Ban on puberty blockers to be made indefinite on experts’ advice

Blimey, what an increase in referrals to GIDS from that article! 15 adolescent females in 2009, to 1,071 in 2016!

Why are teen girls so unhappy with their bodies, and why do they think the solution is to appear male instead?

Long-time lurker on this board and rarely post due to burnout so apologies in advance if my replies to this are delayed/brief. But anyway, no one so far (and apologies if I have missed it and someone has pointed it out) has acknowledged that there has already been a clinical trial of puberty blockers on children - the GIDS 2011 trial that absolutely was approved by ethics committee, with the researchers knowing the likely harms when they proposed it. It was rejected by the first ethics committee but approved by a second committee which almost unbelievably was of the researchers' choosing. Despite an increase in suicidality being observed a year into the study, and before the study had even been completed, prescription of puberty blockers for 'gender' reasons was introduced as standard practice. Publication of this study was delayed by years, no positive outcomes were identified. When anyone asks about long-term follow-up of these children there are tumbleweeds. The adult clinics refused to release their data for the Cass review which could have provided useful information on long-term outcomes. Doing more trials on children where some healthy children have their normal pubertal development disrupted and endocrine disturbance induced is completely unethical as well as unnecessary as far as I'm concerned and that this was a recommendation of the Cass review is so disappointing. She even addresses children directly in the review asking them to join the studies to help those who come after. Doctors already know suppressing normal puberty (ie not precocious, ie abnormally early puberty, and they even have to be very selective and treat for the shortest time possible when managing those cases) is harmful so I really don't know how further experiments are needed to prove this is the case before the medical profession says no. It's all backwards. You don't do a study to prove an intervention you already know to be inappropriate, harmful and unethical is indeed inappropriate, harmful and unethical so that you can prove to those demanding it that it's no good so will not be available, sacrificing selected children in order to do so and telling them they are helping those coming after them. I can only hope it is rejected by ethics committee this time but have serious concerns it will go ahead.

If enough families take their children abroad for puberty blockers and surgery we might need a law similar to the FGM Act which makes it illegal to take a child abroad to have something done to their body which isn't legal in the UK.

Did you enjoy writing that?

I've found reality to be a lot less axiomatic than you seem to desperately wish it was.

Thankyou for being honest.

Some people choose to treat their gender dysphoria and others choose to let it fester all their lives. Sometimes it does ease, or at least get easier. Other times it reaches a crisis point. There are healthy coping strategies and there are extremely unhealthy ones as well - the same brand of virulent self-denial that leads to people unconvincingly proclaiming themselves to be Ex-Gay, for example.

She hopes that for those "where there is a clear, clinical view" that the medical pathway is best will still receive that.

I agree with her on this. Now show how it’s possible to have a clear clinical view that a medical pathway is best for a child.

She emphasised that a medical pathway, with lifetime implications and treatment, required caution but "it's really important to say that a cis outcome and a trans outcome have equal value"

It’s hard to know if I agree with her on this because I don’t know what her definition of a “trans outcome” is. Why can’t it be what I outlined above, someone who wishes they were the opposite sex but has come to terms with the fact they can’t be and has body acceptance? That’s as much “trans” as anything else.

She expressed concern that her review was being weaponized to suggest that trans people do not exist, saying "that's really disappointing to me that that happens, because that's absolutely not what we're saying."

She has also expressed concern that her review has been blatantly lied about. But if this is her view, that she thinks it being weaponised for other reasons, of course I agree with her. Her review is the most lied about, weaponised review in the last few years.

She also clarified that her review was not about defining what trans means or rolling back health care, stating "There are young people who absolutely benefit from a medical pathway, and we need to make sure that those young people have access — under a research protocol, because we need to improve the research — but not assume that that's the right pathway for everyone."

I agree with her that her review is not about rolling back health care. It’s about improving it and providing a better evidence base. I agree that there are young people who perceive that they have benefited, but I do not agree that it was the only avenue for them. They perceive they have benefited because they were lead to believe the alternative was worse, and there are people advocating the sunk cost fallacy. They’ve gone all in so they have to support it. I also think a good number of those speaking positively aren’t fully appreciative of what they’ve lost. There are a number of trans activists who list a myriad of health complications while smiling and saying “but this is the outcome I wanted!” To me, there’s dissonance.

i think Cass was pragmatic and sensible here but I do not agree with her. The harms of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones and the lack of consent means any seemingly positive outcome has been reached with significant harm and a lack of consent.

And to repeat, ad nauseam, it cannot be predicted which child, ages 10-13 or so, will be an adult who would benefit. You can’t tell us, Butters. No one can. Neither can Cass. It’s the part of the Cass Review that I don’t agree with.

But not agreeing with everything in a review is normal, you know.

Being discontent with your body, your life, your friends, everything is a fundamental part of life as true and unbreakable as the speed of light or that gravity exists - so yes. Everything.

The urge to change something because it is uncomfortable is very human - but some things - you cannot change. You, personally, ARE whatever your birth sex was. That will NEVER change. You will NEVER pass as the sex you want to be to other people, no trans people anywhere do. You don't like that, sorry, but it's still true and it's only by acceptance of the reality of the word - that life is suffering, life is short and then you die, can you get any satisfaction out of life.

