Many of the largest medical and psychological organizations have rejected the Cass Review's recommendations on trans youth. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists is the latest.
These people need to reflect on why they are so obsessed in interfering with other peoples' personal lives. IMHO, they are doing so for very selfish reasons and for reasons stemming from their OWN mental and emotional baggage. These are people deeply in need of psychiatric help to deal with THEIR OWN problems. Anyone who is secure in their own sexual orientation and gender identity - or is working through those matters honestly with themselves - doesn't give a rat's ass about SOMEBODY ELSE's sexual orientation or gender identity. These haters with their condescending concern trolling need to have a very honest discussion with themselves about why they are so obsessed with other people following THEIR paths.
Remember your hatred bigotry and discrimination are all justified as long as they're done from behind a fire wall of sincerely held religious beliefs. /$
yes! I don't have time or energy to devote to other people's preferences, orientation or whatever, and it continually amazes me the sheer energy that goes into trying to make the whole dang world conform with a religion that ACTUALLY taught that we would be in a dark age. Are they going to single-handedly avoid the second coming? I mean, counter-doctrinal much?
Thank you, Erin. It's so important that we keep showing the facts and harmful ties that the Cass Review has. The intentions of the Cass Review were biased and harmful from its conception.
I hope more organizations stay firm and dedicated in their position on offering personalized care, as it SHOULD be always.
What the hell is wrong with white, cisgender British women, and why does every discussion around trans people in the UK have to revolve entirely around them? Why do they NEED to have an opinion about trans issues, and why are these opinions so important?
Congratulations on getting mentioned by name in the BMJ. Even better that it was because you've been so effective and the author of the comment was frustrated by your good work. Honestly, I'm a little envious but far more impressed and appreciative.
Glad to see more professional organizations with actual ethical standards dismissing Cass' bullshit for what it is. I know that conservative politicians won't be given so much as a moment's pause, but at least the line's being held 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. If major medical organizations start caving to the bigots, then we're 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 fucked.
There are so many organizations out there we could use some sort of coordinated effort to get as many as we can to sign a letter declaring the Cass report as politicized science.
Exactly. It all converges on a single point of intersection. They're after 𝘢𝘭𝘭 bodily autonomy- period, full stop.
Abortion, birth control, gender-affirming care... there will always be another front in the culture war. Give them enough time in power, and they'll be passing laws requiring dress codes and haircuts that conform to rigid conservative gender roles, rolling back marriage equality, reviving anti-sodomy laws, pitching bans on tattoos and body piercings, and anything else they think they can get away with.
"anti-trans writer Jennifer Block laments that Erin Reed, the author of this article, highlighted the review's anti-trans political ties with DeSantis’ picks, which hampered its acceptance. "
Pro tip for Jennifer Block: if you have to LIE about your supporters, you might be doing something that harms people.
How on earth does an "freelance journalist" get a piece in the British Medical Journal????
Well, this Jennifer Block has published with BMJ before also complaining about trans youth and kids wearing masks during the COVID pandemic. So this actually seems right up her alley. You can check her stuff out here: https://jenniferblock.com/writing/.
The most prestigious medical journal in Britain acting like there's a real medical debate to be had over care that significantly lowers trans kids suicidality. "Evidence-based" is doing a lot of fuckin work there.
I'm know I'm likely to get flamed (or whatever the current right term may be) for posting, but here goes.
First, I acknowledge that there is a population of people out there that are just phobic about everything and bigots about everything. And I can appreciate the feelings expressed here. I am not one of those people. I'm 68, I'm white, I'm a cis straight male, although those later 2 things don't factor into my life in any substantive way as my wife passed away from cancer a couple of years ago. I've been retired for almost a year. Academically I was a Zoology major in college got a PhD in neurobiology, then I spent 35 years working for companies making microscope imaging systems for biologists. So I'm a scientist, and am pretty data oriented when I look at something.
I was so so wrapped up in career, family, etc. that I wasn't even really aware of all this gender business until a couple of years ago, largely though what I would see in popular media. I'm liberal so my media consumption is through more liberal outlets, definitely not Fox news.
In the last several months I've been spending some of my time researching this topic. So I've read published papers in medical journals on gender affirming care, read the Cass review, and other scientific papers on the topic. Also read the accounts of people that have transitioned, describing their own internal thought processes, their decision process to decide to transition, there adjustment to life after transition, and what their life has been like.
It's notable that all of these accounts I have read have been written by people who transistioned sometime between 20 and 30. In all their accounts they went through some pretty deep reflection, including really thinking through their transition and what life was going to look like after and how they are going to have to adapt to their new self. Because they had done that, they really seem quite happy with their life, including their interactions within society.
When I look at various data, I am struck by a number of things:
- While data on GAC for children and adolescents is suggestive, it's not overwhelming
-There are several papers on desistance showing about 70-80%, that is that percentage of adolescents that are exhibiting gender issues in adolescence will resolve by late teens or early 20s. The most recent one I have seen was done in Germany. Because they have a national health care system, when a patient enters, they can be tracked as long as they are in the system. They looked at data over a several year period, 2015-2022 I believe, and found that about 70% of adolescents that had been diagnosed with a gender identity issue as an adolescent did not once they had reached their late teens early 20s. This agrees with other studies that have been conducted before, but is a bit more objective that others may have been. And, the still leaves 20-30% not resolved.
