New Study Shows Puberty Blockers May Cause Permanent Harm

Whyayeman said:

I agree that there is a potential for harm by getting it wrong. I think that is why Professor Grossman advocates a professional clinical approach. These are not sweeties to be handed out on the whim of an adolescent.

That is not the same as a ban.

Click to expand...

What's wrong with a ban? A clinical approach would necessarily mean a recognition these are absolutely dangerous drugs and they shouldn't be used except under the rarest clinical circumstances. They are experimental at this stage and there isn't any evidence that these drugs actually help. That's why other countries have stopped using them except in the rarest of circumstances in clinical trials in a clinical situation. In other words every gender clinic that deals with children should be shut down
Only a experimental research clinic would be opened and kids would have to apply to be accepted into an experimental research program.

Are you good with that? If so we have no issues.

Whyayeman said:

Ah, the Daily Mail (on-line version), reliably slanted to fit that paper's anti-woke agenda!

Having life-changing consequences is the purpose of these drugs.. Professor Grossman advocates a properly clinical approach. That is why the professor warns that should not be used routinely.

Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that they were incorrect?

Whyayeman said:

I include so-called puberty blockers, whose purpose is to allow patients to make a more informed decision later

Click to expand...

This is completely false. There is NO reliable evidence that puberty blockers have anything to do with decisions that happen later.

By the way, what's later? A month? Three months? Five years?

Whyayeman said:

These cases are all very recent. Have any reached a conclusion? Until they do they are merely allegations and not evidence in support of your claim.

Click to expand...

Are you denying there are side effects? What exactly are you denying here?

Whyayeman said:

These cases are all very recent. Have any reached a conclusion? Until they do they are merely allegations and not evidence in support of your claim.

Click to expand...

The Cass report is pretty clear on the subject of puberty blockers and the transitioning of kids. The UK has left the the US behind. Hopefully we'll catch up to the rest of the world.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/cass-report-youth-gender-medicine/678031/

The Cass report says kids need a clinical approach. What does this mean exactly. Here's some information from the report.

While a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.

The strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base on the care of children and young people are often misrepresented and overstated, both in scientific publications and social debate.

The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.

The use of masculinising / feminising hormones in those under the age of 18 also presents many unknowns, despite their longstanding use in the adult transgender population. The lack of long-term follow-up data on those commencing treatment at an earlier age means we have inadequate information about the range of outcomes for this group.

Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.

For most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems.

The puberty blocker trial previously announced by NHS England should be part of a programme of research which also evaluates outcomes of psychosocial interventions and masculinising/ feminising hormones.

The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review recommends extreme caution. There should be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18. Every case considered for medical treatment should be discussed at a national Multi- Disciplinary Team (MDT).


All these things are NOT being done in the US. Should they be?

rjs330 said:

The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review recommends extreme caution.

Click to expand...

Of course. Nobody is arguing for recklessness.

One problem with a total ban is its over-simplification of a complex issue. It puts a specific viewpoint before the personal welfare of very unhappy young people. All cases are about individuals and this blanket ban cannot address them.

Whyayeman said:

Of course. Nobody is arguing for recklessness.

One problem with a total ban is its over-simplification of a complex issue. It puts a specific viewpoint before the personal welfare of very unhappy young people. All cases are about individuals and this blanket ban cannot address them.

Click to expand...

The whole issue with gender dysphasia isn’t that simple though. Even after “transitioning” many of those trans individuals are still deeply unhappy and have suicidal ideation. The bigger issue must be addressed.

Permanently changing someone’s body just because of their feelings helps no one.

Ana the Ist said:

Top experts call for sea change to treating transgender kids

'Studies have shown that there is no good evidence for the routine use of puberty blockers,' Oxford University endocrinologist Ashley Grossman said ahead of the release of long-awaited UK review.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Who would have thought that blocking the natural development of children would have significant lifelong consequences?

That study, and Professor Grossman's comments, bring into question the 'reversibility' of puberty blockers — a key claim of the trans campaigners who promote the drugs and say they 'pause' puberty and buy time for trans kids to make decisions about their gender.

I have to wonder if parents are ever told that these drugs are completely experimental and have never been used to treat "gender dysphoria"....and now they know, that long term use can sterilize children. Remarkable.

WPATH recommended this stuff...and that's why trans activists shouldn't be devising their own treatments.

Thoughts?

Edit-this study has yet to be peer reviewed.

Click to expand...

I think the majority of the people knew it even if they are not scientifically inclined. Yet the people who promoted it did it because of a believe system. They care little of the sciences and millenniums of human evolutionary process. They care only about the social aspect of it.

Trying to correct nature's way in vain they attempt to seek "justice". Not justice for the gender dysphoria individuals mind you. But a more self serving justice - the emotional high of self righteous justice.

How many of them stayed to take responsibility for those who detransitioned? How many of them came forward to say an apology to their victims? After robbing the children of their full potential in life, many of these advocates instead turned on the detransitioners. Branding them traitors to the cause. I have heard enough testimonies from the detransitioners to see the cause itself is the end goal. The people exist only to serve the cause.

