On "Trans Kids" and related topics..

[Harvey]

Doctor of Evil:

Science is institutionally corrupt, a fraud factory for those who can pay. Everything confirms this, from irreproducibility to the near total censorship of scientific debate - in a climate where industrial propaganda is the decisive factor. Reality is bought and sold and science is mistress to a new and rapacious priesthood, blood still wet on their lips.

Look around.

[Harvey]

The current hysteria around trans issues is fueled by the republican party as a culture war issue, the kind of divisive distractions that around here usually gets dismissed as kayfabe cover for the actual nefarious stuff the ruling class is up to, except in this case it's apparently very important that we be very upset about this and think about the children.

I think there's also a disgust thing underneath it. Once people really come to grips with what "gender affirming surgery" is, what it does and how it leaves people, there is a certain ... alarm.

Fueled by culture war, sure, but those operators always target existing fires to dump gas onto. And the exertions of pervert hypocrites in the GOP and DNC are an epiphenomenon, after all: the real issue here is, in fact, minors.

I'm friends with a staunchly NPR liberal older couple who read Jamie Reed's testimony and came away shaken. What I found most interesting is they did not so much assert this to me as confide it, confess it, because they felt like it was heresy. It is very unfortunate how difficult it has become for Americans to process facts outside of partisan politics.

It is also deeply pathetic and highly contemptible.

[Pele'sDaughter]

It's also disgusting that instead of helping these mentally ill people, they'd rather cater to their delusions, health consequences be damned, than treat the actual problem. That's nothing but greed on the part of the medical establishment and gullibility on the part of those who think it's a great idea.

Remember when, years ago, someone here posited that "aliens" are us from the future after we've totally screwed up our DNA? Did it seem farfetched at the time? Not so much now?

[Belligerent Savant]

It is also deeply pathetic and highly contemptible.

YES.


Co-sign Harvey’s and Pele’s comments as well.

[DrEvil]

Doctor of Evil:

Science is institutionally corrupt, a fraud factory for those who can pay. Everything confirms this, from irreproducibility to the near total censorship of scientific debate - in a climate where industrial propaganda is the decisive factor. Reality is bought and sold and science is mistress to a new and rapacious priesthood, blood still wet on their lips.

Look around.

I'm well aware, but science does work. Look around, things do actually improve (for certain values of "improve"). We learn new things and improve on old things all the time. The problem is a lot of it is invisible, or slowly incremental, so people simply don't notice if it doesn't directly impact them. It's like comparing an iPhone from 2015 with the latest model. They look the same, they work mostly the same, but under the hood there's a myriad small improvements and new functionalities, but it was one small thing at a time, not all the new things all at once, so it doesn't feel like it changed. Along the way there's a ton of other phones that crashed and burned or were simply Kickstarter scams (the scummy part of science), but the iPhone today (the part of science that does what it says on the tin) is objectively more advanced than the one from 2015.

Anyway - I'm not arguing for a free for all when it comes to gender affirming care. Never have and never will, just that the kids should get the best counseling and treatment possible (and respect. Labeling them all as mentally ill is really not helpful at all. That's what we used to do to gay people). Right now is the first time it's actually more or less acceptable for a kid to come out as trans, so of course there's going to be a lot of hoopla and kids getting caught up in the new "movement", which is why it's so important to have good procedures in place to weed out the ones who need other forms of support and reduce the number of kids who regret their choice as much as possible, but also to support and give the treatments to the ones who are left after the weeding out process. Some of them will invariably end up regretting it anyway, because people change and there's fuck all we can do about that, but the way I see it that's just life. Shit happens, people sometimes make the wrong choice and then have to live with the consequences.

After a while it will hopefully just become a normal part of everyday life, like coming out as gay is starting to become, and the hysteria from all sides will die down, and the numbers will go back to something closer to what they used to be (probably not all the way, as I'm guessing there's quite a few closeted trans people out there who never went through with it because society wasn't exactly.. welcoming to the idea).

[Grizzly]

https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1696554933368086770
Head Women’s Lacrosse Coach at Oberlin College is breaking her silence in an @IWF documentary after being “burned at the stake” for her support of single-sex sports & speaking out against allowing men in women’s sports.

[stickdog99]

The issue with the Culture WarTM concerning trans kids is illustrative of the general manner in which the Culture WarTM has been and continues to be utilized to get people to consider their next door neighbor their worst enemy.

Almost everyone who is active politically today has been successfully conditioned to apply several black & white litmus tests to nearly every possible issue. And if you don't pass the muster on every single one of these litmus tests, everything about you is 100% disqualified. But, of course, these all-or-nothing tribal Nicene Creeds are somehow applied only to normal well-meaning people and alternative political choices. For some reason, these standards never seem to disqualify any sellout whom the establishment handpicks to screw us all because "the other side is so much worse."

Political sectarianism has largely replaced religious sectarianism in our oligarchs' never ending efforts to keep us at each other's throats while they twist the screws on all of us ever more tightly.

Without the Culture WarTM, the vast majority of people would agree that transsexual individuals should be supported rather than persecuted or discriminated against. And without the Culture WarTM, the vast majority of people would also agree that ciswomen have the well-earned right to respectfully exclude transwomen from certain traditional ciswomen safe spaces and athletic competitions.

But because of the Culture WarTM, the vast majority of people reading anything about transsexuality are already prepared to demonize anything anyone says about this issue depending on whether this individual uses the term "ciswoman" or the term "biological woman."

And because of the Culture WarTM, anybody who expresses any concern about discrimination against transsexual individuals is summarily excommunicated from Team Red while anybody who expresses any concern about exploiting little kids' socialization and sexual identity growing pains to turn them into lifelong Big Pharma dependents is summarily excommunicated from Team Blue.

Can't we all agree that trans-individuals deserve support and respect while also agreeing that irreversible genital mutilation and lifelong hormone dysregulation should be prescribed only for a small percentage of minors and only as a last resort? Shouldn't encouraging comfort with your physical body be the first resort? Isn't "you were born beautiful no matter your sexual identity or preferences" preferable to "gender is an irreversible binary choice that every kid must face before puberty" as a society's newly minted default social construct?

