Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Most disingenuous claim by a TRA doctor I’ve seen yet

35 replies

NotBadConsidering · 19/08/2020 09:59

Jack Turban is a child psych fellow. He shot to prominence earlier this year when he has a paper published in Pediatrics that claimed to show transgender adults who had been on puberty blockers as children had better mental health when in fact it actually showed those adults who had been on puberty blockers as children were twice as likely to have been hospitalised for a suicide attempt in the 12 months prior compared to transgender adults who hadn’t been on puberty blockers.

He is claiming, in response to Abigail Shrier, that puberty blockers don’t cause infertility. To prove his point he links a study.

mobile.twitter.com/jack_turban/status/1295560729173475328

The study looks at the use of puberty blockers for precocious puberty. This is a condition where children go through puberty too early, puberty blockers are used, and then always ceased to allow normal puberty to happen. Therefore these children do not end up infertile. This is a completely different condition.

With gender variant children who are given puberty blockers they are NOT stopped, normal puberty is NEVER allowed to happen, normal fertility is NEVER developed because sperm and ova aren’t matured by the process of puberty. Cross sex hormones, given later do not allow this process to happen. Surgery to remove ovaries or testes then makes it permanent.

In the “theoretical” case study of a child continuing on puberty blockers without progressing to cross sex hormones the authors acknowledge the risk of infertility and recommend consideration of egg preservation and counselling.

jme.bmj.com/content/early/2020/07/24/medethics-2019-106012

Puberty suppression would also impair Phoenix’s fertility. Phoenix’s eggs are unlikely to mature without sex hormones.29 While fertility preservation techniques exist (eg, ovarian tissue cryopreservation), these remain experimental, especially for individuals who have not gone through puberty,10 such as Phoenix. Current guidelines recommend the impact of puberty blockers on fertility and fertility preservation options be discussed with patients and families before beginning puberty suppression.

Jack must know this. He can’t not know this. If Jack doesn’t know this he is a very poorly informed self-appointed expert in this field. If Jack does know this and is being disingenuous in his post, I can’t possibly post my opinion on Jack’s integrity because this post took too long to risk deletion.

OP posts:
Datun · 19/08/2020 17:49

@Aesopfable

Don’t follow Jazz. But the last I heard the attempt to construct a ‘neovagina’ out of a hotchpotch of tissues fail. Did they continue to be filmed or has that dropped away to give them a chance to have some space to reflect?
I don't follow jazz, either. The last I heard, though, is they didn't go to college, which I believe was meant to be Harvard?
JellySlice · 19/08/2020 18:52

Please don't discuss J on this thread. By the moderation rules, posts discussing naming individuals tend to get deleted, and sometimes even the entire thread, despite those individuals choosing to make intimate details of their lives public.

Datun · 19/08/2020 19:03

@JellySlice

Please don't discuss J on this thread. By the moderation rules, posts discussing naming individuals tend to get deleted, and sometimes even the entire thread, despite those individuals choosing to make intimate details of their lives public.
As far as I'm aware, I thought speculation was the problem, not what is actually in the television programme?

i've never been told we can't mention jazz at all.

Tootsweets23 · 19/08/2020 19:12

The good doctor is Ben Cohen's husband of Prick News fame.

JellySlice · 19/08/2020 19:47

There are many things we are not told that we cannot mention, yet posts get deleted for mentioning them.

Most mentions of this individual, though, end up falling foul of the iniquitous guidelines:

Most disingenuous claim by a TRA doctor I’ve seen yet
FWRLurker · 19/08/2020 20:32

If your child discontinues the use of blockers, and does not go on gender affirming hormones, they will continue their pubertal development about 6-12 months after stopping the medication, and fertility would be maintained.

As far as I am aware, if such data exists, it is not published. The main reason being that nearly everyone who takes puberty blockers past the age of standard puberty had gone on to X sex hormones.

I think there should now be enough children who do desist (even just a handful) to do a case study, but I haven’t seen one. Which makes me think the news is not good.

NotBadConsidering · 19/08/2020 21:34

With regards to the claim that normal puberty would resume, no one knows if there is a finite point for this. Puberty blockers for precocious puberty are usually stopped after around 2 years, when a child is at the standard puberty age. So it’s physiologically understandable that puberty would resume. No one know if this still happens at 18, 20, 22, 25? There may be a point at which the hypothalamus just gives up.

What’s also notable about the consent form strongly pointing out that infertility will result is that it is a consent form for a study. An ethics committee would have probably been involved.

But what about consent forms for this treatment outside of the study, in all the other clinics around the world? Are parents and children even presented with a written consent form to sign?

OP posts:
SunsetBeetch · 20/08/2020 18:02

@Tootsweets23

The good doctor is Ben Cohen's husband of Prick News fame.
Oh really? That explains a lot.
Gingerkittykat · 20/08/2020 18:24

Hopefully Mermaids and friends will have to start reporting accurately on what happens rather than just tell the people they are reversible and just pause puberty, something I believed before I came on here.

FWRLurker · 20/08/2020 19:23

An ethics committee would have probably been involved.

Indeed, in fact this study was rejected by NIH before finally being funded for ethical violations. One of the demands Of the ethics reviewers was a random assignment to no-hormone Or placebo control group. Exposing subjects to potentially unsafe medical treatments in a study Is not ethical if it cannot, by virtue of the design, Detect an effect of the treatment.

They applied again and managed to get it through by claiming the study is “observational” (something only possible due to the huge number of IC clinic children in the US, and extremely disingenuous given the authors RUN one of the clinics), and that all the kids in the control group would Be in danger of suicide.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page