Always been GC, but now afraid I'm becoming transphobic

[HouseOfGuineaPigs]

I've always been gender critical and 100% in support of safe spaces for natal women only. I'm completely comfortable with being gender critical. But I'm concerned I've crossed a line into becoming a full on bigot, which is something I don't want to be. Due to my own background of mental health and trauma issues I follow pages on this issue on Facebook. I just saw one with a graphic post saying Using Preferred Pronouns Is Suicide Prevention and it made me want to scream and throw things.

I've been suicidal, I've attempted. I've battled see harm and self destructive behaviours since childhood. I should be sympathetic about the struggles people are having . But I feel manipulated seeing posts like that one. I use preferred names when I'm addressing trans persons. I am kind to them, I don't mention their issues. I treat them the same as anyone else. I will call a bloke Sue even if his real name is Bob, it feels odd, but I will do it to be respectful . But calling a he a she is a step too far. I would either use their name or use they.

Why do I feel so strongly that I'm being manipulated ? None of the trans people I know have abused me in any way. They haven't infringed on my boundaries . I have 2 trans friends, another who is non binary and 2 acquaintances. They have all been decent .

I just feel resentful that I'm being made to feel responsible for someone not taking their life because I don't affirm their identity ?

I'm horrible aren't I ? Please sort my head out !

@Howseitgoin are you arguing that medical transition is the appropriate treatment pathway for children experiencing what might be termed gender distress?

In the face of systematic reviews in the Nordic countries and here in the UK which clearly demonstrate no benefit?

I said for the sake of their future mental health. That you wilfully minimise severe mental health distress tells us exactly how much you really care about children or what they have to live with for the rest of their lives.

Although there are some potential risks with puberty blockers, they are reversible & hormone treatments generally don't come into play until much later in adolescence 16+ when the individual is considered to understand the impacts that has legally been determined acceptable .

Puberty is not a neutral phenomena with catastrophic outcomes either way so doctors are damned if they do & damned if they don't. They are charged with doing no harm. And whether you like it or not harm includes failing to act when on the balance of probabilities an individual might benefit from the available treatments. And let's not forget that like abortion or Euthanasia, don't think the access goes away just because it's illegal. Where there's a will there's a way particularly with the on line black market or OS travel. Highly regulated access is always better than not unless of course it was never about the children…

Did it occur to you why they are still available in all those countries including the UK? Clearly its the management that was problematic that has now been reviewed & restricted to candidates who are more likely to maintain their gender identity long term.

As far as what I personally think, I defer to experts as I do for climate change, vaccines & anything else I am not expert in instead of talking out of my over emotional arse.

For those reading along who want to understand a bit more about how the world’s doctors were convinced about allowing these experiments on children where medical treatments of hormones and surgery were given for what is a philosophical belief, you might be interested in the leaked WPATH files.

https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/wpath-files

These might give insight into what notbadconsidering posted up thread from Meg Brock. Meg’s expose is still being read carefully being very recent and thousands of emails.

That link to Meg Brock’s article is here also

https://dailycaller.com/2025/10/03/exclusive-university-of-california-san-francisco-emails-shoddy-gender-science-child-sex-changes/

If you see posters dismissing the scandal of these treatments, you might want to ask what type of person would dismiss the horror of doctors performing experimental treatments on children for non life threatening medical issues? What motivates them to dismiss the seriousness of this issue?

And then you see the pattern that found in these leaked files afresh.

I said for the sake of their future mental health. That you wilfully minimise severe mental health distress tells us exactly how much you really care about children or what they have to live with for the rest of their lives.

If their mental health is so severe then the treatments would improve that if it worked. So why doesn’t it? The evidence shows it doesn’t.

And if their mental health is so severe how can they have the clarity to make such life changing decisions?

And when did adulterating a child’s hormones become acceptable as a mental health treatment?

Although there are some potential risks with puberty blockers, they are reversible & hormone treatments generally don't come into play until much later in adolescence 16+ when the individual is considered to understand the impacts that has legally been determined acceptable .

Puberty blockers are almost never reversed. Everyone knows that now. Claiming they’re “reversible” is very 2018. We know that all children progress onto wrong sex hormones. So they have to understand the consequences of the pathway at the beginning. Do you think a child of 9-12 can understand such things?

Puberty is not a neutral phenomena with catastrophic outcomes either way so doctors are damned if they do & damned if they don't.

Puberty is a natural phenomenon, it’s an essential part of human development, like learning to walk and talk.