[stickdog99]

Identity Crisis: Gender Identity History, Puberty Blockers, and Hormones

Part 1: Gender Identity History, Puberty Blockers, and Hormones

Is it possible to take a balanced, nuanced look at the complex topic of gender identity?

In this series we are going to dive deep into various aspects of the debates around transgender individuals and gender identity. Specifically, we are going to look at the concerns surrounding how these ideas are influencing children and young adults. We will look at the claims being made on all sides of this discussion and will also ask who is benefiting from the amplifying of these debates.

In the last couple years, dozens of U.S. states have passed various laws relating to the trans community and discussions around gender identity. Some states have gone the route of attempting to ban access to knowledge in public school and even college, while others are focused on raising the age for transgender surgery to the age of 18 years old.

A 2022 Pew Research poll found that the United States is divided evenly between acceptance of the trans community. A majority of Democrats and those who lean toward the Democratic Party (59%) say that the greater acceptance of transgender people is good for society, while a majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning (54%) say it is bad for society.

Unfortunately, discussions around these topics tend to be argued in extremes. You have one side of the debate telling people it’s not okay to ask questions about the potential side effects of the treatments being provided, and anyone who does so is a bigot or a trans-phobe. You also have those who are genuinely against the LGBTQ community and support efforts to limit the rights of some in that community, including by banning access to information or abolishing Pride Parades.

This is unfortunate because the reality is real human beings are caught up in the middle. Regardless of your opinion on this topic at the moment, I encourage you to read this series with an open mind, and most of all, an open heart.

TLAV’s goal is not to add to the noise, but instead to look at the data, look at the human beings involved, and offer a nuanced perspective. We share this information for any individuals and family members who may be facing this challenging situation and are uncertain of what the actual facts are.

One way or another, everyone can agree that how we address this core issue of gender identity, and everything else that springs from it, has enormous implications for our society moving forward.

The Origins of Gender Identity

Dr. Michael Biggs has explored the origins of transgenderism as a modern medical concept. His research shows that the discovery of cross-sex hormones and advances in plastic surgery contributed to the concept becoming more common. Biggs also outlines how the construct of “gender identity” or “gender role” was invented by controversial researcher John Money in the late 1950’s, early 1960s.

Money was born in New Zealand and emigrated to the United States in 1947 where he worked as a psychology resident in a Pittsburgh hospital before being accepted into a PhD program at Harvard University in the Department of Social Relations. He graduated in 1952 after writing a dissertation focused on hermaphroditism, the condition of having both male and female reproductive organs..

Despite popular belief, Money did not train as a medical doctor, surgeon, or psychiatrist. Nonetheless, Money’s research would go on to influence much of the medical field as it relates to gender. The 2015 book, Critical Essays on John Money’s Diagnostic Concepts, outlines Money’s influence on the transgender conversation:

“By the mid-1960s, Money’s interest had turned to transsexualism and the possibility of surgical treatment: between 1964 and 1967 he was part of a research team… whose study of transsexualism was funded by the Erickson Educational Foundation. The latter had been established in 1964 by the wealthy trans man Reed Erickson. Research undertaken by the group was integral to the official establishment of the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic (in July 1966) as well as to the formation of the Harry Benjamin Foundation (in 1967). Moreover, Money “was probably more responsible than any other individual for the decision that such an august institution as Johns Hopkins Hospital would . . . endorse sex-altering surgery in suitable subjects,” a practice for which, at the time, there was little support among medical professionals.”

In 1973, Money advised a doctor to prescribe testosterone to a 15-year-old girl and even to consider mastectomy. Specialist clinics for children and adolescents with gender identity problems were founded in Toronto in 1975, in Utrecht in 1987, and in London in 1989. They mainly provided counseling while Cross-sex hormones had to wait until the patient was referred to an adult clinic, at an age ranging from 16 to 18. Surgeries were not performed under the age of 18 and referrals of children were rare. The London clinic—the only specialized clinic for children with gender dysphoria in the United Kingdom—over its first decade accepted an annual average of 14 patients, while the Utrecht clinic averaged 9 per year.

Biggs’ paper details how one of the first efforts to lower the age of intervention was done by the founder of the Utrecht children’s clinic, Peggy Cohen-Kettenis. She had first come to prominence in “gender medicine” in the 1980’s and became professor of psychology in the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at University Medical Center Utrecht. She believed that transsexuals would experience better outcomes if they started treatment before adulthood. By the mid-1990s, she was referring some patients aged 16 and 17 to the Amsterdam clinic for endocrinological intervention prior to cross-sex hormones. Males were given an antiandrogen, cyproterone acetate, which prevented erections and caused breast tissue to grow; females were given progestin to stop menstruation.

Cohen-Kettenis based her actions on evidence from the first 22 patients from the Utrecht clinic who were interviewed in their twenties, from one to five years after surgery. This group was compared to a larger group of transsexuals who had transitioned later in adulthood in previous decades. She claimed the 22 patients showed better psychological functioning and could “more easily pass in the desired gender role”.

However, as Biggs notes, “one problem with the comparison is that they had transitioned in a more tolerant era”. Also, the patients were still young and most had no sexual partner. They had not yet reached the age where they might regret not being able to conceive children. Additionally, Biggs states that the group has not been followed up since initial interviews.

It is through the work of people like John Money, Peggy Cohen-Kettenis, and endocrinologist Harry Benjamin (among others) that young adults and children began receiving recommendations for hormones, puberty blockers, and surgery.

Puberty Blockers and Hormones

Many of the concerns regarding the apparent rise in children pursuing these treatments relate to data showing that puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries have the potential to cause life long health problems. For example, Lupron, one of the most widely used puberty blockers, has been associated with several negative side effects and has the potential to cause permanent changes in biology.

