Transgender people who start their hormones as teenagers have “far better” mental health than if they wait until adulthood, new research says.
Experts have found that transgender people who begin hormone treatment in adolescence had fewer suicidal thoughts, were less likely to experience major mental health disorders and had fewer problems with substance abuse than those who started hormones later in life.
The study, which was led by the Stanford University School of Medicine, gathered data from the largest-ever survey of US transgender adults where 27,715 people responded in 2015.
Researchers found that, as well as fewer mental health concerns when taking the drugs as teenagers, those who took the drugs at any age had better mental health than those who wanted them but had never received them.
Of the people surveyed, 21,598 reported they had received the hormones they wanted. Of these people, 119 began hormones at age 14 or 15; 362 at age 16 and 17 and 12,157 following their 18th birthday.
Some 8,860 people surveyed said they wanted but never received hormone therapy and acted as the control group for the study.
Odds of severe psychological distress were reduced by 222 per cent, 153 per cent and 81 per cent for those who began hormones in early adolescence, late adolescence and adulthood, respectively.
Odds of feeling suicidal in the previous year were 135 per cent lower in those who began hormones in early adolescence, 62 per cent lower in those who began in late adolescence and 21 per cent lower in those who began as adults, compared with the control group.
Dr Jack Turban, lead author on the study and expert in paediatric and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford Medicine, said: “This study is particularly relevant now because many state legislatures are introducing bills that would outlaw this kind of care for transgender youth.
“We are adding to the evidence base that shows why gender-affirming care is beneficial from a mental health perspective.”
In the UK, hormone drugs can only be given to people from the age of 16 who have been on puberty blockers for at least 12 months.
Last September, the UK Court of Appeal overturned a judgment that children under the age of 16 considering gender reassignment were unlikely to be mature enough to give informed consent to be prescribed puberty-blocking drugs.
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/transgender-hormones-teenager-mental-health-b1991724.html
But the 2020 research is saying something different which is why a number of countries have changed their approach. I think asking for high quality evidence based care for those who experience gender dysphoria is what we should be doing.
And your response to my question is one way of not answering what's been asked VioleSky, and I must say you do that rather a lot.
People take the time to read your posts, to consider what you have said and then if needed, ask questions for clarification which you invariably refuse to answer or give the appearance of answering when you're not answering at all.
Very frustrating and not what one expects on discussion forums.
It is here, I have already explained why its not ridiculous to say why some concerns (which I have highlighted because I understand they are indeed concerns) effectively silences trans people or their support. You just have to look at it from a different angle.
I hope this helps and I hope people will consider my explanation which was actually the important bit
I completely agree Galaxy which is the problem I have with some of the so called statistical evidence offered here.
It isn't high quality IMO as it raises more questions than it answers.
Surely in a matter as important as this, it’s vital to question the reliability of all studies/surveys and to view any findings with disinterested enquiry.
It’s not argument in the sense of two opposing views but a question of academic medical rigour.
After all there have been many examples in the past where commercial interests have allowed harmful treatments to be given. And there is a vast commercial advantage to drug companies in hormone treatment.
That isn’t being transphobic. It is being cynical I’m afraid. I would always ‘follow the money” before I accepted the findings of any medical study.
Ah yes, from a post from Smileless which I suggested earlier you may have miss understood and it appears you have, or you have not read all of the posts on this discussion.
There have been posts accusing others of wanting to silence trans support because others are voicing their concerns about the welfare of young people. It is that that is being referred too as ridiculous.
Oh dear, I've done it again Smileless.
Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to talk about concerns because I find that really worrying to be honest.
Seasidelass That's not true. I am not responsible for others reading comprehension and I have explained very clearly what I thought was being asked of me.
I do not sit on gransnet and I live in a busy household. I keep up the best I can.
Of course you're not responsible "for others reading comprehension" VioletSky, only your own.
Sorry, VS, but you have not explained very clearly - I for one am no wiser than I was. Repeating yourself, or quoting what was incomprehensible the first time is not going to make anyone understand it second time round.
In any case, it seems to me that unless people buy into what is suggested by a dubious survey and some random stats from Google, they are either 'ridiculous' or part of an 'orchestrated attempt to silence transpeople', and apparently this applies on any thread on the topic. Asking for clarification is perceived as a 'demand', and pointing out when words are being twisted is 'bickering', so there is no room for debate or discussion as I understand the terms. In any debate there has to be a chance for all 'sides' to make their case, and be questioned on any anomalies, so that they can make themselves clear. Deciding that questions are demands, and that having a different point of view is 'hostile' does not allow for anything beyond the presentation of an article that has to be accepted at face value.
