Absolutely disgusting that this was allowed to happen

[forgotmyusername1]

Was transitioned at 13. I just can't understand how doctors were allowed to do this to confused children.

The detransitioners are now coming out the woodwork and I am sure many of them will sue and they deserve compensation for what has been done to them. Children being sterilised and having their boobs cut off and penises inverted - it sounds like something from a medieval horror movie. What happened to the hippocratic oath of do no harm?

I hope those who have done medical experiments on these children are scared of what is coming. And it is coming.

Lurker here. Wasn't there a professor or phD student who wanted to do a study of detransitioners and they were denied being allowed to do their research, and got in some kind of trouble for even wanting to have any research done on the subject?

James Caspian at Bath Spa University:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/02/22/my-battle-with-the-transgender-thoughtpolice/amp/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02623-5

This 2023 article in Archives of Sexual Behaviour discusses the Bustos review critically:

Many regret and detransition studies can be readily seen to produce unreliable rates just by considering follow-up time and loss to follow-up. With a conservative choice of 8 years minimum follow-up time for surgery (Table 1), all the included studies in a recent meta-analysis of surgery regret by Bustos et al. (2021) are inadequate due to excessive loss to follow-up, too short follow-up time for some patients, or both (Vujovic et al., 2009 require an additional reasonable assumption for this claim); see Appendix and Alleva (2023)

Letter to editors of PRS challenging the Bustos study:
https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/2021/11000/letter_to_the_editor__regret_after.29.aspx

From the letter:
Bustos et al1 acknowledge “moderate-to-high risk of bias in some studies.” Actually, this affects 23 of the 27 studies. The majority of included studies ranged between “poor” and “fair” quality: only five studies—representing just 3% (174) of total participants—received higher quality ratings. However, even these had loss to follow-up rates ranging from 28% to more than 40%, including loss through death from complications or suicide, negative outcomes potentially associated with regret.

The trans lobby and the medical community (specifically WPATH) are one and the same.

Past presidents of WPATH include Stephen Whittle, who isn’t a medic, but is one of the most successful trans lobbyists in existence.

So a lobby group wrote the recommendations that have been used as if they were gold standard medical recommendations for several years in many countries. The conflict of interest is very clear.

The james caspian piece linked to above is well worth reading and backs up the story in the original post

Affirmation only care has been the norm where young people aren't questioned on their choices but prescribed blockers and hormones as to question them is transphobic

Institutions are so scared of the court of public opinion and Tra's that they just give them what they want so they aren't crucufied on social media as biggots and terfs. To question their choice is seen as conversion therapy

Lucy spraggan has a chapter in her book where she writes about a time as a child she lived as a boy called Max. She is now an adult female lesbian. If that had happened today she would have been given blockers and hormones and probably a double mastectomy

We have no idea of the impact of this. The previous generations of trans people weren't transitioned unless they spent a considerable period of time living socially as their aquired gender and had therapy to make sure it is what they want. It stands to reason that the regret rate is low.

Nowadays the explosion of trans pride and the accessibility of it means kids can make life altering decisions at young ages. How many will regret that decision i guess we will know in 10 years. I can imagine how distressing it will be for biological women who maybe thought they were trans men as they thought being trans was easier than being gay but on reflection they want to be female however years on T essentially makes them look like trans women.

Comparing it the female sterilisation - it is difficult to get it even if women are sure they dont want children or dont want any more children as the nhs considers that someone may change their mind. If someone does change their mind the nhs won't fund a reversal. Why then are their such double standards that the nhs will fund a double mastectomy on teenagers?

Yes, I totally agree that it's hard to find unbiased research.

The sheer number of affirmation-biased researchers who are funded and enabled through WPATH and the pharmaceuticals industry, combined with others being shut down (@Nevenka , great delurking moment! @NotBadConsidering , thank you for the link), mean that the bias is completely skewed one way.

From @DameMaud's post in relation to the study you shared, even the researchers who wrote it accepted it was based on biased evidence. That reminds me very much of when Eliza Mondegreen was at the most recent WPATH conference and a speaker said to the audience that the research seemed to "indicate the opposite of what we know". Does anyone have a link to the article that she wrote on that? It was quite sobering just how brazenly evidence to the contrary of the affirmation view was quietly shut down in public by those who had actually discovered it.

Other red flags regarding the bias-skew are the number of whistleblowers coming forward. Those who worked within the industry who realised that the premise of the approach was flawed. Sue and Marcus Evans, plus many others at the Tavistock. More recently Jamie Reed in the US. They share a concern that children are being transitioned too quickly and where it is not in their interest. They had placed their trust in the approach because of the foundation on which it was built, including what they believed to be high-quality research from the best minds in the industry. They all started to have doubts and eventually bravely came forward.

I also totally agree that an open mind is key. This is exactly where I started from when my daughter asked me for puberty blockers. In fact, I remember thinking that her assertion that they just let you have time to think sounded very reasonable. Then I did my own research.

