Update on the puberty blockers trial

[Hoardasurass]

They're going ahead with the puberty blockers trial and it will be open to girls as young as 11 and boys from 12. So it looks like we're going to have to fight again to stop this eugenics campaign of sterilising predominantly gay and autistic children

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/4b3e2839923e3d87

Please don't equate antibiotics with the contraceptive pill and puberty blockers. Antibiotics are quite literally lifesaving unlike the others, if a dr says a child has an infection that requires antibiotics then that child's life is at risk if they don't get them

But that is assuming that all the associated brain and skeletal development just picks up where it left off and I'm not sure that they are certain this happens. It scares me that these kids must somehow remain in an immature psychosocial state while getting chronologically older, so that they remain behind their peers throughout that critical stage of adolescence where social development changes rapidly. How do they catch up with that? They might have been on puberty blockers since say 11, so do they remain developmentally 11-ish (?) until they transition to cross sex hormones, let's say at 17-18, and then go through a chemically induced "puberty" (of the wrong sex) while all thier friends have been through a normal adolescence, and spent a few years developing normally so that there is this invisible psychosocial maturity gap that means they will never really be on the same wavelength as their peers? How does it work? Do we even know? So do they start adulthood years behind thier actual age, and then because they have multiple health problems they are disadvantaged again, and then there is the fact that no-one wants to acknowledge which is that the majority of people won't buy into the premise that they have changed sex, so they will be marginalised and angry for the rest of thier lives. Sounds like a nightmare.

I just watched the parliament debate. It was infuriating. The whole system is clearly captured by ideologues. The health sec kept saying that he accepts that most children will resolve their gender issues when they go through puberty but he was completely silent on how they will be able to select the tiny minority who will remain trans into adulthood?

To be fair, there is a big issue with antibiotics being over-prescribed often under pressure from patients or parents of patients and for conditions which have no hope of being resolved with a dose of antibiotics. Plus, whilst they can be lifesaving they can also do a lot of harm when mis-used.

he was completely silent on how they will be able to select the tiny minority who will remain trans into adulthood?

Because in trans ideology, it doesn't matter. Any number of sacrificed non-trans kids is worth it for even one "true trans" kid to be treated. Self-centeredness is the name of the game.

The truth is there is no such thing as 'true trans'. People have regrets about surgical transition at all ages, and even into their later years - and many come to desist altogether; some going to quite extreme measures to have reconstructed genitalia ( See Netflix documentary: 'Regretters')

Nobody is the opposite sex to that which they are. That is a simple fact. A lot of time, effort and emotional bandwidth goes into assuming a cross sex identity - it does not come naturally. If it was natural you wouldn't need to take drugs; have radical surgeries, or go out of your way to present in such a considered way. You wouldn't need to demand 'pronouns' or special treatement. Nobody would doubt or question your actual sex.

Feelings and self image are not, and never will be, an objective measure of your identity as a human being, for the reason that identity only makes sense in a social context. It requires an acknowledgement or recognition from other people, and from society at large. Sex is fundamental to the organisation of human societies on Planet Earth. It is not something you get to choose.

That.

We sacrifice the kids who would have grown up ok, because the tiny number of special higher caste humans benefit.

We sacrifice women because a small number of special higher caste men 'benefit', although at that point 'benefit' becomes a really dodgy word.

And that this is not going to end well for anyone, those special caste people included, doesn't seem to be a reason to pause and think.

I wonder who will be Health Secretary now, and might this change the direction of travel for the trial?

The thing is, some parents are insane enough to think their little Johnny should be Johanna, and as things stand, they will go off to the HW butchery and source the drugs.
The only bright spot I see in this is that when it is shown the PBs cause harm, rather than just 'no clear benefit', maybe that would be sufficient to stop some of them doing that in the future?
Some kids are going to get harmed, maybe this way it might be fewer longer term? I kind of wondered if that is what Cass has been hinting at.

In time, in history..... people will look back at the trans phenomena and recognise that it took hold at a time in Western society when Individualism and an excessive focus on personal feelings was at its peak. When it was all about " being your best or true self": when individual self definition and personal expression was the supreme value.

