Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
Thread gallery
14
NoBinturongsHereMate · 08/05/2024 14:21

Sloejelly · 08/05/2024 12:51

This is anecdotal data not an observational study. You have no idea how these children would have responded without treatment, let alone with appropriate psychotherapy. It is highly biased and subjective. It tells you nothing about the appropriateness or success of the treatment. You have participates who are hugely invested in their private treatment and have fallen for a sales pitch. You are also asking patients whose brain development has been impacted by the drugs. You do not have a complete cohort - you know nothing about the missing patients…

It's not as good as a prospective or a controlled trial, but it can still give valid and useful data. Certainly on adverse effects, and potentially on efficacy. In the most extreme case, if there's a 100% 'failure' rate it doesn't matter that there's no comparator - you can still determine that it doesn't work.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 08/05/2024 14:45

INeedAPensieve · 08/05/2024 13:23

Oh I do hope so, I really do. My trust of Scottish politicians has gone and apart from a tiny number who have tried to push back against this (such as Joanna Cherry, Neal Hanvey and Ash Regan), the rest, to me, are contemptible. Actively shouting down concerns about child harm to further their batshit agenda. No more. Stop.

As an aside I'm still really annoyed that despite Dr Cass shining a light on this I can't be honest about it at my work. Everyone in my wider team has a pronoun declared on their email (not me, thankfully not mandatory yet, but I'm the odd one out!) we work with Stonewall, some colleagues have their logo on their email signatures (even though it is not the official marketing signature). During women's history month in March the internal internet had a story about a transwoman's achievement(!). On international women's day there was nothing mentioned at all, it was not even marked as a day. Yet LGBT history month in Feb was full of internet stories and already they have 3 news headlines promoting June and what they are going to talk about for equality week in June (to mark Pride etc). No mention of women or even men with health problems, it's literally just about trans joy. It's just a constant drip drip of this and it means that despite proof of child harm and the light Dr Cass has shone on this, I can't say anything (even casually) at my work. Ugh. I feel like I'm in some sort of dystopian novel!

Hopefully things will start to change in organisations like yours @INeedAPensieve? I thought this was really interesting - Simon Fanshawe (one of Stonewall's founders and now Rector of Edinburgh University) amongst others suggesting that businesses are starting to express reservations about many DEI initiatives:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/06/inside-plot-take-back-control-diversity-zealots/

"HR chiefs admit among themselves that some of their peers have embarked on passion projects that have little to do with the workplace"

The extreme levels of emotional incontinence along with an open contempt for safeguarding others and dismissing their rights always seemed to suggest that so much of this will inevitably be reversed once the bullying and intimidation it's founded on is exposed

Edited to apologise for derailing this. I can start a new thread if anyone wants to discuss.
.

Why bosses are ‘getting nervous’ about the corporate diversity drive

Companies reconsider rise of inclusion policies amid fears ‘pendulum has swung too far’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/06/inside-plot-take-back-control-diversity-zealots

Sloejelly · 08/05/2024 14:54

NoBinturongsHereMate · 08/05/2024 14:21

It's not as good as a prospective or a controlled trial, but it can still give valid and useful data. Certainly on adverse effects, and potentially on efficacy. In the most extreme case, if there's a 100% 'failure' rate it doesn't matter that there's no comparator - you can still determine that it doesn't work.

What do you mean by ‘failure’? Even at the extreme of death, death might be attributed to heart failure or suicide, without knowing who was prescribed the drug you wouldn’t know this was the outcome. Quite clearly they wouldn’t turn up at the nhs clinic. Would it be a failure or success if someone stopped taking it because they were no longer ‘dysphoric’? They wouldn’t turn up at clinic either. And you wouldn’t know they had taken it in the first place because they never crossed your path. Without a comparator or even the number treated you have no idea of efficacy. Even with an observational comparator you cannot prove causation. On adverse effects it is no better than the yellow card system. On ‘success’ it would be based on biased self reporting which it useless.

Datun · 08/05/2024 14:55

Thank you Arabella.

It looks like that MSP woman was mouthing transactivist gobbledygook and Hilary Cass answered a question she hadn't actually been asked.