They aren’t damned if they allow puberty because we know that if children are left alone medically their gender distress can often relent. That’s the pathway of least harm.

And whether you like it or not harm includes failing to act when on the balance of probabilities an individual might benefit from the available treatments.

There is no evidence of benefits of treatments. Why should doctors give treatments that don’t work?

And let's not forget that like abortion or Euthanasia, don't think the access goes away just because it's illegal.

Why bring in these false equivalences? Do you think children should be sterilised officially because otherwise it will done in back alleys?

unless of course it was never about the children…

Of course it was never about children. The entire reason the Dutch started medicalising children was because adults lamented they didn’t pass. You said it yourself, it’s about aesthetic goals for adults. Why should adults body issues be used to direct treatments for children?

And if their mental health is so severe how can they have the clarity to make such life changing decisions?

Exactly

Here's a very pertinent bit from the thread I linked earlier. It is heartbreaking to hear what this poor man has gone through.

During transition, I was obsessive and deeply unwell, I cannot believe they were allowed to do this to me, even after all the red flags.

I wasn't even asked if I wanted to freeze sperm or want kids. In my obsessive, deeply unwell state they just nodded along and didnt tell me the realities, what life would be like.

“Although there are some potential risks with puberty blockers, they are reversible”

Please stop spreading misinformation.

Puberty Blockers are not ‘reversible’.

There are some issues with your misinformed statement. Firstly, Puberty ‘may’ continue in some cases. Sure. But that doesn’t mean the they are ‘reversible’. The patients body doesn’t just reset back to the point it was and continue.

Secondly, the negative side effects that you have so casually dismissed don’t just disappear. Some may not even become apparent for decades in that patient. We already know this due to the usage of the drugs in women and girls for other issues. Those negative side effects are likely to be debilitating and can ultimately be life shortening and not even traced back to the drugs after decades have passed.

Of course, the next issue is that if the child goes on to cross sex hormones, puberty blocking doesn’t ‘reverse’. Hence the significant issues with them. Puberty is when the body and brain mature, and after blocking that puberty, how the fuck do you think the body and brain matures after that?

“Highly regulated access is always better than not”

I call bollocks on this. You use abortion and euthanasia as your examples here. Both are very well established medical fields. And neither are comparable at all to gender affirming medicine.

Of course people will source these treatments elsewhere, this weak argument of ‘they will do it anyway’ is not ever a good defence to allowing highly experimental physical treatments for the mental health of patients with no physical or life threatening medical condition.

There is no evidence available that shows the long term mental health improvement of those child patients. If there was, you would have produced it. But there is none.

Please stop spreading misinformation about the reversibility of puberty blockers.

"If their mental health is so severe then the treatments would improve that if it worked. So why doesn’t it? The evidence shows it doesn’t."

WPATH disagrees.

"And if their mental health is so severe how can they have the clarity to make such life changing decisions?"

You could say the same about anyone making decisions about accepting medical treatment suffering from chronic depression. Being depressed doesn't necessarily render a person incapable of making decisions.

"And when did adulterating a child’s hormones become acceptable as a mental health treatment?"

Since experts decided it did from their clinical experience &. research.

"Puberty blockers are almost never reversed. Everyone knows that now. Claiming they’re “reversible” is very 2018. We know that all children progress onto wrong sex hormones. So they have to understand the consequences of the pathway at the beginning. Do you think a child of 9-12 can understand such things?"

There's this thing called 'self selection'. That they mostly progress might be because the correct decision was made initially.

"Puberty is a natural phenomenon, it’s an essential part of human development, like learning to walk and talk."

There's this thing that's also a natural phenomenon called 'biological variation'. IE Not everyone is built the same or comes within the range of normal.

"They aren’t damned if they allow puberty because we know that if children are left alone medically their gender distress can often relent. That’s the pathway of least harm."

False. Desistance research has long been debunked because of flawed methodology where kids who didn't even have gender dysphoria or never claimed they were gender incongruent but were just effeminate boys who grew up to be gay were included.

'There is no evidence of benefits of treatments. Why should doctors give treatments that don’t work?"

Not according to the consensus of experts.

"Why bring in these false equivalences? Do you think children should be sterilised officially because otherwise it will done in back alleys?"

Seriously, are you really this far gone? It's because of this very mentality kids die at festivals when drug testing kits aren't available.

