I wonder if these will help @evieowlette ? This link list will at least give you some starting points. Maybe you will understand that you have been believing only biased information and will start to look for more balanced sources.
Sorry for the length.
No. 1 There are multiple articles and studies in this particular link bank post.
A few interesting papers that lead to other interesting papers. This post will contain links but I hope to add more later.
The Dutch Model is falling apart
By Stella O'Malley / 2 January 2023
First, Stella O’Malley writes about an article in Nederlands that is throwing a great deal of light on the Dutch Protocol. It also seems that there will be a review of the patients that the Dutch team had not previously included in their papers.
This article in the Nederlands points out the dangers on only using a nation’s own sources with no international input or even wide review.
genspect.org/the-dutch-model-is-falling-apart/
Then SEGM has published on Colin Wright’s substack a version of their previously published article.
5 False Assumptions Behind Youth Gender Transitions
2nd Jan 2023
www.realityslaststand.com/p/5-false-assumptions-behind-youth
Here is the original
segm.org/false-assumptions-gender-affirmation-minors
( segm.org )
[This reviewed Stephen M. Rosenthal‘s paper in Nature, 10 August 2021:
“Challenges in the care of transgender and gender-diverse youth: an endocrinologist’s view”
www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00535-9 ]
The five unproven assumptions are:
Unproven Assumption 1: Gender identity, which underlies gender dysphoria, is a fundamental personal characteristic that is biologically “ingrained.”
Unproven Assumption 2: The sharp rise in the number of youth presenting with gender dysphoria does not signal a true increase in cases—it’s merely better detection.
False Assumption 3: Medical interventions in gender-dysphoric minors have clear eligibility criteria.
False Assumption 4: Medical interventions for gender dysphoric minors have been demonstrated to be safe and effective.
Unproven Assumption 5: Detransition does not represent medical harm and is rare.
This has then had quite a few interesting links.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2160396?src=
Some Limitations of “Challenges in the Care of Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youth: An Endocrinologist’s View”
from J. Cohn, Published online: 24 Dec 2022
Abstract:
There is significant disagreement about how to support trans-identified or gender-dysphoric young people. Different experts and expert bodies make strikingly different recommendations based upon the same (limited) evidence. The US-originating “gender-affirmative” model emphasizes social transition and medical intervention, while some other countries, in response to evidence reviews of medical intervention outcomes, have adopted psychological interventions as the first line of treatment. A proposed model of gender-affirming care, comprising only medical intervention for “eligible” youth, is described in Rosenthal (2021). Determining eligibility for these medical interventions is challenging and engenders considerable disagreement among experts, neither of which is mentioned. The review also claims without support that medical interventions have been shown to clearly benefit mental health, and leaves out significant risks and less invasive alternatives. The unreliability of outcome studies and the corresponding uncertainties as to how gender dysphoria develops and responds to treatment are also unreported.
This has many other links to follow.
_
Then there was this review of US Military health insurance records for transition persistence.
academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/107/9/e3937/6572526?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
”Continuation of Gender-affirming Hormones Among Transgender Adolescents and Adults”
Christina M Roberts,
David A Klein, Terry A Adirim,
Natasha A Schvey, Elizabeth Hisle-Gorman
22 April 2022
Results
The study sample included 627 transmasculine and 325 transfeminine individuals with an average age of 19.2 ± 5.3 years. The 4-year gender-affirming hormone continuation rate was 70.2% (95% CI, 63.9-76.5). Transfeminine individuals had a higher continuation rate than transmasculine individuals 81.0% (72.0%-90.0%) vs 64.4% (56.0%-72.8%). People who started hormones as minors had higher continuation rate than people who started as adults 74.4% (66.0%-82.8%) vs 64.4% (56.0%-72.8%). Continuation was not associated with household income or family member type. In Cox regression, both transmasculine gender identity (hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.50-3.86) and starting hormones as an adult (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.14-2.52) were independently associated with increased discontinuation rates.
