Guardian describes puberty blockers as fully reversible

[TheGreatATuin]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/22/alabama-ban-treatments-trans-children

Puberty blockers are fully reversible prescription medication that pause sexual maturation, typically given in injections or skin implants.

It's had me wondering about responsible journalism. Puberty blockers are being pulled back across multiple countries due to concerns. I guess I find it extraordinary that a mainstream supposedly reputable newspaper can just trot that out. It feels deeply irresponsible at best.

The Guardian are not interested in truth. They are cheer leaders for gender ideology.

That is a blatant lie. Don’t papers in the UK have an obligation not to print out and out lies/propaganda ?

That's the US wing.

That's what I'm wondering. Surely, there must be something that says they have an obligation to fact check? I could understand when it was ten years ago and there was still little understanding of it, but now? With the Cass Review and NICE report only them? It's blatant misinformation.

Ah, of course it is. Its still worrying. I have lost so much faith in the media over this. Extraordinary how confidently they can make pronouncements about something they've got completely wrong.

That’s a syndicated AP article.

The Guardian describes itself as a newspaper as well. Got that wrong too.

Does anyone know if this is on Twitter? It'd be good to add some comments to challenge that. Such irresponsible journalism.

I presume it's outside of IPSO jurisdiction sadly.

The Guardian is a bloody disgrace.
This is what the captured NHS states about them (note the mealy mouthed "although GIDS advises....") - presumably trying to avoid all the law suits coming down the line :

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.
Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.
It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

This is where I have to admit that I have never seen it spelled out clearly,
I Know that children who take puberty blockers for precocious puberty for a few years go on to have a normal puberty when they stop at an appropriate age ( although their are often side effects that are irreversible to bones etc.)
If a young person took puberty blockers BEYOND the normal range and didn't take cross sex hormones, if they stopped at, for instance 20, would they then go through a very late but normal puberty? Or is there a time frame beyond which puberty is switched off permanently even if you stop medication entirely, ie. You've missed your slot.
I know that virtually all young people on puberty blockers go on to cross sex hormones ( the effects of social transition are also not that easy to reverse if started young) so maybe there haven't been enough who don't to really know?

Sadly, if you go beyond a certain point it will never happen.

It also depends on how early they are taken.

Many children who are given them start them early and will stay on them until they are given cross sex hormones. According to the Tavistock's data, 98% of those who take puberty blockers will go on to take cross sex hormones. For this group of children there will be no puberty and it is never possible for it to happen.

I can dig out more with facts (different "Tanner" stages i.e. stages of puberty) but that's the essence of it.

Maybe someone could tweet this to MF or JKR to provide some sunlight and query this?

You've missed your slot is the short answer.

There is a longer answer but I'm too tired to dig it out. Maybe another day.

I saw this earlier. Thought it was reasonably balanced ish (for a Guardian article anyway) until I got to the statement that puberty blockers are fully reversible. Can't believe they are still printing that as fact!

So everyone saying they are reversible are really basing that on the treatment protocols for precocious puberty where it really is designed to be a pause and is strictly time limited to stopping as soon as possible.
You wouldn't normally treat one condition with the drugs for another and just assume it would be OK without extensive trials etc. It's outrageous!

😂

I rarely read anything in the Grauniad these days. I find I get very angry with much of the content, a lot of it seems to be aimed at US readers , or is just identity politics . In the good old days they had decent journalists who could actually write a piece giving both sides of any argument, draw decent conclusions and were seeking to inform,that era has gone. As far as this goes, it's very poor , no research seems to go into it, what can one say?

It looks like the best way to get the Guardian to consider a complaint about this is if someone "personally and directly affected" puts in the complaint:

The readers’ editor office was created to resolve substantial complaints and queries from individuals who feel we’ve breached the Guardian’s editorial standards. As such, the readers’ editor’s time, effort and resources will be focused on such complaints, and she reserves the right not to consider complaints:

• From anyone not personally and directly affected by the matter which forms the subject of the complaint.
• That are trivial, hypothetical or otherwise vexatious or insignificant.
• That are without justification (such as an attempt to argue a point of view or to lobby).
• About advertising (unless in exceptional circumstances).
• About Guardian reader offers.
• That are legal complaints.

https://www.theguardian.com/info/2014/sep/12/-sp-how-to-make-a-complaint-about-guardian-or-observer-content

Editorial code of practice and guidance Guardian News & Media

1. Accuracy

i) Journalists must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) While free to editorialise and campaign, a publication must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

v) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2023/07/27/GNM_editorial_code_of_practice_and_guidance_2023.pdf

Paging detransitioners and/or people with "transition regret" who were put on puberty blockers?

Well Christ, that's just a horrific dangerous blatant lie!

Or any parent of a gnc child?

Children who take puberty blockers for precocious puberty rarely take them for a few years. More likely 6 months to a year.

What was the original claim that they're reversible based on?

I often go back to this paper which describes the car crash of how the Dutch method was distilled into the Tavistock and patient leaflets made this claim.

I'm very unclear as to what actual evidence and science that claim was based on.

Does anyone know?

Sorry this paper

users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0060/Biggs_ExperimentPubertyBlockers.pdf

And this follows on I think

www.transgendertrend.com/the-tavistocks-experiment-with-puberty-blockers-part-5-the-belated-results/

Reading one of the references, I don't think anyone ever made the evidenced claim that they were reversible. They just announced they were?

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2121238

I'm actually going to make a new thread with the question.