It will also be seen to have arisen in response to technological and medical innovations - in which surgeries and pharmaceuticals as well as transhumanist fantasies took to the stage - in pursuit of the idea that we could "be anything we want to be"; we could rise above our human nature; that we were not our bodies; that we were, somehow, disembodied beings imprisoned in a "meat suit", not of our choosing. A sort of appeal to the transcendent urge that exists in all human beings, but one that arrived at a certain point in time in response to the social and cultural movements of that time.

One of the biggest drivers behind all this has been WPATH and the pretence that its guidelines are evidence-based and represent some kind of agreed, universal standard of best care.

Glinner has an excellent piece today about WPATH's lies, and the infiltration of those lies into gender clinics worldwide:

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/they-knew

There is no medical case for puberty blockers. None at all. Gender medicine is completely fraudulent, and gender doctors have caused irreversible physical and psychological harm to thousands of children.

I don't believe it is possible to conduct this trial ethically because you cannot know if the child would have changed their mind once they had gone through puberty.

I believe this is a reaction to the fact that parents are breaking the law importing these drugs, as that is effectively what Cass is saying in that article.

If parents want to harm their own children that's one thing. For the state to do it for them is quite another.

They don't go through puberty let alone the opposite sex puberty.
When puberty has been blocked for years, past the point of time when it should occur normally (or where a girl had already started her periods she will be in a permanent chemically induced menopause) there is no puberty induced growth spurt nor is there any increase in bone density or fusing of the growth plates so the ends of the bones starts to fray and both osteopinea and osteoporosis are universally suffered by everyone who is put on them even if its for a short time due to precious puberty.
The brain development that comes with puberty does not happen even with cross sex hormones.
All you get is at best is young women who looks sort of like short pubesent boys with voices that never truly make it into the male ranges and men with gynocamstia and extremely long legs and arms with voices that are always out of the female ranges (see castrati).
The risk of further brain damage from swelling of the brain.

So in short puberty blockers form tanner stages 2 or below followed by cross sex hormones at 16-18 results in adults with the mental capacity of a prepubesent child (they never catch up), underdeveloped brittle bones, underdeveloped sex organs, who are both anorgasmic and sterilised. These kids will have less chance of passing than they would have if they medically transitioned as adults who had gone through puberty naturally.
We know all of this from the only animal trial looking at how they effect brain development, the lupron class action lawsuit (all girls given it for precious puberty for under a year) the safety leaflets given to women with endometriosis who are given puberty blockers (anything 6+ months causes permanent menopause even after you stop taking them) and the experiments that have been done on children in the name of gender "affirming care".

These drugs should only ever be used for end stage cancers never on healthy children

These drugs should only ever be used for end stage cancers never on healthy children.

This is the crux of the matter. These are healthy children and the government is going to experiment on them with drugs to see if they are still "healthy" at the end of the trial!

Setting aside the ethics for a moment, where's the logic in that?

I am so depressed that this trial is going ahead. I hope the conservatives force a debate on it. Otherwise we are sacrificing these children on the alter of the trans cult.

Good post from Hoardasuras. When you boil it down to basics, gender medicine practised on children is both profoundly stupid and profoundly unethical. There is no justification for it whatsoever.

The fact that our lawmakers, policymakers, doctors and so on have gone along with this insane and harmful ideology is almost too depressing to contemplate.

In the HoC debate, so many MPs say that they want to follow science, not ideology. They seem unable to see that by talking about 'trans children' they are showing that it's ideology that's leading them.

Could any of them even define what they mean by a 'trans child'? Belief in 'trans children' is ideology, not science.

Do they believe that some people are literally born in the wrong body? This is ideology, not science.

Or is a 'trans child' someone who suffers from a hatred of their body and wants to change it to appear like the opposite sex? This is a psychological problem which isn't solved by using medication to change their body.

Or is a 'trans child' just one who hates the gender stereotypes they are expected to perform? This isn't even a psychological problem. It's a perfectly normal human reaction. The child just needs support to understand that they don't have to conform to stereotypes.

Why do these MPs never explain what they think a 'trans child' is?

Is there any other situation in the NHS where the illegal behaviour of parents has resulted in drugs which are known to be harmful to be given to physically healthy children?

