Puberty Blocker Trial Paused

[CrocsNotDocs]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/e0a6d8e8751dbca8

Good start. Now shut it down.

As the saying goes, a "trans child" is like a vegan cat - everyone knows who's really making the decision.

The vast majority of kids who experience distress related to their sexed bodies grow out of it as their brains naturally mature through puberty & adolescence. You chose to deny your child access to that natural process of maturation.

It is not fair to blame Sarah. There is no way to predict upfront which kids will or wont change their minds during or shortly after puberty if they're not medicated. No matter how certain they are that they wont change their minds, most do. People can say "this kid didn't grow out of it" but that's hindsight. It's no help upfront.

The Tavistock GIDS found (eventually, and only after the High Court demanded to know) that giving puberty blockers changed the trajectory. Nearly all the kids who were given puberty blockers all continued to cross-sex hormones, instead of more than half desisting. If the clinic had been monitoring outcomes they would have known early on of the risk that blocking Sarah's DD's puberty might be positively leading her onto testosterone. Instead the clinic blindly went ahead and left DD and Sarah to live with the health consequences of long-term testosterone use.

For the kids who've already decided they want blockers and cross-sex hormones, refusing them now is a real bummer. They don't want to be stopped, they will feel they have missed out, and yes they probably will suffer. The Tavistock created this situation through their own terrible lack of oversight and their negligent refusal to track outcomes. And the arrogant belief of some staff, contradicted by evidence, that they could tell who would benefit from medication.

This is an interesting, and important, development
https://projectnettie.wordpress.com

To be clear, "Sarah" is talking about a male child. A gay male child who is now described as a "straight" "woman".

For reference, that is what Iran does to gay men too. Mutilates their healthy bodies to convert them into "straight" "women" because it is not acceptable to be a gay man.

I disagree with your first sentence.

Sorry about the sexes, I got confused! Blast this gender mixed-up-language business.

So at least Sarah's DC isn't a girl on testosterone, which is one good thing. It's unhealthy for men to take oestrogen etc but not as bad.

That's refreshing to read, thank you, Witty

This is excellent and a very clear explanation of what's going on in the scientific world (mind-blowing as it is)

"In contradiction of evolutionary history and millennia of human observations, highly-esteemed scientific periodicals are running articles undermining the observable reality of biological sex."

And they quote some examples, here's one-
“Biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male.” Scientific American, Oct 22 2018

How did this trial ever get approval?

Indeed. I assume that somewhere in the decision-making process are some well placed “Biologists [who] now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male.”

It's the medical equivalent of being a flat-earther. I'm not sure what the term should be, maybe poly-sexer. And what they believe in is then logically poly-sex theory.

It's effectively the equivalent of a bunch of flat-earthers taking charge of international air traffic control.

It reminds me of the medieval alchemists who tried for centuries to turn lead into gold, and failed miserably.

Please don't say we've now got to put up with BioAlchemist failing miserably for centuries to turn men into women. 😂

Indeed. I assume that somewhere in the decision-making process are some well placed “Biologists [who] now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male.”

I'm a biologist and I bloody don't believe there is a larger spectrum than binary female and male, and neither does dp who is also a biologist, and I just checked with my colleague who I share an office with, she too thinks that's bollocks. That's three of us already.

Simples. You are all the wrong kind of biologists.

BioAlchemy seems to be in its dying throes. I guess its arc of relevance as "science" has probably been faster than the original lead/gold alchemy because information sharing is so much faster now than it was back then. Quick to rise, quick to fall - by comparison.

I wonder when secondary school children will be learning about it in history...

"Today we're going to look at how poly-sex theory and BioAlchemy led thousands of children and young adults to believe that chopping off body parts was healthcare. Does any know what 'poly-sex' could mean?"

"Does it mean lots of sex, miss?"

"Not quite! Poly means 'many' and
'sex' in this context means male or female. Strange as it may sound to us, people who believed in 'poly-sex theory' thought that there were many different sexes - they called them gender identities and believed that you could be a little bit male, a little bit female or something else entirely..

There were even scientists who said this was true. Some of those scientists chopped off people's body parts, or even sewed new ones onto their patients. The BioAlchemists, as they became known, convinced thousands and thousands of people that they could change their sex from the inside as well, using powerful medication that their patients would need for life. The pharmaceutical companies - the companies that made lots of money from the sale of the medicines - agreed with the scientists"....

"Eventually, enough of the other scientists, as well as lots of ordinary people (led by women's groups, gay rights groups and more) questioned the BioAlchemists about what they were doing. The turning point came when the government announced that it wanted to launch a new national experiment on a group of children to prove once and for all if BioAlchemy worked and poly-sex was real.