Here is another study:
The Myth of “Reliable Research” in Pediatric Gender Medicine: A critical evaluation of the Dutch Studies—and research that has followed
E. Abbruzzese, Stephen B. Levine, Julia W. Mason
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346
Our analysis of the Dutch protocol has been written with three goals in mind. First, we wanted to definitively refute the claims that the foundational Dutch research represents “solid prospective research” that provides reliable evidence of net benefits of youth gender transition. In fact, it is much better described as case series—one of the lowest levels of evidence available (Dekkers et al., Citation2012, Mathes & Pieper, Citation2017). Second, we aimed to demonstrate that the type of non-comparative, short-term research that the gender medicine establishment continues to pursue is incapable of generating reliable information. And third and most importantly, we wanted to remind the medical community that medicine is a double-edged sword capable of both much good and much harm. The burden of proof—demonstrating that a treatment does more good than harm—is on those promoting the intervention, not on those concerned about the harms. Until gender medicine commits to conducting high quality research capable of reliably demonstrating the preponderance of benefits over harms of these invasive interventions, we must be skeptical of the enthusiasm generated by headlines claiming that yet another “gender study” proved benefits of transitioning youth. This time-honored concern about risk/benefit ratio is a sobering reminder that the history of medicine is replete with examples of “cures” which turned out to far more harmful than the “disease.”
No. 2 the NICE finding
arms.nice.org.uk/resources/hub/1070905/attachment
The summary of the conclusion is
Conclusion
The results of the studies that reported impact on the critical outcomes of gender dysphoria and mental health (depression, anger and anxiety), and the important outcomes of body image and psychosocial impact (global and psychosocial functioning), in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria are of very low certainty using modified GRADE. They suggest little change with GnRH analogues from baseline to follow-up.
No. 3 A treasure trove of studies relating to whether there is conclusive improvement to transgender people's lives after medicalised treatment paths can be found in this Medium article by JLCederblom
medium.com/@JLCederblom/the-lukewarm-perjury-of-jack-turban-a85903109051
There is an abridged version as well.
It is actually a run down of the evidence presented by Jack Turban's Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in Brandt et al vs Rutledge et al in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
In it is this review listed as footnote 15. Baker, K. E., et al, (2021) Hormone Therapy, Mental Health and Quality of Life Among Transgender People: A Systematic Review. Journal of the Endocrine Society.
academic.oup.com/jes/article/5/4/bvab011/6126016
I was interested particularly in this finding.
Quality of Life
Among adolescents, a mixed-gender prospective cohort (n = 50) showed no difference in QOL scores after a year of endocrine interventions, which included combinations of GnRH analogues and estrogen or testosterone formulations [30]. No study found that hormone therapy decreased QOL scores. We conclude that hormone therapy may improve QOL among transgender people. The strength of evidence for this conclusion is low due to concerns about bias in study designs, imprecision in measurement because of small sample sizes, and confounding by factors such as gender-affirming surgery status.
And this under Depression
Among adolescents, 2 mixed-gender prospective cohorts (n = 50 and n = 23, respectively) showed improvements in depression scores after 1 year of treatment with GnRH analogues and estrogen or testosterone formulations (both P < 0.001) [30, 38]. Another prospective study reported that BDI scores improved almost by half among adolescents (n = 41) after a mean of 1.88 years of treatment with GnRH analogues to delay puberty (P = 0.004) [34]. The overall improvement after several subsequent years of testosterone or estrogen therapy in this cohort (n = 32) was smaller, however, resulting in no significant change from baseline [35]. No study found that hormone therapy increased depression.
Anxiety
Among adolescents, 1 prospective study saw mean anxiety scores in a mixed-gender group (n = 23) improve from 33.0 ± 7.2 to 18.5 ± 8.4 after 1 year (P < 0.001) [38], but another reported no changes in anxiety after approximately 2 years of puberty delay treatment with GnRH analogues and 4 years of hormone therapy (n = 32) [35].
Suicide
The risk of bias for this study was serious due to the difficulty of identifying appropriate comparison groups and uncontrolled confounding by surgery status and socioeconomic variables such as unemployment. We cannot draw any conclusions on the basis of this single study about whether hormone therapy affects death by suicide among transgender people.
No. 4. This is a twitter thread that has some more studies.
twitter.com/threadreaderapp/status/1336607674344103938?s=21
No. 5 This is a report on The Swedish changes - based on lack of evidence.
genderreport.ca/the-swedish-u-turn-on-gender-transitioning/
No. 6. An Australian gender clinic paper
This study is well worth a read.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/26344041211010777
Published April 22, 2021
Kasia Kozlowska, Georgia McClure et al
Australian children and adolescents with gender dysphoria: Clinical presentations and challenges experienced by a multidisciplinary team and gender service
Part of the conclusion
Our findings indicate that engagement with families, a trauma-informed model of mental health care, and ongoing discourse pertaining to the effects of unresolved trauma and loss need to be part of all gender dysphoria clinics and the services with which they collaborate. Because of their impact on subjective well-being and the development of the self, specific loss and trauma events present crucial opportunities for both long-term psychotherapy and more immediate, targeted treatments. The move to a more comprehensive, holistic model of care—one that takes into account the individual’s developmental history and the experiences that make up that history—has also been echoed in the work of other clinician-researchers (D’Angelo, 2020a; Entwistle, 2019; Giovanardi et al., 2018; Kozlowska et al., 2021; Williamson, 2019).
