Where did the 'fact' that puberty blockers are reversible come from?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M4X_ZpnYdC8&pp=ygUTZ2VuZGVyIGEgd2lkZXIgbGVucw%3D%3D

Just watched this. Very interesting on how difficult it has been to get the American Association of Pediatrics to carry out a review into the efficacy of puberty blockers as a treatment for gender dysphoria. Every country that's done a proper review has severely restricted their use. The US has been resisting this for years but has recently agreed to do the review. I mean, why resist if there's no adverse effects?

I am no doctor, but I doubt most children only take blockers for a few months. Precocious puberty for girls is defined as a girl starting puberty before the age of 8. Let's say a girl has their first period aged 7 or 8, then they would take blockers until they are developmentally in line with their peers, so they would take blockers until they are 10 or 11.

You are right, you are not a doctor. Precocious puberty is puberty starting before the age of 8. It is perfectly normal for girls to start puberty around age 8 or 9.

I think people confuse ‘reversible’ with ‘if you take this for a while then stop it will be as if you had never taken it’. What is actually meant is when you take it the medication stops a particular process in the body, but when you stop taking it the action to stop that process also stops. The impact of having stopped that process is not undone. So puberty may no longer be blocked but if the window has passed then it has passed. A bit like the contraceptive pill stops the process that enables you to conceive but if you stop taking it at 55 you won’t get pregnant.

Haven’t RTFT but I had to respond to this.

NO MEDICINE IS TOTALLY SAFE

Wolfparty had already discovered through reading that they cause adverse effects. Medicine is always about weighing up risk of benefit vs risk of harm.

@stickygotstuck I am no doctor, but I doubt most children only take blockers for a few months. Precocious puberty for girls is defined as a girl starting puberty before the age of 8. Let's say a girl has their first period aged 7 or 8, then they would take blockers until they are developmentally in line with their peers, so they would take blockers until they are 10 or 11. There is no point in taking blockers for just a few months, because periods usually restart soon (some as early as 1 month) after no longer taking blockers.

Girls suffering from precocious puberty who don't take blockers have an increased risk of anxiety, depression, negative body image/eating disorders, substance abuse, lower academic achievement, suicidal thoughts, early sexual activity. These girls don't just experience puberty physically but also mentally, which often causes a lot of problems, eg. risk taking behaviours at a very early age. So there are risks either way.

And as a follow up to the GOSH training, maybe this is apt too.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/transgender-psychologist-hubris-blame-harmful-industry-standards-treatment-minors

Transgender psychologist warns of ‘emotional blackmail’ used by colleagues in their treatment of minors

”Despite belief among some of her colleagues in the industry that "the distress that kids experience is all due to gender issues," Anderson said she rarely sees that to be the case. She said cases where a child is gender questioning are "quite simple" and in her experience, "rare."
"We need to explore the course of this gender journey on the part of the young person and find out, is it occurring because of their own organic awareness of who they are, or is it in part because they realize that a lot of other kids are doing this and why shouldn't they?" Anderson asked.”

It is not necessarily new, Anderson has been raising alarms before. But I notice the alarms are getting more and more solid and louder now. More certain in language and directness.

One branch of discussion about it:

https://twitter.com/Transgendertrd/status/1695357134391648612?t=M4LOaoYyZo7k-Gc3930zDA&s=19

WTAF indeed.

I'm wondering what safeguards are in place to stop a hospital that isn't fit for purpose (where the requirements have been laid out by Dr Cass, in the NHS-commissioned review) being awarded the contract. Or if they've already been awarded it, being allowed to continue on and deliver it.

It's got echos of that time that someone who was friends with someone nearly got awarded a massive (millions of pounds) contract to run ferries/ships (can't remember which), despite not owning a single ferry/ship. Only this time the outcome of the contract going ahead would be a lot more sinister because we'd likely be right back to where we were when the Cass Review was commissioned.

All good 👍👍
I'd been (quite rightly) pulled up on my words by a couple of comments so I was just calling it out again, within the context of my post.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/great-ormond-street-hospital-150-gender-guidance-2023-ggzz3jptn

This is concerning. GOSH staff being ‘trained’ to believe that concerns for puberty blockers are fake issues. WTAF

”Under a section about “allyship”, the document said that people should “know the fake issues” including “de-transition, rest rooms, puberty blockers”.“

That's really shocking.

It's quite clear even from the two posts quoted above that there really does need to be some follow-up to this by the NHS. They must have records that show what drugs people were given in the past and they could look at the health issues in that group now.

I guess the probem is a lack of interest, will or the desire to do so. 😡

I know someone who potentially had lupron or the like in the 90s too. She doesn’t know. For a completely difference purpose.

she now has severe osteoporosis, just doing housework can mean a breakage, teeth falling out, and many other issues including endocrinology issue. No specialists in the nhs know why or seem interested in finding out. It might or might not be something connected. However, your story resonates.

My dd was tested for PP, she didn’t have it, in her case it turned out that it was only premature adrenarche so no treatment needed. However her consultant at the time said he had concerns over puberty blockers and that they had consequences.
I think it does depend how long a child is on them but I have read that bone density and IQ can be affected, and both those things were mentioned by the consultant.

My post was more about how much misinformation there is rather than being aimed at your initial post bonfire.

It was also about linguistics and how the repetition of puberty blockers has become almost euphemistic like top surgery and bottom surgery. And how the organisations meant to inform and support are not actually doing their jobs.

Absolutely. Amongst all the chilling issues around puberty blockers being used in this context, this one feels like the tip of a huge iceberg. It's a small indication of the likely impact on brain development.
Jazz also sounds quite childish in the way that Jazz speaks. From the perspective of how Jazz describes their feelings and so on. By that stage of adulthood you'd expect a different take on things. I've never listened to Jackie Green speak, apart from a really odd video which was supposedly a debunk of Posie Parker's online commentary review of Susie Green's TEDtalk. Jackie didn't really speak as such. It was more like a barrage of insults with no substance. If that is representative of how Jackie speaks on subjects, then it sounds like Jackie has a childish mentality too.

Both Jazz and Jackie are victims in this 😞😞

All very true.

I was definitely too quick with the statement and the sentiment behind it. I wanted to put the PP's mind at ease because it was the gender identity issue I was referring to and I knew they were licensed for precocious puberty. In hindsight that was not the right thing to have done at all.

Small (and indefensible) excuse: in parallel to this thread I was in a debate on Twitter about the very same subject. So my succinct response was because my head was in the Tweet-style zone, rather than long form MN-style. Thankfully I hadn't said anything like that on Twitter. The Twitter thread is mostly me being asked bonkers questions and getting insulted, whilst (I am) staying calm and succinct. No purpose to it other than I'm keen to understand what the view is from the "other side". It's unsurprisingly all about the idea that puberty can be induced with synthetic hormones (their view) and that TWAW (their view). The content of their pushback is helpful to see because when I speak about this in real life, I am aware of some of the counterarguments for what I'm saying.

But yes, to your point. I would expect any parent to do their own research. A request for puberty blockers from my daughter last year in the summer is what started me on my whole research journey. Initially I restricted it to just the issue in hand (the blockers) then widened it so that I could help her navigate the bigger picture (her feelings about "gender")... and then widened it again and again and again (still going) so that I am informed and can converse on this multi-faceted and hugely important world issue.

One aspect of pubertal suppression that doesn't get much discussion is how it appears to eradicate the development of sexuality and romantic attraction. It's been spoken of by Jazz Jennings, by the child 'Jacob' in the Telegraph article linked to above, and also one of the interviewees in the Hannah Barnes book Time To Think. All have spoken of not having teenage crushes, or being unsure who they are attracted to, of being without romantic/sexual feelings towards others.

Also the Dutch studies that the whole puberty blockers protocol is built on report that in adulthood, while most are happy with their transition, none of the participants are in settled romantic partnerships.

I fear this is one of this unmeasurable effects that may have damaging long term effects on quality of life.

I'm sick of seeing it said that the effects are reversible, when no one knows yet exactly what the effects are.

There's a child in my family currently going through prep to start blockade with the Tavistock. So it's still happening in the UK.

I've mentioned this before, but I was put on 6 months of zoladex (a GnRHa) for endometriosis back in the late 90s when I was in my 20s, no oestrogen add-in then, it was extremely unpleasant. In my late 40s, I was found to have early osteoporosis and an endocrine disorder that I will have for the rest of my life. Is there a connection? Who knows. I've certainly not been followed up, no medic is interested in whether there is a connection.

I have contacted the Endometriosis Society on several occasions, but they are completely captured and cannot even state that this is a disease of women let alone what these long term effects may be.

I know I've read that in other periods of history girls went through puberty on average later.