RileyG said:

The whole issue with gender dysphasia isn’t that simple though. Even after “transitioning” many of those trans individuals are still deeply unhappy and have suicidal ideation. The bigger issue must be addressed.

Permanently changing someone’s body just because of their feelings helps no one.

Click to expand...

I have just pointed out that the issue is complex. A sex change affects nobody but the individual patients and is a matter for them, their medical advisors and no-one else.

You state that many people are still unhappy after a sex change; I am sure you are right. I believe that there are many more whose lives are greatly enhanced by inhabiting a body more in line with their inner selves. That aspect of the discussion is rarely mentioned.

I think that many people who are opposed to sex change procedures are opposed on confected moral or religious grounds and care nothing for the personal well-being or happiness of the only people concerned - the patients.

Whyayeman said:

I have just pointed out that the issue is complex. A sex change affects nobody but the individual patients and is a matter for them, their medical advisors and no-one else.

You state that many people are still unhappy after a sex change; I am sure you are right. I believe that there are many more whose lives are greatly enhanced by inhabiting a body more in line with their inner selves. That aspect of the discussion is rarely mentioned.

I think that many people who are opposed to sex change procedures are opposed on confected moral or religious grounds and care nothing for the personal well-being or happiness of the only people concerned - the patients.

Click to expand...

Here’s the thing, there is no such thing as a sex change. It’s not possible to change your sex. It’s only cosmetic surgery with a mutilated body. It’s vanity, if anything.

RileyG said:

Here’s the thing, there is no such thing as a sex change. It’s not possible to change your sex. It’s only cosmetic surgery with a mutilated body. It’s vanity, if anything.

Click to expand...

I am not concerned about doctrinal arguments about gender, only the alleviation of suffering. That is always the aim of the psychiatrists, surgeons and others involved in reassignment.

It may be 'only cosmetic' to you but to the people involved this is not a trivial matter.

Whyayeman said:

I have just pointed out that the issue is complex. A sex change affects nobody but the individual patients and is a matter for them, their medical advisors and no-one else.

Click to expand...

What would your thoughts be on charging elevated premiums for people who wish to pursue that path long-term?

As I noted before, part from the risks of the puberty blockers (which people tend to either over or under exaggerate based on their angle), the life long maintenance drugs/hormones that need to be taken have just as much of an association with elevated cardiovascular and cancer risks as smoking. Which is why they have special medical provisions and recommendations that go along with it.


As long as healthcare is something we're all chipping in on (either directly by a single payer method, or in a pooled fashion via private insurance), to say that "it only has an effect on the person themselves" isn't exactly true.

We definitely need more guardrails around the process.

Prominent organizations who operate in this space (and not just random rogue clinics) have implemented some rather concerning protocols surrounding it.

This next part will sound like something from a Babylon Bee satire article, but it's legit.

Several large organizations who operate in this space have adopted a protocol they call FASST (First Assessment Single Session Triage) where they're making some pretty big determinations about whether or not someone is a good candidate for "moving forward with the process" based on a relatively short interaction.


And some have even extended that protocol to include dispensing hormones on the first visit.

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.

A large clinic in Oregon states on their website
"Timeline: You can often begin hormone therapy within a few weeks of your first visit"

Boston's clinic (the one that was at the center of quite a bit of controversy) website used to state:
In many cases the clinician will be able to prescribe hormones the same day as your first visit.
(they've since removed it, but it's viewable via the wayback machine)


At the Children's gender clinic in Cincinnati (the 4th largest in the nation), they had the spotlight due to a court case where, despite the judge siding with the teen over their parents (and ruling that the affirmation process can move forward), expressed concern about the fact that 100% of the patients that have gone there have been deemed "good candidates for gender affirming care"... which should raise eyebrows any clinic regardless of what it specializes in. If an orthopedic surgeon was deeming 100% of people who walked through the door as a good candidate for back surgery, people would be watching them closely and understandably suspicious.


As long as some places are fast-tracking these processes, and many people are advocating for these interventions to be taxpayer and/or insurance funded, I think that while people generally aren't entitled to have a buy in on every individual case, they at least get to have a buy-in on the overall procedural approach.

ThatRobGuy said:

What would your thoughts be on charging elevated premiums for people who wish to pursue that path long-term?

Click to expand...

This does not apply in the UK. We have a National Health Service.

None of the therapy is extraordinarily expensive - certainly not comparable to major surgical interventions or serious injury after accidents. In any case this discussion is not about money.

I am, of course, against money-grubbing clinical practices which ignore proper concerns for patient welfare. What I am arguing for is a responsible and compassionate service for people suffering from gender dysphoria. So-called puberty blockers should be dispensed with care and after proper consideration. I do not defend or approve of any clinical practices which ignore proper procedures.

Whyayeman said:

I am not concerned about doctrinal arguments about gender, only the alleviation of suffering. That is always the aim of the psychiatrists, surgeons and others involved in reassignment.

