Hilary Cass sent a document to every single MP and Peer, justifying and defending the puberty blockers trial

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://x.com/JamesEsses/status/2075512549248745744?s=20

There are ten images on X, sorry can't add them all here, or upload a file with it all in.

To be fair, there is such a thing to those who believe in it.

Just like god exists to those who believe he does.

People do all sorts of things, including things that can impact their own and their children's bodies based on their beliefs. Take the Jonestown (Christian) mass suicide, FGM or other religiously-informed choices on blood transfusions or circumcision for example.

The difference here is that the NHS is enabling and delivering it as an intervention. They allow parents to refuse blood transfusions for children on religious grounds but I can't think of any case where the NHS will do an active intervention that supports a belief.

Other studies in Scandinavian countries have indicated that selecting candidates who have persistently, insistently & consistently maintained GD long term are more likely to maintain trans gender identity throughout their life. So I suspect the Cass trials are carefully vetting their candidates similarly.

Of course there's no certainty so allowing more time is always a plus because its a strong indicator that the individual isn't 'going through a temporary phase'. That these candidates are continuing on is probably because they were likely to maintain their trans identity in the first place…& selected for this reason.

Th evidence on desistance indicates a very small percentage & their existence might well be because of poor screening.

What are you talking about? You suggested puberty blockers cause continuing on to cross sex hormones. I said there is no proof of that.

Yes, it might. Equally it might be the inevitable result of an affirmation pathway, where the patient is told that they can take this as a next step to address their distress, if that feels right for them, and that anyone who expresses concerns needs to back off because they are not respecting the patient's autonomy.

@Tottenhamhotflushes So I suspect the Cass trials are carefully vetting their candidates similarly.

This is one of the points that people raise though. If Cass et al believe that they have found a way to identify children that will become 'true trans' adults, why aren't they sharing that methodology prior to the trial?

"According to Cass"? There is no evidence for this. This is what the trial is for.

From the dogs breakfast that GIDS was I wouldn't take any of their conclusions seriously so they hardly qualify as reliable arbiters on the issue nor were they conducting a methodically sound study.

Exactly. And why do they also acknowledge that there is no way to achieve this reliably?

persistently, insistently & consistently

I knew this would be the answer. So what about the detransitioners who were persistent, insistent and consistent?

Of course there's no certainty

That means you are sterilising children with no certainty that it is helping them. Is that ethically acceptable?

Well you're the one suggesting GIDS staff were using correct self selection & screening. You are moving so many goalposts in your posts that I think you are losing track.

I suspect the ideal candidates are the Jazz Jennings and Jackie Greens of this world, whose parents wholeheartedly support the ideas that map to section 8 of the Cass Report, meaning that the child has grown up with a strong belief in the inateness of their gender identity. That's the section that delves into the "science" of gender identity, including toy selection like dolls.

As a non-believer in gender identity I eye-rolled a lot when I read that section.

From what I have read the candidates must have a confirmed diagnosis of gender incongruence that has been persistently experienced for at least 2 years & pass comprehensive physical (e.g., bone density check) and mental health assessments.

Perhaps revealing other details of qualification preferences risks patient privacy or maybe they left it more open to assess which kind of candidates were most likely to benefit.

confirmed diagnosis of gender incongruence

Now explain THAT without using sexist stereotypes applied to children.

As long as the goalposts can keep moving, the experiment can continue. If the goalposts stay still for too long, common sense creeps in and lots of people notice that it's mad to experiment on children given what's at stake for their future mental and physical health.

Moving them around creates just enough confusion for just enough decision makers to say that they back the trial, even if they feel uncomfortable. Some don't feel uncomfortable at all and seem oblivious to the goalposts moving. Others will be actively moving them.

For clarity, my comment is about goalposts moving around in general. The PP who is making comments where the net effect is that the goalposts have moved may not be aware that this is what's happening here. Equally, they might. Either way, the goalposts have moved and it's helpful to have it in this thread.

Question to @Tottenhamhotflushes : do you agree that the goalposts moved in the way Aims described?

As I already mentioned upthread a good many medical treatments come with serious risks & side effects so this is no different. The reason why its ethical is because of the trade offs involved. I know HRT might give me a stroke, heart attack or cancer but from my point of view there's no point of living without quality of life.

I’m on the fence because wouldn’t a clinical trial most likely prove that puberty blockers are unequivocally unsafe? Then we can stop all this back and forth of not proven safe, potentially unsafe and there would be ample scientific evidence to enforce criminal investigations to close down the illegal sources of these?

Cass is right that many parents are forcing illegal puberty blockers on their children. That this is happening in the most unsafe way, behind closed doors and the government isn’t going to call it child abuse until we have rock solid proof it is harmful.

Having a clinical trial is in my opinion a neutral thing to do, doing a trial isn’t pro puberty blockers, because I know it will prove these things are extremely harmful and then we can protect these children with the full force of the law.

As I said, accurate self selection as well screening comes into to it. Were all GIDS staff complete incompetents or overwhelmed? I doubt it. Did some minors get more competent private help? Maybe. In any case, the studies I mentioned were done in Scandinavia not UK.

Indeed. I was once asked whether I would prevent my daughter from doing activities that weren't typically done by girls. For context this was by someone in Children's Services who was reacting to a safeguarding referral made by the school where I had been positioned as a risk to my (then) gender questioning daughter.

Luckily the lady I was talking to hadn't completely lost leave of her senses and we had a productive conversation about sex-based stereotypes.

I'm also interested in your answer @Tottenhamhotflushes

The question then is, if you are making an assumption that PBs are probably likely to be proven unsafe why would you test them on CHILDREN?

How many children is it ok to harm to test a drug that has every indication of being unsafe, so that we can definitely, definitely, we mean it this time, say it’s unsafe?

Why does it always get derailed to “but other treatments!”? Can’t you stay focussed?

What about THIS treatment? Is it ethical to sterilise a child without any certainty a) the child will definitely grow up and identify as someone who wishes they hadn’t gone through puberty and b) it will help them with their distress about that?

Can you expand? I'm not sure what you mean.

Perhaps....maybe.....

You are giving the trial designers the benefit of the doubt. Fifteen years ago I suspect many of us would have done the same. However, given the GIDS debacle, the obvious capture of large parts of the NHS by ideologists, the vested financial interests and the increasingly loud voices of the desisters and detransitioners you can perhaps, maybe understand our reluctance to accept the trial protocols without question.

I’m on the fence because wouldn’t a clinical trial most likely prove that puberty blockers are unequivocally unsafe?

Yes, that would be the most likely outcome. But you're on the fence about the cohort of children needed to prove this, because some of them will probably access PBs anyway?

It's certainly an interesting take on things.

Yes, I am making as assumption but assumptions can’t be used as evidence of harm. The fact is children are already being given illegal versions by the parents with no doctors or any kind of medical monitoring. Children are currently guinea pigs for puberty blockers via a black market. No additional children will be harmed than are already being harmed and bringing some into a clinical environment and tracking it all could prevent future harm to other children.

Much of the harm I can deduce is reversible if it is detected early enough, you can’t do that without a clinical trial.

The current state of things where they are banned but there’s not enough evidence to shut down the illegal versions on the black market and not enough evidence to convict parents of child abuse is unsustainable.

Yes, thank you, I wasn’t very clear. I am on the fence about the ethics of drug testing on children that are below the age of consent for medical procedures. Especially when I consider the parenting these children have.

It is not ethical to test drugs on children, but we are in a situation where it is happening anyway and the only way to stop it long term is to prove how unsafe puberty blockers really are.