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

Anyone who is still wondering if blockers can cause sterility and inorgasmia - do this simple two minute test to find out for sure:

Type 'Susie green laughing' on YouTube.

You can watch the former head of the UK's largest trans charity admit that her child 'never went through puberty properly' (her exact words) because he took blockers.

His penis never grew so the surgeons removed part of his colon instead to form a 'neovagina' for him. He's permanently sterile. He'll never experience orgasm.

Jazz Jennings is another victim of puberty blockers. He famously asked on tv if 'having an orgasm is like sneezing'.

Children have no idea what they are giving up when they take blockers.

Another thing that baffles me is the lack of a large-scale study on trans adults. It would seem to me that, long before butchering kids' bodies in its name, one would want to study the trans condition as deeply and widely as possible through the eyes of the many, many adults out there who have transitioned, are transitioning, plan to transition, or wish to transition. There are so many things to ask them and to study! Just a few off the top of my mind:

• Do they all feel like they have an inner gender identity? If so, how does it manifest for them? If not, why did they (wish to) transition?
• What do they mean by "transitioning"? From what to what?
• Why do they seek body modifications, whether through hormones and/or surgeries? Is it for better passing (social impact)? Is it for a better recognition of themselves in the mirror (personal impact)? Something else?
• Were they aware of the impact of the various aspects of transitioning on sexual functions and interactions? How do they deal with them after transitioning?
• Did they consider alternative ways to deal with their condition? Would they have wanted access to other possible treatments?

And so on and so forth. There are so many aspects to explore to actually understand this condition known as "gender incongruence", and the consequences of that one pathway to alleviate it. But no, apparently, it's better to stagger in the dark, and to mess up children in the vague hope that somehow it will turn out to be a good thing in the end. This is not proper science, not even close.

And impaired sexual function. Creating a cohort of adults without normal sexual function when it is well known that transsexualism is driven by sexual urges (either homosexuality or AGP in heterosexuals).

But maybe that's the intention. Eventually there will be no more transsexuals actually driven by sex if they've all been chemically castrated as children. Just infertile adults with the brains of children and modified bodies and no interest in sex. Which is probably just as well, as most people like to know the actual sex of their sexual partners, and don't want to be deceived by someone who appears to be one sex but turns out to be the other.

The bottom line is people like you want to puberty block children. You need to puberty block them because you need them to grow up and claim to be trans. You live vicariously through these children and the harms are inconsequential to you.

It's worth remembering why "trans children" were invented in the first place.

It's already been mentioned that the reason for the original Dutch experiment on children was because they hypothesised that the reason for poor mental health outcomes in adult male transsexuals was because they didn't "pass". They decided to create transsexuals who passed better as adults by selecting some children who would possibly grow up to be transsexuals, and prevent them going through puberty to see if they did pass better and if they had better mental health as a result.

There's also another reason for the creation of the idea of trans children. Since time immemorial, it's been known that men who indulge in crossdressing, and sometimes progress to transsexualism, are doing this for reasons of sexual gratification. These men want trans children to exist, since, as one of them (Autumn Sandeen) put it:

“I’ve always said there are two groups that are going to make change in transgender legislation and the “gender identity and expression” related language in legislation. It’s going to be trans youth because they take, you know, they demystify it and take the sex right out of the trans experience.”

https://mirandayardley.com/en/a-full-life-uninterrupted-by-transition/

These men see "trans children" as a sort of human shield. The implication is that because it's not a sexual thing for children, nor is it for these male adults. Which is obviously an outright lie, yet so many people seem to have fallen for it.

None of this is really about children. It's all about adult male transsexuals.

Short-term psychological improvement isn't the least-worst outcome when the treatment comes with increased risks of learning difficulties, fertility problems, and osteoporosis.

Puberty blockers don't sterilise humans. Your claim was about medications that may cause sterilisation & how they were justified.

Why do we keep having to go over the same undeniable facts? If puberty blockers are given to boys at Tanner stage 2, and they never stop them and allow puberty to resume, they don’t make sperm and are therefore sterile. That’s what happens now to children around the world and that’s what this trial is proposing to do. This Is incontrovertible.

The studies the Cass report refers to show no change in mental health from puberty blockers. The benefit is no deterioration in mental health so it stabilises mental health & buys time to make a decision

And has been established multiple times, on previous occasions, as ANOTHER fact we have to revisit, the children also received mental health support in both groups, and a third got worse in that particular trial. So it cannot be established that puberty blockers were the cause of “no deterioration”.

