https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/landmark-systematic-review-of-trans>In recent years, anti-transgender activists have used fear of "regret" as justification to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth and restrict it for many adults. Now, a new systematic review published in The American Journal of Surgery has concluded that the rate of regret for transgender surgeries is "remarkably low." The review encompasses more than 55 individual studies on regret to support its conclusions and will likely be a powerful tool in challenging transgender bans in the coming weeks.>The study, conducted by experts from the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, examines reported regret rates for dozens of surgeries as well as major life decisions and compares them to the regret rates for transgender surgeries. It finds that "there is lower regret after [gender-affirming surgery], which is less than 1%, than after many other decisions, both surgical and otherwise." It notes that surgeries such as tubal sterilization, assisted prostatectomy, body contouring, facial rejuvenation, and more all have regret rates more than 10 times as high as gender-affirming surgery.
>>35549292>24% regret having a breast reduction. >0% regret breast augmentation
>>35549292You just don't get it, don't you? Do you see all those 20+% mastectomy regrets? They need to protect our poor innocent girls! That's why they'll ban HRT and surgeries for boys :D>>35549411There's another breast aug at like 6.5%.
>>35549511that number could include cancer or other health-related mastectomies though
>>35549292why is mastectomy listed thrice
>>35549292>Look dude! It's a landmark study. It's LANDMARK!! That means its PROOF!!!
sorry i love studies but i just cringe when people say landmark it's just some gay appeal to authority
>>35549292>1% regret rateThis finding is just simply fucking miraculous. Even a cursory look on trans surgery communities, you'll find some of the most pitiful people nursing their botched surgeries and trying to hold it together so they don't kill themself. Do you guys really believe this finding?
>>35549411Just goes to show you afabs shouldn't trusted to make decisions about their bodies, maybe the republicans are right
>>35549804crazy, almost like most of the shit people say online is made up bullshit
>>35549764explain?
>>35549804>random anonymous people on the internet would never lie! it must be the peer reviewed studies that are wrong
>>35549411Am I weird thinking anything under 50 percent regret is still a win? I guess maybe you'd have to account for margin of error or something but that's all.
>>35549804You can find people who regret laser eye surgery too online and their experience can be real while also being rare. How is this hard to grasp?
BUT HOW MANY WERE DOUBLE BLINDED CONTROL STUDIES WHERE HALF THE PATIENTS DIDN'T ACTUALLY GET THE SURGERY THO
>>35549764Best available proof beats "my sojak is an argument" every time.>>35549804I'm sure if you walked into an AA meeting, you'd be convinced that 90% of humanity are alcoholics, too.
>>35550251And the controls where they get surgery and aren't told. Or they do SRS on cis people. Maybe we could get """high quality""" trans research if we revive Unit 731.
>>35549764I think Erin literally copied the "landmark" phrasing from British media's coverage of the Cass review lol.
>>35550251lmao
>>35550331>doc you keep telling me you didn't give me SRS but I used to have a cock and now I have a pussy, what's up with that?>you clearly have a penis, cease your delusionsthe only way to satisfy cass et al
>>35550417Could you explain what's wrong with eugenics?
>>35550283>proofscientific proof hardly exists, u can only really approach the truthmy basedjak isnt an argument its just me insulting OOPim not saying the study OP linked is faulty or anything I just think appealing to emotions when referencing a study is cringe>>35550332I've noticed when an author uses that word in reference to a study they're usually a joke
>>35550462>I've noticed when an author uses that word in reference to a study they're usually a jokeYes, although I think she really may be mimicking her opponents here lol. Especially in reference to a review the only thing "landmark" would be if there was a particular response to it. It's the British government's response in the case of the Cass review that was landmark, not the review itself which was just a ton of Genspect talking points mixed with some speculative spiddle and then some commonsense observations.
>>35549292wtf is a nipple recon? you match the nipple accounts receivables against checks you received???