In interviews and in online forums, women who took the drug as young girls or witnessed their daughters take the treatment described harsh side effects that have been well-documented in adults, including infertility, chronic pain, bone thinning, and other bone issues.

Dr. Michael Biggs’ September 2022 article published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy outlines the history of puberty blockers and hormones, and details how little evidence exists to back up the claims that they are reversible and safe. The article, titled “The Dutch Protocol for Juvenile Transsexuals: Origins and Evidence”, says the use of these drugs (Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone agonist or GnRHa) began in the mid-1990s in the Netherlands. Since that time the so-called “Dutch Protocol” has quickly caught on and has been adopted by pediatric endocrinologists all over the world.

Dr Biggs discusses how pediatric endocrinologists have ignored concerns about the impact the drugs have on bone density and cognitive function. He also claims that almost all of the young people receiving treatment were homosexual and that doctors rushed ahead in prescribing the drugs.

According to Biggs’ article, when the “Dutch protocol” was first published in an influential article in 2006, it was supported financially by Ferring Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of triptorelin, another common puberty blocker.

Biggs writes:

“It has been a quarter of a century since Dutch clinicians proposed puberty suppression as an intervention for “juvenile transsexuals,” which became the international standard for treating gender dysphoria. This paper reviews the history of this intervention and scrutinizes the evidence adduced to support it. The intervention was justified by claims that it was reversible and that it was a tool for diagnosis, but these claims are increasingly implausible. The main evidence for the Dutch protocol came from a longitudinal study of 70 adolescents who had been subjected to puberty suppression followed by cross-sex hormones and surgery. Their outcomes shortly after surgery appeared positive, except for the one patient who died, but these findings rested on a small number of observations and incommensurable measures of gender dysphoria. A replication study conducted in Britain found no improvement. While some effects of puberty suppression have been carefully studied, such as on bone density, others have been ignored, like on sexual functioning.” ...

“At the Amsterdam clinic, 56 transgender adolescents were treated with GnRHa, commencing at ages ranging from 11 to 18, for an average duration of 1.7 years. After puberty suppression, a significant minority of patients have abnormally low bone density after puberty suppression.”

He also notes that many people who started on GnRHa at a young age have no libido and cannot orgasm. Marci Bowers, a surgeon who has performed over 2,000 vaginoplasties, has stated that most of the cases cannot experience orgasm.

In the conclusion to the paper, Biggs demands that, “clinicians need to explain how they are sure that some of the adolescents being prescribed GnRHa would not have grown into gay or lesbian adults, with their sexuality and fertility intact.”

He continues:

“The claim for reversibility was contradicted from the outset by the unknown effect of puberty suppression on brain development. Irreversibility has now been demonstrated by randomized control trials in nonhuman animals. The central justification for puberty suppression was that it increases outward resemblance to the opposite sex and requires less surgical intervention. Paradoxically, however, early puberty suppression for males will most likely make subsequent genital surgery more risky—this is what killed one of the initial Dutch cohort—with worse results.”

Many trans advocates claim that if children and young adults are not given access to puberty blockers they may kill themselves. However, Biggs and other researchers have found data which says the opposite. We will explore that data in the next two parts of this investigation.

Meanwhile, groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Texas Pediatric Society, the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association have endorsed gender-affirming care practices and called measures seeking to restrict access as harmful to transgender youth.

[stickdog99]

Identity Crisis: ‘Gender-Affirming’ Surgery, Social Contagion, Detransitioners, and the Autism Overlap

Part 2: Complications of “Gender-Affirming” Surgery, Social Contagion, Detransitioners, and the Autism Overlap

What does the scientific data show regarding so-called gender-affirming surgery? Is there an argument for the rise in Trans individuals being part of a social contagion? And what about detransitioners and the Autism connection?

One of the other most controversial aspects of this debate is so-called “gender affirming surgeries”, such as mastectomies, and attempts to create “neo-vaginas” and “neo-penises” by using various parts of the patients body. While some trans-identifying individuals will never pursue surgery, an increasing number are. The argument made by some medical professionals is that by performing these surgeries and “affirming” a patient’s gender identity, they are more likely to live happier and healthier lives.

A 2004 review by the University of Birmingham’s aggressive research intelligence facility, or Arif, found the opposite. Arif conducts reviews of health care treatments for the National Health Service. The university conducted a review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative trans patients. The review was conducted after a request from The Guardian which said they spoke with several people who had regrets about gender surgeries or believe they were improperly prepared for their new lives.

The Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility concluded that none of the studies provided conclusive evidence that gender reassignment is beneficial for patients. It found that most research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favor of physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other treatments, such as long-term counseling, might help transsexuals, or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time.

Chris Hyde, the director of the facility at that time said there was huge uncertainty over whether changing someone’s sex is a good or a bad thing”. Hyde said even if surgeries were to be performed only on “appropriate patients” there would still likely be a “large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatized”, some to the point of committing suicide.

Sometimes the surgeries themselves lead to death. For example, a 2016 medical article documents the death of one young adult who used puberty blockers and indicates that puberty suppression played a role in the young person’s death. In this case an 18-year-old trans-identified male whose puberty was blocked by Dutch researchers at a very early stage underwent surgery in an attempt to create a “neo-vagina”. However, due to a lack of tissue, surgeons attempted to use a section of the patient’s bowel, resulting in fatal necrotizing fasciitis.

Unfortunately, within 24 hours of surgery major complications began to arise. After treating the patient with large doses of intravenous antibiotics and repeatedly surgiclly removing dead flesh, the patient — who was initially described as “healthy” — went into multiple organ failure and died.

The researchers do their best to attempt to convince the reader that performing such surgeries are in the best interest of the patient because it MAY improve their standard of living. They write, “Transgender women with early-onset gender dysphoria, treated with puberty suppressing hormones, report fewer behavioral and emotional problems and an improvement of general functioning.”