The affirmation model has some highly articulate public speakers who support it, despite the bias in the research. Katy Jon Went, Stephen Whittle to name but two. It's a shame that they don't join us on here for a debate about it all. I'd love to hear their views on the impact of the skew in the bias.

Even in America you don’t turn up at the doctors and they immediately give you medication.

Even under the NHS, AT GIDS, young people were prescribed puberty blockers after only a few hours of consultation, and without any consideration that their distress might have other causes. And those who later desisted were not followed up.

It's very frustrating that people have this blind faith in the medical profession. When we know exactly how it's worked.

How the buck has been passed between doctors and endocrinologists. How the affirmation only model has been slavishly adhered to. How whistleblowers have been persecuted, including for saying there will be no gay kids left.

All of it.

And for those who talk about the regret rate. If you have blocked a child's puberty, and then given them cross sex hormones which absolutely do not result in the puberty of the opposite sex, you have arrested their development as young teens

With no biological process to mature them, the possibility that they still have the mind of a 13-year-old when they're 25, might go some way to explaining how they cannot regret what's happened to them.

You only have to listen to the likes of jazz Jennings talking, or Jackie Green, to realise the possibility that their brain maturation has been stopped, along with their body.

“You made Polly cry” was the accusation levelled at anyone raising concerns with GIDS.

Polly is still head of GIDS. Despite everything, Polly is still in charge of GIDS. Which hasn’t been closed down “by spring 2023”.

Thank you!

Just saw Stephen Whittle mentioned. Remember when SW came to MN for a talk. A TW poster, JCDove(?), was very excited, and I thought it might possibly be a good talk and bring some understanding for both sides. For me personally it was a huge disappointment and highlighted how bad things were going to get. I am loving the current sunlight☀

@NotBadConsidering
It was you that did this. The discussion was about regret. General regret. You posted about surgical regret. I posted flaws about flaws in the review of surgical regret before coming back to point out that surgical regret wasn’t even the focus of the discussion.

You posted “flaws” that were entirely incorrect as in they did not exist in the systematic review on regret for GAS after calling the rate they analysed from 27 studies “a lie”. The discussion had included many posts on surgical procedures by the time I posted. I do not mind valid criticism from those who actually read the studies I post, what I do mind is a perfectly good systematic review being called a lie and that then being backed up by nothing whatsoever.

It was you that switched the focus to surgical regret by posting Bustos.

This saying things without verifying their veracity comes so easy to you doesn’t it? Surgical regret is even in the very first opening post written by the OP when she said “Children being sterilised and having their boobs cut off and penises inverted - it sounds like something from a medieval horror movie.” In the second post, widow says “Medics, psychologists, aided and abetted by politicians and numerous dodgy adult groups are being allowed to gaslight children into believing their bodies are flawed and drugs & surgery will fix them.” The third post says “it’s incomprehensible to me that a doctor could feel it was ok to cut offa child’s breasts and put them on a lifetime of medication in pursuit of a lie.” Fourth post was about meducal malpractice insurance. The fifth post was about the affirmation model. The sixth post was op responding to fifth post. The seventh post was about a clinic in Mexico that does surgery and said “She does or did maybe 8 operations a day at roughly 12k each. And that woman deserves to be in prison for what she has done.” The eighth post mentions pronouns. The ninth post was nonsense denying regret and detransitioners exist. The tenth post is again about surgery “We know - and women have penises and children are fully able to consent to brutal surgery and life long infertility. 🙄” the eleventh post is calling out the ninth post saying detransitioners exist. The twelfth post is about detransitioners speaking in Parliament and being ignored. The thirteenth post includes surgery as- “Chloe Cole was diagnosed with dysphoria at 9
Put on testosterone at 13 Had her breasts removed at 15 Was suicidal
Now back to being a woman But it doesn't happen” the fourteenth post is about puberty blockers. The fifteenth post is continuing the pronoun aside. The sixteenth post is responding to the thirteenth post on Cole. The sixteenth post is the OP responding to the ninth post saying regret and detransitioners do not exist. The eighteenth post is more on the pronoun side discussion. The nineteenth post is responding to the ninth post saying detransitioners do not exist. The twentieth post is discussing how long it takes to start hormones/medication and how the poster thinks it’s not too easy.

Then there is my post. And you are claiming that I switched the focus? Bullshit bullshit bullshit. SEVEN posts before mine were discussing surgery and regret, including the opening post. That’s fully 1/3rd of the posts. I didn’t switch focus.

I pointed out that your definition of regret was only about surgery only,
You said I had posted a lie, when it wasn’t and then refused to admit your errors in fact. If this is what you had meant to say, you need to work on how you communicate. My definition of regret isn’t only about surgery. I was contributing to the discussion on regret following surgery which was a well established discussion by the time I came into the thread. You are unnecessarily aggressive, you don’t go around saying things are lies and then posting nonsense “flaws” which only illustrate that you haven’t even read the scientific papers involved!

