Again those studies have been done.Oh FFS.
Without studies, we can't know if taking opioids as a means to control pain after a surgery is the same as taking opioids when you have no pain at all.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cass Report
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Rolfe
Adult human female
I'm still stunned by the way everyone, including Cass herself, is ignoring the animal studies that showed serious adverse effects in young sheep, and the lack of rigour in pursuing follow-up data from the thousands of young people already given these drugs.
The study needs to be done, unfortunately not doing the study won't stop children transitioning. The problem is one side would regard transitioning as wrong and therefore any study on the subject as unethical, and the other side believe any restriction on the right to transition as wrong and therefore the study is unethical. The researchers will be attacked by both sides. We saw that respect for professionals trying to do a good job has changed during covid with people making claims about genocide. The study needs central support from government because no independent body will want the trouble that such a study will bring with it.
Puberty blockers trial paused after MHRA raises safety concerns
The medicines regulator is suggesting the minimum age limit for trial should be raised to 14.www.bbc.co.uk
Essentially Cass makes the point that most teenagers grow out of gender dysphoria, or at least reach a place where it is tolerable. But there are a proportion for which it appears that transitioning is the only currently effective treatment.
Questions are can you identify those for whom gender dysphoria is transient? Can we find effective treatments to support them. For those for whom it does not appear transient what is the best support and treatment. There is a major difference between conversion therapy for homosexuality and therapy to make life tolerable for those with gender dysphoria. Most people would accept that being able to tolerate the body you have is a better solution than the complexities of transitioning that will never result in a real change in sex, at best it merely erases the superficial appearance of their birth sex.
That drugs have side effects is not news. The question is the risk benefit ratio. I absolutely agree that it was a failure not to have adequately followed up those who sought to transition and those who did. Partly that was a lack of funding. Cass is saying there should be a proper follow up so that the long term risks and benefits become clear. You are correct that some information could be obtained by careful follow up of those who have received puberty blockers.
It should be remembered some children receive puberty blockers because of early onset puberty. So some girls may be on them e.g. 8 to 12 years of age. This is I think an appropriate use. Puberty blockers don't permanently block puberty, they can be stopped and puberty triggered. Puberty in girls historically could be as late as sixteen, there may be a case for deferring puberty in those with severe gender dysphoria, perhaps allowing time for other therapies to work, or for a clear and informed decision to be made about transitioning.
These options need to be studied and decisions should be evidence based and in the best interests of the individual child.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I completely disagree that this study needs to be done. Carry out a full range of animal trials and analyse the outcomes of the children who already had the drugs. THEN make your case for a human trial. If you can. I predict you won't be able to.
We have some animal studies and we have some follow-up on people who were given the drugs willy-nilly. Neither are reassuring.
The "time to think and make up your mind" justification has been discredited long ago. Left alone, only a small percentage of "gender-distressed" children will still be in that condition post normal puberty. However, when puberty blockers are given this locks the child into the trans identity and almost all of them go on to cross-sex hormones - and most to surgery. Puberty itself is the cure for the condition, but this "treatment" actually prevents this natural cure. Also, very very few children are still pre-pubescent at sixteen nowadays. These unfortunate children given blockers suffer greatly as their peers all grow up and mature around them, while they remain trapped in the immature bodies and brains of children.
While it may be justifiable to give drugs with adverse side-effects when treating serious, dangerous diseases, these children are physically healthy. We know the drugs prevent the bone density increase that should happen in the teenage years, and children suffer back and limb pain and pathological fractures. We know there is an association with a loss of IQ points, impaired memory and cognitive functioning. There are also credible suspicions about increased risks of stroke, cancer and endocrine diseases.
And yet an experiment is being urged, recruiting children the researchers know would almost all simply grow out of their difficulties if allowed to proceed through normal puberty at the same time as their peers. I do not see how this can ever be ethically justified. I don't see any benefit and I see ample evidence of inevitable harm.
