These rebuttals are kind of missing the point. For example:
> Claim 18: "The psychiatry services were limited and could only serve patients who were 'not too severe,' which meant that many patients were being sent to the already overburdened emergency rooms for suicidal ideations, for self-harm, and for inpatient eating disorder treatment."
> An outpatient clinic does not provide emergency inpatient care. It is normal for patients whose symptoms are severe enough to require emergency treatment to be referred by such a clinic to an ER. The NYT found patients from the Center were referred to the ER. That the ERs were overburdened, and that better options weren't often available for youth in severe crisis, is a sad reality of the U.S. mental health system. It is not something that can reasonably be laid at the feet of an outpatient service for a vulnerable group of young people that everyone agrees is at a higher risk of suicide.
> At the trainings, E.R. staff shared concerns about their own experiences with their young transgender patients, which Ms. Hamon later relayed to her team and university administrators.
> The E.R. staff, she wrote in an email, had been seeing more transgender adolescents experiencing mental health crises, "to the point where they said they at least have one TG patient per shift."
> They aren't sure why patients aren't required to continue in counseling if they are continuing hormones," Ms. Hamon added. And they were concerned that "no one is ever told no."
That is, the ER departments were getting an unexplained increase in presentations from the clinic's patients despite the treatments supposedly working well. Which really does bring into question the idea that affirmation-only treatment significantly improves mental health.
I think you're misunderstanding the article. It's analyzing the claims Reed made, specifically the ones she made in her affidavit, and whether they had been corroborated by the NYT or elsewhere. It's not analyzing the claims made in the NYT article by Ms. Hamon or by Reed. Reed doesn't mention any kind of unexplained increase in this particular claim, so the response is adequate.
Besides, the claims listed in the article are just the ones where some amount of truth has been found. If you scroll to the bottom, it has a link to the spreadsheet where you can see the author's tally of Reed's claims, including the claims where the author found no corroboration and ones where the author considers the claim to have been refuted by the available evidence (evidence which includes the third link in my previous comment, which I do recommend you read).
The author links to another article which goes into more detail on this and quotes the program committee chair:
> The academy's unwillingness to host Kaltiala and other likeminded clinicians suggests that even this moderate stance may now be a bridge too far for America's premier child psychiatry association, where even senior officials are raising concerns about ideological capture.
> AACAP has chosen "advocacy over science," Kaliebe said in an email to James McGough, who oversees conference programming, after the second two panels were nixed. In response, McGough conceded that politics likely played a role.
> "I actually share some of your concerns about AACAP ... coming down too heavily on one side of politically charged topics," McGough told Kaliebe in a May email. Decisions about conference programming, he added, are "based on input from various AACAP committees." If the gender committee is "too one sided, the program committee is in a tough spot. Our committees are considered our experts."
> The exchange illustrates how a small group of activist doctors can suppress the viewpoints of clinicians who disagree with them, creating the appearance of medical consensus where none exists.
What even is an activist doctor? Seems like a weird phrase to me. Shouldn't all doctors be activists, especially when they're in decision-making authorities such as the AACAP?
According to the Cass Review, even social transition isn't a neutral act but should be considered an active intervention, which could lock in what may be a temporary phase of identity development, and make it more difficult for the patient to accept their body as it is.
The Cass Review has also said that children should have easier access to cross sex hormones - they're considering removing the requirement for children to have spent time on puberty blockers before moving onto CSH.
Are you sure you're looking at the same article linked from this post? I'm seeing "October 30, 2023" at the top and "Monday, October 30, 2023" at the end.
Between 1% and 8%, depending on how detransition is defined. This article found 6.9% (12/175, 6 clearly detransitioning and 6 ambiguous) at one clinic, including anyone who sought and received care over a certain interval.
That is interesting but the same study also says that 21.7% of this cohort disengaged from the clinic. So the rate could be even higher, depending on if they stopped treatment entirely or changed to another service provider.
“Disengaged” here means that they did not make it through the assessment/pre-screening process and did not receive treatment, which is not what is meant by “detransition” or what is commonly understood as contributing to “regret rate”.
When an elderly person rejects knee replacement prior to surgery e.g., because they’ve learned the risks, they’re also not counted in the regret rate for knee replacement.
EDIT: Those that disengaged did not complete treatment, therefore they cannot regret completing treatment. Perhaps they regret starting treatment and perhaps they don’t; either way, that’s not the same thing as detransition. I can’t read their minds to figure out why they disengaged, and neither can anyone else.
If I'm reading this correctly, this included disengagement prior to surgery but after hormonal treatment. So it could be that some in this group regretted the hormonal treatment so chose not to continue with the surgical intervention?
The data there is not good. There are studies that claim it is low. They focus on surgery a lot. There are not many trans people (relative to the general population) and not many studies on them. There is not sufficient granularity between:
- trans people who only take hormones,
- who do that and have top surgery,
- who are castrated and,
- who have top and bottom surgery
Personally, I think bottom surgery is not quite there and is definitely a medical frontier and free-for-all. Hormones and top surgery are fairly reversible via application of more money, exercise and time.
Based on that, I am forced to fall back to first principles, and feel that given that the risk of lasting damage is low on some procedures, that those procedures which give perfectly acceptable and also potentially reversible results are reasonable to offer in this way.
> Claim 18: "The psychiatry services were limited and could only serve patients who were 'not too severe,' which meant that many patients were being sent to the already overburdened emergency rooms for suicidal ideations, for self-harm, and for inpatient eating disorder treatment."
> An outpatient clinic does not provide emergency inpatient care. It is normal for patients whose symptoms are severe enough to require emergency treatment to be referred by such a clinic to an ER. The NYT found patients from the Center were referred to the ER. That the ERs were overburdened, and that better options weren't often available for youth in severe crisis, is a sad reality of the U.S. mental health system. It is not something that can reasonably be laid at the feet of an outpatient service for a vulnerable group of young people that everyone agrees is at a higher risk of suicide.
But what the New York Times article (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/health/transgender-youth-...) actually said was:
> At the trainings, E.R. staff shared concerns about their own experiences with their young transgender patients, which Ms. Hamon later relayed to her team and university administrators.
> The E.R. staff, she wrote in an email, had been seeing more transgender adolescents experiencing mental health crises, "to the point where they said they at least have one TG patient per shift."
> They aren't sure why patients aren't required to continue in counseling if they are continuing hormones," Ms. Hamon added. And they were concerned that "no one is ever told no."
That is, the ER departments were getting an unexplained increase in presentations from the clinic's patients despite the treatments supposedly working well. Which really does bring into question the idea that affirmation-only treatment significantly improves mental health.