It is still a lie even if you just focus on regret from surgery, because when you look at the data there are patients lost to follow up who are not included in the final number. Bullshit bullshit bullshit. You haven’t even looked at the data. There were no patients included in the study “lost to follow up” and even if there were, you are conflating attrition with regret. People move geographically and so are no longer at the same clinic. People are happy where they are and decide they don’t need any more gender affirming procedures - not everyone goes the whole nine yards. The data is still data that can be used to inform. If the peer reviewed systematic review of 27 studies were a lie, it would not have stayed published.

Thank you for the link. However, several studies in the review did go past 8yrs to 10/12 years so not sure why they are saying all of them are too short.

As for bias, these are systematic reviews of surveys. There are no surveys ever in existence that are not biased in one way or another. In addition, when gauging a subjective feeling like regret, you cannot avoid bias there either. So it is actually standard procedure when doing a survey or a review if surveys to discuss any biases. This doesn’t meant the data is bad or “a lie” it simply means it’s not objective- because it can’t be.

Has anyone been watching the Dr Death series on Ch4 about Christopher Duntsch. It's just incredible how long he was able to operate and destroy people's lives before he was prevented from doing more harm.

It's incredible that this woman can operate with no indemnity insurance. The American's are always going on about our crappy "socialised healthcare" system but this would never be allowed over here.

Trouble is multiple states in the US are completely behind this type of treatment so the chances of her being stopped are not good.

Is the drama one with Joshua Jackson? It’s really good. And yes, I watched it thinking how did people just let him carry on but I know from personal experience that is what happens.

I think there’s a deep psychological trait among medical professionals that means they can’t bring themselves to contemplate the idea that other medical professionals would seek to do no harm where possible also. I have seen this close up.

There are no surveys ever in existence that are not biased in one way or another. In addition, when gauging a subjective feeling like regret, you cannot avoid bias there either.

Totally agree. Subjectivity comes in to all of this and for me, it's really key when looking at the evidence base and what has led on from that.

It's really frustrating that the empirical evidence isn't there to support puberty blockers being given to children, cross-sex hormones being prescribed, the impact of whether transition really does have a positive impact on suicide rates and on detransitioner regret. I do appreciate it was only the detransitioner regret you asked for (and that makes sense as an ask, given the thread to topic). But it's all connected. There is no empiracal evidence base for any of it because anything that questions gender identity as fact is shut down and, specifically on detransitioners, there is no adequate tracking or follow-up once someone decides to detransition. They just drop out of any statistic. Unless they are specifically chased (and who would be chasing them if the medical profession isn't interested and/or you get your study shut down or you lose your job?), how do we even know who they are.

So objectively, your logical and sensible request for science papers on detransition just can't be answered.

Subjectively, there are enough concerns coming from so so so many different places that show that something is wrong here. That we're transitioning children at an unfathomable scale when it's not in their best interests to do so, leaving them medicalised for life, most likely infertile and without sexual function (100% likely if starting early on puberty blockers) and then left to fend for themselves when they realise that it wasn't the right answer.

@SwitchDiver looking at this subjectively, do you believe children and adolescents (even up to the age of 25 when the brain switches to risk averse thinking) should be transitioned?

Ps I'm glad you're here in this forum having this debate. It reminds me of getting to the end of the film Adult Human Female and really wishing I could sit down with Katy Jon Went and [I've forgotten her name - oops!] having a chat about it all, working through differences and common points of understanding. That's how this should play out.

(a few typos in there. Hope it makes sense)

Yes, my DS was discharged from GIDS at the very beginning of 2020 with a referral to the adult clinic. Luckily lockdown gave him plenty of time to think and he desisted from thinking he was trans.
But GIDS have never done any follow up, in fact they never even replied to an email he sent them when he was unable to access the files they had sent him. He was completely uninterested in it by then though, so never chased them up.
And that’s really what people need to realise, my son went from being 100% sure he wanted to transition to not wanting anything to do with it all in the space of about 5 months, it’s mad when you look at it like that.

Yikes, @risefromyourgrave - do you think lockdown/the pandemic saved your son from going down the transition path? Gave him genuine “Time to Think”? Must feel like you all dodged a bullet there, thank goodness!

Oh yes, 100%. He actually got a full time job, ironic that it was during lockdown that he worked full time! And lived ‘in the real world’ rather than online, basically the opposite of everyone else during that time. I know that the lockdown was hell for lots of people, but for us it was a godsend.

On the Gender Wider Lens podcast, one of the episodes is with the Dutch detransitioner Teiresias who would have gone ahead with penis and testicles being removed if it wasn’t for lockdown delays. Episode 99 if you want to listen to it.