No child, none at all, should be subjected to this, or allowed to go through this. If they still want to carry on down that path once they've completed puberty, with mature brains and adult judgement and bodies with strong bones and their fertility assured, well, that's another story. But children? To sign away their right to adult fertility, adult sexual pleasure (children puberty blocked at before Tanner stage 2 never achieve orgasm), adult cognitive functioning and a body that has reached adulthood undamaged, no.
The only benefit touted for this regime is that when the child is a bit older then it will be easier to make them into a convincing facsimile of the opposite sex. This doesn't even apply to girls, who can be turned into miniature semi-masculine homunculi at any age. But it's a big deal for men who decided to transition in middle-age, who then look back and say, if only. It's these men who are behind the drive to damage growing boys, and they need to be stopped.
We have some animal studies and we have some follow-up on people who were given the drugs willy-nilly. Neither are reassuring.
The "time to think and make up your mind" justification has been discredited long ago. Left alone, only a small percentage of "gender-distressed" children will still be in that condition post normal puberty. However, when puberty blockers are given this locks the child into the trans identity and almost all of them go on to cross-sex hormones - and most to surgery. Puberty itself is the cure for the condition, but this "treatment" actually prevents this natural cure. Also, very very few children are still pre-pubescent at sixteen nowadays. These unfortunate children given blockers suffer greatly as their peers all grow up and mature around them, while they remain trapped in the immature bodies and brains of children.
While it may be justifiable to give drugs with adverse side-effects when treating serious, dangerous diseases, these children are physically healthy. We know the drugs prevent the bone density increase that should happen in the teenage years, and children suffer back and limb pain and pathological fractures. We know there is an association with a loss of IQ points, impaired memory and cognitive functioning. There are also credible suspicions about increased risks of stroke, cancer and endocrine diseases.
And yet an experiment is being urged, recruiting children the researchers know would almost all simply grow out of their difficulties if allowed to proceed through normal puberty at the same time as their peers. I do not see how this can ever be ethically justified. I don't see any benefit and I see ample evidence of inevitable harm.
No child, none at all, should be subjected to this, or allowed to go through this. If they still want to carry on down that path once they've completed puberty, with mature brains and adult judgement and bodies with strong bones and their fertility assured, well, that's another story. But children? To sign away their right to adult fertility, adult sexual pleasure (children puberty blocked at before Tanner stage 2 never achieve orgasm), adult cognitive functioning and a body that has reached adulthood undamaged, no.
The only benefit touted for this regime is that when the child is a bit older then it will be easier to make them into a convincing facsimile of the opposite sex. This doesn't even apply to girls, who can be turned into miniature semi-masculine homunculi at any age. But it's a big deal for men who decided to transition in middle-age, who then look back and say, if only. It's these men who are behind the drive to damage growing boys, and they need to be stopped.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Oh, and if children are going to transition anyway, make it illegal and enforce the law. Don't facilitate more of them to wreck their health and their future happiness in the pursuit of data to support making it illegal. We know enough already.
Rolfe
Adult human female
This is well worth a listen.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Ouch.
seeninjournalism.substack.com
Our letter to the Laura Kuenssberg show
We wrote to the editor last week about the biased interview with Hillary Cass, and in the light of the pause to the puberty blocker trial, we're publishing our letter
seeninjournalism.substack.com
Great letter. Australia’s ABC, like the BBC, goes out of its way not to cause offence, when offence is the only proper response.Ouch.
Our letter to the Laura Kuenssberg show
We wrote to the editor last week about the biased interview with Hillary Cass, and in the light of the pause to the puberty blocker trial, we're publishing our letter
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
It took me a while to figure out what "LKS" was supposed to stand for in that letter. I think it's the "Laura Kuenssberg Show", although it's not actually called that - it's "Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg".
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Ouch.
Our letter to the Laura Kuenssberg show
We wrote to the editor last week about the biased interview with Hillary Cass, and in the light of the pause to the puberty blocker trial, we're publishing our letter
Wow, people who think Cass is too pro trans. To the trans folk and their supporters on the other forum I belong to, she's practically the Antichrist.
