/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15714230
that paper only investigated top surgery aka not cutting your dick off

>>15714230
you hate how politics uses and corrupts science. that's different.

>>15714276
the CNN article links another meta-study that makes the same claim of a multitude of surgeries including penis origami

>>15714276
The meta study mentioned further below and in the OP pic is in regards to gender reassignment surgeries as a whole
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/

>>15714282
>that's different.
It's only different insofar as your "science" is a fantasy while his "science" is reality.

why are you highlighting 1%?

Help me understand this, /sci/, because I have no fucking idea if I am wrong or what.
This is from the Kuiper et al,1998 study (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peggy-Cohen-Kettenis/publication/270273121_Gender_Role_Reversal_among_Postoperative_Transsexuals/links/54a4073a0cf256bf8bb31863/Gender-Role-Reversal-among-Postoperative-Transsexuals.pdf)) from the Netherlands, which is presented as the study with the second largest group of participants in the meta study. The meta study lists the sample size of the study as 1100, 800 MtF and 300 FtM, and the number of regrets is stated to be 10, 9 MtF and 1 FtM.
Now read the method section of the study in the picture which is from page 3 of Kuiper et al. As far as I understand it that number of 1100 are the overall individuals who had undergone SRS in the Netherlands at the time and is not the sample size of the study. The sample size are actually the 10 individuals with whom the interviews were conducted.

>>15714751
And from that interview group of ten people EIGHT had regrets and NINE of them would not have decided to do the surgery again. This also supports my suggestion that this group of ten people is the actual sample size since there are also people in there who do not show regret.

>>15714760
seven had regrets*

>>15714751
That the 1100 people mentioned in Kuiper et al are the overall number of people who had SRS in the Netherlands pretty much shows this chart from Wiepjes et al, 2018.

>>15714230
Why did you add an H to the word "wipe?"

>>15714767
Wiepjes et al (https://www.senaat.eu/9370000/1/j4nvi0xeni9vr2l_j9vvkfvj6b325az/vl1om6kqo2ye/f=/vl1om6kqo2ye_opgemaakt.pdf)) also is the one study mentioned in the meta study with the largest sample size. A stunning 4863 participants and a number of regrets of 14. Together with the Kuiper study, these two make up 75% of the sample size of the meta study. And Wiepjes et al didn't conduct interviews but rather collected historic data from their clinic.
In the section 'Regret' they write
>Regret was identified in 0.6% of transwomen and 0.3% of transmen who underwent gonadectomy. The characteristics of these people are presented in Table 4. Their ages at start of HT ranged from 25 to 54 years, and they expressed their regrets 46 to 271 months after initiation of HT. Reasons for regret were divided into social regret, true regret, or feeling non-binary. Transwomen who were classified as having social regret still identified as women, but reported reasons such as “ignored by surroundings” or “the loss of relatives is a large sacrifice” for returning to the male role. People who were classified as having true regret reported that they thought gender-affirming treatment would be a “solution” for, for example, homosexuality or personal acceptance, but, in retrospect, regretted the diagnosis and treatment.
Magically, the last patient, who ever had regrets after SRS in their clinic, had their surgery done in 2007 with eight following years of not a single case of a patient regretting their decision to chop up their genitals.

>>15714776
Cause it's a mix of whipping and wiping. I slap the scientific studies really hard against my ass cheeks.

>>15714230
Bump

>>15714230
Cool story, so why do you browse /sci/ if they make you so angry?

>>15714396
You get a sample group of hundred people, get them to saw their arms open to pretend to be crab people, give them heavy hormone medication and prevent the wounds from closing up and then see how many of them will regret that decision.

>>15714751
>>15714760
lmao how did this pass peer review?
>look at journal's page
oh, that makes sense

>>15714230
You don't hate science, only liars.

chud melty

>>15714230
that 1% doesnt include the 41% who offed themselves.

>>15714230
What type of study was this and did they design it properly?

>>15714230
These people are mentally ill, no shit they don't regret it. It shouldn't be a surprise.

>>15716054
>>15714293

>>15714230
>whipe

>>15716016
What's the difference?

>>15716368
scientists also fuck dogs