While this example may seem extreme, the major concern is that these types of procedures are often being done without giving all the data to patients. For example, Swedish investigators involved in the Trans Train documentary acknowledged that despite that nation’s medical guidelines recommending top surgery, the procedures are happening despite a lack of long-term scientific data.

This lack of data, as well as the all-too common failure of medical professionals in divulging this lack of data, prevents patients from being given true informed consent.

The Question of Social Contagion

A 2022 report from the Williams Institute at UCLA’s School of Law shows transgender youth represent a higher portion of the overall transgender population in the United States. The report found that youth ages 13 to 17 are significantly more likely to identify as transgender (1.4%) than adults ages 65 or older (0.3%). The fact that younger children are identifying as trans at a higher rate than previous generations has some critics concerned that social media may be driving or at least reinforcing the concept to confused youth.

The rise in numbers of young adults pursuing gender transition treatment has caused alarm in parents and medical professionals who fear that the increase may not be a genuine reflection of more individuals feeling safe to come out as transgender — which is often the argument — but instead a representation of what is known as a social contagion.

A Social contagion involves behavior, emotions, or conditions spreading spontaneously through a group or network. Some critics point to historical examples of previously unknown conditions being given names and publicized in journals only to lead to an explosion of reported cases. For example, in 1979 British psychologist Gerald Russell first named the eating disorder bulimia nervosa. By the 1990’s an estimated 30 million people were affected by bulimia. Philosopher Ian Hacking calls this ‘semantic contagion’ — the idea that naming and describing a condition creates the means by which the condition spreads.

Those concerned with the rise of individuals identifying as transgender fear that young adults who may have confusion and/or genuine gender dysphoria questions — some of which might subside with time — will now find an online subculture ready to embrace them, and reinforce the idea that their experience is completely normal.

However, to some in the trans community, these questions about the legitimacy of challenging gender identity are in and of themselves a threat to the safety of the trans community. The online LGBTQ community can be intolerant to anyone asking questions about the potential harms of hormones and life altering surgeries.

The online community can be especially hostile towards the group known as detransitioners. That is, individuals who embraced the gender identiy discussion, hormones, and maybe even surgeries, only to regret their actions later. Many of these individuals are suffering life-long physical ailments as a result of their medical interventions.

The Detransitioners

There is a small but quickly growing number of vocal detransitioners who are being recognized for attempting to transition or fully transitioning genders, only to later come to regret the decision. Some of these detransitioners simply stop taking hormones after a short time, while others come to change their mind after going through so-called top and/or bottom surgeries which seek to remove breasts on females and alter the genitalia of a male or female.

One of the most well known detransitioners is a young woman named Chloe Cole. At the age of 12, Chloe began taking puberty blockers and testosterone in the hopes of transitioning to be a male. At age 15, Chloe had a double mastectomy to remove her breasts. Less than a year later she came to regret the decision. She has since become a vocal opponent of giving children access to puberty blockers, hormones, and so-called gender reassignment surgery.

The exact number of detransitioners is hard to obtain because most nations and medical institutions are not tracking long term outcomes after hormones and surgeries. Some estimates claim the number of detransitioners to be at 1%, while others believe the number is likely much higher but not detected because of the stigma and fear of public attacks.

In 2019, investigative journalists in Sweden released Trans Train, the first of several reports examining the nation’s policies around gender affirming care and the potential dangers in recommending such care. The journalists spoke with several detransitioners as part of their investigation.

As the young woman notes, there is often backlash for detransitioners who share their stories as they are accused of giving fuel to opponents of medical procedures for children and other transpeople.

For example, James Caspian, a psychotherapist who specialises in working with transgender people, has faced backlash for proposing research about “detransitioning” to the Bath Spa University in South West England. Caspian was enrolled in a Master of Arts program at the university and sought to document what he says are a rise in numbers of detransitioners. After initially accepting his proposal for research, the university changed their minds and rejected it. Caspian continues to defend his work, even taking his case with Bath Spa University to the European Court of Human Rights. He eventually published his paper independently.

While detransitioners have become an increasingly important point of the gender identity debate, an August 2023 study which surveyed 139 people 2 or more years after mastectomy said participants had “low rates of decisional regret and high levels of satisfaction with decision following gender-affirming mastectomy”. However, the researchers called for further research and “condition-specific instruments to assess decisional regret and satisfaction with decision following gender-affirming surgery”.

The Autism Overlap

Another major area of concern relates to studies highlighting an overlap between those on the autism spectrum and those identifying as transgender.

For example, a February 2022 independent review commissioned by NHS England and NHS Improvement highlighted a number of issues relating to gender identity and gender dysphoria treatments. The review, led by Dr. Hilary Cass, former President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, found that,

“approximately one third of children and young people referred to the U.K.’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) have autism or other types of neurodiversity”.

Additionally, an August 2020 study found that individuals who do not identify with the sex they were assigned at birth are three to six times as likely to be autistic as those who identify with their biological sex. It also found that so-called “gender-diverse” individuals are also more likely to report autism traits and to suspect they have undiagnosed autism. The results come from an analysis of five unrelated databases that all include information about autism, mental health, and gender. The five datasets included 641,860 people; 30,892 with autism and 3,777 identifying as gender diverse.

The researchers explored the relationship between gender identity and six other mental health conditions which can occur simultaneously with autism, including schizophrenia, depression, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The study found that “gender-diverse” people have higher rates of all six conditions than cisgender individuals. The highest reported association was for autism and depression.

The authors concluded:

“Our study demonstrates that transgender and gender-diverse individuals have elevated rates of autism diagnosis, related neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions, and autistic traits compared to cisgender (normal) individuals. This study has clinical implications by highlighting that we need to improve access to care and tailored support for this under-served population.”

So with all this information regarding the lack of long-term safety data for hormones and body alteration surgeries, and detransitioners speaking out to warn others, and signs of a potential social contagion, why does it seem like these aspects of the conversation are not being highlighted by the media, academia, or the medical establishment?

Instead, we see the media, academics, and various medical professions promoting transgender rights regardless of the potential for harmful outcomes.