Rolfe
Adult human female
This.
Rolfe
Adult human female
This, the whole thread if you can read it, is interesting in the context of Cass's approach. One poster speaks of her pursuing the "golden mean", assuming there "must be something in it", and closing her mind to the possibility that there are no benefits to this protocol.
It is not scientific to prejudge the outcome of a study and declare that therefore there is no need to do it, because obviously the answer is X.
I have my prejudice that a great many of people with gender dysphoria have other psychological issues that need addressing and that no proper assessment can be made until psychological health has been optimised.
What I don't know is whether there are a proprtion of people in whom gender dysphoria is fixed and severe for whom transitioning does offer benefit. I certainly don't think ruling it illegal is appropriate, people will just travel to get the treatment they want.
What I don't know is whether there are an identifiable group for whom early transitioning is the best option. I don't know if a realistic and fully informed description of the real nature and consequences were given how many people with gender dysphoria would choose to transition.
I think these are all legitimate questions to ask. I accept that doing so in a scientific and ethical manner is difficult. That any research is bound to be controversial. But we should not pre-judge what research may show.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Well, you know, sometimes we do already know sufficient about the effects of a "treatment" to know that further human trials are unethical. It happens all the time. The problems are particularly acute in this case because (a) we have animal trials revealing serious doubts about safety, (b) we have a four-figure population which has already been given the "treatment" which has not been followed up to find out how they got on, and (c) this is a "treatment" being proposed for physically healthy children, not to treat a serious disease.
We should also take account of the significant number of adults who were given puberty blockers for precocious puberty who complain of serious lasting side-effects, and wish they had never seen the bloody things. There are also many women given the same drugs for breast cancer who report serious and lasting side-effects. It may be that in the case of actual physical abnormalities these interventions can be justified, but knowing all that, how is it ethical to administer them when there is no physical abnormality in the first place?
If there is a proportion of children with gender confusion who will grow up to want to transition, the one thing we know is that there is no way to distinguish these children from the vast majority who will desist from their confustion after going through normal puberty, and will not desire body modification. It is wildly unethical to carry out a study that is predicated on delivering body modification to everyone, with no way to tell which are the few who might benefit. Assuming this few even exist.
The proposal that we shouldn't make anything illegal because people will find a way to get it anyway is ridiculous.
If someone still wants to transition once they have gone through puberty, with an adult brain and adult cognition and a mature body with adult bone mineralisation and adult gamete production and the ability to orgasm (and having actually experienced orgasm), that is a very different situation. But taking a group of confused children, 80% of whom we already know will recover with no physical intervention at all, and giving all of them drugs that will destroy their fertility, their ability to orgasm and have potentially serious effects on bone mineralisation and increase the risks of life-limiting conditions, is unconscionable.
AT THE VERY LEAST, commission further animal studies in a range of appropriate species, and get as much retrospective data as possible from the 5,000 or so children who went through GIDS before the mounting evidence of harm put a stop to that. Then come back and make your case for giving known harmful drugs to healthy children.
We should also take account of the significant number of adults who were given puberty blockers for precocious puberty who complain of serious lasting side-effects, and wish they had never seen the bloody things. There are also many women given the same drugs for breast cancer who report serious and lasting side-effects. It may be that in the case of actual physical abnormalities these interventions can be justified, but knowing all that, how is it ethical to administer them when there is no physical abnormality in the first place?
If there is a proportion of children with gender confusion who will grow up to want to transition, the one thing we know is that there is no way to distinguish these children from the vast majority who will desist from their confustion after going through normal puberty, and will not desire body modification. It is wildly unethical to carry out a study that is predicated on delivering body modification to everyone, with no way to tell which are the few who might benefit. Assuming this few even exist.
The proposal that we shouldn't make anything illegal because people will find a way to get it anyway is ridiculous.
If someone still wants to transition once they have gone through puberty, with an adult brain and adult cognition and a mature body with adult bone mineralisation and adult gamete production and the ability to orgasm (and having actually experienced orgasm), that is a very different situation. But taking a group of confused children, 80% of whom we already know will recover with no physical intervention at all, and giving all of them drugs that will destroy their fertility, their ability to orgasm and have potentially serious effects on bone mineralisation and increase the risks of life-limiting conditions, is unconscionable.
AT THE VERY LEAST, commission further animal studies in a range of appropriate species, and get as much retrospective data as possible from the 5,000 or so children who went through GIDS before the mounting evidence of harm put a stop to that. Then come back and make your case for giving known harmful drugs to healthy children.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I would commend to you a close perusal of this document. It appears to have been written by an undergraduate studying music - if that is the case I think he has missed his vocation. It covers the issues in some depth.
kclstopthepathwaystrial.online
Stop the PATHWAYS Trial Letter - Kings College London
Sign the open letter to King's College London to voice your opposition to the PATHWAYS Puberty blockers trial!
kclstopthepathwaystrial.online
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
The impact for precocious puberty is extremely different than for a natural puberty. Puberty is a two-part process that involves both the pituitary and the adrenal glands. GnRH agonists *only* halt the pituitary, they do nothing for the adrenal. The pituitary process during puberty governs bone density accretion, maturation of the sexual organs including breast growth in females, and increased coarseness of pubic, underarm, and leg hair for both sexes. It also triggers the growth of facial and body hair in males, as well as thickening of the voice box resulting in a lower voice. The adrenal governs lengthening of the long bones and closure of the growth plates after a certain period of time, as well as the initial growth of fine pubic, underarm, and leg hair.
In precocious puberty, the blockade stops the pituitary process until the adrenal kicks in. This prevents bone density accretion in bones that haven't lengthened, and prevents deformation of the legs and arms. Halting puberty in precocious puberty is 'reversible' largely because the adrenal triggers certain stages in the pituitary process, including the "halt" signal for bone density, and a few others that I'm not as conversant on. Once the adrenal has started its process, the child can stop taking the blockers and a normal puberty resumes until the adrenal sends some of those very important "stop now" signals.
In a normal puberty, it's not reversible. The adrenal has already started its process, and GnRH agonists don't affect it at all. If they're taken for a very short period of time (a few months at most), the impact is small and probably not very risky... but it might also depend on exactly where in the process the child is. Bear in mind that one of the more blatant issues is that the adrenal will cause the long bones to grow... but the pituitary isn't on-line to increase bone density. That's a time-bound process - kids can only acquire density in that window. If you stop taking the blockers partway through, the kid will have some increased bone density, but are likely to be permanently osteopenic. If blockers continue until after the adrenal causes the growth plates to close, they will never be able to gain density and can have permanently osteoporosis from before they're even fully adults.
The claim that blockers are temporary or reversible is perhaps the worst myth out there. They really aren't. And that's before we even get into the side effects of those drugs, which aren't something to scoff at.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
What if we actually already know the harm caused by the thing being studied? Is it worth having a clinical trial of children to test whether the laxative effects of mercury mixed with sugar outweigh the tremors, coordination issues, and memory loss?
That's why the puberty blocker trial was called out as unethical - we absolutely already know the dangers and the problems caused by the GnRH agonists themselves, as well as the problems having the pituitary and adrenal processes out of sync. So we'd be testing known actual real dangers against a hypothetical improvement in mental health that is far, far from certain. Most people don't think that's a reasonable tradeoff, and it's doing actual damage in pursuit of a highly doubtful emotional offset.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I took one of these drugs for three months prior to uterine surgery for fibroids. My surgeon was adamant that I had to have surgery within that time period, because the risk of taking the GnRH agonist longer than three months was too great. And I was a fairly extreme case - if they hadn't shut off my pituitary function, I'd have bled to death at my next period.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
It's crazy, isn't it?
Hey, you know what? Some people are going to murder even if it's illegal, so we should legalize murder!
Yep, stellar logic right there.