American genital surgeon admits they’re learning as they go

[NotBadConsidering]

And talks about how the medical team touching the patient’s genitals before and after surgery is often the first time anyone has, including the patients themselves.

The original video was a year ago but I don’t think we noticed it here.

How this is allowed to continue and be championed will be the subject of many a scathing book in years to come😡

https://twitter.com/Real_EdDiehl/status/1662258674734346240?cxt=HHwWgMDRhaXdw5EuAAAA

They must all have a very bad case of God complex.

I hope history remembers exactly what these people did and are still doing to children. It beyond abhorrent.

Even in 'I am Jazz' you see the parents clearly unhappy that the surgeries are so experimental and surprised that the doctors don't really know what they're doing. Jazz's Mum at one point says something along the lines of Jazz having to be in hospital so much and having conditions that are just not normal for Jazz's age group and how awful that is.

I mean you don't have to be a rocket scientist to join the dots do you?

But with these 'media' families I think they can't really stop now, they've gone past the point of any return and presumably it's their only income at this point? Which they need to deal with surgical complications etc? (Lucky them, most child transitioners won't have the funds to afford the care they need esp if in the US)

I do think the surgeons are culpable for not stopping once they realised the consequences - Jazz's surgeon clearly says also that all the kids blocked at Tanner stage 2 lose 100% of sexual function. The problem is, the whole point of puberty blockers is to stop sexual development to allow these children to 'pass' better but there's no way to do that, seemingly without losing all sexual function. Not a doctor but it seems this is entirely predictable given the whole biological point of puberty.

It's also arguable whether girls who are blocked and therefore shorter than they would otherwise be (which is already shorter than men, being female) will pass better. They're using a protocol for boys on girls. It's medical malpractice.

Ive watched quite a lot of the full interview. The surgeon cheerfully explaining (maybe boasting) to a person whom I presume is a ‘therapist ‘ that he can alter peoples bodies to an expression of a ‘non binary’ identity. This seems to mean that the patient can commission a version of a human body which has never been seen in reality.

This ranges from a female whose breasts are ‘slightly removed’ but keep the nipples on what he describes as a ‘reduced mound ‘, so that this person could bind their breasts when they are feeling flat chested’ or displaying them when….you get the idea. Isn’t this ‘just’ breast reduction? Not especially ground breaking, except by the terminology.

For more complex non binary manifestationS, though ( if I understood it correctly) , you could keep some of your male genitalia but also have a ‘Cavity’ ( ‘vagina’ ) created to enjoy intercourse using it. This is a paraphrase but it is not my invention , distortion or terminology.
Similarly, a female could keep the vagina, but ‘ bury’ the clitoris and have phalloplasty in situ ….. though it is hard to see how this would really give sexual pleasure.

This is surely going beyond gender dysphoria , where people believe themselves to be the opposite sex and want sexual characteristics to match their perceived selves. They are quite literally being moulded into something outside human biology. I doubt whether any of it, except possibly the breast reduction, is reversible.

😢

For "experiments" to be scientific they need to follow the scientific method.
This includes observing and documenting results. In a medical setting this would mean following all procedures up repeatedly to observe the effects over time. The day after, a week later, two weeks later, a month later, evey month for a year, every six months for 5 years, every year for ten years. All the while assessing the impact on the patient. This data would be recorded and form the basis upon which the processes was evaluated.
Pushing people out the door never to be seen again after chopping thier bits off and crossing your fingers is far more faith based than anything to do with science.

The breast reduction will only be reversible in terms of volume, not in terms of function. Breasts have a function, to feed babies. If you remove the milk producing bits, replacing them with a silicone bag won't get the function back.

It's all about look and nothing about normal healthy function.

Quite apart from any future baby's needs, breastfeeding reduces the risk of cancer for the mother (quite significantly for some cancers), and for many is a hell of a lot easier than bottles, as well as less expensive, which can be important in the early days. Not all women get on well with bf of course, but to remove it as a choice without any idea what you're giving up? Women and girls having this done apparently aren't told about the risks to function AT ALL.

Of course not because it's just boring human biology (that until recently was the only way in which baby humans were kept alive).

Yes, quite. It is peddled as LIFE SAVING (without being so in the slightest) but of course that lets them off the hook because mutilation is better than death.
Except there’s no swathe of people dying. At all.

What a fuck up.

What you say in your first paragraph is very chilling, and very frightening. I also thought of Josef Mengele.

How can a child give consent to an irreversible medical procedure that removes essential body parts when the child hasn’t even begun to understand or experience some of the essential functions of these body parts? They can’t understand what they’re consenting too. It’s grotesque.

This.

All medicine started off as experimental. The point is there should be proper trials. Research. Follow up. Comparisons. Outcomes. Best practice. All the normal checks and balances.

That there are not should be a scandal. It's a disgusting way to treat people. Often vulnerable people. Often children.

Didn't Cochrane start the process and decline to finish?

It's the wild west of medicine.

If you think what you're doing is right and that you're doing good, why wouldn't you want robust follow up and a solid and increasingly sound evidence base?

This question needs to be asked more. I think they know what they'll find, which is why they don't want the normal level of research and follow up of patients done.