Of course it was never about children. The entire reason the Dutch started medicalising children was because adults lamented they didn’t pass. You said it yourself, it’s about aesthetic goals for adults. Why should adults body issues be used to direct treatments for children?

That's not what I said but what you believe.

https://www.healthline.com/health/are-puberty-blockers-reversible

WPATH?

This WPATH?

https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/wpath-files

https://dailycaller.com/2025/10/03/exclusive-university-of-california-san-francisco-emails-shoddy-gender-science-child-sex-changes/

I don’t think you can refer to WPATH as an ethical organisation. Cass didn’t believe they were to be treated as trustworthy if I remember.

I don’t normally just post links, but the information within these links is too much to cover in one post.

If the views shared by Howse, Tandora, et al are representative of the trans community as a whole (I remain hopeful that this isn't the case) then I absolutely am transphobic.
Damn right I am completely terrified of* *you.
No amount of sanctimonious word salad will make what you are advocating for any more tolerable or ethical.

You're absolutely terrifying.

You really need to get informed on this topic that you seem to think you have an understanding of.

How about you find in the Cass Report where it says they are reversible.

I will also come back with other links, including statements made by leading clinicians in WPATH that show your knowledge on this topic as being at the woefully ill informed level.

WPATH disagrees.

Well of course. WPATH is led by the same doctors who feature in the article above about knowing the treatment is shoddy. Why do you think “WPATH disagrees” means anything substantial?

You could say the same about anyone making decisions about accepting medical treatment suffering from chronic depression. Being depressed doesn't necessarily render a person incapable of making decisions.

You keep saying “person” or “people”. We are talking about children. Children don’t have the same capacity to consent, do they? And you’re saying their mental health is in a severe state. So how can children consent to giving up their fertility and sexual function?

Since experts decided it did from their clinical experience &. research.

No, the clinical experience and “research” is still an ongoing experiment. You acknowledged it’s experimental. And so far the evidence shows the experiment isn’t working. Can you show evidence that it is?

Can you think of another situation where children are given hormone disease on purpose?

There's this thing called 'self selection'. That they mostly progress might be because the correct decision was made initially.

So are puberty blockers a “pause” or are they the right treatment from the start? It can’t be both. If it’s a “pause” you’d expect a decent number to stop them. But they don’t. If it’s the right initial treatment you need to acknowledge that children who start them need to know about what they’re giving up - fertility, sexual function and the rest - do they?

False. Desistance research has long been debunked because of flawed methodology where kids who didn't even have gender dysphoria or never claimed they were gender incongruent but were just effeminate boys who grew up to be gay were included.

This is not true. Just blatantly not true.

Not according to the consensus of experts.

So consensus beats evidence does it? Since when? And you’ve been presented with evidence that the “experts” don’t even share the same consensus. What do you make of that?

Seriously, are you really this far gone? It's because of this very mentality kids die at festivals when drug testing kits aren't available.

You’re the one suggesting that if puberty blockers are banned it will go underground. Why do you think that? It’s a bizarre thing to think.

That's not what I said but what you believe.

You said

As far as sterilty goes, it's not a zero sum game. Individual values vary where some people may value their mental health more than their fertilty & be prepared to risk some poorer health outcomes to maintain their sanity & fit into society better because when they don't are socially ostracised as freaks.

“Fit into society better”. You think adults passing better is the outcome that matters and this is what should direct children’s treatment. You said it. You don’t seem clear on what outcome you’re hoping for these children.

"to maintain their sanity"

Stop lying.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02850-4

Decisions about the use of puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria require that we weigh harms and benefits from both present-oriented and long-term perspectives. While puberty suppression may provide short-term relief from anxious anticipation of pubertal development, other benefits remain unproven and it entails risks of serious long-term harms, closing off vital options that the child would otherwise have as an autonomous adult. It recasts a normal physiological process as a disease and can trigger a cascade of increasingly invasive medical interventions. Moreover, no one can know with any certainty how a child's gender self-image and embodiment goals will evolve over time. As Feinberg stated, a child's long-term interests, "cannot be established by determining [their] present desires". To believe otherwise ignores decades of empirical evidence in child and adolescent developmental psychology. Treatment pathways that delay decisions about medical transition until the child has had the chance to grow and mature into an autonomous adult would be most consistent with the open future principle.

So which is it? To maintain their sanity? To fit in better? Both?

Again, this is adults you are talking about. Why should adults determine that children should be sterilised to help their “sanity” when they’re older before they’ve even got to adulthood?