I know that a lot of people stay away from these threads, and have always tried to be welcoming to new voices, but to be honest this one has encapsulated their reasons, and I can't say I blame them.
I'm sorry you feel that way doodledog
I do my very best to be patient, polite, clear and consise while putting my views across and explaining them.
I wasn't being unkind - it's just that several people have had problems understanding your post, so reposting it and saying that you have explained yourself clearly is not going to help, really.
Whatever you were getting at, suggesting that people are ridiculous if they don't agree is not really polite, is it?
GagaJo
Doodledog, I refuse to have an argument. I posted an interesting article, that's all. No cut and thrust from me unfortunately. I'm aware that makes me boring/disappointing. Story of my life!
Mollygo, plenty of statistics available online. Take your pick. Some show lower levels, some show higher. I found some on Google.
I asked for the source of the 1 in 4 or 80% which was the basis of the claim made in this thread.
GJ’s response, plenty of statistics available online. Take your pick Some show lower levels, some show higher.
Is that really her basis for a reasonable discussion about anything, whether it’s a serious as suicide or as trivial as whether or not she is boring/disappointing?
Doodledog
I wasn't being unkind - it's just that several people have had problems understanding your post, so reposting it and saying that you have explained yourself clearly is not going to help, really.
Whatever you were getting at, suggesting that people are ridiculous if they don't agree is not really polite, is it?
No suggesting people are ridiculous if they do not agree on something is not polite.
But it was not me who said it if you read back.
gagajo I refuse to have an argument. I posted an interesting article, that's all
I fear you are being disingenuous, gagajo. Questioning the validity of an article which quotes research second-hand isn’t hostility. It’s actually irrelevant that the article is about hormone treatment for transgender teenagers. We would be justified in raising concerns about any article about any subject which contained dubious assertions. That’s how science works. It’s fact-based, not values-based.
If you don’t like other posters disagreeing with articles you quote, there’s an obvious solution.
It isn't disingenuous JA.
This is my thought process:
1) Sympathetic article.
2) Interesting (most important, for me).
3) Worthy of consideration.
4) To some slight degree challenges the gender critical narrative.
That's it. I'm sympathetic to the trans community. I'm anti gender critical. I'm offering an alternative perspective to the mainstream one on GN which is TWA not W. No intervention with teenagers. Women only spaces.
Trans support is in the minority on GN. But we're here.
The easy option is to stop posting to avoid the ire. But that is the cowards way out. Trans people don't have the choice to opt out, so why should their supporters?
But supportive shouldn’t mean unquestioning, should it?
It’s of benefit to all involved to question the effectiveness and safety of medication.
After all, it’s a relatively new treatment in its current form. Even those in favour have different opinions about when to start, dosage, etc.
What ire? No ire in any of my posts.
PB, no of course not. But it does get very hostile in the trans threads and I'm not engaging if that happens.
That comment wasn't GN member specific Galaxy. In general.
Peasblossom, it’s the posting of statements like the title of the OP as absolute truth that worry me. As you said, “it’s of benefit to all involved to question the effectiveness and safety of medication”. You make a good point about the fact that even those in favour have different opinions about when to start, dosage etc.
But being told by GJ that rather than her supplying the source of 1 in 4 and 80%,
I should google for myself to find statistics and that they will vary, questions the validity of the OP.
GagaJo
The easy option is to stop posting to avoid the ire. But that is the cowards way out. Trans people don't have the choice to opt out, so why should their supporters?
Truth
Mollygo
Peasblossom, it’s the posting of statements like the title of the OP as absolute truth that worry me. As you said, “it’s of benefit to all involved to question the effectiveness and safety of medication”. You make a good point about the fact that even those in favour have different opinions about when to start, dosage etc.
But being told by GJ that rather than her supplying the source of 1 in 4 and 80%,
I should google for myself to find statistics and that they will vary, questions the validity of the OP.
The title is the title of the article.
Maybe quotation marks then to make it clear?
Sorry I’ve been waging a bit of a campaign against titles that look like a fact but are really a quote or an opinion.
I dislike that some won’t go into the thread but will have the strap line in their head.
Don’t take it personally. Actually this one passed me by till now.
I feel the same about the headlines in certain newspapers too?
Peasblossom the link to the article is in the OP
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
