Stonewall's response to Transgender Trend

[Eachpeachporch]

I wonder if anyone has had the experience of sharing the Transgender Trend schools resource pack and getting Stonewall's response to it as a reply? Does anyone have any thoughts on what Stonewall says here? Any help much appreciated! www.stonewall.org.uk/node/62946

suggestions, you are still confusing reporting a numerical difference with interpreting that difference as though it were real. Here is a direct quote from the paper where the authors themselves quite legitimately do the former (my italics added):

"On the contrary, the immediately eligible group, who at baseline had a higher, but not significantly different psychosocial functioning than the delayed eligible group, did not show any significant improvement after 6 months of psychological support"

I assumed you must have access to raw data to be able to come to your summary version

No, my summary version was based on applying basic scientific literacy and knowledge of research methods. Academics and researchers perform the same sort of critical evaluation every single time they read a research paper - they don't just swallow the conclusions whole.

This study has been published in a reputable, peer - review journal

Like it or not, the peer review and editorial process isn't infallible (or free from bias) and very few papers involving human behavioural research that are published are completely free of methodological issues. A paper which provides data on an under-researched area is more likely to be published even if some aspects are problematic, because it will be of interest to the journal's readership.

OK, so you seem to be saying that until there is an evidence base for medical treatment it is unethical to give that treatment.

No, until there is a sound evidence base which clearly demonstrates that a particular treatment produces more benefit than harm, it isn't unethical not to give that treatment.

As in - until there is a sound evidence base which clearly demonstrates that puberty blockers produce more benefit than harm in gender dysphoric young people, it isn't unethical not to give puberty blockers.

Anyway, I think the tutorial in critical evaluation of research studies has probably gone as far as it's likely to in clarifying things for you, suggestions, so that should free up your time to respond to Datun's earlier post (the one at 12.55.07, in case you missed it).

Talking of sound evidence, just a little reminder that Stephanie Davis Arai of Transgender Trend was shortlisted for the John Maddox prize.

The John Maddox Prize for Standing up for Science recognises the work of individuals who promote science and evidence, advancing the public discussion around difficult topics despite challenges or hostility.

Could that description BE more applicable?? 😁

@suggestionsplease1 Comparing evolution of suitable treatments for gender dysphoria, to those for cancers now?? That’s an odd shift.

Clinicians in Europe are assessing risk vs benefit of treatments carefully, as the cohort for gender dysphoria has shifted, which is appropriate. You don’t agree.

until there is a sound evidence base which clearly demonstrates that a particular treatment produces more benefit than harm, it isn't unethical not to give that treatment.

Worth repeating again and again.

@Datun

And I'm still no closer to understanding why suggestions is so keen to promote treatment of a condition that suggestions doesn't think should have any kind of cure.

I'm keen to weigh the totality of the evidence and bear in mind the overall conclusions coming from a plethora of experts in this area.

I have no agenda myself (makes no odds to me however anyone chooses to identify, I'll relate to them in the same way) The only thing I'm interested in is finding the ways forward that best support the individual, and I recognise that individuals arrive at places in their lives through different pathways and appropriate support will vary accordingly.

As I've said before the word 'cure' is problematic - it suggests, illness, disease, pathology - which most trans people would not identify with, and which medical experts do not agree with either - the WHO recognise it is not a disorder or mental health condition. So people might have medical treatment that is in alignment with and supportive of their gender identity, but I wouldn't describe that as a cure as it is not an illness we are dealing with.

I support all social and psychological measures in the first instance to reduce distress that trans identified and non-binary people might experience - we know that this is in large part due to lack of social support and inclusion, so this has to be addressed first. Doing so might reduce medical pathways as individuals do not then have to meet the higher threshold of legislation that requires surgery etc to recognise their gender ID.

These boards are very against any social mechanisms in this respect so I believe they inadvertently promote medical pathways for trans-identified people, despite claiming to be against this. This board does not, in general, want to see an inclusive culture for trans identified people, which increases their distress.

I have asked before on these boards for people to post evidence they can find (statistically significant evidence, I don't think that's too much to ask) that more relaxed processes for legal gender recognition in the multiple countries that have now employed these for several years, has led to any detriment, along any measure, for women in these countries.

Nobody has provided any evidence / studies of negative impact on women in these countries. So, whilst we're talking about evidence and studies, it would be great if people could post the statistically significant research they can find on this. (And of course, with such large populations to work with, the methodological issues that constrain research with trans people will not be such as issue here, so this should be quite achievable.)

It strikes me in a lot of this conversation that a dominating attitude from GC feminists seems to be that of 'knowing better than the original source'...the propensity to dismiss the evidence and research that exists appears to mimic the propensity to dismiss the lived realities of trans-identified people as they describe them - to refute the asserted identity and claim they are mistaken. It seems arrogant.

@Awiltu

OK, so you seem to be saying that until there is an evidence base for medical treatment it is unethical to give that treatment.

No, until there is a sound evidence base which clearly demonstrates that a particular treatment produces more benefit than harm, it isn't unethical not to give that treatment.

As in - until there is a sound evidence base which clearly demonstrates that puberty blockers produce more benefit than harm in gender dysphoric young people, it isn't unethical not to give puberty blockers. #

__

But you have defined parameters that make this an impossible achievement (but I guess that's maybe the whole point?!)

On one hand you're saying:

"Show me the evidence"

And on the other hand you are saying:

"It is unethical to take any steps to get the evidence"

(especially as you won't approve of small sample size studies, so to get the power that you want in the research you will need very large scale studies.)

You have created a circular logic ensuring your demands can never be met.

That's not how research and development of treatment protocols for patients works.

As I've said before the word 'cure' is problematic - it suggests, illness, disease, pathology - which most trans people would not identify with, and which medical experts do not agree with either - the WHO recognise it is not a disorder or mental health condition.

If it's not an illness, a disorder or a mental health condition, why does it require any medical treatment?

I support all social and psychological measures in the first instance to reduce distress that trans identified and non-binary people might experience - we know that this is in large part due to lack of social support and inclusion, so this has to be addressed first. Doing so might reduce medical pathways as individuals do not then have to meet the higher threshold of legislation that requires surgery etc to recognise their gender ID.

What do you mean by this? It has never been a requirement in the UK for transgender people to have surgery in order to obtain a GRC.

You also fail to consider any other people in this support for "all social and psychological measures". If others are adversely affected by this support, what then? Do you believe they should also have the right to be supported and included?

suggestions, it will probably be rather less confusing if you consider what I actually wrote, rather than your creative but inaccurate paraphrasing.

For the avoidance of any further opacity:

• It is not unethical to take steps to collect the evidence necessary to determine which of 2 treatment options is safest and most effective. Therefore, no circular logic problem.

• It is is ethical to collect this evidence via well-designed clinical intervention studies involving participants who are able to understand the risks associated with potentially serious treatment side effects and who can give informed consent.

• Until this evidence exists, it is not unethical for a clinician who is uncomfortable with the risk of serious side effects for unproven benefit, and/or unconvinced of a patient's ability to give informed consent, to refuse to prescribe a particular treatment.

@OldCrone

As I've said before the word 'cure' is problematic - it suggests, illness, disease, pathology - which most trans people would not identify with, and which medical experts do not agree with either - the WHO recognise it is not a disorder or mental health condition.

If it's not an illness, a disorder or a mental health condition, why does it require any medical treatment?

Good question. It's number 864 on my list of "commonly asked questions that TRAs never answer".

@OldCrone

As I've said before the word 'cure' is problematic - it suggests, illness, disease, pathology - which most trans people would not identify with, and which medical experts do not agree with either - the WHO recognise it is not a disorder or mental health condition.

If it's not an illness, a disorder or a mental health condition, why does it require any medical treatment?

Always a good question.

And if it is to help people to feel happy about their body, why are other treatments not free on the NHS for exactly the same purpose. Why are these treatments free if it is not an illness, a disorder or a mental health condition.