[stickdog99]

Identity Crisis: Shifting Government Policies

Part 3: Shifting Government Policies

Identity Crisis continues as we examine the recent shift in medical policies regarding Transgender medical interventions

Before we look at the various forces behind the promotion of gender ideology, let’s take a look at how the conversation appears to be shifting across Europe and the United States.

Michael Biggs is not the only researcher to publish papers discussing the flaws in the Dutch Protocol. In January 2023, researchers published the paper “The Myth of “Reliable Research” in Pediatric Gender Medicine: A critical evaluation of the Dutch Studies—and research that has followed” in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. They conclude:

“The question, “Just because we can, should we?” is not unique to pediatric gender medicine. What makes this arena exceptional is the radical, irreversible nature of “gender-affirming” medical and surgical interventions desired by the exponentially growing numbers of youth in the Western world.”

They continue,

“Another unique aspect of the gender medicine field is that a number of clinicians tasked with caring for gender-distressed have taken on the role of political campaigners—and in doing so, have traded wisdom and nuance for blunt activism. Their insistence that today’s gender-dysphoric teens are tomorrow’s transgender adults, and that their future happiness and mere survival hinges on early access to gender reassignment, is demonstrably false. While still reported as “rare” by the gender medicine establishment, the rate of medical detransition is already 10%-30% just a few years following transition. These numbers are likely to rise in the future as regret historically has taken over a decade to materialize”

It is this questioning of the Dutch Protocol which has led several European nations to reverse their “gender affirming” interventions for youth.

Finland was one of the first countries to adopt the Dutch Protocol. However, In 2020 Finland announced they were diverging from recommendations by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and released their own new treatment guidelines advising against the use of puberty blockers and other medical interventions in favor of psychotherapy as the first-line treatment for gender-dysphoric youth. Although Finland did not ban pediatric medical transition, the guidelines urge caution given the unclear nature of the benefits of these interventions. Instead, Finland reserves puberty blocker and cross-sex hormones for minors with early-childhood onset of gender dysphoria and no co-occurring mental health conditions.

Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala, Finland’s top expert on pediatric gender medicine in Finland and the chief psychiatrist at one of its two government-approved pediatric gender clinics, has also spoken out about the rush to gender interventions.

In Sweden, similar actions have been taken. Remember that the Trans Train documentary series focused on the outcome of Sweden’s gender interventions, which have become increasingly common. Due to Sweden’s embrace of gender interventions there is much data on the long-term outcomes. For example, a 2011 study — which has been hailed as one of the most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people — documented the struggles of Swedish trans individuals decades after surgery. The study concluded that ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.

In May 2021, the Karolinska Hospital in Sweden issued a policy statement regarding treatment of gender-dysphoric minors. The hospital said they would be ending the practice of prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to patients under the age of 18 at their Astrid Lindgren Children’s Hospital (ALB). Such treatments would be given only under exceptional circumstances or in a research context. By February 2022, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare announced they would follow the Karolinska’s lead and issued a national policy update closely mirroring the policy adopted by the hospital.

We have also seen changes in recommendations in France, where the National Academy of Medicine recommended “the greatest reserve” in the use of puberty blockers. In Norway a national investigatory board expressed concerns about the treatment.

The UK has also been seeing a shift away from approving of gender interventions for minors. In October 2022, England’s National Health Service announced a move away from the “gender affirmative care model” towads a more holistic care approach. In June 2023, England’s National Health Service announced new limits on the use of puberty blockers for minors except “as part of clinical research”. This interim policy states that “puberty-suppressing hormones (GnRH analogues) are ‘not routinely commissioned’ as there is not enough evidence to support their safety or clinical effectiveness as a routinely available treatment and that they should only be accessed as part of research.” The review said that many children referred to the U.K.’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) health clinic have complex needs that may be overlooked. It noted that about 1 in 3 referred children have neurodiverse mentalities.

This announcement comes after years of scandals involving the GIDS clinic, which is run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, or simply Tavistock. In early 2019, Marcus Evans, one of the governors of Tavistock resigned after accusing management of having an “overvalued belief in” the GIDS clinic “which is used to dismiss challenge and examination”. In 2020, Sue Evans, also of Tavistock, crowdfunded to get a judicial review of the Tavistock’s practices. Sue had been attempting to raise alarm bells in Tavistock since the early 2000s.

Both Susan and Marcus Evans have since become whistleblowers discussing what they witnessed while working for Tavistock. Susan was also involved in a groundbreaking 2019 lawsuit with Tavistock. She sued the trust along with Keira Bell, who began transitioning to male before later detransitioning. The suit alleged that Tavistock provided “potentially misleading” information about hormones and that proper consent was not given. The Guardian also previously reported that “some parents” have accused the service of “fast-tracking” young people into changing gender, a charge strongly rejected by the service.



By September 2020 an independent review, led by Dr Hilary Cass, also called for a “fundamentally different” model of care for children with gender dysphoria. Cass is a pediatrician and former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. The interim report of the Cass Review was published in March 2022. It said that the rise in referrals had led to the staff being overwhelmed, and recommended the creation of a network of regional hubs to provide care and support to young people. The report noted that the clinical approach used by GIDS “has not been subjected to some of the usual control measures” typically applied with new treatments, and raised concerns about the lack of data collection by GIDS.

The Tavistock Clinic is now slated to close in March 2024.

In the United States the political climate surrounding gender identity issues and trans individuals has become increasingly hostile and divided. Several states have passed or attempted to pass bills which would limit access to gender transition surgeries, puberty blockers, and/or hormones.

When it comes to gender surgeries and hormones, the U.S. government has made a couple statements regarding safety. In July 2022, a warning was added to puberty blockers after identifying a serious potential side effect for some that may cause a dangerous surge of spinal fluid pressure in the brain, that can cause headaches, nausea, double vision, and even permanent vision loss.

In 2016, during the Obama Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services considered whether sex reassignment surgery would have to be covered by Medicare plans. Despite receiving a request that its coverage be mandated, it refused to do so, citing a lack of evidence it would benefit patients.

