Desisters who were supported fully by parents (but not endorsed that their bodies were wrong) would also be studied by ethical investigators. They matter too, no matter what the overall rate of desistance turns out to be (only to be known via longterm longitudinal studies).
-
-
An N of 1? I just got hounded by someone asking me for the data after I specifically said come back in 18 months (so there can be data). And y’all want me to jump on an N of 1.
-
"jump on"? who said you should "jump on" anything? We said, listen. And that 18-months-away data--will it look at desisters, detranstioners, or regretters? Or only socially-medically transitioned youth?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
By listening I don’t mean conducting my own qualitative research. there needs to be good quality science on the experience of non-GD folks who are getting inaccurately identified & treated for GD. Some patients had bad experiences, not all care is bad. Are y’all anti-vax too?
-
So now you're comparing us to anti-vaxxers? Because we're pointing out that there are "false positives" who are speaking for themselves? We've asked you WHO is going to do the research on them, and if you care. And this is allyou've got? (For the record, nope, not antivaxxers...)
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.