- The current protocols being used for diagnostic purposes are completely opaque. They don't describe over what period of time patients were evaluated. They provide no data on what percentage of patients that enter for evaluation continue through medical treatment vs being rejected.
-I have seen no studies on what causes gender dysphoria
- I haven't seen any studies looking at outcomes for people that transition after reaching early adulthood. I would speculate that it would look a lot more convincing in terms of overall mental health, life satisfaction and leading a productive life.
I a very skeptical that current gender affirming care in the US can accurately diagnose those 20-30% that won't desist. That could have dampening effect on outcomes. Other than reporting numbers, desistance, I haven't seen any study looking closely at the characteristics of those desisting compared to those that don't. That really needs to be looked at closely, as it could provide some valuable clues as to how to render a proper diagnosis earlier. And, members of the community should not be afraid of research looking at causal factors of gender dysphoria. I know there is often a reluctance about this, feeling that such information could be used in a negative fashion, but I actually think it would lead to a much wider acceptance in society at large, and could actually lead improved health care management post transition. I could be wrong on this, but my impression is that gender affirming care is a bit "fire and forget" right now, people go through transition, but get no education on what to look for going forward in terms of general healthcare, being aware that their sex, their natal sex, is still going to play a factor in their medical car throughout their life, and they need to be upfront with medical people going forward. I know that can be a scary issue, especially in some parts of the country and depending on the generation of a care provider, but that will get better.
OK, now that I've probably pissed everybody off, I mean well by writing all this. For those that may be involved in activist activity that can influence research activity, please give some though to what I've pointed out.
These people need to reflect on why they are so obsessed in interfering with other peoples' personal lives. IMHO, they are doing so for very selfish reasons and for reasons stemming from their OWN mental and emotional baggage. These are people deeply in need of psychiatric help to deal with THEIR OWN problems. Anyone who is secure in their own sexual orientation and gender identity - or is working through those matters honestly with themselves - doesn't give a rat's ass about SOMEBODY ELSE's sexual orientation or gender identity. These haters with their condescending concern trolling need to have a very honest discussion with themselves about why they are so obsessed with other people following THEIR paths.
Remember your hatred bigotry and discrimination are all justified as long as they're done from behind a fire wall of sincerely held religious beliefs. /$
yes! I don't have time or energy to devote to other people's preferences, orientation or whatever, and it continually amazes me the sheer energy that goes into trying to make the whole dang world conform with a religion that ACTUALLY taught that we would be in a dark age. Are they going to single-handedly avoid the second coming? I mean, counter-doctrinal much?
Thank you, Erin. It's so important that we keep showing the facts and harmful ties that the Cass Review has. The intentions of the Cass Review were biased and harmful from its conception.
I hope more organizations stay firm and dedicated in their position on offering personalized care, as it SHOULD be always.
What the hell is wrong with white, cisgender British women, and why does every discussion around trans people in the UK have to revolve entirely around them? Why do they NEED to have an opinion about trans issues, and why are these opinions so important?
It's just like with abortion, if you don't believe in abortion then don't have one and leave the rest of us to our own choices
Those women seem like TERFs.
Erin,
Congratulations on getting mentioned by name in the BMJ. Even better that it was because you've been so effective and the author of the comment was frustrated by your good work. Honestly, I'm a little envious but far more impressed and appreciative.
Well done!!!
Erin has the makings of a investigative journalist befitting the Post or the Atlantic.
What does, "BMJ" stand for, please? I mean the acronym, plainly it also stands for transphobia.
British Medical Journal. One of, if not the top general medical journal in Britain.
Glad to see more professional organizations with actual ethical standards dismissing Cass' bullshit for what it is. I know that conservative politicians won't be given so much as a moment's pause, but at least the line's being held 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. If major medical organizations start caving to the bigots, then we're 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 fucked.
There are so many organizations out there we could use some sort of coordinated effort to get as many as we can to sign a letter declaring the Cass report as politicized science.
Yes! Altho I want to add: It’s not science. It’s distortion and disingenuous claims purporting to be science. It’s false, and they KNOW it is false.
Once the results or interpretation are politicized, it's no longer science. Just another piece of propaganda.
Funny how the people obsessed with banning trans healthcare are the same ones obsessed with banning abortion
Exactly. It all converges on a single point of intersection. They're after 𝘢𝘭𝘭 bodily autonomy- period, full stop.
Abortion, birth control, gender-affirming care... there will always be another front in the culture war. Give them enough time in power, and they'll be passing laws requiring dress codes and haircuts that conform to rigid conservative gender roles, rolling back marriage equality, reviving anti-sodomy laws, pitching bans on tattoos and body piercings, and anything else they think they can get away with.
they can't win on policy, so they pick a wedge issue to motivate their base into showing up for them
"anti-trans writer Jennifer Block laments that Erin Reed, the author of this article, highlighted the review's anti-trans political ties with DeSantis’ picks, which hampered its acceptance. "
Pro tip for Jennifer Block: if you have to LIE about your supporters, you might be doing something that harms people.
