WHO publishes 'controversial gender guidance'

I’ve seen the tactic time and again on here.

Throw out any old crap and others lap it up. This is not a group of people for whom accuracy matters.

https://twitter.com/Psychgirl211/status/1740801132061180133

I read this thread on Twitter about potential reduction in IQ following puberty blockers. Surely if it’s even a possibility then there should be a very cautious approach, with more research before widespread recommendation?

And in the case mentioned the person went from IQ 80 (low normal) to IQ 70 (borderline learning disability) - that’s a huge difference in functional ability.

I do also wonder how much issues with literal thinking, rigidity of thinking and black and white thinking with anger and blame for anyone using language not matching these standards is playing a part here.

I'm not unsympathetic, I live with a family member who experiences such struggles, but is able even as a teen to understand that this presents them with a distorted view of facts and perceptions at times and that care needs to be taken to gain more information due to this.

Vito I wish we could get you into a meeting. They really need someone capable of critical thinking, reading comprehension and basic safeguarding.

'“in caring for trans and gender creative youth, puberty blockers must be seen as the default position'

What does 'gender creative' mean, PlanetteJanette? What children are not 'gender creative', if that makes it easier to answer?

It was gender dysphoria.

Now it is gender incongruence, gender questioning, gender exploration and now gender creative youth.

I'd expect all kids to be somewhat incongruent, questioning, explorative and creative as that's what kids do as part of growing up. Except these kids will never grow up if the medics get their hands on them.

Issuing a correction here.

2. It is Ashley, not WHO, who is currently advocating the mass universal medication of the vulnerable autistic and gay children who are overrepresented at child and adolescent gender identity services with puberty blockers.

3. This is the wrong set of questions when it comes to Ashley's proposal that all of the vulnerable autistic and gay children who are overrepresented at child and adolescent gender identity services take blockers.

The relevant set of questions goes something like:

• Why should a huge, >99.9% majority the vulnerable autistic and gay children who are overrepresented at child and adolescent gender identity services be subjected to the known risks of puberty blockers for the sake of a tiny tiny, <0.1% minority of children who actually will eventually transition?
• Who gains from mass medicating the vulnerable autistic and gay children who are overrepresented at child and adolescent gender identity services like this and how?
• Who gains from having a majority of the vulnerable autistic and gay children who are overrepresented at child and adolescent gender identity services delay their puberty?
• What unintended consequences might there be of giving all or most the vulnerable autistic and gay children who are overrepresented at child and adolescent gender identity services blockers: health, financial, social, and otherwise?
• What are the safeguarding risks associated with having huge numbers of vulnerable autistic and gay older teens with the bodies of pre-pubescent children?
• What are Ashley's clinical and scientific credentials, given that Ashley is promoting a medical intervention?
• What are Ashley's motives for promoting this medical intervention at such wide scale to the vulnerable autistic and gay children who are overrepresented at child and adolescent gender identity services?

Thanks for proving that it is a lie to claim Florence Ashley thinks puberty blockers should be the default for all children.

It wasn't a lie, it was a misunderstanding of a fairly ambiguous quote which was given out of context. This was explained in earlier posts.

Clinician hesitancy as well as the belief that a considerable amount of prior gender exploration must be undertaken before prescribing puberty blocker appear to be unjustified and uncritical

What do you think this means? It reads to me as though FA does seem to think that any child who wants them should be given them, even if this is just because it is fashionable for a group of girls to all identify as non-binary. Do you have anything to say about teenagers following a trend, who are not in the least bit distressed about their sex, being given these harmful drugs?

In fact the statement is explicitly qualified “in caring for trans and gender creative youth, puberty blockers must be seen as the default position, to be readily prescribed since they leave the largest space for future identity development and negotiation”.

wtf. What is wrong with these people advocating this for children

The absolute fucking irony of a genderist accusing the posters on here of being indifferent to the truth. Is it April 1st rather than New Nears Day?!!!

WTF is 'gender creative'? If all such kids are to get blockers. I'd like to hear that defined.

Ah, I see the accusation of lying was in response to a mistake made by another poster. Who admitted and corrected their mistake. Shame not all posters could be so honest and readily admit to making mistakes.

I’m not sure that your post is the gotcha that you think it is?

PlanetJanette said: Nothing in that quote says puberty blockers should be the default for all children.

In fact the statement is explicitly qualified “in caring for trans and gender creative youth, puberty blockers must be seen as the default position, to be readily prescribed since they leave the largest space for future identity development and negotiation”.

OldCrone said: “FA is advocating puberty blockers for any child who requests them from their GP” i.e. repeating FA’s own claim that PBS must be seen as the default. OldCrone is not saying that FA made this claim for all children.

