some real evidence that a lot of people who will regret it later are doing it.
Imagine being Russian on this forum
The issue isn't gender dysphoria, the issue is coping mechanisms. The article is trying to insinuate its trans ideas that are infectious, when its not.
Factually, the majority of kids who identify, and are diagnosed, with gender identity disorder end up not having that diagnosis in adulthood.
So while I'm sure you guys are right about the majority of adults who go through the whole process of transitioning don't regret it, the numbers aren't nearly as clear when you're talking about kids who are still developing. (Here are some relevant studies: A follow, Gender dysphoria in childhood., etc. I don't believe any such study has concluded differently)
Can you also cite something for the claim that hormone blockers have "no real effect," especially when talking long term? Thanks.
The effects are unknown. There is nothing that screams out super bad but it's also a controversial subject to research and will probably get you blackballed in the current political climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty_blocker
This is pretty much where the anxiety, stress, PTSD and bipolar disorders come in. THis is also where we find the high rate of transsexual suicides. They pick their own treatment and ignore the underlying issues and it not only leads to delusion and misery, but also devalues the fact that a lot of people have actual real gender dysphoria and DO need to transition to regain themselves.
But mention this anywhere on the internet and the regressives will tear you down. It's why no one can get to ask genuine questions and look for factual answers that can help. It's all about "not being harmful" and all that other shit. Little do they realize that that's not how science works or how you find answers to this problem. It's also the same move they are quick to ridicule the right for.
Can people just start being patient and excellent to each other instead of all this angst?
I got 13 dumbs just for talking about something that happened in my actual life. I agree there should be more focus on the facts and discuss what is going on rather then try to "not be harmful". We'll never have progress if we're to scared to speak and ask questions
Your body already produces hormones naturally, Puberty isn't a one and done deal, its your body producing their hormones for the rest of your lifetime. Blockers just prevent permanent changes that puberty can cause. Most cases with children with GiD are given blockers, not hormones right when they hit puberty. The blockers just prevent your body from producing it, once the blocker is gone your body goes back to producing it. Hormones/SRS is late stage treatment that kids are never prescribed. The blocker just tells your pituitary gland to not singnal your ovaries/testes to produce hormones at the time, which halts puberty.
You can't reverse breast development, facial hair, adam apples, or deeper voices. But blockers are totally reversible. There's no studies so far due to it being a new practice for trans individuals, but Its been used before to stop early puberty in medical cases, and puberty continued shortly after 3-12 months. The only critics are people who are saying it somehow stunts growth and sexual identity permanently, which is false because its been used in treatment before with the aforementioned condition.
Also that study is bogus considering hormone blockers are used right when puberty starts. The study has children around 8 years old, which at that point, they are given counseling instead with no blockers or any meds for that matter. All it does is add time to make sure with interviews and observation before taking the leap. If the kid changes their mind, they remove the blocker. Like its not nearly as all damaging as you're thinking, and this study is insinuating its for teens which is at the therapist's digression if they are prescribed meds or not.
It's pretty undoubtable that this has happened at least once, but if it's a significant problem then it's going to have to be more strongly quantified instead of "I actually have seen this." These same things were said with homosexuality, and sure, there are mental disorders that can cause one to delusionally think they're homosexual too (hOCD.)
this is actually why "regressives" are tearing you down
such prominent statements without a lick of scientific evidence.
Research is literally happening at this very moment because, obviously, a few clinics are giving them to kids.
Did you consider the fact that your anecdotal experience is completely useless in the big picture, and you're making massive conclusions about a topic you probably have no actual knowledge with?
Anecdotal evidence + self-diagnosis (do you have the required medical experience to diagnose this?)
No evidence backing this assertion, Hitchens's razor.
Thesis and study were built to come at a predetermined conclusion, this particular study is 100% useless. "But we should think about this" is classic concern trolling.
No evidence to support claim.
You got 13 dumbs for trying to be an Internet doctor.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.