Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maker of puberty blockers funded original study that led to 'gender-affirming care' for minors: Dutch investigative report

As stated in the article, this study has been discredited numerous times due to the lack of a control group, the number of participants who were lost to follow-up, the short follow-up period, and certain other key methodological flaws. Stella O’Malley, co-founder of Genspect, recently called the decision not to offer regular follow-ups for this cohort "extraordinary to the point of suspicious."

One of the participants in this landmark study even died from the complications of so-called "gender-affirming" surgery, which led O’Malley to question why this did not put an immediate end to this reckless medical experiment on children.
Click to expand...
 
d4m10n said:
Took the trouble to translate the original from Dutch, since I hate to rely on partisan news aggregators.

View attachment 47627
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw that and I also translated parts of it because I wanted to see if the studies they referred to were the same ones I linked to a critique of a few posts ago (they cited earlier dates and I ran out of time, might have another look).

I was puzzled by the 'investigative' aspect because I thought funding had to be disclosed, but perhaps there was less transparency at the time.
 
Here is a sample of what happens to a well-supported petition which the government has no intention of doing anything about.

Banning snares: a parliamentary debate in name only

That's one I enthusiastically signed myself. It's unconscionable that any sort of snaring is still legal in a country that claims to be civilised. However, although there was strong support from the floor of the house and good arguments were made, the government is so stuffed full of huntin' shootin' and fishin' hooray henries parroting the usual lies in rebuttal that the petition had no hope.

The EA petition is likely to generate a more real debate though, I think.
 
d4m10n said:
Reuploading now.
Click to expand...

Thanks for uploading that. They are referring to the same original Dutch studies.

De Vries et al. (2011). Puberty Suppression in Adolescents With Gender Identity Disorder: A Prospective Follow-Up Study

De Vries et al. (2014). Young Adult Psychological Outcome After Puberty Suppression and Gender Reassignment

The first study does not claim resolution of gender dysphoria from puberty blockers but does claim some mental health benefits. The retrospective case selection method was biased, as it used the start date for proceeding to the next phase of treatment as the inclusion criteria for study participation in the previous phase. The benefits were not replicated in a study conducted at the Tavistock, which used eligibility for treatment for study selection and so retained those who had worse responses as participants.

The second study does claim resolution of gender dysphoria following the entire medical affirmation pathway, but used different versions of the scale for pre- and post-transition, meaning this drop in dysphoria scores cannot be attributed to treatment.

The second was published in Pediatrics, which is now notorious for publishing rubbish research on gender affirmation. The study based outcome measures on 55 of the original 70 participants, using a methodology that automatically excluded those who had poor outcomes. Those with poor outcomes were dropped from the study and classified as 'nonparticipants'; they included several who developed medical conditions and one who died from complications.

I don't see any disclosures about funding on the first publication

The second states this.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
FUNDING: Supported by a personal grant awarded to the first author by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw 100002028).
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
 
Last edited:
BTW, I noticed this:

"Almost all publications that the Knowledge and Care Center for Gender Dysphoria relies on originate from its own practitioners, and therefore have a high 'toilet duck' content. Where is the confirmation from outside researchers?"

I've never seen 'toilet duck' used in that context. Is it a weird translation, or is this an actual expression? Just mildly curious.
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
BTW, I noticed this:

Almost all publications that the Knowledge and Care Center for Gender Dysphoria relies on originate from its own practitioners, and therefore have a high 'toilet duck' content. Where is the confirmation from outside researchers?

I've never seen 'toilet duck' used in that context. Is it a weird translation, or is this an actual expression? Just mildly curious.
Click to expand...

Toilet Duck is a brand of loo cleaner, otherwise no idea...
 
Nick Terry said:
Toilet Duck is a brand of loo cleaner, otherwise no idea...
Click to expand...

I wondered if it was an odd translation of a Dutch phrase for trying to make things look better than they are, or if it's actually used in that context and I just hadn't heard it.

