279

New research underscores benefits of gender-affirming hormones, rebutting anti-trans claims (www.statnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by ffmike@beehaw.org to c/news@beehaw.org

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Actual evidence from actual scientists.

[Image description: A patient holds bottles of medications for hormone replacement therapy as part of her gender-affirming care.]

top 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Aesculapius@kbin.social 32 points 1 year ago

Physician here. The psychological impacts of gender identity issues are very real and would occur even if society was 100% accepting of trans people. Sadly, society is not which makes it worse. These folks need and deserve healthcare. That care involves not only helping them work through their journey, but also supporting it with psychiatric care, hormonal options, and in some cases, surgical treatment. Transphobes make it sound like society is allowing minors to be injured by these practices. This couldn't be further from the truth.

Puberty blocking medications are a reversible option for adolescents. If they determine that they would like to proceed with their biological identity later, the meds are stopped and their puberty ensues. Very few minors receive any type of gender reassignment surgery. Most of the time, patients will start with hormonal treatment and pursue surgical options when they are done growing and usually when they are over 18. But there are exceptions.

Putting extra negative attention on people going through this and limiting their treatment options is draconian and must stop.

[-] PurliWhite@beehaw.org 24 points 1 year ago

every little bit helps 🏳️‍⚧️

[-] david@feddit.uk 19 points 1 year ago

News just in: Resolving things that people are unhappy about with their body improves their self image and mental health. Later we'll talk about how increasing wages may reduce poverty and how giving state aid directly to healthcare providers rather than insurance companies can improve healthcare and reduce costs.

[-] mombi@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

Sadly I don't see this changing many, if any, transphobes' minds.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 29 points 1 year ago

well, the benefit of studies like these is more for people who are just misinformed or don't know that much about trans people and will be pushed to form a meaningful opinion on them. contrary to what conservatives fearmonger about, the median American isn't constantly thinking about trans people--so a lot of people fall into this camp right now

[-] ffmike@beehaw.org 13 points 1 year ago

I think one of the major benefits is that courts do take notice of science, even in this country. The more we get studies on the record, the harder it will be for transphobic laws to stand judicial challenges.

[-] DocSophie@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Yep, they're gonna ignore this study and all this research just like the rest of it. :(

[-] TheBurlapBandit@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

It's worse than that. They know the study is correct- that's why they are pushing the legislation. They want to hurt trans people.

[-] Lupolo@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

I agree. Unfortunately this country has a big problem with education, intellectualism, and science.

I'm not sure how we dig our way out of this hole since it's decades in the making and there's renewed vigor for opression.

[-] riskable@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The only time I've seen a super conservative person change their beliefs was when two of their fundamental beliefs came in conflict with each other and the conservative side became a problem: An empathy-free asshole I'm acquainted with had a grandchild that was immunocompromised (no idea if it was permanent or what caused it) when COVID hit.

He wore masks everywhere except his house. He told me that that the people at his church "insulted him" and "practically kicked him out" for refusing to remove his mask. He basically made the decision at that point in his life that maybe these people weren't the best people after all and he stopped going to church.

[-] darq@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

We've had mountains of evidence all pointing towards the same conclusion for many years. They aren't interested in being convinced.

[-] riskable@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

You can't change someone's mind with facts and logic if facts and logic weren't used to make up their mind in the first place.

You also can't change someone's mind about any given topic if their stance on that topic is part of their identity. To a conservative, their very core identity/belief is that everyone is made "by God" exactly the way they're supposed to be. Before you could get them to believe that something like gender dysphoria is real you'd first have to make them believe that their religion is wrong.

[-] rs5th@lemmy.scottlabs.io 6 points 1 year ago

Conservatives don't seem to have trouble with boob jobs, etc. I think this is an instance of using religion as an excuse when it's convenient.

[-] riskable@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

I'm going to take a guess here and say that the majority of evangelicals (which is the largest block of conservatives right now) do take issue with boob jobs. They also don't like it when girls cut their hair short or wear non-feminine clothing, to give other related examples. At least, that's the evangelicals here in Florida that I know.

There's varying degrees of just how much deviation from their cultural norms are allowed (I'd argue that's what defines how "conservative" they are). This is why conservatives can get extremely upset when LGBTQ+ people are allowed to be themselves in public... Because it normalizes them.