Our study found that the children and families who came to the clinic had clear, preformed expectations: most often, children and families wanted a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to be provided or confirmed, together with referral to endocrinology services to pursue medical treatment of gender dysphoria. Parents (vs. children) also largely came with the same expectations, though they were more likely to be interested in incorporating holistic (biopsychosocial) elements, including treatment of mental health comorbidities, family support/therapy, and long-term psychotherapy for the child. It was our impression that these expectations had been shaped by the dominant sociopolitical discourse—the gender affirmative model. It will be interesting to track the expectations of children and families in the years to come as sociopolitical discourses become more varied and diverse and as the voices are heard of both those who have done well and those who not done well via the medical pathway.
Our study also found that despite the high rates of family conflict, relationship breakdowns, parental mental illness, and maltreatment (see Table 3)—and our own clinical perspective that both individual and family work were indicated for the majority of families—few families rated themselves as being in a clinically severe range on self-report (SCORE-15). Coupled with the dominant sociopolitical discourse—the gender affirmative model that prioritizes the medical treatment pathway—it is not surprising that the large majority of children and families were not motivated to engage in or to remain engaged in ongoing therapy. These data bring three important phenomena into focus. First, when children and families were given the space and structure to tell the child’s developmental story—nested in the story of the family—they were able to identify and provide a detailed narrative of the key issues that had contributed to the child’s presentation and distress. Without this space and structure, the issues remain undeclared and unaddressed. Second, some families—but also some clinicians—function within a non-holistic (non-biopsychosocial) framework where the child’s developmental experiences are disconnected from their clinical presentation. This non-holistic framework is likely to promote a healthcare delivery model that dehumanizes the child (by not examining the child’s and family’s lived experience) and that promotes medical solutions (correcting the identity/body mismatch) for a problem that is much more complex. Third, as noted earlier, our experience suggests that, insofar as the gender affirmative model is taken as equivalent to medical intervention, clinicians (including ourselves) who work in gender services are coming under increasing pressure to put aside their own holistic (biopsychosocial) model of care, and to compromise their own ethical standards, by engaging in a tick-the-box treatment process. Such an approach does not adequately address a broad range of psychological, family, and social issues and puts patients at risk of adverse future outcomes and clinicians at risk of future legal action.
No. 7. Australia and NZ publish a warning there is not enough evidence.
//www.ranzcp.org/news-policy/policy-and-advocacy/position-statements/gender-dysphoria
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists have now updated their guidance.
They are now warning that there is NOT ENOUGH evidence to recommend affirming only treatments or indeed any particular treatment plan. They now say that underlying health issues should be treated at the same time. And warn that medicalisation of children and teens be very careful and thoroughly explored considering the ‘paucity’ of evidence at this time.
Interestingly, they indicate that there are a couple of long term studies under way which will be interesting to see when they are published. One is a longitudinal study on trans patients in Australia.
No. 8. Two prominent transwomen clinicians, one who could led WPATH next year have stated they are against some of the current practices in trans health. Marcy Bowers and Eric Anderson. Particularly fast tracking to hormonal treatments. Article by Abigail Shrier.
bariweiss.substack.com/p/top-trans-doctors-blow-the-whistle
No. 9. Access to care and frequency of detransition among a cohort discharged by a UK national adult gender identity clinic: retrospective case-note review
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 October 2021
R. Hall, L. Mitchell and J. Sachdeva
Conclusions
Service users may have unmet needs. Neurodevelopmental disorders or ACEs suggest complexity requiring consideration during the assessment process. Managing mental ill health and substance misuse during treatment needs optimising. Detransitioning might be more frequent than previously reported.
www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-open/article/access-to-care-and-frequency-of-detransition-among-a-cohort-discharged-by-a-uk-national-adult-gender-identity-clinic-retrospective-casenote-review/3F5AC1315A49813922AAD76D9E28F5CB
No. 10 Doctor scrutiny on gender clinic reveals legal and safety fears
The Australian , Natasha Robinson, 17th February 2023
www.theaustralian.com.au/science/doctor-scrutiny-on-gender-clinic-reveals-legal-and-safety-fears/news-story/8af81768fde27884caf18fff345ab78a?amp&nk=251396453faa0730705a45251160583c-1676662448
(Plug the above link into archive dot ph)
Senior physicians at the NSW Children’s Hospital Westmead’s gender clinic have studied the physical and mental health of 79 patients in a rare academic study of the outcomes of children who presented with gender distress and gender dysphoria. The findings cast doubt on the scientific basis of the gender-affirming approach followed by the nation’s other children’s hospitals.