When the public understood that this meant experimenting on children's brains, weakening their bones so that they broke easily and stopping them from ever having families of their own in the future.... they stood up and said 'No!' They were joined by the women's groups and gay rights groups who had been shouting 'No!' for years, but were hidden from view by the poly-sexers in the media. Now all of their voices could be heard, shouting 'No!' together.

And that was the beginning of the end."

Brilliant! I needed this laugh today, thank you!

One of the many awful things about gender identity beliefs and trans activism is their total humour bypass. So much self-righteousness and the amount of self policing needed to maintain the belief system does not lead to good comedy.

Natasha Loder deletes her tweets:

So @MForstater told me she believed my tweets "sat publicly as judge and jury on Professor George and said things that cannot be justified as being substantial truth or honest opinion.

Although I think her critique overstates what my tweets did, she did have a point. Looking closely I did stray closer to a “judge and jury” in posture in tone and framing than I ought to in hindsight when I dashed off the tweets.

I did not take enough care to separate clearly what was known fact from my own inferences--so I've deleted them.

https://x.com/natashaloder/status/2029194724930658683

Well done to her for doing a reverse ferret publicly rescinding, but ouch in private that must hurt. Hopefully other journalists will be watching and understanding that presenting counter factual nonsense as “balanced and neutral” is becoming a much worse career killer than any TRA cancellation

What's the betting her employer had something to do with the change of heart. The Economist is one of the very few mainstream publications who are still trying to maintain impartiality, and trying to report in a fair and balanced manner on every topic. They couldn't have of been please that one of their employees was instrumental in getting someone cancelled.

That is brilliant. And, when you read it, horribly, grimly, unbelievably accurate.

Strange as it may sound to us, people who believed in 'poly-sex theory' thought that there were many different sexes - they called them gender identities...

...Some of those scientists chopped off people's body parts, or even sewed new ones onto their patients...

...the companies that made lots of money from the sale of the medicines - agreed with the scientists"....

Latest from Nick:

This part is particularly shocking: (my bold)

"Andrew Sharland, KCL’s barrister, said the cohort of potential trialists is “fragile” and “some are self-medicating with puberty suppressants… there’s a high level of self-harm – attempted suicide.” This was a striking assertion and one I have, via email, asked Mr Sharland to clarify.

His statement suggests KCL is already in touch with a potential cohort of children (and parents?) desperate to start the trial, and that one of the reasons for urgency is that some of them are harming themselves and self-medicating with puberty blockers.

Is the desperation of some people to potentially self harm a reason for starting a trial? I don’t know. As someone close to the story told me, any child who has already taken puberty blockers is not allowed to take part in the trial. The desperation is therefore important and urgent, but not necessarily relevant to the trial. If I get a response from Mr Sharland I will post it here. But it was a significant statement to make in open court and needs to be buttressed with evidence."

https://genderblog.net/puberty-blocker-jr-stayed-till-july/

I think “cohort of potential trialists” is doing some heavy lifting.

I'd have to check the trial protocol but it would be nonsensical to allow anyone already using blackmarket puberty blockers or cross sex hormones onto the trial. That's also absolutely zero justification for doing the trial. Loads of people think street drugs are great. Is that a reason to do a trial of ketamine or crystal meth in children? No.

Jesus wept - that's horrific!

I expect KCL’s position reflects what is known about the patient group that puberty suppression is intended for. I don’t think they need to have had any contact with potential participants to put forward the statement about the target population.

Since the puberty blocker ban, those who previously could access them via the NHS have been told that they will only be available via a trial. They have been waiting for the trial. KCL’s position also reflects this.

I am fundamentally against the trial and think it’s unethical. I don’t think KCL’s comments about the impact of delays (or suspension) of the trial reflect and untoward dealings or outlandish claims. I think the sooner all potential options of PB prescription are removed, the more likely everyone will invest in alternative treatments.

I expect KCL’s position reflects what is known about the patient group that puberty suppression is intended for.

What is known by whom? And how? What's the evidence? Who studied it?

You have to be careful making unsubstantiated claims in court just because "everyone" knows they're true.

A lot is known about the patient group who were referred to the Tavi. There is referral data and intake data. Patients at the Tavi are routinely asked about about their treatment goals. GIDS was no different. I’m surprised there is pushback on this claim / understanding.

Do people think that the PATHWAYS trial is not targeting a group of young people who want to halt their puberty and regard this as the only desirable treatment plan, without which they are doomed to a life of misery? I don’t think this is the contested or controversial part.