A June 2016 “Proposed Decision Memo for Gender Dysphoria and Gender Reassignment Surgery” states:

Based on a thorough review of the clinical evidence available at this time, there is not enough evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with gender dysphoria. There were conflicting (inconsistent) study results—of the best designed studies, some reported benefits while others reported harms. The quality and strength of evidence were low due to the mostly observational study designs with no comparison groups, potential confounding, and small sample sizes. Many studies that reported positive outcomes were exploratory type studies (case-series and case-control) with no confirmatory follow-up.

The final August 2016 memo is even more strongly worded:

Overall, the quality and strength of evidence were low due to mostly observational study designs with no comparison groups, subjective endpoints, potential confounding (a situation where the association between the intervention and outcome is influenced by another factor such as a co-intervention), small sample sizes, lack of validated assessment tools, and considerable lost to follow-up.

[stickdog99]

Identity Crisis: The Network Behind Gender Identity Ideology

In the final sections of this series we will examine the claim made by critics who believe we are witnessing a push to divide the public using the gender identity issue, specifically by promoting a narrative that transgender people and gender identity questions are much more prevalent than they actually are.

An exhaustive list of those promoting and benefiting financially from the various industries involved in transgender health services would include everyone from endocrinologists and surgeons, pharmaceutical companies producing hormones and puberty blockers, and various non-profits and foundations. We have named a few of the players in this brief 4-part series.

Strangely enough, some of the highly educated doctors appear to have convinced themselves what they are doing is genuinely for the health of the patient. In the Swedish documentary Trans Train Doctor Olle Soder is interviewed about his work as an endocrinologist at Karolinska University Hospital. When discussing why he prescribed patients hormones and other treatments while knowing the potential consequences he said, “you must weigh the suffering the patients would go through without that treatment”. He also acknowledges he was giving out hormones without follow up on the long-term effects before lamenting, “well, these people are suffering and they are asking for help.”

We also have the case of Dr. Deanna Adkins, a professor at Duke University School of Medicine and the director of the Duke Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care. Dr. Adkins provided an expert testimony to a federal district court in North Carolina concerning a state law governing access to sex-specific restrooms. In her testimony, Dr. Adkins contradicted accepted biology and revealed an ideological bent by stating, “From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity.” Dr. Adkins argued that gender identity is the preferred basis for determining the sex of an individual and “the only medically supported determinant of sex.” Adkins also claimed it was “counter to medical science” to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia to override someone’s chosen gender identity.

When examining the various players involved in the promotion of transgender treatments we ought to distinguish between those who are benefiting financially from providing various health interventions to adults and children, and those who are benefiting from the promotion of transgender ideology itself. I believe these groups are separate but also occasionally their paths overlap. Both are involved in normalizing these dangerous procedures but their motivations and goals appear different.

For example, a doctor diagnosing a young adult with gender dysphoria may be genuinely stating their medical opinion without a bias or ideological motivation. At the same time, you also have teachers, parents, or family friends who may be motivated by an ideology that says gender is fluid, or — a term I am hearing more recently — gender-expansive. This distinction matters because the idea that every individual involved in the gender dysphoria-to-transgender pipeline is ideologically motivated is not currently supported by the evidence.

As noted with Dr. Deanna Adkins, there are examples of individuals within the medical industry (and non-profits focused on LGBTQ healthcare) who do have ideological reasons for promoting gender transition services, but this does not account for everyone who is a part of the broader conversation. Some of these individuals may be well-meaning compassionate people who support the general message of equality, inclusion, and fairness for all people without understanding the health concerns and dangers we have uncovered in this series.

In the United States the transgender ideology is most visible within Hollywood celebrities, pop culture musicians, social media influencers, and legacy mainstream media. Again, some of these people might be more passive supporters than diehard ideologues who want to destroy the concept of gender for various political reasons. Others, especially corporations, are likely following trends because they know what is profitable and they want to appear compassionate. The top executives within those corporations may also be ideologically motivated as well.

We also have pop culture science magazines like Scientific American getting involved in blurring the lines between gender and sex. The magazine published an opinion piece written by Agustín Fuentes, professor of anthropology at Princeton University, titled “Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary: Ova don’t make a woman, and sperm don’t make a man”. This piece is just one of hundreds of reports, blogs, and political essays describing themselves as news which can be found across the media landscape.

To be clear, I believe we should question and interrogate ideas surrounding gender roles. I do not subscribe to the idea that all women should be stay-at-home moms, raising the children while their husband provides financially. I also don’t subscribe to the idea that there is anything inherently wrong with such an arrangement. We shouldn’t be stuck in the idea that all boys should wear blue and all girls pink, but we also shouldn’t punish anyone who wants to subscribe to “traditional” gender roles. The point is that while there are legitimate questions and conversations to have regarding gender and sex, the discussion has been hijacked by a well-financed, decentralized network of ideologues who want to destroy the concept of gender altogether.

The Corporate Agenda

Environmental activist and researcher Jennifer Bilek has done some of the most extensive research looking at the corporate forces behind Transgender ideology. She says she began researching the groups behind the movement after she was deplatformed in 2013. She writes:

“I have watched as all-women’s safe spaces, universities, and sports opened their doors to any man who chose to identify as a woman. Whereas men who identify as transwomen are at the forefront of this project, women who identify as transmen seem silent and invisible. I was astonished that such a huge cultural change as the opening of sex-protected spaces was happening at such a meteoric pace and without consideration for women and girls’ safety, deliberation, or public debate.”

Bilek goes on to identify the billionaires who she sees as the major players who fund the transgender lobby and various organizations via their own philanthropic outfits and corporations. This includes Jennifer Pritzker, a male who identifies as transgender; George Soros; Martine Rothblatt, a male who identifies as transgender and transhumanist; Tim Gill, a gay man; Drummond Pike; Warren and Peter Buffett; Jon Stryker, a gay man; Mark Bonham, a gay man; and Ric Weiland, a deceased gay man whose philanthropy is LGBTQ focused.