So, no lie.

As I said, just one example of the lies on this board that go entirely unchallenged except by maybe one or two posters. A perfect example of the absolute indifference of this movement to the truth.

I make a reading mistake and you tar the entire board with that brush. Nice. Really grown-up there.

It looks like I misread Ashley's position and it's puberty blockers for every child who asks for them, not puberty blockers for all.

We are still talking about a lot of children, many of whom are autistic and many of whom will go on to become happily gay if left untreated.

I know that my discomfort at being female is because undergoing female puberty whilst autistic and undiagnosed is genuinely traumatic and living as an autistic woman in a neurotypicalist patriarchy really sucks. The answer is not to give puberty blockers to autistic children, but to recognise their autism early on and support them in accepting their bodies' changes and protecting them from sexual harassment and abuse (yes, all children deserve safety, but autistic children are vulnerable so need more support than most).

All my questions about who benefits etc still stand, bar for the scale. Instead of talking about all children, I am now asking those questions about the autistic, gay, or both children who are vulnerable and were over-represented at Tavistock.

Nothing in that quote says puberty blockers should be the default for all children.

In fact the statement is explicitly qualified “in caring for trans and gender creative youth, puberty blockers must be seen as the default position, to be readily prescribed since they leave the largest space for future identity development and negotiation”.

Thanks for proving that it is a lie to claim Florence Ashley thinks puberty blockers should be the default for all children.

As I said, just one example of the lies on this board that go entirely unchallenged except by maybe one or two posters. A perfect example of the absolute indifference of this movement to the truth.

The quote in context (my bold) is here:
https://www.florenceashley.com/uploads/1/2/4/4/124439164/ashley_thinking_an_ethics_of_gender_exploration_-_against_delaying_transition_for_transgender_and_gender_creative_youth.pdf

Puberty blockers delay hormonal puberty. Discussion of the ethics of puberty blockers has largely centred the question of reversibility. Although reversibility plays a distinctive role with regard to the foreclosing of future opportunities, few authors extend their foray past it. Although taking puberty blockers is a form of medical treatment, it certainly facilitates exploration significantly more than letting puberty run its course; whereas puberty strongly favours cis embodiment by raising the psychological and medical toll of transitioning, puberty blockers structurally place transgender and cisgender hormonal futures in approximate symmetry. Youth who take puberty blockers have their options wide open, their bodies unaltered by either testosterone or oestrogen. Although much remains unknown about the long-term effects of puberty blockers, limited empirical evidence and clinical experience make us more than justified in assuming that whatever risks puberty blockers have do not foreclose future life paths as much as undergoing puberty does.

The neutrality of puberty blockers as opposed to unmitigated hormonal puberty should evacuate any hesitancy towards initiating gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues for youth who desire them. From the premise that facilitating exploration should be our starting point in caring for trans and gender creative youth, puberty blockers must be seen as the default position, to be readily prescribed since they leave the largest space for future identity development and negotiation. Clinician hesitancy as well as the belief that a considerable amount of prior gender exploration must be undertaken before prescribing puberty blocker appear to be unjustified and uncritical, whether it is rooted in psychological inertia or subtle prejudices towards trans lives.

It certainly looks to me as though FA is advocating puberty blockers for any child who requests them from their GP. FA also minimises the appalling other effects of these drugs such as osteoporosis in their 20s as has been experienced in many young women who took these drugs for precocious puberty.

But you really do need to ask, who actually thinks it's a good idea to treat children in early puberty with these drugs, so that they end up as 16-year-olds with the body and brain of a 12-year-old?

Posters respond logically.

You home in on trying to argue that your quite intentional misinterpretation of one line of one post which has obvious other meaning to anyone reading in good faith means that you are somehow justified and right. And ignore everything else in pursuit of what is in effect a possible bit of SPAG. Making it pretty clear really that you have nothing else.

Yes dear.

Why? Would your answer be too revealing?

Not playing that game - the question is really simple. Was the poster correct in their claims about what Ashley thinks or not.

See my previous post re the Bannon-esque goalpost shifting.

How many children (or which groups) are you so enthusiastic to have puberty blockers as the default for? Do tell us.

Can you link to Ashley saying puberty blockers should be the default for all children?

As predicted and as is typical on these boards…

Poster makes false claim.

Other posters lap it up.

When it is pointed out that claim is false, posters just move on to the next falsehood and dismiss the poster pointing out the truth. It is essentially the Trump MO - flood the zone with shit. Most of it will stick so who cares if some of it is rebutted

When l saw "all youth", I interpreted that as "all youth". If Ashley meant "all children attending the gender clinic" then Ashley should have been clearer.

Well that's a very lovely straw man you've got there.