And the woman, realising she was talking bollocks grabbed hold of it gratefully and said yes thank you you've answered my question.

😀

OldCrone · 08/05/2024 15:13

lechiffre55 · 08/05/2024 12:40

As far as I can tell 100% were put on the PB pathway by GIDS, but I am not supporting or defending that. I seem to remember reports that there was only one that got turned down?
Cass has thankfully had a massive effect on the gender woowoo religion. I am assuming and hoping that the priests of gender will get no say medical research of this topic going forwards. If you want to argue we shouldn't give them carte blanche, and keep an eye on them going forwards then I would agree.
What I don't agree with is a completly close minded approach to the subject that it just a mirror image of the TRA position.
Let's say after Cass that medical research is done. Say all NHS puberty blockers are put on indefinite hold. And the researchers study all the kids who have taken or are taking PBs from abroad. That data is useful, and it may even evidentially show that there are no cases or situations where PBs result in a better outcome for these kids. Then we will have actual research that says "PBs are bad in all cases and should never be used".
I am literally saying science might and I stress that might heavily, say under these circumstances it can be of benefit. I'm not saying they are of benefit, I'm saying research might find so. I'm not a scientist or in the medical field. I am assuming that research will now be conducted in good faith where it hasn't been previously. In practice they are going have to change from the virtue feelz school of pseudo-science to actual evidence based science, and that's going to take time, and need the removal of some gender champions from the field.

Let's say after Cass that medical research is done. Say all NHS puberty blockers are put on indefinite hold. And the researchers study all the kids who have taken or are taking PBs from abroad. That data is useful, and it may even evidentially show that there are no cases or situations where PBs result in a better outcome for these kids. Then we will have actual research that says "PBs are bad in all cases and should never be used".

We still need definitions. What does "a better outcome" mean here? What are we comparing this outcome to? Each child is an individual and we can only treat or not treat each child. We can't do both and compare the outcomes. We have no way of knowing what the outcome would have been for a child who was treated if they hadn't been treated.

So it comes back to the same questions. What is the condition that is being treated? Why is a mental condition being treated by physically damaging a healthy body? What does a positive outcome of this treatment look like?

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 08/05/2024 15:18

Sloejelly · 08/05/2024 14:54

What do you mean by ‘failure’? Even at the extreme of death, death might be attributed to heart failure or suicide, without knowing who was prescribed the drug you wouldn’t know this was the outcome. Quite clearly they wouldn’t turn up at the nhs clinic. Would it be a failure or success if someone stopped taking it because they were no longer ‘dysphoric’? They wouldn’t turn up at clinic either. And you wouldn’t know they had taken it in the first place because they never crossed your path. Without a comparator or even the number treated you have no idea of efficacy. Even with an observational comparator you cannot prove causation. On adverse effects it is no better than the yellow card system. On ‘success’ it would be based on biased self reporting which it useless.

I’m taking about an observational clinical study, following a protocol that has been pre-approved by MHRA and under the gaze of an ethics committee, and that collects data that is “observed” and recorded by trained clinical staff. These kind of observational studies are not unusual in rare diseases, in paediatric studies and/or where there are ethical difficulties in providing a particular treatment. They allow you to get the best quality data you can out of a limited population. The study participants would be anyone that has been referred to the new GIDs replacement clinics and who consent for their data to be used.

What kind of data they collect could be a mixture of physical (eg sex, age, height, weight, blood tests, physical development) and psychological (eg patient completion of standardised psychiatric questionnaires) and done over a period of time. I’m not an expert in paediatric development but even just this basic information from a group of patients who have and have not taken PBs and/or cross sex hormones would be massively beneficial. I’m sure the experts could come up with a comprehensive list of endpoints that are worth studying.

Sloejelly · 08/05/2024 15:39

You sound quite mixed up about what you are actually looking at. If there are ethical concerns about giving a child a treatment then a REC wouldn’t approve a prospective observational study that gives that treatment. If you are talking about a retrospective study then you need a complete cohort, not a biased selection of those who turn up at an NHS centre after following a motley selection of treatments that can not be audited, and missing a chuck of the cohort for reasons that could be related to the treatment in question.

You would not get basic information on those who have taken PB as you would have no idea how representative those who present in front of you are. You wouldn’t even be able to tell if half of those taking blockers had died because they wouldn’t be there to see.

lechiffre55 · 08/05/2024 15:56

I listened to the podcast Queen's Speech over the weekend. Twice, because there were audio issues with the guest Dr P, and they had to re-record it.
In ( at least )one of the two recordings. The guest, Dr P, explained how treatment for heavily challenged kids worked. To paraphrase it takes at least six sessions before you get anything of use out of the kid.
It's a known fact that kids who think they are trans go to places on the internet like reddit that tell them exactly what to say to a doctor to get what they think they need e.g. PBs. But listening to Dr P I don't think this pre prepared here's what to say would work on Dr P. It definitely works with the affirmation model crowd, but I don't think a decently experienced mental health professional who wasn't a gender priest, could be fooled for long.
I think reasearchers could gain useful information from kids taking off NHS PBs. They would have to conset of course but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand as an evidence gathering tool. Give it a go, and if no good information comes out of it, fine stop doing it. But I think it's foolish and reflective of the religion of the gender lobby to dismiss it out of hand without trying it first.
I think it would be pretty hard to fool for any length of time an experienced mental health professional playing by the rules.

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 08/05/2024 16:02

@Sloejelly Prospective observational studies don’t need to give treatment. They do need to have ethics approval, as does any study involving humans.

If you’re as clued up on clinical studies as you’re trying to make out, but can’t see the value in obtaining observational data from the patient population that does present to GIDs or even a private service, then I can’t help you any further.

Sloejelly · 08/05/2024 17:07

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 08/05/2024 16:02

@Sloejelly Prospective observational studies don’t need to give treatment. They do need to have ethics approval, as does any study involving humans.

If you’re as clued up on clinical studies as you’re trying to make out, but can’t see the value in obtaining observational data from the patient population that does present to GIDs or even a private service, then I can’t help you any further.

Edited

You are gradually shifting your position. We started from it being stated that it was possible able assess the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of PB from non-random children turning up to GIDS having received uncertain treatment, and have moved to ‘“can’t see the value in obtaining observational data from the patient population”

We can certainly get useful data from GIDS but NOT on the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of PB.

ArabellaScott · 08/05/2024 17:17

Tory motion in Holyrood today, and debate:

'Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Debate: Implementing the Cass Review in ScotlandMeghan Gallacher S6M-13090 That the Parliament welcomes the report submitted by Dr Hilary Cass on gender identity services for children and young people; recognises the report as a valid scientific document, and calls on the Scottish Government to implement the recommendations of the report that are applicable to NHS services in Scotland. Neil Gray S6M-13090.4 As an amendment to motion S6M-13090 in the name of Meghan Gallacher (Implementing the Cass Review in Scotland), leave out from “implement” to end and insert “thoroughly examine the recommendations of the NHS England commissioned report, and its applicability to NHS Scotland services, and to update the Parliament on the outcome before the summer recess.” Jackie Baillie S6M-13090.2 As an amendment to motion S6M-13090 in the name of Meghan Gallacher (Implementing the Cass Review in Scotland), insert at end ", and further calls on the Scottish Government to publish all papers relating to the multi-disciplinary clinical team work in assessing Dr Cass’s recommendations, and to urgently prepare a progress report on the existing strategy for reducing long waits for children and young people to access specialist gender services."'

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 08/05/2024 17:18

Neil Gray is SNP, Jackie Baillie is Labour.

OP posts:
MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 08/05/2024 17:19

Sloejelly · 08/05/2024 17:07

You are gradually shifting your position. We started from it being stated that it was possible able assess the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of PB from non-random children turning up to GIDS having received uncertain treatment, and have moved to ‘“can’t see the value in obtaining observational data from the patient population”

We can certainly get useful data from GIDS but NOT on the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of PB.

Nope, I’ve never said it was possible to assess the safety and efficacy of PBs under those circumstances. I don’t think it’s possible to design any ethical clinical study with the objective of determining the safety and efficacy of PBs in children with “gender distress”.

