Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

1. The Cass report says there is no sound evidence that puberty blockers are of benefit to children with body dysphoria. The treatment is based on poor quality studies.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/transgender-medicine/109605

View attachment 6400
2. The claim that gender affirming treatment reduces suicide is also based on poor quality studies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/

View attachment 6401

3. The government's lead on suicide, Professor Louis Appleby, has told people to stop claiming that children will kill themselves if they are prevented from changing gender.


https://archive.ph/I47Ga

View attachment 6402

Pushing this narrative - that children will kill themselves if they don't get puberty blockers - is reckless and irresponsible. It will induce suicidal ideation in distressed children. You are telling them there no alternative to relieve their distress: it's hormones or death.

Why do you do this? It's because you need to push the narrative that trans children really exist, not just children with normal distress about their bodies. Because if 'trans children' exist it distracts from it being just mainly adult men who want to dress like women. You're using children's distress to validate a group that consists mostly of adult men.

You've told them everybody hates them and if they don't transition they'll kill themselves.

It's abhorrent to use children's distress - which resolves itself with time in most of them - to validate adult men.

N here.

I see just why monkers experiences difficulty with you. Frankly you sound hysterical. Nobody here on this tiny forum is telling children to go and kill themselves. Parents are reporting their devastation at losing their child to suicide. Those sixteen lives are now lost unnecessarily.

I am a survivor of this, and I am now replying to you directly - and somewhat against my instincts.

This narrative reminds me of the Katie Hopkins ideology that we shouldn't care when the child asylum seekers drown in the sea.

I appreciate there is no resolution with you. There is little opportunity for discussion of any quality. I bid you good day.

 

[multitool]

In amongst all the wailing about puberty blockers...

...let's just remind ourselves that puberty blockers are prescribed normally for kids who go through puberty early. They're available, for 'cis' children. They've been deemed safe, for 'cis' children.

It's true that the usage is different, but it's an important point to make in an utterly festered debate.

 

[classic33]

It is abuse to put a healthy human child on lifelong drugs.

What if that child is healthy for 90-95% if the time?

Do we medicate for only the 5-10% period when they're "not healthy".
Despite a lifelong medical condition, that requires full time medication treatment to try and keep it in check, and that 5-10% from not increasing.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There's no evidence that giving children puberty blockers reduces their mental distress.

There is evidence that this mental distress resolves on its own with psychological support and a watchful waiting approach.

Yet here we have 2 posters advocating for unevidenced prescribing of drugs with weak evidence of benefit and evidence of long term harm, when there are non invasive treatments available.

In amongst all the wailing about puberty blockers...

...let's just remind ourselves that puberty blockers are prescribed normally for kids who go through puberty early. They're available, for 'cis' children. They've been deemed safe, for 'cis' children.

This is a false equivalence.

They are used only in severe cases of precocious puberty, like 8 year old girls starting periods.
They are used for shorter periods, sometimes only months not years.
They are not used to treat a mental health condition that can be treated by other effective means.
They are nearly always used on girls with very early periods. They are rarely used on boys.
They are not without serious risks.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/02/lupron-puberty-children-health-problems/#:~:text=A 2003 study in the,of growing a bit taller.

It's true that the usage is different, but it's an important point to make.

One is using drugs with serious irreversible side effects on children with a physical medical condition.

The other is using drugs with serious irreversible side effects on a mostly transitory mental health condition.

In 15 years time there are going to be 30 year old adults with debilitating health conditions due to puberty blockers. There will be parents who will be devastated about the choices they made for their children under the lie of 'life saving treatment'.

Campbell has deleted the thread you linked to earlier by the way. Perhaps even he realised it was irresponsible.

 

[multitool]

.

This is a false equivalence.

No equivalence was made. The opposite, in fact.

Campbell has deleted the thread you linked to earlier by the way. Perhaps even he realised it was irresponsible.

It was an excerpt ftom his 'Leading' interview with the Danish PM, married to Stephen Kinnock, who have a trans child. She was giving a humane view of what it is to have one, in stark contrast to the views of people like you and your friend and colleague AndyCXR.

As the interview is on Spotify, the removal of the twitter thread is more likely down to an invasion of toxic terfs.

Somebody obviously linked to it in terf cult hq, and all the hapless goons followed.

 

[monkers]

There's no evidence that giving children puberty blockers reduces their mental distress.

There is evidence that this mental distress resolves on its own with psychological support and a watchful waiting approach.

Yet here we have 2 posters advocating for unevidenced prescribing of drugs with weak evidence of benefit and evidence of long term harm, when there are non invasive treatments available.

N again.

All of this is a falsehood. You really expect a lawyer to swallow your 'no evidence' routine? A decision of some kind needs to be made.

In cases where there is a lack of scientific evidence, a number of things need to be considered. Is this lack of evidence equal in the for and the against arguments? What are the underpinning reasons for the lack of evidence? What other considerations or determinants can be considered? Is there a failsafe condition?

The lawyer in me requests to know your understanding of this procedure, and the arguments you can make accordingly.

However, if your intended reply is in the form or quality of previous posts, then I beg to move that you don't waste your time and mine.

 

[Bromptonaut]

N you'll get no sense out of AS; she's totally invested in her GCF ideology.

 

[classic33]

There's no evidence that giving children puberty blockers reduces their mental distress.

There is evidence that this mental distress resolves on its own with psychological support and a watchful waiting approach.

Yet here we have 2 posters advocating for unevidenced prescribing of drugs with weak evidence of benefit and evidence of long term harm, when there are non invasive treatments available.

Who are those two posters?

 

[AuroraSaab]

All of this is a falsehood. You really expect a lawyer to swallow your 'no evidence' routine? A decision of some kind needs to be made.

You have a vested interest in ignoring any science or evidence. You need there to be trans children because otherwise it's just adult men making demands.

The scientists at York Uni could find no good evidence of benefit. Hilary Cass couldn't find any in 4 years of looking. You know better than these experienced experts, Monkers? Of course you do.

In cases where there is a lack of scientific evidence, a number of things need to be considered. Is this lack of evidence equal in the for and the against arguments? What are the underpinning reasons for the lack of evidence? What other considerations or determinants can be considered? Is there a failsafe condition?

You don't give medical interventions to children unless there is good evidence of long term benefit. Children demanding puberty blockers in response to propaganda isn't evidence. Parents demanding them because they think it will solve the problem isn't evidence.

There is no sound evidence of benefit. Therefore the ethical thing to do is to discontinue this treatment - which is a pharmacological intervention for a mental health issue. There is no physical illness to be treated.

If we were discussing a drug treatment for anorexia, which had irreversible side effects and no evidence of benefit, nobody would be prescribing it for 11 year olds, however much those children insisted it would solve their problems.

N you'll get no sense out of AS; she's totally invested in her GCF ideology.

And you're invested in believing some men are special when they're not, regardless of the evidence.

What's particularly despicable is that posters on here push for unevidenced pharmacological intervention when we know that psychological support works just as well. We know these issues often resolve on their own. You'd rather kids were medicalised and put on a lifelong path of drugs than advocate for non invasive treatment that has the same if not better outcomes.

 

[monkers]

You have a vested interest in ignoring any science or evidence. You need there to be trans children because otherwise it's just adult men making demands.

N here.

The opening line is direct personal abuse.

 

[monkers]

The scientists at York Uni could find no good evidence of benefit. Hilary Cass couldn't find any in 4 years of looking. You know better than these experienced experts, Monkers? Of course you do.

My name is not monkers. My name is as unknown you as your own is to me.

 

[classic33]

There's no evidence that giving children puberty blockers reduces their mental distress.

There is evidence that this mental distress resolves on its own with psychological support and a watchful waiting approach.

Yet here we have 2 posters advocating for unevidenced prescribing of drugs with weak evidence of benefit and evidence of long term harm, when there are non invasive treatments available.

This is a false equivalence.

They are used only in severe cases of precocious puberty, like 8 year old girls starting periods.
They are used for shorter periods, sometimes only months not years.
They are not used to treat a mental health condition that can be treated by other effective means.
They are nearly always used on girls with very early periods. They are rarely used on boys.
They are not without serious risks.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/02/lupron-puberty-children-health-problems/#:~:text=A 2003 study in the,of growing a bit taller.

One is using drugs with serious irreversible side effects on children with a physical medical condition.

The other is using drugs with serious irreversible side effects on a mostly transitory mental health condition.

In 15 years time there are going to be 30 year old adults with debilitating health conditions due to puberty blockers. There will be parents who will be devastated about the choices they made for their children under the lie of 'life saving treatment'.

Campbell has deleted the thread you linked to earlier by the way. Perhaps even he realised it was irresponsible.

Your link is out of date. Lupron was discontinued by Takeda following an FDA inspection in November 2019 found serious quality deficiencies at one of Takeda's Japanese Lupron manufacturing facilities, leading to production and supply disruptions and a world-wide Lupron supply shortage.
And in favour of its more expensive, but similar drug.

Question for you
Is epilepsy a mental or physical condition?
A) Physical
B) Mental

Simple answer, A or B, given your insistence on things being only one thing or the other.

 

[multitool]

I think we are back to Aurora believing her own rhetoric

Only 20% of patients at GIDS were put on puberty blockers.

 

[monkers]

The scientists at York Uni could find no good evidence of benefit. Hilary Cass couldn't find any in 4 years of looking. You know better than these experienced experts,

N again

I shall address this to this forum.

The available evidence both scientific and empirical demonstrate that puberty blockers work - they delay puberty. This is not contentious and requires no further examination.

Clinical scientific research has a convention to adhere to the gold standard approach. That is to say, a clinical trial which is 'double blind'. The participants are randomised, comprising of the treatment group and a control group. Bias from the researchers is eliminated by ensuring that neither researchers or participants are aware of who is receiving the medication and who is receiving the placebo.

A double blind test would not be considered ethical for a clinical trial for the prescription of puberty blockers. To do so would be to issue puberty blockers to the control group, which in itself has the potential to cause distress to that group. Those requiring puberty blockers to ameliorate their condition would continue with puberty. Again not an ethical position.

Apart from the ethical case, the trial could not result in a double blind trial, since those clinical participants that received placebos would go through puberty.

On this basis, it is very easy to declare that the clinical research was not conducted under gold standard clinical conditions; therefore it is of 'low quality' and not included in the review.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Question for you
Is epilepsy a mental or physical condition?
A) Physical
B) Mental

Simple answer, A or B, given your insistence on things being only one thing or the other.

Physical. But if you are making an analogy with puberty blockers, if there were talking therapies that relieved the symptoms of epilepsy, would you insist that they be ignored in favour of continuing to give epileptic children meds that have side effects and no evidence of benefit? Of course not.