Perhaps it's referring to the fact that some loo cleaners don't do much but just make things look nicer by colouring the water.
 
Elaedith said:
BTW, I noticed this:

Almost all publications that the Knowledge and Care Center for Gender Dysphoria relies on originate from its own practitioners, and therefore have a high 'toilet duck' content. Where is the confirmation from outside researchers?

I've never seen 'toilet duck' used in that context. Is it a weird translation, or is this an actual expression? Just mildly curious.
Click to expand...

It's a Dutch joke referring to a series of Televisions adverts from Toilet Duck (yes, the loo cleaner). In it, the spokesman proclaims "We, from Toilet Duck, recommend: Toilet Duck". It has since become a catchphrase for self-referential statements like that.
 
Ron Obvious said:
It's a Dutch joke referring to a series of Televisions adverts from Toilet Duck (yes, the loo cleaner). In it, the spokesman proclaims "We, from Toilet Duck, recommend: Toilet Duck". It has since become a catchphrase for self-referential statements like that.
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks.
 
Elaedith said:
You don't have to keep stopping by to remind us that you have no argument or evidence; we already know ;) It is kind of amusing though.
Click to expand...


Ah no, you misunderstood. I just stopped by to remind you that Linehan - whom you were demonstrably happy to see back on Twitter - is living up to form as an out-and-out nutjob who (from the minute he was allowed back on twitter) has resumed obsessively tweeting anti-trans screeds at a rate of well over 18 hours per day every day*, and who has lost his wife, his family, his home, almost all of his friends & (former) colleagues and his career in the process. I was wondering what it was about him you admire so much, and what your admiration of him says about you. That's all.


Oh and BTW, please could you kindly inform me what evidence there is that homosexuality is a valid condition and not a mental health disorder (I am perhaps over-assuming that you actually don't consider homosexual people to be mentally ill on account of their homosexuality.... or I dunno, maybe your view on the validity of homosexuality is in line with your view on the validity of transgender identity?). And when you answer that question, go ahead and replace "homosexuality" with "transgender identity". The penny might drop. Although given the entrenched bigotry in this thread, almost certainly not. And of course I don't actually give a **** what your answer (or, more likely, your evasion/avoidance/goalpost-shifting/wilful misrepresentation) might be.

Ah well, back to watching glinner piss all over the last smouldering remains of his reputation, career, relationships and mental health, and his inevitable re-banning from twitter. As I said: you must be very proud of him and his crusade, right?!


* Save for a period of around 12 hours during which he was prevented from tweeting, on account of Twitter locking his account for a couple of particularly nasty anti-transgender-identity tweets and requesting that he delete those tweets. Hilariously, he pompously stated on his Substack griefhole that he was totally resolute in never deleting the tweets because they were both "true" (LOL); but of course he's so obsessed and unwell that he couldn't help himself from caving in and deleting the tweets so that he could have his access unlocked again. There's no denying it's great entertainment (though I suppose I feel a little guilty laughing at someone who's likely in the throes of a mental breakdown - but fortunately for his mental health it clearly won't be long now before he gets another permaban from the platform which he craves so much and which feeds his addiction/breakdown so destructively).
 
How many times does it need to be pointed out that this thread is not about homosexuality and that homosexuality is not gender identity anyway?
 
Wow. Have you looked in the mirror recently? Because if you haven't, re-reading what you just typed would be a decent substitute.

(That was for LJ.)
 
lionking said:
How many times does it need to be pointed out that this thread is not about homosexuality and that homosexuality is not gender identity anyway?
Click to expand...


The thing is, if self-identified homosexuals were invading the single-sex spaces and categories of the sex they aren't, and grooming impressionable children on to a pathway of medical harm, surgical mutilation and life-long asexuality, and encouraging pubescent girls to hate their bodies and go on the same pathway, we might be pushing back against them too.

But they're not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom