Conversion Therapy and a Survey of 25,896 LGBTQ youth

Thanks OldCrone. I was just reading one of the links posted by another poster on another thread and remembered Dr Steensma's recent clarification on this.

And was reminded to that Dr Will Malone posted this link too.

This is a good balancing article from a group of gender specialist clinicians who are very worried about the push for affirming only treatment from around the world.

www.segm.org/danger_of_conflation

I would suggest Shizuku in the name of balance, might like to read this. It does discuss treatment options in relation to suicide risk and mental health.

Here is a couple of paragraphs:

Without a doubt, attempts to force a change in one’s gender identity have no place in the field of mental health. Yet, we have been growing increasingly concerned with the conflation of ethical psychotherapy for gender dysphoria with conversion therapy. The study authors erased the critical lines that separate coercive and unethical attempts of conversion from ethical psychotherapy. Our analysis also revealed a number of serious methodological flaws and misinterpretations of the data that invalidate the study conclusions. In fact, the study provides no credible evidence that either psychological distress or suicide attempts (which are present at elevated rates in gender dysphoric individuals), are a result of ethical psychotherapy.

The authors also fail to reflect on their own key finding—the high prevalence of serious uncontrolled mental illness in the study subjects who recalled “GICE” efforts. The fact that gender dysphoric people continue to struggle with a significant burden of mental illness, both pre- and post-transition, has been documented consistently across a range of studies, and this finding in itself calls for more emphasis on the provision of quality mental health services for this population.

link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-020-01844-2.pdf

It pretty much sums things nicely though.

ETHICAL psychotherapy vs coercive and unethical attempts of conversion.

So, thanks OP for providing us the opportunity to pull together some interesting balancing counterviews for us all to read.

And to discuss what may be the potential motivations behind each perspective. I know that the readers of these threads appreciate having this information and seeing how the different perspectives are presented and supported.

Thanks for the links oldcrone.

twitter.com/will_malone/status/1366825810951213057

Dr. Thomas Steensma, who helped develop and implement the “Dutch Protocol” (the interventions of puberty blockers, followed by cross-sex-hormones), has made a series of public statements that under normal situations would be self-evident to most medical professionals:/1

He asks: “Where does the large flow of children come from who have suddenly registered for transgender care since 2013? And what is the quality of life like for this group long after sex change? There is no answer to those questions.” /2

This follows commentary by Dr. Annelou de Vries (part of the same Dutch Protocol collaborative), reminding us that adolescents with recent-onset gender dysphoria (no childhood history of dysphoria) were not part of their study protocol./7

She writes that given uncertainties about outcomes in late presenters with no childhood history of dysphoria, there should be a renewed focus on psychological support, as hormones and surgeries may not be appropriate. /8

There are some links on the thread to an article about Steensma (in Dutch) as well as some papers which are relevant to this thread.

The Danger of Conflating Ethical Psychotherapy with Conversion Therapy

There clearly is scope for pharmacists to refuse to dispense. This needs tightening up.

Hopefully this abusive practice will get closed down soon, where gender gp seek to get round government policies by abusing this loophole.

Yes they can get them privately. Gender gp use a loophole in the law by issuing private prescriptions from the EEA which are then sent to and given out from UK pharmacies.

www.gov.uk/guidance/prescriptions-issued-in-the-eea-and-switzerland-guidance-for-pharmacists

Alternatively, puberty blockers are rarely prescribed to youth, so unless someone is absolutely sure that a child had either precocious puberty or gender dysphoria, they aren't prescribed

But they can get them privately.

Now we are being told that they’re only given to children who are absolutely definitely gender dysphoria who, of course go on to cross sex hormones because it’s clearly the right treatment from the start.

I think that any poster who states this ignores a) the GenderGP expose recently on just how easy it is to get the medicalised treatment pathways being encouraged by many (but not all) trans activists, b) the increasing number of detransitioners who in the majority are female.

The male transitioning story is quite quite different yet it does seem from looking at who is advocating for early transition that the current female transitioners health needs are perhaps not considered fully.

Like 'the idiot's guide' or 'for dummies' books in legitimising corrupt policies.

Alternatively, puberty blockers are rarely prescribed to youth, so unless someone is absolutely sure that a child had either precocious puberty or gender dysphoria, they aren't prescribed, thus meaning that children with gender dysphoria who are prescribed them are significantly more likely to proceed on to HRT and/or surgery.

Taking out the precocious puberty, which is clearly defined medical condition, with diagnostic criteria and hormones that can be measured, your point here about the use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria is demonstrative of a new line of argument that has become more popular since the Keira Bell ruling. For years, we’ve been told that puberty blockers are a “pause”, that give kids “time to think” and work out how they really feel. Now we are being told that they’re only given to children who are absolutely definitely gender dysphoria who, of course go on to cross sex hormones because it’s clearly the right treatment from the start.

Which is it? Puberty blockers are either a pause to give kids time to think or definitely the right treatment for 11-12 year olds. The two ideas can’t exist together, and I think the latter has become the official line to make sure kids can get them. It’s a “we’ve always been at war with Eastasia” approach and it’s transparent.

Puberty blockers cause permanent physical harm for no psychological gain. No one can explain why they should be given or justify their use given what we now know.

Perhaps, moving forward, we should call it the ‘Denton’s / Crispin Blunt’s Committee How-To Guide’?

Just came back to post it! Cheers Erkrie

I have been plopping it on to threads recently. I came across it again and figured that as it's a 2019 article, lots of new people might not have read it. It's a quick education into the tactics behind this movement. Which can be applied to any movement really that wants to sneak policy in hidden in the shadows.

[quote Erkrie]The link for Denton's is in this article.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/amp?__twitter_impression=true&s=08[/quote]
Thanks for posting that gem. It probably should be posted on many more threads than it is.

There's groups of lesbian and bisexual girls who wear binders who aren't trans and who don't proceed on to use testosterone or get surgery. There's girls with precocious puberty who aren't trans and use puberty blockers who don't proceed on to use testosterone or get surgery. There's an overlap in those groups who don't proceed on to use testosterone or get surgery. Which suggests it's not binders and/or puberty blockers that lead to someone starting testosterone or getting surgery, but the overlap does appear to be the reason why they're prescribed it in the first place.

Funny that.

I keep coming back to this. This logic doesn’t make any sense to me at all.

Why would lesbians and bisexual girls who are not suffering from gender dysphoria ever be prescribed cross sex hormones? I have already pointed out that girls taking treatment for precocious puberty would not ever be considered to automatically go into cross sex hormones.

I also pointed out the horrific side effects now being the subject of a large class action from people who were treated with puberty blockers for precocious puberty. I doubt ANY doctor who knew of these side effects would in good faith prescribe a girl who had already had puberty blockers for precocious puberty to have another or to extend the treatment cycle for gender dysphoria.

Where is this overlap you are talking about? Actually what is the overlapping group?

Where has anyone stated that a binder or a drug induces anyone to medicalised transition without first there being an issue with gender dysphoria?

And are you stating that that people who have no gender dysphoria but using binders and puberty blockers should be included in statistics showing how many people with GD using binders and/or blockers do go on to cross sex hormones? Which would falsely skew that data completely.

I would like to know the thinking behind your quite strong assertion here if you don’t mind.

Erkrie wow 😮

The link for Denton's is in this article.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/amp?__twitter_impression=true&s=08

I know Mrs Wooster, I'm just putting it out there for the lurkers. Denton's is an interesting read for sure.

Erkie it’s not a coincidence or a theme; it’s a strategy. Look at the Dentons publication-I haven’t a link to hand but I’m sure others have /google dentons trans document ?

Why are you discussing girls with precocious puberty as if they have anything to do with the treatment of gender dysphoria?

Seems to be a main theme in pushing policy, attach itself to the coat tails of a legitimate issue and entwine itself, LGB rights, DSDs, precocious puberty, gay conversion therapy and so on, and make its way in whilst lurking in the shadows. Any policy that needs to hide itself in the shadows cannot survive in the sunlight. This is how it's managed to get so far, by hiding, and activists are well schooled in the tactics, to misinform, conflate, confuse and hide.

I suspect the OP has wandered off but the main methodological limitations of this study bear repeating. These do not invalidate the study, they are simply limitations and must be considered in any discussion of the research. That report had no discussion, just a summary. A good discussion discusses and contextualises research as well as its strengths and limitations. It also points the way for future research.

1. The study was quantitative. All the results tell us are frequencies, with some minimal attempt at regression analysis. This is actually very thin and certainly policy and practice would rarely if ever be based on data that are so thin and lacking in interpretation and substance.

2. Terms are undefined. For example, what is 'conversion therapy'? It is not clear that there is a shared understanding amongst respondents re what this is.

3. There seems to be some confusion between causality and correlation - the implication is that there are connections between various elements of LGBTQ+ and suicidal ideation. The study does not consider whether there are other co-morbidities or whether there are clear connections here.

The biggest issue is what comprises 'conversion therapy. Now I know G&L YP who have undergone CT. In both cases, this was religiously inspired and they were forced to participate by their parents. In both there were religious ceremonies and in one case there was religiously motivated counselling. These are awful practices and I'd like to see them outlawed. I believe that in parts of the US they are quite common in the more fundamentalist churches. I am not sure they are quite so widespread in the UK. But, such 'snake oil' type treatments need stamping out - whether these aim to treat 'the gay' or cure cancer (and some similar practices do). I am more than happy to support this. I am also more than happy to support that members of actual legitimate psychological associations be taken to task if they do similar - i.e. aim to 'normalise' people in the name of religion, their own view of the world or anything else. I'd say, though, that this would be quite rare and that if reported such individuals would be dealt with by their relevant association. Quite happy to have anti- CT legislation to outlaw practices such as advertising 'straight therapy' or similar. What I am not happy about is making illegal or an offence the practice of different therapists to have conversations with people about their sexuality or gender expression. As an example, if a young woman who has been in therapy a while suddenly announces she is a lesbian then it is good practice to explore this. In more than one case where this happened (and I'm a researcher and not a therapist) this was actually her way into talking about childhood sexual abuse.

So OP - it is not just about 'finding studies that 'disprove' the Trevor research it is about asking questions about it and what it might mean for policy and practice. This is what peer review is all about.

Alternatively, puberty blockers are rarely prescribed to youth

Please clarify this. What do you consider youth?

As a parent, I consider ‘youth’ to be anyone under 18.

Do you include the hidden stats of those being treated in the U.K. from offshore prescription in your statement?

There's groups of lesbian and bisexual girls who wear binders who aren't trans and who don't proceed on to use testosterone or get surgery. There's girls with precocious puberty who aren't trans and use puberty blockers who don't proceed on to use testosterone or get surgery. There's an overlap in those groups who don't proceed on to use testosterone or get surgery. Which suggests it's not binders and/or puberty blockers that lead to someone starting testosterone or getting surgery, but the overlap does appear to be the reason why they're prescribed it in the first place.

Again. This is not clear thinking.

You cannot use girls receiving puberty blockers for the purpose they were developed as an explainer of future decision making of someone being treated for gender dysphoria.

Why on earth would you try to do that? I don’t believe anyone has suggested that a side effect of the chemical is to drive a child or a teen to have such thoughts.

However, there has been a rather well documented court case which outlined that treating a child or teen with puberty blockers leads 99% to them taking cross sexual hormones in the future.

I am not sure how you argue away that specific fact.

There's girls with precocious puberty who aren't trans and use puberty blockers who don't proceed on to use testosterone or get surgery.

Why are you discussing girls with precocious puberty as if they have anything to do with the treatment of gender dysphoria?

And by the way, have you read the court cases being brought by the girls treated with puberty blockers for the debilitating long term side effects they have experienced?