An article in City Journal claimed that the American Society for Plastic Surgery became the first to "challenge consensus" on transgender care. A fuller statement shows this is not the case.
And when will the ASPS be asking for a retraction? I see no way for them to begin to get ahead of the lie unless that happens. [EDIT] I have called them and asked, and gotten a full voicemail.
Erin-you hold their feet to the fire. Thank you!!! I love that you brought up the other surgeries being performed on adolescents. And yes, questions about intersex babies.
Not to be rude to the ASPS, but the long-term 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 efficacy of transition care is a little outside the 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘰𝘯'𝘴 wheelhouse anyway, isn't it? They're the hardware side, not the software side. Their only involvement in a patient's transition should be at the business end of the scalpel; their only gatekeeping role should pertain to the physical side of things- the "𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘐?" part, not the "𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘐?" part.
This just smacks of wingnuts turning to the meat mechanic (ASPS) for a second opinion after the head shed (APA) told them to get stuffed.
While I'm happy they are pushing against restrictions and penalties for doctors, it's frustrating that medical groups keep falling down the same pitfalls of using the term "low-quality".
I really wish they would recognize that to lay people "low quality" is perceived with an incredible bias and assumptions and is being used by conservatives to cut access to care and trick people into thinking they are "helping". That and it's impossible to have double blind surgical trials.
It's telling that they had no comment about cis gender surgeries which carry the exact same "low-quality" studies and have been available to minors for decades.
Mostly they're trying to cover the doctor's asses and tangentially supporting trans people at the same time.
Thank you Erin for your accurate coverage of what has happened. This persistent intentional misinformation/disinformation/propaganda from anti-trans people and organizations like the pseudo-journalists/opinion writers at places like at FOX is not unexpected. What is sad and depressing is the lack of loud exposure of this by other major news organizations, from ABC to CNN to major newspapers.
I’d love to be at the ASPS meeting to reframe the conversation to: real-life data on procedures and ages, adequate informed consent or not, adequate training for optimal surgical outcomes or not, and most importantly that the evidence base for procedures needs to measure patient satisfaction rather than ‘treatment of gender dysphoria’.
The justification for surgical intervention has traditionaly been to treat gender dysphoria. In other words to make the patient more comfortable with themselves psychologically. This justification is left over from the Harry Benjamin years or earlier and should be updated to include a host of benefits.
Unfortunately, "patient satisfaction" doesn't look good when discussing why such surgeries are necessary care or why they are justified under public and private healthcare. We need to make statements like, " dramatic reduction in suicidal ideation and significantly decreased mortality rates"
We all know happiness is good for a myriad reasons and should be adequate justification because it improves health and quality of life which benefits us all as a society. When making a proposal before a largely Republican Congress for example we need to focus on the benefit of saving lives. That's something even the heritage foundation can not openly oppose in a debate.
I hear you, from a political point of view. But medically, that’s a threshold for a surgery that is never demanded of any other kind of procedure. Surgeons need to be comfortable and reassured that their procedures will have great outcomes, low rates of regret, low chance of being sued, and supported as a key element of comprehensive gender affirming care.
The anti-trans mob wants to divide and conquer the evidence - splitting off any single intervention and saying “see! That thing doesn’t work”
I'm NOT suggesting that surgery be predicated on the presence of a patients' suicidality. I'm NOT suggesting that you should have to be suicidal in order to get care. I'm talking about the way in which the case for surgery should be argued for, and what criteria should be studied in order to make a an airtight case for surgery. This would produce the reasoning and justification that right wing politicians and judges can't openly fight. Those right wing politicians and judges can say that we deserve to be miserable, suffer and hopefully repent, but they usually won't or can't openly say that they want us dead.
I don't know if you're a trans person or not but of the scores of trans people I've known including myself, I've never met one that hadn't suffered suicidal ideation at least once.
Circling back to what you thought I was saying, if patient suicide risk were a litmus test for eligibility for surgery,( and I'm not saying that it should be), it would be an easy bar for any trans person to pass. However I never suggested that it should.
Hi Allie, we are definitely on the same side 🥰 . Fwiw I am trans and in the medical profession.