In an open access academic paper, CHW psychiatrists, endocrinologists and other physicians, and a senior medical ethics expert, called for a “much more nuanced and complex approach” as analysis revealed 88 per cent of children presenting at Westmead’s gender clinic had at least one co-morbid mental health condition, with more than 50 per cent diagnosed with behavioural disorders or autism. One in five children who consulted the clinic with gender-related distress later had these feelings resolved, and almost one in 10 with a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria, some who had taken puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, later discontinued transitioning.
And
The CHW doctors have raised concerns that “many unknowns remain” regarding the long-term effects of puberty blockers, which are described by the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne as “reversible in their effects”. International evidence is in fact casting greater doubt on whether the effects of these medications are reversible. Endocrine reviews of the CHW patient cohort documented side-effects in 23 of the 49 young people prescribed puberty blockers, including low bone density, hot flushes, weight gain and anxiety. The CHW doctors raised concerns about long-term effects on patients’ sexual function in adulthood.
Within the 9 per cent cohort of patients with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria who had desisted – that is, discontinued the transgender pathway 4-9 years after consulting the gender clinic – three had undergone puberty suppression beginning at the average age of 12. Three had taken cross-sex hormones, one from as young as 15, but not prescribed by CHW. The effects of cross-sex hormones, including infertility, are irreversible.
Distress: A Prospective Follow-Up Study
by Joseph Elkadi, Catherine Chudleigh, Ann M. Maguire, Geoffrey R. Ambler, Stephen Scher and Kasia Kozlowska
www.mdpi.com/2227-9067/10/2/314
This prospective case-cohort study examines the developmental pathway choices of 79 young people (13.25–23.75 years old; 33 biological males and 46 biological females) referred to a tertiary care hospital’s Department of Psychological Medicine (December 2013–November 2018, at ages 8.42–15.92 years) for diagnostic assessment for gender dysphoria (GD) and for potential gender-affirming medical interventions. All of the young people had attended a screening medical assessment (including puberty staging) by paediatricians. The Psychological Medicine assessment (individual and family) yielded a formal DSM-5 diagnosis of GD in 66 of the young people. Of the 13 not meeting DSM-5 criteria, two obtained a GD diagnosis at a later time. This yielded 68 young people (68/79; 86.1%) with formal diagnoses of GD who were potentially eligible for gender-affirming medical interventions and 11 young people (11/79; 13.9%) who were not. Follow-up took place between November 2022 and January 2023. Within the GD subgroup (n = 68) (with two lost to follow-up), six had desisted (desistance rate of 9.1%; 6/66), and 60 had persisted on a GD (transgender) pathway (persistence rate of 90.9%; 60/66). Within the cohort as a whole (with two lost to follow-up), the overall persistence rate was 77.9% (60/77), and overall desistance rate for gender-related distress was 22.1% (17/77). Ongoing mental health concerns were reported by 44/50 (88.0%), and educational/occupational outcomes varied widely. The study highlights the importance of careful screening, comprehensive biopsychosocial (including family) assessment, and holistic therapeutic support. Even in highly screened samples of children and adolescents seeking a GD diagnosis and gender-affirming medical care, outcome pathways follow a diverse range of possibilities.
Conclusions
The data from this study show that when young people with gender distress present to health services seeking medical interventions, they end up following a diverse range of developmental pathways. The availability of gender-affirming medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria is a recent one, evolving from the work of clinicians in the Netherlands. Early studies have suggested that medical interventions were associated with positive outcomes. This early body of work consequently served as the foundation for subsequent treatment guidelines and became established in medical systems via streamlined assessment processes and treatment pathways. The concept of medical affirmation was embedded in the broader culture by media and internet channels.
Together, these processes gave young people with gender-related distress a clear message: “This is the best way to proceed,” and “The medical affirmation pathway will take away your gender dysphoria.” For many young people and their families, however, these messages favouring medical interventions, coupled with professionals’ affirmation of this pathway, potentially displaced their consideration of other options or other pathways.