And even if it were true, why is “no deterioration” in mental health a “lesser of two evils” requiring puberty blockers when “no deterioration in mental health” is the sort of outcome that is obtained from the most established of mental health treatments, therapy and support?

It’s all so incredibly weak. It’s remarkable that people have the audacity to stand behind such weak concepts without cringing with embarrassment.

The bottom line is people like you want to puberty block children. You need to puberty block them because you need them to grow up and claim to be trans. You live vicariously through these children and the harms are inconsequential to you.

Puberty blockers don't sterilise humans. Your claim was about medications that may cause sterilisation & how they were justified.

The studies the Cass report refers to show no change in mental health from puberty blockers. The benefit is no deterioration in mental health so it stabilises mental health & buys time to make a decision. The mental health of adolescents with gender dysphoria often deteriorates significantly during puberty as their bodies develop in ways that conflict with their gender identity. Therefore, the absence of mental health deterioration during pubertal suppression is viewed as a benefit.

So it doesn’t say that withholding PBs causes harm then.

That’s it? That one paragraph is your justification that sterilising children is the lesser of two evils? That’s the best you can come up with to justify that sterilising children with PBs meets standards of care?

And this justifies a trial?

And people wonder why we want such questions answered. Once you pull on a thread things unravel faster than Dougal’s jumper.

15.21 on page 184 there was moderate quality evidence that hormone treatment may improve psychological health in the short term.

<a class="break-all" href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143933/cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143933/cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/

I have read the Cass Review. Where does it say that poorer mental health outcomes result from not sterilising children, which is what you claimed?

You said that sterilising children is the “lesser of two evils” which means that if you don’t do it, a greater evil will prevail. Where does Cass say this?

And what mental health outcomes specifically does the review say will happen as a greater evil?

Different surgery is carried out in incredibly rare circumstances. Lobotomy as it was is not, and remains banned in many countries.

See the Cass report. Her systematic review pointed her in that direction as did other countries that did the same in Scandinavia.

What sort of poorer mental health outcomes? And where does it follow that they happen because sterilisation didn’t?

Lobotomies are still carried out. It is just rare - a last resort - and the name has changed.

Poorer mental health outcomes according to Cass given she seems to be of the belief 'genuine' trans minors might benefit hence the recommendation for the trials to be held.

Like what? What are the mental health outcomes that come from not sterilising children?

Mental health outcomes.

Ok so explain what the other evil is that balances sterilising children?

At least you’re admitting it’s an evil.

As I said upthread, trade offs are part of why health risks are ethical as in the lesser of two evils.

Basically, you’re acknowledging you think it’s ethical to sterilise children.

And you think it’s ethical because people who think it’s ethical have set the standards of practice determining that it’s ethical, ergo it’s ethical.

If it’s true that they couldn’t do RCTs or “proper trials” back then, then it demonstrates that it’s possible that you can put a stop to a dangerous practice without the need for a proper trial, doesn’t it?

Do you think if they'd done proper clinical trials of lobotomies they'd have spotted the problems more quickly and stopped their use more quickly?

Lobotomy suffered from the same problem as PBs. Ideologically driven practitioners (Walter Freeman) and runaway diffusion of the practice outside of rigorous oversight.

Of course if proper trials had been done at its inception by independent researchers and not relied on small weak studies (sound familiar?) then it may have been stopped sooner.

Was the Soviet Union politically motivated to be the first country to ban it?

The first RCT was in 1948.

Do you think if they'd done proper clinical trials of lobotomies they'd have spotted the problems more quickly and stopped their use more quickly?

Of course they had clinical trials “back then” in the 40s and 50s 🙄

I'd love to know what they think is the benefit of stunting the normal development of adolescents.

Passing better as adult transsexuals?

Sterilisation of children who would grow up to be gay or lesbian?

Sterilisation of autistic children?

Producing a cohort of young people who are physically and mentally immature, but chronologically are adults?

What other "benefits" are there of this treatment?

In the US, the HHS Report is one of the most accurate evidence-based document in this field. Those jurisdictions that have banned puberty blockers in the US have followed the evidence.

If other parties would have not done that, then those parties would be guilty of allowing politics to override the evidence.

There are other countries and jurisdictions around the world, not just the US.

Other countries are certainly looking to improve the evidence base.

And again, this should start with the evidence that gender incongruence is an accurate diagnosis and that gender identity exists.