Cass is saying "we are going to cause arrested development in some children because if we don't then parents will cause arrested development illegally in more of them".

And that's before we even start on the fact that none of these children are allowed to have a proper psychiatric analysis done of their gender dysphoria, never mind any counselling for it, because all "care" is required to be gender affirming.

The more I think about this the more mad I get about trans activists who have already been failed by the system using another generation of children to shore up their own misguided beliefs.

But the way this trial is set up it won’t show harm. It will show PB are a jolly good thing because the group that gets them immediately will be “happier” than the group that has to wait a year (because they got what they wanted). After two years everyone will go home so we won’t know what the impact was on the 11 year old started on PBs as part of the trial (who may be given dispensation to continue on them after the trial) when she’s 35.

of course we don’t know how much of the impact is PB’s, missing puberty or subsequent cross sex hormones. We already know that 98% of children given PBs by GIDs went on to cs hormones and also per research referenced by the Cass Review that 60-90% of children desisted when undergoing watchful waiting.

When you add in the evidence from the Finnish research there’s no defence for this trial.

One has to assume that children being put on this trial are being encouraged in the belief that should they permanently 'socially transition' then this would mean that the world would then treat them as the sex ( " as the gender") with which they 'identify', but this is simply not true.

They will have no right to use opposite sex facilities, or be entered into opposite sex sporting categories ( certainly if their sex is male), and they will not be able to expect that people will always use preferred pronouns. Will these matters be broached by the clinical staff?

In other words, what is the logic of this experiment? What is it meant to achieve for the child? It cannot surely be simply about a shorter term reduction in distressed feelings. What is the longer term goal?

One of the arguments against this trial is that it is too short term and there is no funding committed to longer term follow up. The initial comparative trial is only 2 years long. I think the longer study period is about 5 years but I'm not sure how much of that has funding.

From https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/assets/pathways/trial/pathways-trial-connect-faq.pdf

"2.11 How long will the researchers follow participants for? Participants taking part in PATHWAYS TRIAL will be regularly followed up in the trial for 2 years after their baseline assessment. During this time, they will complete research procedures every 3 months.

We want to know how young people who start on puberty suppressing hormones do in the longer term. We want to know their longer-term choices around gender identity and gender care, their physical and mental health, as well as their quality of life and wellbeing. After the first 2 years, all participants will be included in annual follow-up throughout the study period.

Follow-up into adult life is important and participants will also be asked to consent to long-term follow-up through ongoing involvement with the PATHWAYS team, with a national health registry for gender care and linkage to health information routinely collected by NHS England."

Where a girl had already started her periods she will be in a permanent chemically induced menopause)

I have had a similar personal experience in that my chemotherapy (for breast cancer) sent me into an early chemically induced menopause. You can't mess around with fertility - once it's gone you might not be able to get it back. It gives me the rage that some politicians, journalists and medics are so blasé about this issue.

Similarly, there's an airy dismissal of concerns about giving girls and young women mastectomies: one surgeon said if they change their minds later they can have implants. Well, as someone who also had a mastectomy for breast cancer, again, this gives me the rage. Implants are not the same as real breasts and only a man could think they are. They can't be used for breastfeeding, and surgery causes permanent loss of sensation

Implants are not the same as real breasts and only a man could think they are.
Amen to this!

The more I understand about how this trial will/should work, the more suspicious I become of Cass and her motives. What's her real agenda here?

Does she really think this is a good idea?
Did she "bury" it in the report, hoping no one would notice except activists and/or those who want a trial? Or did she put it in the report because she wanted to call for a trial, but she didn't want to be the one on the WSOH if it all goes pear-shaped and history starts looking for someone to blame?
Does she want to create a cohort of unhealthy, sterile human beings?
Does she not have a clue why she recommended this trial?
Does she ever stop to think: would I put my own child through this?

I know some have said she's "a true believer." Would this alone explain everything?

I have no idea. I've come to accept that like many senior in the NHS she's a cult believer. But I'm also minded of how many very unpleasant senior staff there are in the NHS who promote all this stuff. It must be frightening to work alongside them knowing that even using medically accurate terminology about women will have you marked as a transphobic bigot. I do wonder whether there are elements of self preservation with the decision about the trial?