The young people and families who presented to our service typically came to us with settled ideas concerning their prospective treatment pathways. In particular, based on what was known at the time, and given the severity of the young persons’ distress, they and their families considered medical treatment for gender dysphoria to be the single best option. In the last five years, however, the gender-affirming medical model has been questioned by both clinicians (who have highlighted the current lack of a solid evidence base and detransitioners (who have highlighted the potential for adverse outcomes). The current evidence suggests the need for a much more nuanced and complex approach. As research data pertaining to long-term outcomes continues to accumulate, “the best way to proceed” is likely to be seen as ranging over a much more diverse range of treatment options and pathways, with each supported by a stronger evidence base than is currently available.
No. 11. Plenty of information on the SEGM site.
https://segm.org
No. 12. An article in the Washington Post from Dr Laura Edwards-Leeper & Erica Anderson
(Note: Dr Anderson is a male transitioner who is also a gender clinician)
“ I think this is a bad idea in 99% of circumstances. Professionals who know what they’re doing should be involved; and by not including parents, it ultimately makes the situation worse for the kid (unless the parent is abusive- that’s the 1%). I’ve actually never seen this go well”
www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/11/24/trans-kids-therapy-psychologist/
mobile.twitter.com/drlaurael/status/1462968319636480004
The Washington Post article points out that many clinicians are not following the WPATH guidelines of comprehensive assessment and rmental health support.
The standards of care recommend mental health support and comprehensive assessment for all dysphoric youth before starting medical interventions. The process, done conscientiously, can take a few months (when a young person’s gender has been persistent and there are no simultaneous mental health issues) or up to several years in complicated cases. But few are trained to do it properly, and some clinicians don’t even believe in it, contending without evidence that treating dysphoria medically will resolve other mental health issues. Providers and their behavior haven’t been closely studied, but we find evidence every single day, from our peers across the country and concerned parents who reach out, that the field has moved from a more nuanced, individualized and developmentally appropriate assessment process to one where every problem looks like a medical one that can be solved quickly with medication or, ultimately, surgery. As a result, we may be harming some of the young people we strive to support — people who may not be prepared for the gender transitions they are being rushed into.
No. 13. Here is a new study on a small sample of trans patients and the standard of care.
www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/10/1/121/htm
A few things stand out.
-the number of patients with underlying mental health issues. And how they are being completely let down by affirming only treatment.
-The number of visits before receiving hormones was 2.7 appointments.
-67 patients average age 27.8 years -range was 12- 54
-42 females, 22 males, four NB (3 f / 1 m)
-Female mean age is 18 years, male 23 years.
-Out of the 67, only 9 (13%) had NO mental health diagnosis. 10 (15%) had diagnosed ASD, 4 with ADHD (6%), 3 (4%) with OCD, 1 with Bipolar, 7 (10%) with a Personality Disorder. 13 (19%) had documented childhood abuse, neglect or violence.
the rate of detransition amongst those who had received at least hormones was 9.8%. This is in line with the European study below which showed a long term detransition rate of medicalised transitioners of males 8.8% and females 8.3%.
From this study
Nine patients had stopped hormone therapy; one related to practice policy because they had not attended any GIC follow-up (the patient has restarted since the audit). Thus, eight patients had stopped hormones voluntarily (20% stopping rate; six trans men, two trans women).
This is the other study with the figures 8.8% & 8.3%:
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580378/
135 natal males (119 living in the female role, 12 in the male role, 4 did not report their current gender role) and 66 natal females (60 living in the male role, 5 in the female role, 1 did not report a current gender role)
So... 8.88% of males and 8.33% of the females (this does not include those who did not answer the question which if the answer was to detransition would make these figures higher). And in Figure 3. 22.2% of those who socially transitioned, detransitioned.
No. 14. France - declares there is not enough evidence. The latest from National Academy of Medicine, France. They have issued a press release about treatment for gender disphoria in children and adolescents.
SEGM have translated it, but also linked up the original version.
segm.org/France-cautions-regarding-puberty-blockers-and-cross-sex-hormones-for-youth
Extract
Transgender identity is a feeling of identifying as a gender different from that assigned at birth, which is persistent and lasts more than 6 months. This experience can cause significant and prolonged distress, which can contribute to an increased risk of suicide [a].
No genetic predisposition has been found.
While this condition has been long recognized, a sharp increase in demand for medical interventions has been observed (1,2) first in North America, then in Northern Europe, and, more recently, in France, particularly among children and adolescents. A recent study of a number of high schools in Pittsburgh revealed a prevalence that is clearly higher than previously estimated in the United States (3): 10% of students declared themselves to be transgender or non-binary or were unsure of their gender [b]. In 2003, the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne diagnosed only one child with gender dysphoria, whereas today it treats nearly 200.