Conservatives know that if it becomes normal for their kids to see/meet gay dads/moms, trans people, or other non-binary people on a regular basis the very definition of what they believe to be "normal" will be swept right out from under them in the minds of their children. The very foundation of what they believe won't be passed on to the next generation.

That's why conservatives are obsessed with children "being exposed" to LGBTQ+ topics/people in school. They know that if their kid grows up around completely harmless LGBTQ+ people that their kid will just naturally start to believe that these people are harmless (because they are), normal, and "no big deal". That's their worst nightmare!

I'd go so far as to suggest that it is impossible (today) for someone to claim they're a conservative while simultaneously claiming that LGBTQ+ people are born that way. There's nothing conservative about that (it's beyond cognitive dissonance). Furthermore, it goes completely against the Bible's teachings that women are property! Property can't just up and change itself into a man/actual thinking person!

[-] CorvusNyx@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

Trans enby here waiting to see a specialist to get HRT. Not sure how dysphoria is for some, but mine is like a person kicking the back of your chair in a theatre on good days, and on bad ones it’s like that screaming sun from Rick and Morty, it won’t shut up. Before I came out to myself as trans, it was like a high-pitched whine in the background, not obvious, but causing a lot of mental harm and a severe feeling of disconnect to reality. It‘s mentally draining as fuck. Since coming out things have been better, but the dysphoria is still there and needs to be addressed.

So yeah, I’m not surprised at all HRT helps trans folks. Looking forward to when I can get on it myself.

[-] UngodlyAudrey@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

The dysphoria is still there(albeit considerably weaker), but starting HRT is the best decision I ever made. Hope you can get on it soon!

[-] Midnitte@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

This doesn't really matter to the people directing the narrative. It's about controlling bodies, not helping people.

[-] gqphypocrisy@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Republicans: We need to Protect The Kids!
Also Republicans: We need MORE Priests in Schools!

[-] shanghaibebop@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

The only way to stop a bad preist with perversions is a good priest with perversions.

Something like that.

[-] hoyland@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

Though not "news". Studies have been reaching the same conclusion for decades.

[-] MoistKinkajou@lemmy.tf 5 points 1 year ago

It wasn’t a blind study, as patients knew that they were either waiting for or receiving treatment

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 47 points 1 year ago

this is basically a noise comment without commentary, and checking over your post history like half of your comments on our site are JAQing off about safe spaces and how you don't hate trans people but we need to Seriously Debate transness. one of those comments literally begins with "Not condoning bigotry, but" and defends the health of seeing opinions from bigots. what are you doing here, and why should we not immediately eject you from the site

[-] pollen@beehaw.org 15 points 1 year ago

THANK YOU! This is why I joined Beehaw.

[-] darq@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

There is no practical way to blind HRT treatment. Even if you attempt to with a placebo, within about two weeks the patient will know what they are receiving.

Anybody demanding a double-blind study is trying to set the standard for evidence higher than is possible.

[-] realChem@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago

Exactly. Some things just can't be studied as part of a double blind RCT. For example, see: Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

The perception that parachutes are a successful intervention is based largely on anecdotal evidence. Observational data have shown that their use is associated with morbidity and mortality, due to both failure of the intervention and iatrogenic complications...

The paper is funny, but the authors are making a serious point. RCTs are great when they're possible, but just because they're not possible doesn't mean we can't gather strong evidence anyway.

[-] darq@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Thank you for that paper, that's a great analogy honestly.

[-] Jo@readit.buzz 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for that.

Lack of blinding is a serious issue for subjective outcomes but blinding when treatment effects are obvious to both intervention and control groups is dishonest (Pharma does it all the time to make their trials look more credible than they are).

Open label is the norm for cancer trials for exactly this reason. It is important to consider the biases that may arise, in subjective endpoints especially. But it is ludicrous to dismiss research on this basis alone. We can't randomise 12 year olds to become lifetime smokers or not, let alone use placebo controls, but we do know that smoking kills. It's just a bit more complicated to prove it when perfectly designed RCTs are not possible.

[-] ffmike@beehaw.org 19 points 1 year ago

Yes, that sentence is in the original article. Did you have something you wanted to discuss? There are three studies in all in the article, so I don't find cherry-picking a single sentence contributes much here.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023

279 points (100.0% liked)

World News

22057 readers

110 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

For US News, see the US News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS