Study shows puberty blockers stunt growth

[ErrolTheDragon]

The GIDs study.
Reported in the Times today:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/puberty-blockers-stunt-bone-growth-of-children-tlv8qmdcd?shareToken=87a2b68398eac1dc855124211ae3e495

The piece says the paper is in Plos One so it should be fully accessible online - I've not been able to find it yet. (Wtf don't papers routinely include a proper literature reference or link? )

Here:

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243894

Well of course they do. I’m amazed people didn’t realise this. In boys and girls puberty is what causes the final growth spurts to adult height. You give them puberty blockers, you block their growth (among other things like bone density, muscle mass, etc) puberty isn’t just getting a bit of extra hair and boobs (or no boobs if a boy).

And they were always wrong about it being completely reversible because puberty is triggered genetically by your age and nutrition status. If you take puberty blockers all through the puberty age range you’re going to end up looking like an androgynous 12yr old and there is no fixing that.

I thought it was a real piece of misinformation/false advertising for them to tell kids and parents that they can take puberty blockers and that they’re “reversible” and just give the child “extra time” to decide if they want to transition or not. Anyone with even a basic understanding on human biology would know that this couldn’t be true.

I thought this was published a few weeks ago, directly after Keira Bell and MrsA's win ?

The pre-print version was put out. This is the published piece.

Ah, right.

How can they only be publishing this now. I've been here years under various names and posters have been highlighting the irreversible effects of PBs for years. Literally years this has been known.

Dr Polly Carmichael, director of GIDS, said: “The results show patient experience on the blocker is positive overall and there were no unexpected adverse events, but that more research is needed around this complex issue.”

Presumably the stunted growth, reduced bone mass, failure to improve psychological function, headaches, menopausal symptoms, fatigue, inevitable progression to XS hormones, infertility and lifelong medicalisation including increased risks of suicidality after transition we're all expected adverse events then.

Zero measurable benefit, weighed against a huge list of expected and measurable harms. That's literally the conclusion.

I remember a few years ago a few of us wondering whether Polly Carmichael might have been on the verge of regretting what she was doing. She's definitely w£ighed up the odds and gone all in since.

Yet more proof that this movement is driven by and for male-sexed individuals.

Stunted growth is a neutral, perhaps even desirable outcome if you identify as a transgirl, but an adverse outcome if you identify as a transboy.

@DisgustedofManchester
I noticed you began a (shortly to be deleted) thread on Mumsnet FWR yesterday to introduce yourself, and to say that you were looking forward to contributing.
I also noticed you commented on this article in The Times this morning.
Perhaps you would like to put the case for puberty blockers here, as I would like to see both sides of the argument?

Stunted growth is a neutral, perhaps even desirable outcome if you identify as a transgirl, but an adverse outcome if you identify as a transboy

Absolutely this. The negative result for transmen of being even smaller than the average man was not even discussed in the Tavistock report and was seen only as an advantage in their report.
With the cohort of FtM rising rapidly this negative side effect hadn't even got a mention.

Zero measurable benefit, weighed against a huge list of expected and measurable harms. That's literally the conclusion.

And the only reason for giving hormone blockers to children during puberty (rather than waiting until they are adults) is to avoid the irreversible effects of testosterone in boys (deeper voice, facial hair etc). There is no equivalent reason to give these drugs to girls during puberty (they are not given until puberty has started, so girls will already have some breast development).

Obviously this is an oversimplification but: Irreversibly harm 3 girls with no real benefits to them so that one boy can be prettier, more or less?

@ErrolTheDragon

Obviously this is an oversimplification but: Irreversibly harm 3 girls with no real benefits to them so that one boy can be prettier, more or less?

Sadly, I don't think this is an oversimplification.

And the other interesting thing (going to have to phrase this very carefully) is that though the former boy now transgirl may be prettier, they too will have lost a huge amount in the process - including enough tissue for future operations, adult sexual function, etc. As far as I can see the process is actually driven by two groups: a certain cohort of parents whose idea of what they would like for their children may not be in perfect alignment with their children's actual best interests; plus a cohort of formerly male now transitioned adults who are not happy when they look in the mirror and think "wouldn't things in my life have been so much better if someone had been able to wave a magic wand and keep into adulthood the very pretty face I had as a child?" (conveniently forgetting other features of adulthood which may not have worked out quite as badly for them).

The effects in boys are no less horrifying, in that like Jazz they are likely to be rendered anorgasmic if PBS are given as early as indicated (Tanner 2). It doesn’t seem as if this study did any measures of sexual functioning (correct if wrong?) which is wildly irresponsible given what the treatment is.

Adults preventing children from ever experiencing the joy of adult sexual pleasure is truly unethical.

Again it comes down to “womens sexual functioning” being defined as something men do to you.

Cara you got to the same point first.

So it's been peer reviewed.

Michael Biggs has written a long reader comment, worth reading. He has looked at the data set released.

If, by any chance, the appeal against KB wins, there is now so much more evidence i.e. the publishing the day after the court case and this latest stuff, to prevent anyone at least under the age of 17 being given these drugs without the absolute consent of the courts.

And I wonder whether cross sex hormones will be put on hold until more research is done(with regards to children) (not that I know that much about them, but the side effects are just incredible) or will it be still considered viable to give healthy people drugs to make them unhealthy? I mean this really is crazy stuff

Well that explains a lot.

On reddit and so on, I've noticed a lot of American transboys who seem shorter than average for a teenage girl today. Puberty blockers at fault?

@Manderleyagain

So it's been peer reviewed.

Michael Biggs has written a long reader comment, worth reading. He has looked at the data set released.

Considered as a treatment in its own right, the suppression of puberty with GnRHa might be the only treatment provided by the NHS for which there is no objective evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks—as the authors themselves admitted in their statistical plan. The only justification for puberty suppression is to prepare a child for lifelong medicalization with cross-sex hormones and surgeries, with irreversible consequences for sexuality and fertility.

Read the whole comment here:
journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comment?id=10.1371/annotation/71faadb8-de18-4c65-9482-93ded40984b6

@OldCrone

Zero measurable benefit, weighed against a huge list of expected and measurable harms. That's literally the conclusion.

And the only reason for giving hormone blockers to children during puberty (rather than waiting until they are adults) is to avoid the irreversible effects of testosterone in boys (deeper voice, facial hair etc). There is no equivalent reason to give these drugs to girls during puberty (they are not given until puberty has started, so girls will already have some breast development).

In that case, why are female children given puberty blockers at all? Why aren't they started on testosterone sooner? The Tavistock clinicians are so good at identifying the children who will go on to cross sex hormones that virtually 100% of the children who take puberty blockers do not desist, so why make even more future problems for the female children who want eventually to look like men?

The thing that really concernes me about these blockers is that it just seems so iresponsible. Obviously they stunt physical development, that's what they're there for.

The frontal lobe is the last part of the brain to fully develop and goes through huge growth duriing puberty. damage to this part of the brain can have devestating effects not just on the individual but those around them as it effects how they interact and connect with others as well as planning and understanding consequences.

Has there been any study into how these blockers effect brain development?

Pink News is reporting this as saying puberty blockers make kids happier.

I learned about this because someone shared the mermaids thread where their takeaway was “puberty blockers make kids happier”. Genuinely starting to wonder if we live in parallel universes.

There are class action lawsuits pending in the USA, after Lupron was used to extend puberty (for bone growth) and for precocious puberty.

Osteoporosis, fibromyalgia and numerous bone defects in scarily young women, all prescribed puberty blockers for physical reasons.

www.statnews.com/2017/02/02/lupron-puberty-children-health-problems/