• With the events that occured on July 13th, 2024, a reminder that posts wishing that the attempt was successful will not be tolerated. Regardless of political affiliation, at no point is any type of post wishing death on someone is allowed and will be actioned appropriately by CF Staff.

  • Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

New Study Shows Puberty Blockers May Cause Permanent Harm

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
24,739
7,189
64
✟370,917.00
Faith
Pentecostal
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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
24,739
7,189
64
✟370,917.00
Faith
Pentecostal
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.
Do you have any evidence that they were incorrect?
I include so-called puberty blockers, whose purpose is to allow patients to make a more informed decision later
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?
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
24,739
7,189
64
✟370,917.00
Faith
Pentecostal
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.
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkSB
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,618
3,116
Worcestershire
✟195,688.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review recommends extreme caution.
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.
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Feb 10, 2013
22,208
13,284
29
Nebraska
✟337,591.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

IceJad

Regular Member
May 23, 2005
2,102
1,366
41
✟121,774.00
Country
Malaysia
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single

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.

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.
 
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,618
3,116
Worcestershire
✟195,688.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Feb 10, 2013
22,208
13,284
29
Nebraska
✟337,591.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,618
3,116
Worcestershire
✟195,688.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
25,733
15,470
Here
✟1,316,129.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,618
3,116
Worcestershire
✟195,688.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What would your thoughts be on charging elevated premiums for people who wish to pursue that path long-term?
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.
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Feb 10, 2013
22,208
13,284
29
Nebraska
✟337,591.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
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.
It’s not doctrinal, it’s biology. That’s science.
 
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,618
3,116
Worcestershire
✟195,688.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It’s not doctrinal, it’s biology. That’s science.
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.
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Feb 10, 2013
22,208
13,284
29
Nebraska
✟337,591.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,618
3,116
Worcestershire
✟195,688.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Feb 10, 2013
22,208
13,284
29
Nebraska
✟337,591.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
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.
It must be further researched and I have nothing more to add.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
25,733
15,470
Here
✟1,316,129.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
19,670
12,297
Earth
✟185,296.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
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.
They’re “fixing them wrong”?
Okay.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
24,739
7,189
64
✟370,917.00
Faith
Pentecostal
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.
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.
 
Upvote 0