Hilary Cass sent a document to every single MP and Peer, justifying and defending the puberty blockers trial

Yeah but imagine you do your follow-up and they're not all dead or incapacitated but actually claiming that the lobotomy saved their life?

e.g. https://inews.co.uk/news/fought-take-puberty-blockers-saved-life-3427474

Bit of a swerve there.

'The recorded benefits don't outweigh the risks'.
TRA clinicians: our patients and their parents are the ones who must decide if the benefits outweigh the risks in their particular case.

'No statistically significant differences in outcomes'.
TRA clinicians: then there is no harm done by letting individual patients and their parents decide whether they feel the outcome will be significantly positive in their particular case.

And yet they're not allowed to prescribe them in the UK outside of the trial so it sounds like registered doctors can't just overrule the regulations based on what they reckon.

Right, but we already know there was crap record keeping, and that female trans people sometimes have mastectomies so

1. that's nothing new
2. that's nothing that is going to convince people to stop prescribing puberty blockers to kids which is the whole bloody point. Looking at the crap data doesn't answer questions about whether the interventions actually helped.

We have to live in the world as it is, rather than as we would like it to be.

Gender ideology is a pile of crap.

It's indefinable.

It's untestable.

It's utterly fucking ridiculous.

And yet, you support sterilising children to persuade stupid people to believe it's a stupid, unevidenced and completely batshit idea

Ok.

Actually helped to do what?

Helped to stop puberty? We know they do that already.

Helped the child to accept their sexed body without further intervention?

Helped them to pass as the opposite sex as adults?

What do they hope to achieve by giving these drugs to children? What is the condition they are treating? What does a successful outcome look like?

Bit of a swerve there.

'The recorded benefits don't outweigh the risks'.
TRA clinicians: our patients and their parents are the ones who must decide if the benefits outweigh the risks in their particular case.

'No statistically significant differences in outcomes'.
TRA clinicians: then there is no harm done by letting individual patients and their parents decide whether they feel the outcome will be significantly positive in their particular case.

And like I've been saying, you can't do a proper analysis of a pile of crap.

'Adults who attended gender clinics as a child are more likely to suffer from mental health problems as an adult' 'ok, did you control for childhood trauma and conditions like autism?' 'No, because we didn't know who had them'.

'Can we compare bone density of the adults who attended the gender clinics as a child with the general population' 'we've got like 12 of them who have ever had that measured, so no'.

'Can we compare mastectomy rates' 'yeah, they're higher for women who think they are trans, well that's a surprise'.

'Liver function' 'non starter'.

'how many have destransitioned?' 'No idea'.

'The drugs don't work' is a song by the Verve.

It's snappier than 'the recorded benefits don't outweigh the risks' or 'there aren't any statistically significant differences in outcomes between those given puberty blockers and those who weren't.

Right, but we already know there was crap record keeping, and that female trans people sometimes have mastectomies so

1. that's nothing new
2. that's nothing that is going to convince people to stop prescribing puberty blockers to kids which is the whole bloody point. Looking at the crap data doesn't answer questions about whether the interventions actually helped.

Define what you mean by 'don't work'.

You don't think they'd also like actual statistically valid evidence that the drugs don't work?

I am only focussing on the UK because this is a proposed clinical trial to be conducted in the UK by the UK NHS on UK kids.

On the one hand, the idea that if the UK conducts a trial and then the rest of the world will say "ooh yes if that's what the UK found so it must be true here too" goes against a lot of historic evidence of international responses to evidence from other countries about transitioning kids. It would be naive to expect that a UK trial will be accepted as conclusive everywhere else.

And even if we could expect this to work any better than just "the UK says no", no UK ethics comittee would agree to a clinical trial that puts kids in the UK at risk just to prove a point to the rest of the world.

You don't think they'd also like actual statistically valid evidence that the drugs don't work?

I’m sure there's a lot of women in countries like Australia and NZ who are watching the situation very closely, and very much hoping that the UK will show some back-bone.

And again, it’s all useful information.

“We found high rates of mental health issues in those who had medically transitioned as children, compared to those who transitioned as adults or their non-trans peers. Limitations of this study was a lack of data on ACEs and ASD due to poor record keeping.”

“We found poor documentation of bone density issues. We recommend urgent implementation of a National Registry to investigate and address this potential issue.”

“We found 30% of females who transitioned as children had undergone mastectomy by 25.”

“We found no available data on detransition. Therefore it is not accurate to say the detransition rate is <1%, but remains a significant unknown.”

Maybe instead of a PB trial we should stop telling children that changing sex is possible...

Radical!

I am only focussing on the UK because this is a proposed clinical trial to be conducted in the UK by the UK NHS on UK kids.

On the one hand, the idea that if the UK conducts a trial and then the rest of the world will say "ooh yes if that's what the UK found so it must be true here too" goes against a lot of historic evidence of international responses to evidence from other countries about transitioning kids. It would be naive to expect that a UK trial will be accepted as conclusive everywhere else.

And even if we could expect this to work any better than just "the UK says no", no UK ethics comittee would agree to a clinical trial that puts kids in the UK at risk just to prove a point to the rest of the world.

And like I've been saying, you can't do a proper analysis of a pile of crap.

'Adults who attended gender clinics as a child are more likely to suffer from mental health problems as an adult' 'ok, did you control for childhood trauma and conditions like autism?' 'No, because we didn't know who had them'.

'Can we compare bone density of the adults who attended the gender clinics as a child with the general population' 'we've got like 12 of them who have ever had that measured, so no'.

'Can we compare mastectomy rates' 'yeah, they're higher for women who think they are trans, well that's a surprise'.

'Liver function' 'non starter'.

'how many have destransitioned?' 'No idea'.

It's Stephanie Lynette. He's an activist and appeared on Good Morning Britain as 'balance' to Keira Bell. Given blockers just before his 17th birthday and XSH two years later. Article neglects to mention that oestrogen caused a blood clot in his brain which has left him with damaged eyesight.

I can't access that article, but it must be a rare person who hadn't started puberty aged 16.