The letter was circulated at the recent RANZCP annual conference here in Canberra, it got a total of 17 signatures.
The Canberra trans community, allies and members of the public sector union showed up to protest and leaflet on the first day at registration.
Disturbingly they gave SEGM a speaking slot on their program, which was the main reason we were there, we only heard about the letter afterwards.
My read having spoken to board members and other activist organisations is that they were trying to have their cake and it too.
I've heard the board itself is quite fractured on this topic - look at the conflict between position statements 83 and 103 for example.
How on earth does an "freelance journalist" get a piece in the British Medical Journal????
Well, this Jennifer Block has published with BMJ before also complaining about trans youth and kids wearing masks during the COVID pandemic. So this actually seems right up her alley. You can check her stuff out here: https://jenniferblock.com/writing/.
The most prestigious medical journal in Britain acting like there's a real medical debate to be had over care that significantly lowers trans kids suicidality. "Evidence-based" is doing a lot of fuckin work there.
Why would we even give her a click? I won't. LOL
Thank you for the ongoing responses to this psudo scientific report
I'm know I'm likely to get flamed (or whatever the current right term may be) for posting, but here goes.
First, I acknowledge that there is a population of people out there that are just phobic about everything and bigots about everything. And I can appreciate the feelings expressed here. I am not one of those people. I'm 68, I'm white, I'm a cis straight male, although those later 2 things don't factor into my life in any substantive way as my wife passed away from cancer a couple of years ago. I've been retired for almost a year. Academically I was a Zoology major in college got a PhD in neurobiology, then I spent 35 years working for companies making microscope imaging systems for biologists. So I'm a scientist, and am pretty data oriented when I look at something.
I was so so wrapped up in career, family, etc. that I wasn't even really aware of all this gender business until a couple of years ago, largely though what I would see in popular media. I'm liberal so my media consumption is through more liberal outlets, definitely not Fox news.
In the last several months I've been spending some of my time researching this topic. So I've read published papers in medical journals on gender affirming care, read the Cass review, and other scientific papers on the topic. Also read the accounts of people that have transitioned, describing their own internal thought processes, their decision process to decide to transition, there adjustment to life after transition, and what their life has been like.
It's notable that all of these accounts I have read have been written by people who transistioned sometime between 20 and 30. In all their accounts they went through some pretty deep reflection, including really thinking through their transition and what life was going to look like after and how they are going to have to adapt to their new self. Because they had done that, they really seem quite happy with their life, including their interactions within society.
When I look at various data, I am struck by a number of things:
- While data on GAC for children and adolescents is suggestive, it's not overwhelming
-There are several papers on desistance showing about 70-80%, that is that percentage of adolescents that are exhibiting gender issues in adolescence will resolve by late teens or early 20s. The most recent one I have seen was done in Germany. Because they have a national health care system, when a patient enters, they can be tracked as long as they are in the system. They looked at data over a several year period, 2015-2022 I believe, and found that about 70% of adolescents that had been diagnosed with a gender identity issue as an adolescent did not once they had reached their late teens early 20s. This agrees with other studies that have been conducted before, but is a bit more objective that others may have been. And, the still leaves 20-30% not resolved.
- The current protocols being used for diagnostic purposes are completely opaque. They don't describe over what period of time patients were evaluated. They provide no data on what percentage of patients that enter for evaluation continue through medical treatment vs being rejected.
-I have seen no studies on what causes gender dysphoria
- I haven't seen any studies looking at outcomes for people that transition after reaching early adulthood. I would speculate that it would look a lot more convincing in terms of overall mental health, life satisfaction and leading a productive life.
I a very skeptical that current gender affirming care in the US can accurately diagnose those 20-30% that won't desist. That could have dampening effect on outcomes. Other than reporting numbers, desistance, I haven't seen any study looking closely at the characteristics of those desisting compared to those that don't. That really needs to be looked at closely, as it could provide some valuable clues as to how to render a proper diagnosis earlier. And, members of the community should not be afraid of research looking at causal factors of gender dysphoria. I know there is often a reluctance about this, feeling that such information could be used in a negative fashion, but I actually think it would lead to a much wider acceptance in society at large, and could actually lead improved health care management post transition. I could be wrong on this, but my impression is that gender affirming care is a bit "fire and forget" right now, people go through transition, but get no education on what to look for going forward in terms of general healthcare, being aware that their sex, their natal sex, is still going to play a factor in their medical car throughout their life, and they need to be upfront with medical people going forward. I know that can be a scary issue, especially in some parts of the country and depending on the generation of a care provider, but that will get better.
OK, now that I've probably pissed everybody off, I mean well by writing all this. For those that may be involved in activist activity that can influence research activity, please give some though to what I've pointed out.