There’s probably a bit of misunderstanding of what I’m trying to say, which is that I’ve seen the playbook from big tobacco , which made the medical profession jump through hoops for 50 years in courts demanding to prove that smoking causes cancer and that smoking cigarettes is addictive.
Same playbook as big oil with climate change. They just say “prove it” and the scientists fall into the trap of being sciency and saying “well… nothing is 100% certain…”
My advice to the Plastic Surgeons is to keep it patient-centered, that it’s a decision between the patient and the surgeon. Keep politicians and judges out of it. Their statement does this great.
But nominating relief of gender dysphoria as a reason to allow or fund surgeries (even though it’s true) is falling into the trap of the playbook. It’s opening crucial health decisions up for debate with people of bad faith.
I’m only talking about what playing field the surgeons want to be on. It’s important for our futures that they don’t stuff it up and get sucked into a debate they can’t win.
From transgendermap.com : "Leor Shlomo Sapir was born in November 1982. Sapir’s original occupation involved tutoring and coaching debate teams in Israel at Lachman Psychometry and Zakai Institute for Rhetoric." Psychometry? The nonsensical notion that a person can sense or "read" the history of an object by touching it. Rhetoric? Propaganda. From Tikvahfund.org: "Dr. Leor Sapir grew up in Israel, served in the IDF, and received his BA from the University of Haifa." Another weird fuck whose weirdness intersects anti-trans obsession and Zionism.
I think it's important to keep sight of who the ASPS are and what their purpose is. We certainly can use their help but they represent the interests and freedoms of their members to practice. Advocating for patients' rights while usually in alignment with the rights of their membership is clearly secondary. We may see them as an ally in some ways but their statements have been carefully worded to take into consideration the protection of their members and their members' practices first and foremost.
"the ASPS understands that there is considerably uncertainty...."
So are they saying their members feel this way, or are they are acknowledging that the public feels this way ? I'd like them to clarify this statement.
And when will the ASPS be asking for a retraction? I see no way for them to begin to get ahead of the lie unless that happens. [EDIT] I have called them and asked, and gotten a full voicemail.
Erin-you hold their feet to the fire. Thank you!!! I love that you brought up the other surgeries being performed on adolescents. And yes, questions about intersex babies.
Not to be rude to the ASPS, but the long-term 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 efficacy of transition care is a little outside the 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘰𝘯'𝘴 wheelhouse anyway, isn't it? They're the hardware side, not the software side. Their only involvement in a patient's transition should be at the business end of the scalpel; their only gatekeeping role should pertain to the physical side of things- the "𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘐?" part, not the "𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘐?" part.
This just smacks of wingnuts turning to the meat mechanic (ASPS) for a second opinion after the head shed (APA) told them to get stuffed.
While I'm happy they are pushing against restrictions and penalties for doctors, it's frustrating that medical groups keep falling down the same pitfalls of using the term "low-quality".
I really wish they would recognize that to lay people "low quality" is perceived with an incredible bias and assumptions and is being used by conservatives to cut access to care and trick people into thinking they are "helping". That and it's impossible to have double blind surgical trials.
It's telling that they had no comment about cis gender surgeries which carry the exact same "low-quality" studies and have been available to minors for decades.
Mostly they're trying to cover the doctor's asses and tangentially supporting trans people at the same time.
Thank you Erin for your accurate coverage of what has happened. This persistent intentional misinformation/disinformation/propaganda from anti-trans people and organizations like the pseudo-journalists/opinion writers at places like at FOX is not unexpected. What is sad and depressing is the lack of loud exposure of this by other major news organizations, from ABC to CNN to major newspapers.
They also don't do those studies because it would be deeply unethical to do so with what we know today.
It's not just unethical; it's flatly 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 to perform a double-blind study on plastic surgery.
I would love to be at that ASPS meeting, to see who's pushing this anti-care agenda.
I’d love to be at the ASPS meeting to reframe the conversation to: real-life data on procedures and ages, adequate informed consent or not, adequate training for optimal surgical outcomes or not, and most importantly that the evidence base for procedures needs to measure patient satisfaction rather than ‘treatment of gender dysphoria’.