Whatever the mechanisms involved in adolescents - excessive engagement with social media, greater social acceptability, or influence by those in one’s social circle - this epidemic-like phenomenon manifests itself in the emergence of cases or even clusters of cases in the adolescents’ immediate surroundings (4). This primarily social problem is due, in part, to the questioning of an overly dichotomous view of gender identity by some young people.
The demand for medical interventions, due to the distress that this condition (which is not a mental illness per se) causes, leads to a growing supply of care in the form of consultations or care in specialized clinics. This involves many pediatric subspecialties. The psychiatric consultations are utilized first, and if the identity is authentic and the discomfort persists, endocrinology, gynecology and, ultimately, surgery become involved.
However, great medical caution must be taken in children and adolescents, given the vulnerability, particularly psychological, of this population and the many undesirable effects and even serious complications that can be caused by some of the therapies available. In this regard, it is important to recall the recent decision (May 2021) of the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm to prohibit the use of puberty blockers.
If France allows the use of puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones with parental authorization and no age limitations, the greatest caution is needed in their use, taking into account the side-effects such as the impact on growth, bone weakening, risk of sterility, emotional and intellectual consequences and, for girls, menopause-like symptoms.
No. 15. The Cass Review Interim Report - stating there is not enough evidence!
cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/The-Cass-Review-Interim-Report-Final-Bookmarked.pdf
No. 16. New FDA warning for PBs:
publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/20636/Risk-of-pseudotumor-cerebri-added-to-labeling-for?autologincheck=redirected
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a warning about the risk of pseudotumor cerebri (idiopathic intracranial hypertension) to the labeling for gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists that are approved for the treatment of central precocious puberty in pediatric patients. These products include Lupron Depot-Ped (leuprolide acetate), Fensolvi (leuprolide acetate), Synarel (nafarelin), Supprelin LA (histrelin) and Triptodur (triptorelin).
The new warning includes recommendations to monitor patients taking GnRH agonists for signs and symptoms of pseudotumor cerebri, including headache, papilledema, blurred or loss of vision, diplopia, pain behind the eye or pain with eye movement, tinnitus, dizziness and nausea.
And
Six cases were identified that supported a plausible association between GnRH agonist use and pseudotumor cerebri. All six cases were reported in birth-assigned females ages 5 to 12 years. Five were undergoing treatment for central precocious puberty and one for transgender care. The onset of pseudotumor cerebri symptoms ranged from three to 240 days after GnRH agonist initiation.
No. 17. Some commentary around current medical procedures.
(Plug this link into archive dot ph)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-american-academy-of-pediatrics-dubious-transgender-science-jack-turban-research-social-contagion-gender-dysphoria-puberty-blockers-uk-11660732791
The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Dubious Transgender Science
By Julia Mason and Leor Sapir
Aug. 17, 2022
A spate of headlines this month declared that America’s surge in transgender identification wasn’t being caused by a social contagion. These articles were prompted by a new study by Jack Turban and colleagues in Pediatrics, flagship journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The study claimed that social influence isn’t the reason that as many as 9% of America’s youth now call themselves transgender. Thus, Dr. Turban argues, efforts in conservative states to regulate on-demand puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery must be resisted.
Yet Dr. Turban’s study is deeply flawed and likely couldn’t have survived a reasonable peer-review process. The swift response from the scientific community made both points clear—with even those who support hormones and surgery for gender-dysphoric youth noting that Dr. Turban’s shoddy science undermined their cause.
No. 18 Social contagion discussion
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2768726
July 28, 2020
Association of Media Coverage of Transgender and Gender Diverse Issues With Rates of Referral of Transgender Children and Adolescents to Specialist Gender Clinics in the UK and Australia
Ken C. Pang, PhD Nastasja M. de Graaf, MSc; Denise Chew, MD;
Question
Is media coverage of transgender issues associated with referrals of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) children and adolescents to specialist gender services?
Findings
In this serial cross-sectional study across an 8-year study period during which more than 5000 TGD young people were referred to 2 pediatric gender clinics in the UK and Australia, a significant association was found between weekly referral rates and the number of TGD-related items appearing within the local media 1 to 2 weeks beforehand, for the UK only in week 1 and for Australia only in week 2.
Meaning
An increase in media coverage of TGD-related topics over recent years was associated with an increase in the number of TGD young people presenting to 2 gender clinics on opposite sides of the world.
