Nov 1, 2022·edited Nov 1, 2022Liked by Bernard Lane
As if low quality evidence to tell you apples are better or worse than sugary drinks is comparable to low quality evidence saying a minor should be sterilized or have their breasts cut off. Good one Yale!
The Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital (RCH) Gender service website includes the statement:
“Puberty blockers suppress the development of secondary sex characteristics and are used for adolescents in the early stages of pubertal development. As they are reversible in their effects, should an adolescent wish to stop taking them at any time, their biological puberty will resume”.
In addition the RCH website states that:
“It provides care that is consistent with the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines for Trans and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents (Version 1.3, 2020)”.
Those treatment guidelines include the statement:
“The long term impact of puberty suppression on bone mineralisation is currently unknown.”
Presumably that implies that puberty suppression could impact negatively on bone mineralisation. If that were the case then the effects of puberty blockers would not be reversable.
That aside, cited below recent changes in NHS website in relation to the ‘reversibility’ of gender blockers:
“GONE is the claim that puberty blockers are considered to be fully reversible:
The effects of treatment with GnRH analogues are considered to be fully reversible, so treatment can usually be stopped at any time after a discussion between you, your child and your MDT.
NEW is the admission that long-term effects are unknown:
Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. Although the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.
It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations”.
It seems that the evidence of the long-term effects of puberty blockers have morphed from ‘reversable’ to ‘unknown’ and who is qualified to state that the next move might not be to ‘irreversible’?
Looks like the gender hucksters are determined to confect evidence, now that it's becoming increasingly clear they've built their empire on shifting sands. Good to see supportive, cautious Watchful Waiting coming back as a legitimate option when caring for gender dysphoric young people, given that it was the gold standard for decades until trans activists set out to discredit and destroy it. Why wouldn't we be cautious when it comes to young people's bodies, minds and futures?
What we're talking about is conserving bodily integrity and natural human functions so how could anything other than a conservative approach be considered ethical? This is reinforced by the decades of research showing that the great majority (over 80%) of kids treated with a supportive, cautious approach outgrew their gender dysphoria, as can be seen from the work of Dr Ken Zucker.
"bias-resistant systematic reviews of the international scientific literature have concluded that medicalised gender change for minors rests on a weak and uncertain evidence base." I think it needs emphasising that medicalised gender change for adults also rests on an uncertain evidence base. The focus at the moment is on medicalisation of children. This will just lead to a big queue of 18 year olds waiting for hormones. Ritchie (TullipR) recently pointed out ( I think on the Gender- a Wider Lens podcast) that we are going about things the wrong way, and that if we focus on the lack of evidence for adult treatments, then this will of course show that children should not be treated in this way.
As if low quality evidence to tell you apples are better or worse than sugary drinks is comparable to low quality evidence saying a minor should be sterilized or have their breasts cut off. Good one Yale!
Thank you for the great informative article!!!
The Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital (RCH) Gender service website includes the statement:
“Puberty blockers suppress the development of secondary sex characteristics and are used for adolescents in the early stages of pubertal development. As they are reversible in their effects, should an adolescent wish to stop taking them at any time, their biological puberty will resume”.
In addition the RCH website states that:
“It provides care that is consistent with the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines for Trans and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents (Version 1.3, 2020)”.
Those treatment guidelines include the statement:
“The long term impact of puberty suppression on bone mineralisation is currently unknown.”
Presumably that implies that puberty suppression could impact negatively on bone mineralisation. If that were the case then the effects of puberty blockers would not be reversable.
That aside, cited below recent changes in NHS website in relation to the ‘reversibility’ of gender blockers:
“GONE is the claim that puberty blockers are considered to be fully reversible:
The effects of treatment with GnRH analogues are considered to be fully reversible, so treatment can usually be stopped at any time after a discussion between you, your child and your MDT.
NEW is the admission that long-term effects are unknown:
Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. Although the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.
It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations”.
It seems that the evidence of the long-term effects of puberty blockers have morphed from ‘reversable’ to ‘unknown’ and who is qualified to state that the next move might not be to ‘irreversible’?
Time will tell!
Looks like the gender hucksters are determined to confect evidence, now that it's becoming increasingly clear they've built their empire on shifting sands. Good to see supportive, cautious Watchful Waiting coming back as a legitimate option when caring for gender dysphoric young people, given that it was the gold standard for decades until trans activists set out to discredit and destroy it. Why wouldn't we be cautious when it comes to young people's bodies, minds and futures?
What we're talking about is conserving bodily integrity and natural human functions so how could anything other than a conservative approach be considered ethical? This is reinforced by the decades of research showing that the great majority (over 80%) of kids treated with a supportive, cautious approach outgrew their gender dysphoria, as can be seen from the work of Dr Ken Zucker.
For anyone interested in joining others looking to abolish the transing of minors, please follow us on: https://www.facebook.com/WatchfulWaitingOz
"bias-resistant systematic reviews of the international scientific literature have concluded that medicalised gender change for minors rests on a weak and uncertain evidence base." I think it needs emphasising that medicalised gender change for adults also rests on an uncertain evidence base. The focus at the moment is on medicalisation of children. This will just lead to a big queue of 18 year olds waiting for hormones. Ritchie (TullipR) recently pointed out ( I think on the Gender- a Wider Lens podcast) that we are going about things the wrong way, and that if we focus on the lack of evidence for adult treatments, then this will of course show that children should not be treated in this way.