What I have said, repeatedly, is that observational data from current patients would be useful and relatively straightforward to obtain.

TempestTost · 08/05/2024 17:35

lechiffre55 · 08/05/2024 11:01

@Sloejelly and @AlisonDonut
It feels to me very much like because no gender borg can debate why they think all the current gender woowoo is great, that for you I'm going to have to do as an outlet. I don't support gender ideology, or whats being done to kids.

example
OK lets start with this... You take all the kids who self report as transgender

Can we define 'transgender' first?

What is it?

I am not advocating for transgenderism. When I use the words "self report as transgender" I'm trying to convey that kids believe something about gender trumping sex. It's a big pile of all sorts of muddled gobbledygook. The kids identifies as some element(s) of that muddled pile. My language is "self reports" as having some element of the shitshow. Clearly I'm not validating it when I say "self reports as". If I said ( regluarly ) "transgender kids" then you'd have a point, but I don't. If you have a better phrase to describe those kids then I'm all ears.

If you want to have a crack a defining transgender, have at it. I have no such desire because I don't believe it, but i still need to be able to use language to describe who I'm referring to.

I understand where you are coming from. It's true that without research we don't "know" anything scientifically for sure.

But doing good research means being able to define the condition, and what constitutes a good or bad outcome.

It's also not usual to give kids any experimental treatments unless they really think they will be less harmful than the disease. Which we can't evaluate until there is a clear diagnostic criteria.

GenericMNwoman · 08/05/2024 20:49

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 08/05/2024 15:18

I’m taking about an observational clinical study, following a protocol that has been pre-approved by MHRA and under the gaze of an ethics committee, and that collects data that is “observed” and recorded by trained clinical staff. These kind of observational studies are not unusual in rare diseases, in paediatric studies and/or where there are ethical difficulties in providing a particular treatment. They allow you to get the best quality data you can out of a limited population. The study participants would be anyone that has been referred to the new GIDs replacement clinics and who consent for their data to be used.

What kind of data they collect could be a mixture of physical (eg sex, age, height, weight, blood tests, physical development) and psychological (eg patient completion of standardised psychiatric questionnaires) and done over a period of time. I’m not an expert in paediatric development but even just this basic information from a group of patients who have and have not taken PBs and/or cross sex hormones would be massively beneficial. I’m sure the experts could come up with a comprehensive list of endpoints that are worth studying.

Yes this could be done as a cohort study. While not as strong empirically as an RCT, it would give useful information. Im
shocked that gender clinics haven’t been doing this kind of research. … OK not
actually shocked, but it would have given @some evidence base for PBs and cross sex hormones.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9120971/

Research Design: Cohort Studies

In a cohort study, a group of subjects (the cohort) is followed for a period of time; assessments are conducted at baseline, during follow-up, and at the end of follow-up. Cohort studies are, therefore, empirical, longitudinal studies based on data obt...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9120971/

MrsOvertonsWindow · 08/05/2024 21:17

That's such a good interview. Her understated comments are really damning of what's been done to children:
“If puberty blockers had been a new drug, they’d have gone through very strict controls before being prescribed. The weakness in this instance was that they were already licensed in children but for completely different use [the treatment of precocious or early puberty], for which they are totally safe… It should have been subject to greater scrutiny.”

**

Sloejelly · 08/05/2024 21:19

The weakness in this instance was that they were already licensed in children but for completely different use [the treatment of precocious or early puberty], for which they are totally safe… It should have been subject to greater scrutiny.”

They are NOT totally safe for precocious puberty.

AstonsStolenData · 09/05/2024 02:35

Snowypeaks · 08/05/2024 08:16

I don't have the expertise to judge your suggestion as a researcher, but I don't see any reason to give children a treatment which will harm them physically, which will probably harm their mental health and which is still a gamble in terms of how much they will look like the opposite sex when they grow up. That's the problem for me - we would definitely harm the child whose gender distress persisted, by giving them an essentially palliative "treatment". We can't get around that fact. The only justification for puberty blockers is to delay, in the short term, precocious puberty. I believe cross-sex hormones are needed occasionally in cases of some DSDs, but for health, not for gender presentation or gender distress.