It may be 'only cosmetic' to you but to the people involved this is not a trivial matter.

Click to expand...

It’s not doctrinal, it’s biology. That’s science.

RileyG said:

It’s not doctrinal, it’s biology. That’s science.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Gender dysphoria is demonstrably real. That is science too, but fits in less well with the doctrine. But that issue is not as important as the real suffering of actual people seeking help.

These patients encounter the resistance of people who are antipathetic to gender reassignment as a matter of principle. There is a crowd of people who are deciding on their behalf what is right for them according to their own belief, without a thought for their well-being.

Whyayeman said:

I disagree. Gender dysphoria is demonstrably real. That is science too, but fits in less well with the doctrine. But that issue is not as important as the real suffering of actual people seeking help.

These patients encounter the resistance of people who are antipathetic to gender reassignment as a matter of principle. There is a crowd of people who are deciding on their behalf what is right for them according to their own belief, without a thought for their well-being.

Click to expand...

I never said gender dysphoria isn’t real, rather it’s much more complicated than getting surgery and hormones and expect everything will be ok.

RileyG said:

I never said gender dysphoria isn’t real, rather it’s much more complicated than getting surgery and hormones and expect everything will be ok.

Click to expand...

That is close to what I have said; it is a complex issue requiring professional judgments.

Many people have benefited from therapies. That is why I deprecate those here and elsewhere who oppose therapies on principle. The argument based on biological sex being fixed and immutable is irrelevant to the real issue - the successful treatment of individual suffering.

Whyayeman said:

That is close to what I have said; it is a complex issue requiring professional judgments.

Many people have benefited from therapies. That is why I deprecate those here and elsewhere who oppose therapies on principle. The argument based on biological sex being fixed and immutable is irrelevant to the real issue - the successful treatment of individual suffering.

Click to expand...

It must be further researched and I have nothing more to add.

Whyayeman said:

This does not apply in the UK. We have a National Health Service.

None of the therapy is extraordinarily expensive - certainly not comparable to major surgical interventions or serious injury after accidents. In any case this discussion is not about money.

I am, of course, against money-grubbing clinical practices which ignore proper concerns for patient welfare. What I am arguing for is a responsible and compassionate service for people suffering from gender dysphoria. So-called puberty blockers should be dispensed with care and after proper consideration. I do not defend or approve of any clinical practices which ignore proper procedures.

Click to expand...

The pills and interventions themselves maybe cheap, but the long term effects they can cause may not be.

You can get 90 tablets of generic Vicodin for $8, but if it's doled out irresponsibly, the long terms costs will be something much greater.


It's good to be against money grubbing practices and that's the sensible approach most should take...

However here in the US, it's become a scenario in which people say "I don't want these things done willy nilly, I just want responsible and thoughtful patient care", yet, any criticism of the aforementioned ends up getting countered with an accusation of being a "bible thumping transphobe"

For the record, I have no issues with a person pursuing this line of treatment if they're old enough to fully understand the ramifications of the pros and cons of what they're doing. I'm also pragmatic enough to say that 13-15 year old are fickle, fad-driven, and have a built-in rebellion mechanism that dictates that you should do whatever you can to shock and offend the "boring people who raised you". That has to be factored into the equation as two things can be true at the same time.

For instance, there can be a 14 year old who's genuinely suicidal and says they're going to kill themselves, and there can be a 14 year old who's saying that just because they're going through a "Goth Phase" where it's "cool" among their social circle to project that kind of persona. The adults in the room need to be smart enough to be able to tell the difference, and it's not doing anyone any favors when, for political reasons, adults give both equal legitimacy due to mental health professionals either feeling the need to walk on eggshells, or injecting their own biases into the mix.


However, if you had to venture a guess... If I went to Berkeley or some other progressive college campus and said "No, I don't think 10 years olds should be making these types of decisions, many will grow out of it, and we shouldn't be leaving major life-altering decisions solely up to individuals so young that they think they're going to be astronaut or princess when they grow up"... how do you think that would be received?

If people don't recognize that identifying as anything than other than "a boring ol cis-straight person" has a certain level of rebellious coolness attached to it in our current culture, then they haven't been paying attention, or have forgotten their time as an adolescent.

RileyG said:

I never said gender dysphoria isn’t real, rather it’s much more complicated than getting surgery and hormones and expect everything will be ok.

Click to expand...

They’re “fixing them wrong”?
Okay.

Whyayeman said:

Of course. Nobody is arguing for recklessness.

One problem with a total ban is its over-simplification of a complex issue. It puts a specific viewpoint before the personal welfare of very unhappy young people. All cases are about individuals and this blanket ban cannot address them.

Click to expand...

Actually it's not true. Extreme recklessness is what's been going on.
Why even the WPATH files showed that.
Why do you think this has become a big deal? Because due care and extreme caution has been going in? No it's because it's been recklessness.

A complete ban is needed in the US until we get a grip on it like other places gave done. Apparently it's the only way to stop it at this point.