For those interested, this is the investigation into the decision of the ethics committee regarding the 2011 GIDS study
https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/governance/feedback-raising-concerns/investigation-study-early-pubertal-suppression-carefully-selected-group-adolescents-gender-identity-disorders/

Do you disagree with Baroness Cass who has said on-record that:

-She hopes that for those "where there is a clear, clinical view" that the medical pathway is best will still receive that.
-She emphasised that a medical pathway, with lifetime implications and treatment, required caution but "it's really important to say that a cis outcome and a trans outcome have equal value"
-She expressed concern that her review was being weaponized to suggest that trans people do not exist, saying "that's really disappointing to me that that happens, because that's absolutely not what we're saying." She also clarified that her review was not about defining what trans means or rolling back health care, stating "There are young people who absolutely benefit from a medical pathway, and we need to make sure that those young people have access — under a research protocol, because we need to improve the research — but not assume that that's the right pathway for everyone."

Because it sounds like you do and I would like to understand your stance clearly.

Long-time lurker on this board and rarely post due to burnout so apologies in advance if my replies to this are delayed/brief. But anyway, no one so far (and apologies if I have missed it and someone has pointed it out) has acknowledged that there has already been a clinical trial of puberty blockers on children - the GIDS 2011 trial that absolutely was approved by ethics committee, with the researchers knowing the likely harms when they proposed it. It was rejected by the first ethics committee but approved by a second committee which almost unbelievably was of the researchers' choosing. Despite an increase in suicidality being observed a year into the study, and before the study had even been completed, prescription of puberty blockers for 'gender' reasons was introduced as standard practice. Publication of this study was delayed by years, no positive outcomes were identified. When anyone asks about long-term follow-up of these children there are tumbleweeds. The adult clinics refused to release their data for the Cass review which could have provided useful information on long-term outcomes. Doing more trials on children where some healthy children have their normal pubertal development disrupted and endocrine disturbance induced is completely unethical as well as unnecessary as far as I'm concerned and that this was a recommendation of the Cass review is so disappointing. She even addresses children directly in the review asking them to join the studies to help those who come after. Doctors already know suppressing normal puberty (ie not precocious, ie abnormally early puberty, and they even have to be very selective and treat for the shortest time possible when managing those cases) is harmful so I really don't know how further experiments are needed to prove this is the case before the medical profession says no. It's all backwards. You don't do a study to prove an intervention you already know to be inappropriate, harmful and unethical is indeed inappropriate, harmful and unethical so that you can prove to those demanding it that it's no good so will not be available, sacrificing selected children in order to do so and telling them they are helping those coming after them. I can only hope it is rejected by ethics committee this time but have serious concerns it will go ahead.

Is it only gender dysphoria that can and should be converted away into passive indifference, or are other inconvenient aspects of a person also something that should be corrected?

Is it only gender dysphoria that can and should be converted away into passive indifference, or are other inconvenient aspects of a person also something that should be corrected?

Long-time lurker on this board and rarely post due to burnout so apologies in advance if my replies to this are delayed/brief. But anyway, no one so far (and apologies if I have missed it and someone has pointed it out) has acknowledged that there has already been a clinical trial of puberty blockers on children - the GIDS 2011 trial that absolutely was approved by ethics committee, with the researchers knowing the likely harms when they proposed it. It was rejected by the first ethics committee but approved by a second committee which almost unbelievably was of the researchers' choosing. Despite an increase in suicidality being observed a year into the study, and before the study had even been completed, prescription of puberty blockers for 'gender' reasons was introduced as standard practice. Publication of this study was delayed by years, no positive outcomes were identified. When anyone asks about long-term follow-up of these children there are tumbleweeds. The adult clinics refused to release their data for the Cass review which could have provided useful information on long-term outcomes. Doing more trials on children where some healthy children have their normal pubertal development disrupted and endocrine disturbance induced is completely unethical as well as unnecessary as far as I'm concerned and that this was a recommendation of the Cass review is so disappointing. She even addresses children directly in the review asking them to join the studies to help those who come after. Doctors already know suppressing normal puberty (ie not precocious, ie abnormally early puberty, and they even have to be very selective and treat for the shortest time possible when managing those cases) is harmful so I really don't know how further experiments are needed to prove this is the case before the medical profession says no. It's all backwards. You don't do a study to prove an intervention you already know to be inappropriate, harmful and unethical is indeed inappropriate, harmful and unethical so that you can prove to those demanding it that it's no good so will not be available, sacrificing selected children in order to do so and telling them they are helping those coming after them. I can only hope it is rejected by ethics committee this time but have serious concerns it will go ahead.

Is it only gender dysphoria that can and should be converted away into passive indifference, or are other inconvenient aspects of a person also something that should be corrected?

Do you disagree with Baroness Cass who has said on-record that:

-She hopes that for those "where there is a clear, clinical view" that the medical pathway is best will still receive that.
-She emphasised that a medical pathway, with lifetime implications and treatment, required caution but "it's really important to say that a cis outcome and a trans outcome have equal value"
-She expressed concern that her review was being weaponized to suggest that trans people do not exist, saying "that's really disappointing to me that that happens, because that's absolutely not what we're saying." She also clarified that her review was not about defining what trans means or rolling back health care, stating "There are young people who absolutely benefit from a medical pathway, and we need to make sure that those young people have access — under a research protocol, because we need to improve the research — but not assume that that's the right pathway for everyone."

Because it sounds like you do and I would like to understand your stance clearly.

@ButterflyHatched , I am quoting @NotBadConsidering deliberately to get you to comment specifically on this:

"The best individual outcome is for a person to receive therapy for their body dysmorphia, come to terms with the fact they can’t change sex and they have to deal with the body they have, and accept that body modification doesn’t help and risks a myriad of health problems. To anyone sensible, this is win-win for everyone. And it’s achievable. Because it’s happened. It’s just that too many clinicians have taken the easy way out and foregone appropriate treatment because it’s in the too hard basket."

Coming to terms with your distress is the ONLY path forward. Medication, surgery, will never, ever make the pain go away.

Take a page out of the buddhists book.