Bilek as highlights how some donors use anonymous funding organizations such as Tides Foundation, founded and operated by Drummon Pike. This allows corporations, philanthropists, and other organizations to send huge amounts of money to Tides with instructions on where it should go. All of this is done anonymously using the Tides Foundation’s “legal firewall and tax shelter” for foundations while funding political campaigns.

This influx of funds led to the first gender clinic for children opening in Boston in 2007. In the decade since that clinic opened, more than 30 clinics for children alleged to have gender dysphoria opened in the U.S. alone.

However, as noted above/before, there is a difference between those who are simply funding the advance of transgender care and those who are funding these efforts because of a support of transgender ideology. As Jennifer Bilek writes, “They are shaping the narrative about transgenderism and normalizing it within the culture using their funding methods. This can hardly be a coincidence when the very thing absolutely essential to those transitioning are pharmaceuticals and technology.”

One of the culprits responsible for advancing this ideology is the Pritzker family. The Pritzkers are an American family of philanthropic billionaires with an approximate worth of $29 billion. The Pritzker family fortune comes from the Hyatt Hotels, nursing homes, and various investments in the medical industrial complex.

Leading the Pritzker family is Jennifer Pritzker, a male at birth who now identifies as transgender. Jennifer is funding transgender causes with philanthropic funding through their Tawani Foundation. Bilek describes Pritzker as “one of the largest contributors to transgender causes” who has had “enormous influence in the rapid institutionalization of transgenderism”.

Organizations owned and funded by Pritzker include Squadron Capital, an acquisitions corporation, with a focus on medical technology, medical devices, and orthopedic implants, and the Tawani Foundation, a philanthropic organization with a grants focus on gender & human sexuality. Pritzker also sits on the leadership council of the Program of Human Sexuality at the University of Minnesota, where she committed more than $6.5 million since the late 2010’s. Pritzker also funds the Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, a medical center for gender non-conforming children; the Pritzker School of Medicine at the University of Chicago; a chair of transgender studies at the University of Victoria; and the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies at the University of Toronto.

Pritzker and family are also involved in funding the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood, two of the organizations most responsible for supporting transgender causes.

As Corey’s Digs notes in part 3 of her 4-part series on the Transgender movement,

“One of the biggest organizations the government funds is Planned Parenthood. Coincidentally, Planned Parenthood is now the second largest provider of ‘gender-affirming’ hormone therapy. From 2016 to 2017, they received $543.7 million in funds from all levels of government. From 2013 to 2015 they received $1.5 billion in federal program funds. $1.2 billion was from Medicaid, and $289 million came from six separate departments within our government.”

Bilek notes that Pritzker gives to universities which are “beholden” to transgender ideology and whose “students go on to spread gender ideology by writing pro-trans articles in medical journals and elsewhere”. Jennifer’s uncle and aunt, John and Lisa Pritzker, also gave $25 million to the University of California at San Francisco for a center of children’s psychiatry.

The Pritzker family’s efforts to advance transgender ideology is helped by Penny Pritzker, cousin of Jennifer, and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, brother of Penny, both major sources of funding for the transgender movement. Jennifer Bilek also points to Jeanne Pritzker, who is married to J.B.’s brother Anthony, Jennifer Pritzker’s cousin, and a training psychologist at UCLA where she and her husband established the Anthony and Jeanne Pritzker Family Scholarship to support medical students at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine.

In his role as Governor since 2019, J.B. Pritzker has rapidly advanced support for transgender policies. On June 30, 2019, Governor Pritzker issued Executive Order 19-11, titled Strengthening Our Commitment to Affirming and Inclusive Schools, to welcome and support gender dysphoric children. A task force was launched to pressure school districts to amend their school board policies “to strengthen protections for transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students.” Governor Pritzker also signed a new sex education bill for all public schools in Illinois in August 2021.

In addition to funding for pharmaceutical companies such as Janssen Therapeutics, the health foundation of a Johnson and Johnson founder, Viiv, Pfizer, Abbott Laboratories, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Big Tech firms are also funding the transgender movement, including Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Intel, Dell, and IBM.

Bilek’s research notes the presence of Martine Rothblatt, author of “From Trangender to Transhuman: a Manifesto on the Freedom of Form”. A future installment of this investigation will fully flesh out the overlap between those with transgender ideological beliefs and those who support transhumanism, the idea that humans can evolve beyond gender and other apparent human limitations altogether by merging with digital technology.

As we wrap this investigation I want to remind readers that our goal here is not to offend, divide, or fuel hatred. I have made the effort to conduct this research and share my findings because I believe this is one of the most important conversations that needs to be had with young people who are likely to hear about transgender people and gender questions via the corporate media, public schooling, and, of course, social media.

If we can’t have an honest discussion about the potential pitfalls of medical treatments and surgeries, we will not get to a place of real understanding.

I encourage everyone who has concerns on any side of this discussion to practice empathy, and compassion, and do your best not to forget the human beings involved in this complex situation. Only from that place can we build towards the truth.

[Grizzly]

SHOCKING MOMENT: John Kennedy Reads Graphic Quotes From Childrens' Books At Senate Hearing

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Haven't had the time or inclination to click through recent replies on other threads but am logging in briefly now to add (what I believe is) a noteworthy update to this thread topic.

The 10 most popular NYT reader comments to the piece on detransitioners and the harms of "gender-affirming care" today:

1. "I predict we will look back on this period with the same disgust we feel about the overprescription of amphetamines like Adderall to every 8-year-old boy who couldn't sit still for an entire day. The most damage is often done by doctors and parents who are so well-meaning that they cease to think critically."

2. "Thank you for presenting a non-polarized view of this complex issue. Having been a 13 year old, I have a dim view of the enduring wisdom of decisions made at that age."

3. "Thank you for publishing this. The conversation across liberal media has been too one-sided and has caused real harm for some. This is a very very complex issue. We can't ignore how lucrative this has been for the medical complex."