However, we are also mindful that others have speculated that increased media content (specifically via social media) might act as a double-edged sword or a means of social contagion, whereby some individuals erroneously come to believe through exposure to such media that their nonspecific emotional or bodily distress is due to gender dysphoria and being TGD
This study has limitations. Our data provide evidence of an association between relevant media stories and clinical referrals of TGD young people but, given the nature of the study design, no indication of causation. Moreover, our study weighted each media item equally (despite likely differences in reach and accessibility) and was unable to quantify actual levels of media exposure among referred patients. Another limitation is that this association might not generalize to other services. After all, the RCHGS and GIDS were chosen for this study because they are publicly funded, do not charge attendance fees, and provide the only specialist pediatric gender services within their respective regions, thus ensuring that their referral data are likely to be relatively comprehensive and complete accounts of clinical demand within each catchment area; most other pediatric gender clinics will not share these same characteristics. Another important limitation of our study is that it only examines traditional forms of media and does not include social media, which are a very important source of information as well as a critical means for finding support and fostering connectedness and community among young people, including TGD adolescents.32-35 Social media were not examined in our study given the difficulties of readily accessing such information across time, but in the future, collaborations with relevant social media companies, such as Facebook, might allow us to address this gap.
Additionally on social contagion:
This document contains some important information. One of which is that even in 2018, Polly Carmichael recognised there was social contagion.
March 2018: Polly Carmichael had told an ACAMH conference:
“without a doubt there are some young people who are finding a community, friends and all sorts of things through joining a group who have an interest around gender and I think that for some of those we would be very foolish not to acknowledge that it's probably the case that they are caught up in something rather than it being an expression of something that has arisen from within. So there is a lot of concern.”
“I have been shocked by some of the things that are swilling around the internet that young people have access to. There are numerous groups on Reddit and Tumblr that many of the young people that are attending our service are going onto..maybe it's also the dissing of expertise, in a way, so that there is a feeling that this is about who I am, so what does anyone else know? It's a very odd situation in some way.`”
www.transgendertrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Medical-Scandal-at-the-Tavistock.pdf
No. 19
Gender-Affirming Treatment of Gender Dysphoria in Youth: A Perfect Storm Environment for the Placebo Effect—The Implications for Research and Clinical Practice
Alison Clayton. 14 November 2022
Introduction
In the last decade, there has been a rapid increase in the numbers of young people with gender dysphoria (GD youth) presenting to health services (Kaltiala et al., 2020). There has also been a marked change in the treatment approach. The previous “common practice” of providing psychosocial care only to those under 18 or 21 years (Smith et al., 2001) has largely been replaced by the gender affirmative treatment approach (GAT), which for adolescents includes hormonal and surgical interventions (Coleman et al., 2022). However, as a recent review concluded, evidence on the appropriate management of youth with gender incongruence and dysphoria is inconclusive and has major knowledge gaps (Cass, 2022). Previous papers have discussed that the weaknesses of the studies investigating the efficacy of GAT for GD youth mean they are at high risk of bias and confounding and, thus, provide very low certainty evidence (Clayton, 2022a, b; Levine et al., 2022). To date, however, there has been little discussion of the inability of these studies to differentiate specific treatment effects from placebo effects. Of note, the term “placebo effect” is no longer used to just simply refer to the clinical response following inert medication; rather, it describes the beneficial effects attributable to the brain-mind responses evoked by the treatment context rather than the specific intervention (Wager & Atlas, 2015). This Letter argues that the current treatment approach for GD youth presents a perfect storm environment for the placebo effect. This raises complex clinical and research issues that require attention and debate.
Sections include:
A Brief Introduction to the Gender-Affirming Treatment Model for Children and Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria
Risks of Gender-Affirming Medical and Surgical Treatments
A Recent Example from Medical History of the Dangers of Medical Advice Based on Weak Evidence: The Iatrogenic Tragedy of Prone Infant Sleep Position and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
Gender-Affirming Treatment for Youth with Gender Dysphoria: A Perfect Storm for Placebo Effect
Overstatement of the Certainty of Benefits and Under-Acknowledgment of Risks
The Dangers of an Exaggerated Suicide Narrative
An Excessively Negative Portrayal of the Previous Standard and Current Alternative Treatment Options
Clinicians’ Media and Social Media Promotion of Gender Affirmative Treatment
The Exclusive Promotion of Gender-Affirming Treatments within Child and Adolescent Gender Clinics
Conclusion
In conclusion, this Letter has noted that although GAT for GD youth lacks a rigorous evidence base, it is undertaken as routine medical treatment in a strongly placebo effect enhancing environment. It is within this environment that research into its effectiveness is being undertaken. One consideration raised by this relates to clinical practice: When does such a strongly placebo effect enhancing environment meet optimal clinical practice standards? When, if at all, does it veer into the territory of unethical practice that involves deception and undue influence? This Letter has also highlighted that such a placebo effect enhancing environment presents grave problems for research (particularly non-DBRCT research). It seems unlikely that the current research being undertaken in this field will be able to untangle benefits that are due to the placebo effect from those due to the interventions’ specific effectiveness. Thus, especially given the adverse risk profile of the hormonal and surgical interventions, it may be that yet again well-intentioned physicians are engaging in medical practices that cause more harm than benefit (Clayton, 2022b). The research and clinical conundrums presented in this Letter have no easy answers. However, as a first step, there is an urgent need for more awareness of the placebo effect and for rigorous and thoughtful debate over how best to proceed in research and clinical practice in this area of medicine.