It’s just a big old power trip.

You’re absolutely correct. No matter Howse says, they’re advocating children be sterilised. And have their sexual function removed. Despite no evidence of mental health benefit. Nothing will ever mitigate that.

Two prominent transwomen clinicians, one involved with WPATH 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

Here is one issue mentioned:

“Another problem created by puberty blockade — experts prefer “blockade” to “blockage” — was lack of tissue, which Dutch researchers noted back in 2008. At that time, Cohen-Kettenis and other researchers noted that, in natal males, early blockade might lead to “non-normal pubertal phallic growth,” meaning that “the genital tissue available for vaginoplasty might be less than optimal.””

and another

“If you’ve never had an orgasm pre-surgery, and then your puberty's blocked, it's very difficult to achieve that afterwards,” Bowers said. “I consider that a big problem, actually. It's kind of an overlooked problem that in our ‘informed consent’ of children undergoing puberty blockers, we’ve in some respects overlooked that a little bit.”

And

“Bowers told me she now finds early puberty blockade inadvisable. “I’m not a fan of blockade at Tanner Two anymore, I really am not,” she told me, using the clinical name of the moment when the first visible signs of puberty manifest. “The idea all sounded good in the very beginning,” she said. “Believe me, we’re doing some magnificent surgeries on these kids, and they’re so determined, and I’m so proud of so many of them and their parents. They’ve been great. But honestly, I can’t sit here and tell you that they have better — or even as good — results. They’re not as functional. I worry about their reproductive rights later. I worry about their sexual health later and ability to find intimacy.”

Another irreversible aspect.

Puberty Blocker and Aging Impact on Testicular Cell States and Function

Varshini Murugesh, Megan Ritting, Salem Salem, Syed Mohammed Musheer Aalam, Joaquin Garcia, Asma J Chattha, Yulian Zhao, David JHF Knapp, Guruprasad Kalthur, Candace F Granberg, Nagarajan Kannan

March 27, 2024.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.23.586441v1.full

Abstract

Spermatogonial stem cell (SSC) acquisition of meiotogenetic state during puberty to produce genetically diverse gametes is blocked by drugs collectively referred as ‘puberty blocker’ (PB). Investigating the impact of PB on juvenile SSC state and function is challenging due to limited tissue access and clinical data. Herein, we report largest clinically annotated juvenile testicular biorepository with all children with gender dysphoria on chronic PB treatment highlighting shift in pediatric patient demography in US. At the tissue level, we report mild-to-severe sex gland atrophy in PB treated children. We developed most extensive integrated single-cell RNA dataset to date (>100K single cells; 25 patients), merging both public and novel (52 month PB-treated) datasets, alongside innovative computational approach tailed for germ cells and evaluated the impact of PB and aging on SSC. We report novel constitutional ranges for each testicular cell type across the entire age spectrum, distinct effects of treatments on prepubertal vs adult SSC, presence of spermatogenic epithelial cells exhibiting post-meiotic-state, irrespective of age, puberty status, or PB treatment. Further, we defined distinct effects of PB and aging on testicular cell lineage composition, and SSC meiotogenetic state and function. Using single cell data from prepubertal and young adult, we were able to accurately predict sexual maturity based both on overall cell type proportions, as well as on gene expression patterns within each major cell type. Applying these models to a PB-treated patient that they appeared pre-pubertal across the entire tissue. This combined with the noted gland atrophy and abnormalities from the histology data raise a potential concern regarding the complete ’reversibility’ and reproductive fitness of SSC. The biorepository, data, and research approach presented in this study provide unique opportunity to explore the impact of PB on testicular reproductive health.

And an article

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13276501/Mayo-Clinic-puberty-blockers-trans-kids-fertility-cancer-medicine.html

We should listen to the experts? We certainly should ..

A documentary on the Dutch Protocol

There are currently almost 3,000 young people on the waiting list for gender care in the Netherlands. They are vulnerable adolescents who are frequently subjected to discrimination. Many of them suffer severe mental distress. Doctors at the gender clinic in Amsterdam are pioneers in care for transgender young people. The treatment developed here years ago is now used worldwide. Now, criticism is growing. International experts are questioning the scientific evidence put forward by the clinicians in Amsterdam. Zembla investigates the Dutch transgender protocol.