4. "Isn’t being 'uncomfortable' part of being a teenager? There are transgender people, but I’m skeptical that the massive upswing in those that think they are transgender is the reality."

5. "This is an incredibly important story - THANK YOU for bringing this conversation to light. The lack of space for thoughtful, left leaning people to debate this issue is terribly harmful. We need to be able to talk about this and ask questions without being labeled as being transphobic. The push for young people to disown their families as part and parcel of their journey towards transitioning is devastating for families but mostly for the individuals themselves in the long run. So, I say YES to open, calm, healthy conversations and lots of questions. NO to illiberal name calling from the left and the right."

6. "Thank you, Ms. Paul, for your thoughtful column. No doubt you and the NY Times will be accused of being transphobic again. Any healthy movement and community should be able to engage in critical dialogue rather than shutting down conversations by labelling others as hateful or phobic. I have taught health care workers to give compassionate care to older transgender adults and as a wedding officiant, I have served couples where one or both identify as transgender. Yet when I have written about misogyny or concerns about women's spaces, I have been dismissed as a TERF. With kids, I have three primary areas of concern. Since the vast majority of kids seeking to transition are girls, I ask why are girls so unhappy? Do they feel so disempowered that they think they would be better off as boys? How are we failing to teach girls to love themselves? Second, the medical industry is a highly profitable one. We should question the motives from medical providers and big pharma. Third, is this movement for kids to make them heteronormative? I know lesbian and gay activists who are concerned that transitioning is the new conversion therapy. If a girl is attracted to other girls, is she encouraged to transition rather than to be a lesbian? I was always suspicious of the pink and blue flag--the gender conforming colors. I believe in equality for transgender adults and I also believe this recent phenomenon with kids should be examined more deeply."

7. "I am a seasoned clinical psychologist. 20 years ago, if someone expressed discomfort with their gender and sought what was called medical "reassignment", standard treatment involved two years of psychotherapy with a gender dysphoria psychologist, including 6 months of living as the desired gender. Clinicians looked for evidence that the gender dysphoria was "persistent and consistent" and the person "insistent" about it, usually from early childhood. One might argue with the time frame for treatment, but it took very seriously both the patient's feelings and the life-long changes that the desired treatment would bring. Now, at least one highly respected health care organizations in my city prescribe hormones to adolescents 16+ and adults upon request. Here's a quote from their website: "In most cases your clinician will be able to prescribe hormones the same day as your first visit. No letter from a mental health provider is required." Imagine going to your MD and saying "I have diabetes and need medication" and the response was "I believe you - here's your insulin". Would anyone consider this medical care? I would consider this medical malpractice."

8. "'To the trans activist dictum that children know their gender best, it is important to add something all parents know from experience: Children change their minds all the time.'" The fact that children change their minds all the time is one of the oldest insights of psychology. Yet the transgender movement totally leaves it out of their calculus. Both right-wing and left-wing thought are absolutely certain about way too much. Beware of both."

9. "This is an excellent piece. I grew up in the 70s and 80s when very few people questioned their gender but there was a lot of freedom around expression - especially for women. Young people today seem to have lost that - if you don't fit the strictly feminine or masculine then you must be trans or non-binary. We need to re-expand our gender roles."

10. "'I felt so detached from my body, and the way it was developing felt hostile to me,' Powell told me. It was classic gender dysphoria, a feeling of discomfort with your sex.' This is how a large number of kids feel when going through puberty, as their body is uncomfortable due to rapid changes. Assuming that feeling uncomfortable while going through puberty is "classic gender dysphoria" is a mistake. That may be one symptom, but it must be one of many, not the only or even primary symptom."

https://x.com/LeorSapir/status/1753491809454440587?s=20

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/opin ... horia.html

OPINION

PAMELA PAUL

As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do.
Feb. 2, 2024

[Elvis]

Does anyone here know any trans people in real life?

[Belligerent Savant]

.
In the first 2 or so pages of this thread I believe there are a few RIers that indicated knowing or having family members that identify as trans.
Growing up in NYC and as a former bartender in the restaurant/nightlife scene in the 90s/very early 00s, I met, worked with and befriended many individuals across the spectrum of gender fluidity, though they were all adults.
I know one teenager right now that identifies as trans but am not in a position to be privy to their parent’s or their own personal views/actions Re: hormone drugs or surgery.

The core issue here of late is the pushing of ‘trans’ - related ‘therapies’ (drugs with non-mild, long-term side effects, surgery that removes body parts, or attempts to append non-functional 'sex organs'* to a still-growing/developing body, etc) on teens/tweens/"kids", by social media influencers, related algorithms, pharma companies, hospitals, politicians, and other orgs/entities (legitimate or otherwise), all unprecedented -- and in my view at least, highly unethical, for a variety of reasons -- compared to earlier years. It's a form of child abuse, minimally. There are a number of alternative, far less intrusive ways to handle gender dysphoria in teens/tweens that don't involve long-term damage/harm to [very young] persons still in development.

*the 'sex organs' are created via skin grafts extracted from the patient, patched together and then attached to resemble a sex organ. Future generations will broadly see this for what it is. Today, among certain circles this is referred to as a form of 'care'. Post-satire world.

It may be helpful to re-read the first few pages of this thread as a refresher and more detailed context Re: the issues in contention on this topic.

In the meantime, an addendum to the prior NYT piece above —

@LeorSapir

NYT’s Pamela Paul has a good follow up to her piece from Friday on detransitioners. We don’t know the current rate of regret and detransition.

Kudos to Paul for showing curiosity about the reliability of studies that are said to show an extremely low regret rate. She links to a critique of the widely cited Bustos systematic review of regret following surgery, which misleadingly claims to show the rate is <1%.

This is what journalists reporting on this issue must do. The bigger story here is the dysfunction of scientific institutions, including peer-reviewed medical journals.

https://x.com/LeorSapir/status/1754835117426504005?s=20