Webberly reports Cass to the GMC - get popcorn

I think that, as a rule, radical surgery is not helpful on a healthy body. Phalloplasty and Vignoplasty are radical and brutal surgeries with high complication rates. I have said it before - no one's mental health is improved by incontinence, strictures, necrosis or fistulas.

I think we need to value healthy bodies more as a society.

We need to understand that vulnerable people with trans identities (including detransitioners) are the biggest victims of the last few years of 'affirmative care' with no proper safeguarding.

Children cannot concent to the Dutch Protocol IMO.

Adults (from their own posts) are not given the truth regarding expectations and medical complications. These surgeries should be rare and very well safeguarded IMO.

I don't want to see another Griffin/Gruffin.

I have another question to pose though, are you against gender affirming care for everyone or just young people?

As somebody who was 'born standin' up and talkin' back' against gender stereotypes, and have been gender non-conforming all my life - absolutely, I'm against affirming gender stereotypes!

To hell with the sugar and spice/rats and snails binary, children deserve to be whatever kind of little boy they want to be, and any kind of little girl they want to be, without being told they are in the wrong body or they have to change sex to be their 'true selves'.

Those who have been prescribed these drugs for precocious puberty have had them for very limited periods and have also suffered badly from the side effects as a result so absolutely they should be administered with extreme caution.

Not given away like sweeties for those with 'gender distress' whatever that is.

How would my comment show to mean that I have no idea what puberty is or what it does?

There's always a balance between the benefits of a treatment and its possible side-effects.

The possible side effects of PBs may be considered proportionate to stop a toddler going through puberty, but it is disproportionate to use them in an unapproved, off-label manner to treat gender incongruence which young people usually just grow out of.

So I wouldn't say it's 'exactly the same' - the context and intention of the use of PBs are completely different.

And you've just answered in favour of PBs for those with gender dysphoria as well as those with precocious puberty - "despite the side effects, there is a balance between the medical need to delay puberty and the potential side effects."

Gosh, aren’t you the well-informed one.

Except, of course, you have absolutely no idea of what puberty is or what it does.

I agree, the question should be asked and I don't think every child that goes through precocious puberty is Cis.

I have another question to pose though, are you against gender affirming care for everyone or just young people?

They haven't been stopped because despite the side effects, there is a balance between the medical need to delay puberty and the potential side effects.

'We' don't decide when a person should go through puberty. It's a biological process which has a 'normal' age (later than 16 is also abnormal).

You are a bit undereducated.

Delaying not stopping puberty in a very young child is what the drugs were first used for.

There was never an aim to prevent natural maturation indefinitaly.

The use and misuse of the drugs have resulted in known negitive side effects.

Removing testosteone is known to have a negitive impact on bone density for both men and women.

Any doctor playing god and using a child as a guinnipig cashcow when they have not even bothered to spend the time to get specialist training may not be the best person hold out as a good authority when discussing using off lable drugs.

Interfering with the body's natural development in a perfectly healthy person is wrong.

It is that simple.

Only people with moral failings or a dark triad personality would not understand that. Medicine must 'first do no harm'.

We don't need ethics and safeguarding so degraded that terrible medical experiments on living humans are accepted. That way lies Tuskegee, Unit 731 and Menglele.

So if there IS evidence, why haven't they also been stopped for precocious puberty? Who are we to say when a person should be going through puberty, isn't that a 'biological' outcome?

Have you read 'Time to Think' by Hannah Barnes?

Do you truly think that when they're prescribed for young people who are going through gender dysphoria that they're only used for the duration that they're needed? For example, if a young person starts a puberty blocker at 12 years old it might be between 2-6 years for the duration of the puberty blocker...wouldn't you say that's exactly the same for a 6-8 year old going through precocious puberty?

Yep, back to money we go.

First of all, there is evidence that children given these drugs for precocious puberty have been damaged by them.

Lupron, used to halt puberty in children, may cause lasting health problems

Why is it that people feel it necessary to stop puberty from happening when a young person may not be 'ready' for puberty

The normal minimum age for puberty to start is 8 in girls and 9 in boys. The children with precocious puberty who are 'not ready' for puberty are younger than this. It's not just that they are not 'ready' for puberty at younger ages, although obviously they aren't, but that a child stops growing after puberty, so these children would end up as extremely short adults if their puberty wasn't delayed. This is a medical condition which requires medical intervention.

but feel it's against nature when a young person may feel that going through puberty at all will be detrimental to their health and wellbeing?

A young person 'feeling' that going through puberty at all will be detrimental to their health and wellbeing doesn't have a medical condition which requires medical intervention. At least not this sort of medical intervention. They may need psychological treatment to deal with their feelings, but they don't need to be given powerful drugs which affect their hormones and have harmful side effects.

Edited for typos.

It is unbelievable.

See also the stupid 'they are given to Cis children and not Trans children' argument. Has anyone actually done any research on the gender identity of children with precocious puberty?

I know it's all bollocks, but if the question hasn't been asked, how can the gender identity believers assert in good faith that every child with precocious puberty is 'cis'?

Oh, that's right - it's all bad faith lies and obfuscation.

This is just another phase of Webberley’s marketing strategy, surely? She must know nothing will come of it, but she keeps her name out there and might appease some of the folx she has pissed off.

That's what PBs are for - delaying puberty happening to very young children for whom it would be traumatic - imagine having periods when you're 6 or 7...
But when they reach the normal age for puberty they can come off the PBs, and go through puberty.

Any side-effects of the PBs used in the way they were intended are [a] proportionate to what they are treating and [b] of short duration as the child does not remain on them for longer than necessary.

Can you genuinely not see the difference? Really, truly, genuinely not see the difference? I find that unlikely, but who knows?

Drug companies want a market for their wares. They tried very hard to push the idea of giving severely disabled children GnRH antagonists to keep them in a childlike state to make it easy to care for them, before switching to children with gender dysphoria. This was all discussed in a previous thread on the board.

The bottom line is - unsurprisingly, given what we know about OxyContin - money.

Tired, you must be late to the party. Concerns about using 'puberty blockers' (GnRH antagonists) for various health conditions have been raised for years. Including for precocious puberty (see article below from 2017), endometriosis, and prostate cancer.

I also find it unbelievable that you really can't see the difference between temporarily using GnRH antagonists for a child going into puberty well before the normal window/timeframe, and then stopping the GnRH antagonists once they reach that window. Compared to a child with no physical health issues going into puberty during the correct window and then (usually) keeping them on the drugs for a much longer timeframe and then putting them on cross-sex hormones.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/women-fear-drug-they-used-to-halt-puberty-led-to-health-problems

Just an FYI, puberty blockers have been prescribed for precocious puberty in males and females for decades with very little mention of 'irreversible damage'. Why is it that people feel it necessary to stop puberty from happening when a young person may not be 'ready' for puberty, but feel it's against nature when a young person may feel that going through puberty at all will be detrimental to their health and wellbeing?
Dr Webberley is right in referring Dr Cass to the GMC as she does not share the whole story and very much pushes a rhetoric against it.

Ian Brady Reports Boy For Stealing Kit Kat in Fourboys