Reader’s note:
Some trans activists with extreme views have positioned some feminists as ‘anti-trans’. Normally, a post such as this would be deleted by MnHq as it includes significant negative generalisations about MN FWR. However, as yet it is likely that no one has reported it.
This post has positioned careful statement of personal boundaries such as not believing that male people can ever be ‘women or girls’ and the constant discussion about how trans lobby groups have failed children and adolescents with the push for affirming only treatments as being ‘ideological’ and ‘anti-trans’.
When something is based directly and specifically on material reality, it is not ‘ideological’. This is a very dishonest statement made by this poster in the quoted post.
Also, to position the boundaries of female people as ‘anti-trans’ by logic makes the extreme trans position that ignores those boundaries as ‘misogynist’ and ‘anti-women and anti-girl’. It is just another fallacy spread by these extremists. They never evaluate their statements for such flaws.
If any child is going to have any medical condition that would impact their puberty, I would suspect by now that the condition would be testable, even just as puberty should be starting. Therefore, a male adult leveraging children’s potential medical conditions in the way this post indicates is a red flag for safeguarding for me. It is an indication that the adult is likely to be invested in these children’s ’gender identity’.
Particularly when considering this statement:
“I can actively help correct untruths and assumptions when they crop up and threaten to become additions to GC dogma while adding to the corpus of discussion on this site.”
The information overwhelmingly provided by people on MN is evidence based and is in line with what independent child medical experts recommend.
Again, the framing as per this post is ludicrously based in this poster’s deeply entrenched prejudice about MN FWR and, hypocritically, their deep ideological beliefs. Because if independent child medical experts are disagreeing with this poster, it is yet another major safeguarding red flag.
No one should be bullied. No child or adolescent should be given a low standard of care by any organisation charged with their care. Particularly about their current and future health, mental and physical. No child should be failed by an evidence free or very low evidence based treatment because some heavily invested adults have demanded this.
This male adult is actively lamenting that currently the UK is carefully reviewing their treatment of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria. Apparently, this scrutiny is based in hate and has apparently set the UK backwards in this poster’s eyes. Because it seems that in this poster’s view, the UK shouldn’t be constantly reviewing the evidence OR the lack of evidence.
Again, as has been repeatedly pointed out, this male adult has never grasped that the majority of adolescents who are registered at the UK gender clinics (and others around the world) are now FEMALE. Not male. And female people have not been studied in any depth for their unique needs in this situation. A fact not acknowledged by this poster.
Puberty blockers have significant negative consequences for female bodies. Look up Lupron. The impacts on male bodies is bad enough but female bodies is life limiting and shortening. Yet, this poster has continue to advocate for them. And testosterone for the female body is also life limiting and life shortening, and this is also well documented by now. Read about the East German sports women.
However, even the authors of the Dutch Protocol have stated publically that there is doubt that this treatment plan is working for female adolescents because they have different needs and they are declaring trans identities for reasons different to male adolescents. Another fact ignored by this poster.
The direct impacts of past treatment on UK children and adolescents are apparently being researched by Dr Hilary Cass. Yet apparently the UK is, according to this person, the worst in the world. Yet is one of the only countries doing the hard research. I will leave it to readers to think about why a male adult who transitioned under the direct influence of a medical condition, apparently an unusual genetic issue, is advocating to any child or young person who is not experiencing that medical condition . Is it appropriate?
Here is the interim Cass report for readers to peruse for themselves.
https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-report/
Note, no peer reviewed evidence has been produced that shows an improvement long term for the gender dysphoria or the mental health of adolescents and child transitioners. None.
Here is a Dutch documentary released very recently discussing this:
And the reanalysed data from the UK child and adolescent gender clinics.
The newly released peer reviewed reanalysis of the UK study. McPherson & Freedman both worked on the initial analysis of the patient clinical data.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2023.2281986
Psychological Outcomes of 12–15-Year-Olds with Gender Dysphoria Receiving Pubertal Suppression in the UK: Assessing Reliable and Clinically Significant Change
Susan McPherson & David E. P. Freedman
Published online: 29 Nov 2023
Abstract
The evidence base for psychological benefits of GnRHA for adolescents with gender dysphoria (GD) was deemed “low quality” by the UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Limitations identified include inattention to clinical importance of findings. This secondary analysis of UK clinical study data uses Reliable and Clinically Significant Change approaches to address this gap. The original uncontrolled study collected data within a specialist GD service. Participants were 44 12–15-year-olds with GD. Puberty was suppressed using “triptorelin”; participants were followed-up for 36 months. Secondary analysis used data from parent-report Child Behavior Checklists and Youth Self-Report forms. Reliable change results: 15–34% of participants reliably deteriorated depending on the subscale, time point and parent versus child report. Clinically significant change results: 27–58% were in the borderline (subclinical) or clinical range at baseline (depending on subscale and parent or child report). Rates of clinically significant change ranged from 0 to 35%, decreasing over time toward zero on both self-report and parent-report. The approach offers an established complementary method to analyze individual level change and to examine who might benefit or otherwise from treatment in a field where research designs have been challenged by lack of control groups and low sample sizes.
So, why is an adult male individual pushing their political agenda so hard and declaring anyone stating that there are issues as being ‘anti-trans’? A derogatory term and one framed in hate?
Who benefits from this male adult doing this?