Good point. In my hypothetical, there would be no point in giving PBs bc 100% of the children in group A persist in their gender incongruence if you don't intervene. There would probably be no benefit in postponing puberty for them bc they're unlikely to change their minds and there are known harms with PBs. I should have instead used cross sex hormones in my example of an intervention for Group A (e.g., measure physical health, happiness, mental health, social adjustment, educational outcomes, gender incongruence, etc over several years for a group who had hormones vs counseling only vs both vs wait list only).

My main point was that if you track the children carefully and analyze the data on outcomes, there may be subgroups within the larger whole for whom testing various treatments could make sense, even if it would be unethical to give a proposed treatment to the whole group.

AstonsStolenData · 09/05/2024 03:50

@UtopiaPlanitia Thanks. I enjoyed the interview. I like that it had a transcript as well as the podcast.

Meghna Chakrabarti, the interviewer, brought up some of the criticisms of the Cass Report and Dr. Cass addressed them directly and diplomatically. She's so good at this! Chakrabarti had good questions; I was glad that she gave Dr. Cass the opportunity to address some of the concerns with her report, including WPATH's. The interview seemed balanced and informative. If ppl have a chance, it's worth a listen or read.

PriOn1 · 09/05/2024 06:20

I think Cass erred on the side of diplomacy when she said puberty blockers should only be assessed as part of a rigorous research trial because I highly suspect Cass knows damn well that such a trial would never get past any proper ethics committee because of the harm that would result, not to mention the very real problem as OldCrone points out of there being no clear indication as to what is being treated.

She knew if she said “not now, not ever” it would be a stick to beat her report with. Saying what she said doesn’t mean there’s a valid option of doing just that.

I had also come to the conclusion that this was probably the most likely reason for Cass acting as she has. The reactions on both sides have also been interesting as both sides seem to have reacted as if she had taken the much harder line.

Now all that remains to be seen is whether the NHS are actually capable of/will make any attempt to control the rogue clinicians who have been in the driving seat for so long. Those clinicians still hold too many cards. Persuading new and unbiased clinicians into this niche, toxic corner of medicine is going to be close to impossible. The waiting lists are presumably still huge.

While I admire the game I suspect Cass is indeed playing, I wonder whether, in time there will come to be regrets over not taking a harder line. If we eventually want to bring these doctors to justice, giving them any kind of wriggle room that allows them to justify continued experimentation on children might be seen, with hindsight, to have been a misstep.

Sloejelly · 09/05/2024 08:15

My main point was that if you track the children carefully and analyze the data on outcomes, there may be subgroups within the larger whole for whom testing various treatments could make sense, even if it would be unethical to give a proposed treatment to the whole group.

It would be impossible to tell if some might benefit from simply tracking children. You could only say that some appeared harmed less than others. You could not tell if they are in a better position, despite the harms they have suffered, than they would have been had they received alternative treatment (eg psychotherapy) or no treatment.

Remember ‘treatment’ doesn’t start with PB or even forcing others to pretend you are something you are not (aka social transitioning). It starts with indoctrination into an ideology that tells young children, with very limited understanding of the world, that they can choose their sex based on regressive stereotypes.

Ingenieur · 09/05/2024 08:39

@Sloejelly

It starts with indoctrination into an ideology that tells young children, with very limited understanding of the world

This is an important point. Part of the indoctrinational grooming process is the rejection of critical thinking and the lowering of inhibitions such that the child doesn't know when something is wrong.

In a similar way that we raised concerns with the NSPCC's definition of child abuse (the child knows the abuse is wrong), the children in this case have been convinced of the existence of gender identities, and that transition will solve their maladies - both unevidenced - as part of a long conveyor of love-bombing, misinformation and isolation from loved ones. They therefore do not accept that they are being mistreated by the process.

With this grooming in mind, can there ever be true consent from a child to this process? Even before we ask whether a child can properly comprehend and weigh the outcomes of a course of action? (I won't use the word "treatment" here).