Tooth Fairy Science and Puberty Blocker Trials

phenomenon in relation to autism, specifically non-verbal, "low functioning" autism:

I knew this would be facilitated communication. It's been debunked for decades but it's a zombie that just won't die.

Helen Joyce does it again. She's articulated all the problems about potential clinical trials and set it out in beautiful ordered logical fashion.
A true journalist.
Has she tackled the suicide myth and its dangerous self-fulfilling nature? I'm sure she has but would love to see it set out as clearly as this in writing.

Very much so, but there is also the "hero doctor" angle at play.

Although it's not about gender identity belief, this article that popped up on my newsfeed today really caught my eye as it's about that phenomenon in relation to autism, specifically non-verbal, "low functioning"** autism:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czj94xwwkkzo.amp

With my BBC impartiality scepticism, I'm unsure about whether they a providing a neutral or a biased framing of Rosemary Crossley in this article but at face value, it shows: a) how vulnerable the medical profession is to "hero doctors" who champion their approach b) how it is vulnerable people, such as those with autism, who end up losing in these scenarios. The parallel with the impact of gender identity belief being championed by hero doctors and the notably disproportionate proportion of autistic people who "identify as" something different from their sex is what struck me.

Also, I very much agree with your comment from just before the post that I've quote-grabbed:

But because I do believe that the number of predators and paedophiles in society is vastly outweighed by good responsible adults I'd have to also go with intimidation & fear of bullying (it was transphobic to want to conduct research into all this not so very long ago).

**from what I've read, Autism doesn't tend to be classed as high functioning or low functioning any more, possibly because their definitions got unhelpfully muddled. The original definitions referred to general ability to "function" in a societal context e.g. cognitive ability to use money in shops, use transport independently etc. Unfortunately these days people seem to use "high functioning" as a proxy for "academically clever" instead of "can catch the bus and buy groceries independently".

And that was the carefully planned aim.

To take over and control the people who control the language and the law and in that way everyone but the TQ interests could be subordinated and women's spaces and resources could be taken, they could be turned into resources and their equality and access could be destroyed. Waved on by the naive, well intentioned and stupid.

That's what capture of the civil service looks like isn't it? An anti women ideology allowed to run rampant, silencing all dissent and legitimate other rights and views.
Very depressing, worrying as these are policy drafters for society and awful for women working there

I'm in the civil service and it seems the main focus is on trans, non-binary and intersex people. All our documents are gender neutral language, even the maternity and menopause policies. No mention of women, and when queried the answer is that they are written to support our trans, non-binary and intersex colleagues. What about the thousands and thousands of women?

That's the big question isn't it?
The number of dodgy adults involved with this does suggest the worst of intentions from many of those involved. But because I do believe that the number of predators and paedophiles in society is vastly outweighed by good responsible adults I'd have to also go with intimidation & fear of bullying (it was transphobic to want to conduct research into all this not so very long ago). Along with an unforgivable pandering and failure to exercise due diligence about numerous queer theory activist groups who have been given unprecedented access to child healthcare, education, CAMHS and everywhere else that delivered services to children. 😑

The bit I just can't get my head around is why? Why do people want to interfere with children's natural development? Why is it so prevalent? Why do people still push the idea of 'wrong body', 'go through wrong puberty' when there is little evidence of benefit and lots of evidence of harm? Why? Is it really to shore up a men's sexual rights movement?

Excellent article. Yes the danger is that special studies for special people aren't bound by the normal rules, though I think there's a lot more sunlight on this than there ever was on the Tavistock.

Anastomosisrex · Yesterday 22:19

I could be very cynical and say I anticipate a whole lot of special pleading that the normal rules be bent in terms of ethics and standard practice, and a fair chance that they will be.

I fear that you're almost certainly correct. The only glimmer of light would be that, with all the attention it's had, there would at least be scrutiny and criticism from non-ideologues.

Absolutely, very upsetting. All of this ideological wrangling and mucking about with the rules by the doctors, psychologists, and academics to promote their favoured theories has a real world negative effect on children and families.

That's it exactly. This is a field where medical science, as Helen Joyce says, is being used as the backdrop, but the predetermined desired outcome is the focus, and the wangling and bending of rules and policy and the hiding of bits of information that doesn't serve that outcome have been a normalised part of it. This is one of those situations where to insist on actual neutrality and objectivity, following standard ethics practice and fair reporting of results, will be termed as 'transphobic' as it impedes that desired outcome. It's nasty reality being bigoted again.

Around 2011. It got buried because they didn’t get the results they wanted.

https://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0060/Biggs_ExperimentPubertyBlockers.pdf

Transgender Trend…

https://www.transgendertrend.com/the-tavistocks-experiment-with-puberty-blockers-part-5-the-belated-results/

This is really upsetting to hear.

GIDS’ research proposal was turned down by one ethics board and they kept going until they found a board that did give them the go ahead for the ‘research’ they were doing. And, as you read above, that research was not carried out in a standard manner.

I could be very cynical and say I anticipate a whole lot of special pleading that the normal rules be bent in terms of ethics and standard practice, and a fair chance that they will be. Which is the root of all the safeguarding failures this far: 'this is a special group who should be exempt from normal standards, protections etc as too limiting for them'.

But yes. Almost impossible to sort out the impact of the elements such as Autism, trauma, the children who just would have grown up gay or decipher how many gender questioning children would simply find their confusion and distress resolved by the process of puberty itself. Without a control group it's impossible. And how do you ethically sterilise some children as part of a trial? What happens two decades from now when those children come back and sue for the loss of their health, sexuality and fertility, and want to know why on earth they were experimented on in such a way mandated by the NHS/government?

Signalbox · Today 17:34

They managed to get ethical approval previously. I wonder why he thinks this time it would be different.

Probably because actual human beings have learned about it and gone, "Hang on a blinking minute ,,,, have you seen this mad shit they're selling?"

Thank you. That’s quite depressing. I still hope that in the light of CASS this cannot go ahead.

This is a good discussion of the previous study that includes an overview of the putative justification for a controlled trial.

https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/governance/feedback-raising-concerns/investigation-study-early-pubertal-suppression-carefully-selected-group-adolescents-gender-identity-disorders/

SnakesandArrows said Did they? When?

The above link may shed some light on that.
Concerns and complaintsConcerns raised by various parties:

• The study design did not provide a control arm to measure the effect of the treatment
• Recruitment to the study started before ethics approval
• Parents and children taking part in this study were not adequately informed of the risks of taking part
• Annual progress reports were not submitted to the REC for this study
• No interim or final report produced as stated in the original research proposal
• There was evidence that the study’s interim results were unfavourable, but that these had been downplayed

I agree it’s a risk, but ethics boards are not chosen by the trial designers.

Did they? When?

I have said this on another thread the WPATH leaks included a recording of a video conference between about 5 professionals. They were discussing the fact that not only could the children not give informed consent neither could their parents.

I can’t see ethically how any parent, let alone a child, would ever be in a position to give informed consent to take part in a trial testing puberty blockers.

What a good article. And I'm with those who can't see how on earth it will be ethical to put children into a trial that may leave them intellectually, physically and sexually impaired as well as likely sterilisation.

Excluding all those comorbidities would make the results ungeneralisable to real populations. So it would be either unethical or useless.

They managed to get ethical approval previously. I wonder why he thinks this time it would be different.