Well, Erin did say it would be a 'public' meeting. I wonder where?
The justification for surgical intervention has traditionaly been to treat gender dysphoria. In other words to make the patient more comfortable with themselves psychologically. This justification is left over from the Harry Benjamin years or earlier and should be updated to include a host of benefits.
Unfortunately, "patient satisfaction" doesn't look good when discussing why such surgeries are necessary care or why they are justified under public and private healthcare. We need to make statements like, " dramatic reduction in suicidal ideation and significantly decreased mortality rates"
We all know happiness is good for a myriad reasons and should be adequate justification because it improves health and quality of life which benefits us all as a society. When making a proposal before a largely Republican Congress for example we need to focus on the benefit of saving lives. That's something even the heritage foundation can not openly oppose in a debate.
I hear you, from a political point of view. But medically, that’s a threshold for a surgery that is never demanded of any other kind of procedure. Surgeons need to be comfortable and reassured that their procedures will have great outcomes, low rates of regret, low chance of being sued, and supported as a key element of comprehensive gender affirming care.
The anti-trans mob wants to divide and conquer the evidence - splitting off any single intervention and saying “see! That thing doesn’t work”
GAC needs defending, not just one element.
I'm NOT suggesting that surgery be predicated on the presence of a patients' suicidality. I'm NOT suggesting that you should have to be suicidal in order to get care. I'm talking about the way in which the case for surgery should be argued for, and what criteria should be studied in order to make a an airtight case for surgery. This would produce the reasoning and justification that right wing politicians and judges can't openly fight. Those right wing politicians and judges can say that we deserve to be miserable, suffer and hopefully repent, but they usually won't or can't openly say that they want us dead.
I don't know if you're a trans person or not but of the scores of trans people I've known including myself, I've never met one that hadn't suffered suicidal ideation at least once.
Circling back to what you thought I was saying, if patient suicide risk were a litmus test for eligibility for surgery,( and I'm not saying that it should be), it would be an easy bar for any trans person to pass. However I never suggested that it should.
Hi Allie, we are definitely on the same side 🥰 . Fwiw I am trans and in the medical profession.
There’s probably a bit of misunderstanding of what I’m trying to say, which is that I’ve seen the playbook from big tobacco , which made the medical profession jump through hoops for 50 years in courts demanding to prove that smoking causes cancer and that smoking cigarettes is addictive.
Same playbook as big oil with climate change. They just say “prove it” and the scientists fall into the trap of being sciency and saying “well… nothing is 100% certain…”
My advice to the Plastic Surgeons is to keep it patient-centered, that it’s a decision between the patient and the surgeon. Keep politicians and judges out of it. Their statement does this great.
But nominating relief of gender dysphoria as a reason to allow or fund surgeries (even though it’s true) is falling into the trap of the playbook. It’s opening crucial health decisions up for debate with people of bad faith.
I’m only talking about what playing field the surgeons want to be on. It’s important for our futures that they don’t stuff it up and get sucked into a debate they can’t win.
Take care, Allie 🤗
From transgendermap.com : "Leor Shlomo Sapir was born in November 1982. Sapir’s original occupation involved tutoring and coaching debate teams in Israel at Lachman Psychometry and Zakai Institute for Rhetoric." Psychometry? The nonsensical notion that a person can sense or "read" the history of an object by touching it. Rhetoric? Propaganda. From Tikvahfund.org: "Dr. Leor Sapir grew up in Israel, served in the IDF, and received his BA from the University of Haifa." Another weird fuck whose weirdness intersects anti-trans obsession and Zionism.
I think it's important to keep sight of who the ASPS are and what their purpose is. We certainly can use their help but they represent the interests and freedoms of their members to practice. Advocating for patients' rights while usually in alignment with the rights of their membership is clearly secondary. We may see them as an ally in some ways but their statements have been carefully worded to take into consideration the protection of their members and their members' practices first and foremost.
"the ASPS understands that there is considerably uncertainty...."
So are they saying their members feel this way, or are they are acknowledging that the public feels this way ? I'd like them to clarify this statement.