Response from the Mail regarding "Male Puberty"

[Yambabe]

Related to the use of this phrase in the headline about the sentencing of Dr Webberley.

The Mail tell me that their headline saying she prescribed hormones to a 12-year-old girl so she would have a male puberty is not misleading or inaccurate because

*The hormones given to the child, whether naturally released from the pituitary gland, or aided by medical intervention, produce the effects of puberty-related changes.

In the case of the child under Dr Helen Webberley’s care, it is necessary to explain the aim and result of taking hormones as ‘male puberty’ in order to accurately explain the court case. We do not believe the article is inaccurate and will not be changing it.*

WTF?

I am confused as to what the reason of your WTF is?

You can't water a rose plant with orchid fertilizer and expect an orchid flower to be produced. You'll just get.... A slightly spoiled rose.....

Is what I imagine the WTF is about.... Or maybe not

My WTF is that a female child, no matter what hormones she is given, surely can't experience a male puberty? Isn't the whole point of NOT giving hormone treatment to children that nobody knows what the effect will be, and that's why it's unethical?

I'm damn sure that whatever else happens to this child her penis and testicles won't start growing.

Not a biologist, but male puberty cannot take place in girls, afaik.

Ah, thanks, I think I get it now.

Was confused there for a moment, but of course, giving a rose orchid fertilizer will not help it become a mature orchid, as it will always stay a rose.

Isn't the whole point of NOT giving hormone treatment to children that nobody knows what the effect will be, and that's why it's unethical?

Yeah, I focused on the "sentencing of Dr." part and thought that sounded as everything was okay.

I didn't want to derail the other thread and technically this isn't a TAAT (although it is related).

Maybe I didn't explain the background properly. The Mail covered the sentencing of Dr Webberley on Monday with a headline that included the words "gave a 12-year-old girl hormones to go through male puberty". I complained that the headline was inaccurate and misleading as a female child could not experience male puberty and I thought it could cause confusion in vulnerable young children who were exploring their gender identity but didn't have a full grasp of human biology. The quote above (that I tried and failed to make bold!) is verbatim from their email telling me why they wouldn't be changing the headline.

My understanding - which I admit to be limited to an O'level gained a long time ago - is that giving cross-sex hormones as opposed to puberty blockers would be likely to interfere with a natural female puberty but couldn't induce a male puberty as the girl would not have the tackle. The actual effects would be unknown because this course of action would be both experimental and unethical and no studies have been done for obvious reasons.

At most, it might promote the development of more typically male secondary sexual characteristics. That is not male puberty.

The most commonly used (in the UK at least) system for assessing puberty stage is the Tanner scale. In boys, this is primarily based on testicular size and penile development. (Yes, there's hair growth as well, but that's effectively the same between male and female)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanner_scale

I suspect the Mail is aware that the headline is factually incorrect, but it's getting lots of clicks. And nobody is going to sue them for not understanding biology.

the daily mail is nothing more than a comic

So the artificial hormones will make a girl develop testicles which will then increase in size and start producing sperm that could potentially impregnate a sexual partner then?

What's that you say? Of course that's not going to happen? Not male puberty, then.

A more accurate term would be “iatrogenic virilisation of a female child”

A more reader friendly term could be “doctor-induced male-like false puberty”.

Can you escalate the complaint?

www.ipso.co.uk/complain/#WhatWeHandleComplaintsAbout

Though I’m not sure if the mail is a member of IPSO.

What would/does happen if you give a female child cross-sex hormones (testosterone?)?

Does anyone know?

I am doing a quick google - apparently increased BMI is one result, as is increased haemoglobin and haemocrit (what effect would this have?), increased systolic blood pressure and lowering of HDL levels (again what are these).

The point is that the Endocrine Society has recommended cross-sex hormone treatment for adolescents with gender dysphoria and the studies to check the effects are being done afterwards. Nobody knows the long term effects, these measurements are from six month follow up.

There was a link posted on here before, I’ll see if I can find it, but the thing that stuck in my mind was vaginal atrophy occurs within 4-6 months. The link had a table. I realise that’s not helpful..

HDL - "good" cholesterol, which will mean proportionally there's more of a really bad for your health kind.