IIRC this is what Cass said, every single case of a child on puberty blockers needs follow up (same is true for surgery though at least this isn't happening on very young children in the UK).

I don't know if you've ever ventured to the SRS/GRS thread on kiwi farms (content warning for for extremely offensive language and horrifying photos) but there are some examples of people who have had these kind of non binary/ mix and match procedures on there.

There has been interesting discussion there about how some young people seem to believe that our amazing human bodies are just basically meat Lego, that you can just move this bit here and reshape that bit there and off you go. The reality is very, very much not that and some of the young people whose photos and stories I've seen just don't seem to understand that until they are in the reality of having had brutal surgeries on their healthy body parts, with all the pain and complications major surgery can involve. Some are heartbreakingly naïve.

”first do no harm”

What I'm seeing is a steady supply of surgically altered and hormonally modified young toys for the adults who started this whole disaster.

Name something radically life-altering that is done on a make it up as you go along basis?

Parenting.

What, people who are of legal age but who are mentally, physically and emotionally stunted by puberty blockers and who have at best a very confused sense of boundaries, bodily autonomy and their own sexual preferences? I can't think of any particular group of adults who'd want that to be a thing, it's quite the puzzle...

Yep. And Marci Bowers has admitted on video that it isn’t just Jazz Jennings. NONE of the male children that had puberty blockers and then surgery have ever been able to experience orgasm in their life.

I don’t know about outcomes for females but if you look up the work of Jessica Pin, surgeons are not taught where the clitoral nerves are (and they don’t seem to give a shit) so they frequently sever them and numb the clitoris even when doing relatively “minor” surgeries like labioplasties. So goodness knows what kind of sensation and function will be left after transgender surgery.

The US is such a litigious place. Surely there is a tidal wave of litigation on the horizon from these poor kids when they come to realise what they have been robbed of.

"The US is such a litigious place. Surely there is a tidal wave of litigation on the horizon from these poor kids when they come to realise what they have been robbed of."

It is. However, those rights to sue can be reduced when a patient has signed an "informed consent**" form. Normally the case for experimental treatment/clinical trials in the US. And surprisingly routine for gender affirming surgeries. Or you could do what yeet the teet woman does and not have insurance as a further deterrence to anyone suing

**No to be confused with actual informed consent

There's also the issue that after previous successful mass action lawsuits following widespread malpractice, in recent years, there's have been significant restrictions placed on patients' ability to sue.

In particular, I understand there's a time limit on claims, down to something like 2 years in most circumstances. Regret time is very often longer than that. A fair amount of the attempted legislation is to lift the limit for "gender" procedures.

They may never realise though. It's not something they can conceptualise that easily as they've never had the experience in order to comprehend its loss. Especially if their emotional and mental development has been stunted too.

You could easily be looking at a chronologically aged man of 25, but with the brain of a 12 year old.

I don't understand this, surely the case could be made in particular circumstances that an attempt to limit the time limit for legal action or try and use a 'signed consent' form is itself illegal - at the very least a breach of human rights in some cases.

It seems to me it shouldn't be possible to get people to just sign away their rights because desperate people will do desperate things.

Statute of limitations in medical negligence is often complicated. In many jurisdictions, the clock starts from the moment you realise you’ve been harmed, not the time it was done in the first place. This makes sense when you think about it.

But even then it’s often too short. Worldwide legislative changes to make the statute of limitations for gender medicine lifelong would be a game changer.

The clinics shouldn’t mind, if they have confidence in what they do…

@Datun "You could easily be looking at a chronologically aged man of 25, but with the brain of a 12 year old."

Also the body of a 12 year old. Because that's what a lot of this is about - creating physical children with adolescent bodies, who are over the legal age of consent. Let's not fuck around here. Its about creating paedophile fodder.

I watched an interview from Benjamin Boyce which looks at this through a different perspective. It highlights that the latest thinking from the APA (American Psychology Association) is that the capacity to understand the impact of gender surgery is no longer important. Including and especially for children and adolescents.

A few things that jumped out to me:

1. "Embodiment goals" are now more important than understanding why someone is gender dysphoric
2. The focus in the medical profession is on removing any barriers to consent, including ways to accept and not question mental capacity to consent, which was positioned as discriminatory to people who are "intellectually impaired"
3. According to the direction that medical guidance is now taking, children who are autistic and non-verbal can draw consent to gender affirming medicalisation

The trans man who was interviewed also mentioned some resources that may be of interest:

1. Gender Dysphoria Alliance is a group of transgender people who advocate for evidence based treatment for gender dysphoria and also sex-based (i.e. not gender declared) rights in law

2. He co-hosts the Transparency podcast series - their forthcoming content sounds interesting, with footage from recent the APA conference, recorded by a psychologist who attended alongside the interviewee and will also be commentating on it all, from a gender critical perspective.

With Thalidomide, the company set up a massive fund IIRC for victims and I think in that case it was because they hadn't followed up properly or acted soon enough on the reports of birth defects. Surely this could go a similar route? As far as I know there are no follow up studies at all, this was one of the failures Cass said needed to be corrected; the evidence base on long term issues is entirely lacking.