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-022-02472-8
No. 20. I think it is a good short explainer on why affirming only is problematic.
www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/now-i-m-hopeful-we-can-we-talk-about-teens-and-gender-20211031-p594q6.html
Now I’m hopeful we can talk about teens and gender
Dr Sandra Pertot
I found this very clear as an explanation
Although there is agreement across all clinicians working with gender-questioning adolescents that they typically report a history of mental health problems, increasingly some clinicians will consider the possibility that the client has come to the belief they are transgender as a way of providing an explanation for and resolving their pre-existing problems. In my experience, gender-affirming therapists strongly disagree, believing that anything other than immediately affirming the client’s expressed belief they are transgender will compound the harm. My view is that it is precisely because of the high rate of mental health problems in this group that a careful and comprehensive mental health assessment is required as a first step. Shepherding all of these vulnerable young people down the same pathway is poor clinical practice.
No. 21. Bone density issues caused by GnRH
Bone Health in the Transgender Population
Published online 2019 Jul 2.
Micol S. Rothman and Sean J. Iwamoto
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6709704/
This
Also unknown are the long-term effects of puberty blockade, the effect of changes in body composition and the optimal type, timing, dosage, and route of administration of GAHT for bone outcomes.
Conclusion
The results of the studies that reported impact on the critical outcomes of gender dysphoria and mental health (depression, anger and anxiety), and the important outcomes of body image and psychosocial impact (global and psychosocial functioning), in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria are of very low certainty using modified GRADE. They suggest little change with GnRH analogues from baseline to follow-up.
And
GnRH analogues are frequently employed to provide puberty blockade in adolescents with gender incongruence or gender dysphoria. From their use in other medical conditions such as prostate cancer, their deleterious effects on the bone are well known, although these have the potential to be reversible if treatments are stopped or add back therapies can be given
And
However, Z-scores in the trans boys also showed an expected drop during GnRHa treatment. Similarly, they did not fully make up their bone loss as Z-scores at age 22 were still lower than baseline
Meaning, the authors acknowledge little is known about the lasting effects of puberty blockers. In this study, they propose some positive effect from cross sex hormones for females but ths results show that it doesn’t really make up the loss from puberty blockers.
PLUS
Just adding this piece about bone density for young transitioners here:
segm.org/the_effect_of_puberty_blockers_on_the_accrual_of_bone_mass
1st May 2021
Dr Michael Biggs (an advisor to SEGM) has been calling for the release of data from the Tavistock’s experiment since 2019. A subset of the data were finally released following the judicial review into puberty suppression at the Tavistock clinic. Biggs’ reanalysis has just been published in the Journal of Paediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism. It finds that after two years on GnRHa, the Z-scores for a significant minority of the children had declined to a level that should trigger clinical concern.
No. 22. Sex Matters has done a 3 part series on current treatment options and the issues around them.
https://sex-matters.org/advice/resources-for-parents/
No. 23. The discredited study where a Yale researcher tried to convince the world that gender treatments improve mental health of transitioners.
https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/?fbclid=IwAR1qhY36S81bxLIL-Gm04MemcwA8R0OBpG5iCy_CrUM6tGttrO98Un-WLTE
A major correction has been issued by the American Journal of Psychiatry. The authors and editors of an October 2019 study, titled “Reduction in mental health treatment utilization among transgender individuals after gender-affirming surgeries: a total population study,” have retracted its primary conclusion. Letters to the editor by twelve authors, including ourselves, led to a reanalysis of the data and a corrected conclusion stating that in fact the data showed no improvement after surgical treatment. The following is the background to our published letter and a summary of points of the critical analysis of the study.