What this covers is that no gender clinic has been able to replicate the results of the Dutch paper. One patient of the group died due to the surgery complications of gender surgery and even de Vries questioned why no one seemed interested in that patient while accepting the study. Dr Riittakerttu Kaltiala (Professor of Pschyiatry, Tampere and who set up gender clinics) and Mikael Landen (Professor of Pscyhiatry, Gotenberg) and Dr Angela Samfjord (Head of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the University of Gotenberg ) all are interviewed about the quality of the study behind the protocol and its flaws that became apparent later. Ie. The 55 patients is so small and de Vries acknowledges that they are not really similar to todays cohort of adolescent transitioners. That only 32 filled in the survey with positive results. The others were not chased up and one died.

Gerard van Breukelen, a professor of Methodology at Maastricht university goes on record to say that the methodology of that initial study was weak. There was no control group so the conclusions should not have been considered as strong as the gender clinicians claimed. Other academics declined to be interviewed due to fear for their employment as it is such a contentious issue. When talking to de Vries, she mentions that many more studies have been done by other countries now. And the doco makers mention that all those studies de Vries refer to have stated that the evidence is low quality. A Swedish team led by Landen was asked to do a full review by the Swedish government and he confirms that the evidence was just not there. Hence the Swedish government withdrew treatment.

The mention the Cass review and discussion ‘locking in’ of identities contradicts the ‘time to think’ narrative. They interview three transitioners. One detransitionered before surgery and one is happy with transition but not with the process the team followed. The one who detransitioned was put on hormones despite not even socially transitioning as he felt wearing a dress was ‘a man wearing a dress’. But was put on hormones but didn’t go through surgery after all. It also wraps up with Lucy who was stuck on the waiting list and who believes that if she was given PBs, she would not have ended up transitioning. She has obviously detransitioned now after double mastectomy and testosterone, then ovaries and uterus removal.

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.

Link ; Canada finds low evidence

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/transgender-treatments-for-kids
https://archive.ph/fLMxA
"The Canadian team combed the available evidence, pooling the results of research on puberty blockers and gender affirming hormones for children and youth up to age 26. They graded the evidence using a scoring system co-developed by Dr. Gordon Guyatt, a celebrated McMaster scientist who coined the phrase evidence-based medicine.
Article content
After screening 6,736 titles and abstracts involving puberty blockers, only 10 studies were included in their review. While children who received puberty blockers compared to those who don’t score higher on “global function” — quality of life, and general physical and psychological wellbeing — the evidence was of “very low certainty.” Very low, meaning researchers have “very little confidence in the effect estimate” and that the true effect “is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.”
The studies also provided low certainty of evidence on the impact of puberty blockers on depression. While they may decrease depression in “male-to-female participants,” they didn’t decrease depression scores in the female-to-male group. “We are very uncertain about the causal effect of the (drugs) on depression,” the researchers wrote.

“Most studies provided very low certainty of evidence about the outcomes of interest thus, we cannot exclude the possibility of benefit or harm,” they said."

Here are the studies referenced in the article from McMaster University

https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/early/2025/01/24/archdischild-2024-327909.full.pdf

And

https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/early/2025/01/24/archdischild-2024-327921.full.pdf

And l’ll add to my previous post, that even when presented with overwhelming evidence of harm and lack of benefit from people like Hellofabore, posters like Howse still push for children to be sterilised. You have to question the mindset of people who do that.

Bone density issues caused by GnRH. Shown to be not reversible.

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:

https://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.

Which feeds into this documentary from Sweden

www.svtplay.se/video/33358590/uppdrag-granskning/mission-investigate-trans-children-avsnitt-1

The documentary from Sweden on the effects of puberty blockers on Leo and others.

As the poster who posted this initially states:

A trans child, Leo was treated for puberty blockers for 4 years. Leo ended up with osteoporosis (significantly below any normal bone density interval), fractures in the back, constant pain and worse mental state.

The journalist also found an additional 12 cases in Stockholm only where children had serious side effects (bone fractures, deep regret from voice changes, injuries, deteriorating mental health and significant weight gains). Leo’s case was not reported and not one of these

Another expert to listen to

‘Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It.’
https://www.thefp.com/p/gender-affirming-care-dangerous-finland-doctor

From Dr Riittakerttu Kaltiala, Finnish Psychiatrist who developed the treatment plans for Finnish Gender Clinics.

I am sure this will be dismissed as ‘only a few’ and ‘all treatments have risks’. But remember this is a medicalised treatment treating the physical body for a medical issue that is not physical and which has no evidence of improving long term mental health outcomes for the children being treated.

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.