terrifying, dangerous, abusive "advice" on r/transgenderuk

MoltenLasagne didn't say their cousin wasn't being supervised.

We disagree.

If that data has been collected and analysed (there is no evidence that it has) and a correlation has been shown to exist between a significant number of cases of mobility difficulties resulting in wheelchair, crutch and frame use at a very young age due to osteoporosis caused by puberty blockers and if that data was released to Cass, then I do not believe that the puberty blocker trial could possibly get through an ethics committee for approval.

What’s the point in them at all though. It’s just helping someone PRETEND to be the opposite sex more realistically. You still cannot change sex. Why bother trying?

Please point out my "wild TRA nonsense" whenever you manage to find any.

I'm still waiting for someone to point to even one video that supports the wild nonsense that was posted earlier today that nobody but me questioned.

Yes, agreed that obtaining them with proper medical supervision would be far preferable.

The thought of anyone procuring puberty blockers or cross sex hormones for a child without medical supervision is so chilling. Even when used for precocious puberty the side effects are awful - osteoporosis, depression and suicidality, joint problems.

My cousin was on them for just over a year in the 90s and has recently been diagnosed with osteoporosis in her early 30s. I wouldn't wish the pain she's in on anyone.

So that's a no on answering me then?
I expected nothing else tbh.
It's ok. I already know the answer

I didn't report any posts, but no, I'm not going to respond to personally abusive posts directed at me, so you can jog on.

@ConveyancingHelll I see you reported my post rather than answer the questions I put to you in it?
Getting too close to the truth perhaps?

I'd still like to know what your stake in advocating for the idea of a "Trans Child" is though. Why are you so determined to medicate and butcher children? Why do you care?
I know you don't believe in it. No one does.

Yes was enough of an answer.

You saw disabled people at Pride and decided you knew their medical history. I suppose it makes a change from 'they're all making it up to look cool'.

Thanks.

So taking the studies referred to in your link.

The conclusion in Steensma (2011) is that the ages 10-13 are the critical years in determining whether gender dysphoria is likely to persist or not, and in Wallien the conclusion was that extremity of gender dysphoria in childhood is a good predictor of persistence or desistance.

Both Steensma and Wallien suggest very strong links between the extremity of gender dysphoria in childhood and persistence.

The only other study is Singh, which measures outcomes from a much older period (mean initial diagnosis year was 1989).

On balance, I think these studies support the points I have been making more than the points you have been making - that by the time puberty blockers come to be considered, the likelihood of persistance is already largely determined, and there are factors that can point one way or another in that respect. Which means that we can reasonably conclude that if a child who had extreme gender dysphoria through childhood, which was persistent, that gender dysphoria was likely to persist into adulthood.

Well the first answer he got was from some idiot who compared vaginismus with an open wound trying to close up...

Amazingly vaginismus was suggested by a female.

Well the first answer he got was from some idiot who compared vaginismus with an open wound trying to close up.
I suspect it only got worse from there.

I'd love someone to give the opposite evidence.

I was 42 when my body stopped producing estrogen and I could not walk up the stairs by the age of 49, even though my daily job was 'head gardener' and I did probably 40,000 steps, weighed down with equipment, doing digging, shovelling, moving trays of plants etc etc all day every day. If I hadn't finally got HRT I doubt Id be walking now.

To suggest that stopping girls from getting the correct bone strengthening hormones in their teens will not have a detrimental effect on their bones in their 20s is utterly ludicrous.

Sometimes, you have to just realise what it is you are looking at. If you look at that and think 'how nice disabled people are getting out of the house' then that's your decision to make.

Sorry, are you just assuming that if someone is at Pride with a visible disability that (a) they were on puberty blockers and (b) that their disability was caused by puberty blockers?

Like, genuinely, is that the sum total of your evidence here?

I do know that.

I also know that the decision to proceed to cross sex hormones is a decision taken by competent adults, rather than some inevitable consequence of puberty blockers.

Rather, I think the high rates suggest that the very small minority of kids who were prescribed puberty blockers by Tavistock were probably cases of such extreme and persistent dysphoria that their trans identity was always extremely likely to persist into adulthood.

That's the point. She hasn't got it. If she had it and if it shows what we think it might, the trial would be unethical.

No, YOUR point is that the trial wouldn’t go ahead if this data existed and people knew about it.

The trial is going ahead regardless of whether it exists or not. Because if the data was that important, they would still try and get it. I repeat and clarify, the trial is not going ahead because the data doesn’t exist, it’s going ahead because the data is unavailable and they don’t care enough to pursue it before starting Pathways.

You can’t say “it can’t exist otherwise Pathways wouldn’t be going ahead” because that assumes that the potential existence of such data is a priority for the Pathways researchers as part of their protocol. It isn’t.

But why has no country in the world got it if puberty blockers really are putting young people in wheelchairs and on crutches? I find that difficult to understand. Surely there Finns would have that data?

Because most countries have done exactly zero long term research on physical outcomes, or had significant drop out rates. It is not disputed that bone health is negatively impacted. And it doesn’t matter if it’s hyperbole that they may be so severely impacted as to be on crutches or in wheelchairs because even if it was 100% demonstrable that this was happening in the UK, Pathways would be going ahead. Because if they thought it was important they would look first to see if it’s true. And they aren’t.

you’re gender critical but talk about anti trans echo chambers? We’ve had posters like this before, who
claim to be GC whilst posting wild TRA nonsense.

Who said I had no problem with reduced bone density? You have completely made that up. I have said repeatedly that the puberty blocker trial is unethical.

My problem is only that hyperbole about children at Pride marches in wheelchairs and using walking aids due to puberty blockers actually make the gender critical argument which I fully support look as unhinged as the trans warriors, just with less violence.

It will not help win this argument to make ridiculous and easily disproven claims.

so you freely admit, in fact you say there’s no question that they reduce bone density! That’s more than some TRAs are willing to admit! And you have no problem
with this? Reduced bone density leads to greatly increased risk of fractures, osteoporosis, back pain, stooped posture. Are you ok with that? For cosmetic surgery?

That's the point. She hasn't got it. If she had it and if it shows what we think it might, the trial would be unethical.

But why has no country in the world got it if puberty blockers really are putting young people in wheelchairs and on crutches? I find that difficult to understand. Surely there Finns would have that data?

There is no question that they reduce bone density. But hyperbole about wheelchair users at Pride marches just makes the gender critical side of this argument seem as rabid as the trans extremists, minus the violence. It doesn't help.

But she tried to get it. They wouldn’t give it to her. That's the whole point. Cass was concerned about these potential negative outcomes, asked the adult clinics for it, they refused, so went with the idea that became Pathways.

Pathways isn’t going ahead because the data on bad outcomes like osteoporosis doesn’t exist, it’s going ahead because the data on bad outcomes like osteoporosis wasn’t made available.

.

“The more nonsensical and obviously absurd a belief is, the more people who hold it (or pretend to) will resist recanting. The potential for humiliation rises in direct proportion to the ridiculousness of what they've publicly swallowed. They see no choice but to double down.”

"this very ungraceful distress, in which they can neither retract with dignity nor persist with justice"

Who said it better? JKR? Or Edmund Burke?
There's only one way to find out...

FIIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHT!😁
[FYI if you're baffled - that's a ref to an old TV programme]