Cass Report

[Rolfe]

How are children supposed to know that's not what they mean? Referring to trans-identified males as "women" almost seems small beer compared to this.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Some citations would be really helpful here, it seems to me that experts disagree.

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558#99603316

Scroll down to Table 8 “Protocol Induction of Puberty” to see now they intend to implement the impossible.

I'm so over linguistic shenanigans. Inducing the development of secondary sex characteristics is NOT inducing a cross-sex puberty.

At no point whatsoever will a male taking estrogen start ovulating and experience menarche. At no point whatsoever with will a female taking testosterone start producing sperm and have nocturnal ejaculations.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It is an not uncommon argument on certain issues. I'm dumbfounded every time I hear it.

ETA: folks are generally bad at crafting arguments that appeal to others who don't already agree with them. I'm as bad as anyone else of course.

The caliber of logic applied to discussion and argument over the last two decades is really disheartening.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What I can appreciate is that "trans puberty" connotes a legitimate medical intervention to initiate a transition from one sex to the other in accordance with trans ideology.

It's a term that serves to reassure captured individuals that trans ideology takes a rational and science-based approach to actually transitioning people from the "wrong" sex they were born with, to the "right" sex they think they should be, by means of an an alternative route through pubescence.

The actual, scientific, medically-sound truth is that there is no such thing as a "trans puberty". There is only a sociopathically-motivated derangement of the natural and healthy pubertal development process, that irrevocably damages the victim both physically and psychologically, with no proven commensurate benefit.

Calling it "trans puberty" rather than "deranged puberty" legitimizes trans ideology in the public sphere, rather than repudiating it.

Yes, of course "trans puberty" refers to the process described in those guidelines. It refers to the process using gaslighting terminology that seeks to completely obfuscate what is actually going on in this process. "Trans puberty?" You think, reading the abstract. "Well that's the transphobes told, then. I ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ love science."

 

[theprestige]

If you want to make the argument that the endocrinologists made some incorrect factual claims, you are welcome to do so. From what I've seen, though, you're mostly quibbling about the implicit implications of their preferred terminology.

I'm not quibbling. I'm denouncing. The factual claims do not support the ideology. Thus, instead of making the factual claim - that they're going to derange your pubertal development, causing irrevocable harm in the name of ideology, they gaslight you with misleading terms like "trans puberty".

If they literally led children to believe that artificial "induction of female puberty" would have all the same results as ordinary female puberty, well of course that would be awful…

Just implying it without being open about the facts of the matter is bad enough. Just agreeing to do the procedure, knowing that it's contra-indicated by the facts, is bad enough. You're trying to argue that the vague language isn't particularly awful. I'm arguing that using vague language to hide the awful truth is indeed extremely awful.

 

[d4m10n]

At no point whatsoever will a male taking estrogen start ovulating and experience menarche.

We can surely agree that GPs and endocrinologists who promised such results should face malpractice suits.

At no point whatsoever with will a female taking testosterone start producing sperm and have nocturnal ejaculations.

We can surely agree that GPs and endocrinologists who promised such results should face malpractice suits.

Thus, instead of making the factual claim - that they're going to derange your pubertal development, causing irrevocable harm in the name of ideology, they gaslight you with misleading terms like "trans puberty".

I don't think practitioners actually used that phrase, it was coined here by @Planigale to refer to the process of giving young people cross-sex hormones while in the usual pubertal time frame.

Just agreeing to do the procedure, knowing that it's contra-indicated by the facts, is bad enough.

If you can find them candidly admitting that they knew this, that would be fairly damning.

Personally, I suspect they were genuinely credulous, much like most of the medical establishment.

 

[Emily's Cat]

We can surely agree that GPs and endocrinologists who promised such results should face malpractice suits.

We can surely agree that GPs and endocrinologists who promised such results should face malpractice suits.

ANY practitioner of ANY sort that in ANY fashion implies that giving exogenous cross-sex hormones to a youth will induce the puberty of the opposite sex should face malpractice suits. And that includes referring to it as "trans puberty" or "inducing puberty" in the context of prompting secondary sex characteristic development of the opposite sex, or any language that is similar to "avoiding the wrong puberty". Pretty much anything that comes within spitting difference of the implication that a male child will in any fashion whatsoever go through a female puberty or vice versa should be slapped with massive lawsuits and have their license to practice medicine revoked.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm fed up with trying to play nice and letting people and organizations use intentionally misleading language, and not calling it out as the absolute horse ◊◊◊◊ that it is. I'm exhausted, and engaging in these sorts of discussions accomplishes nothing useful. You are the one who linked to a paper talking about "inducing puberty" using cross sex hormones, as if that somehow lends the concept credence. I'm calling it out as blatant ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ lies.

 

[Rolfe]

Well said.

 

[d4m10n]

You are the one who linked to a paper talking about "inducing puberty" using cross sex hormones, as if that somehow lends the concept credence.

It tells us something about the relevant standard of care, which really does matter to the jury instructions in a malpractice suit.

ANY practitioner of ANY sort that in ANY fashion implies that giving exogenous cross-sex hormones to a youth will induce the puberty of the opposite sex should face malpractice suits

This is ex post facto thinking at best; you apparently want to punish practitioners for following clinical practice guidelines because we know better now.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It tells us something about the relevant standard of care, which really does matter to the jury instructions in a malpractice suit.

This is ex post facto thinking at best; you apparently want to punish practitioners for following clinical practice guidelines because we know better now.

I want the clinical practice guidelines to not be fraught with lies and minsinformation.

It doesn't seem like to much to ask.

 

[Rolfe]

I want everyone, including Planigale, to understand that the minor cosmetic changes resulting from the administration of cross-sex hormones, while they may mimic secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex to some degree, are in no way comparable to actual puberty, and that to describe them as any sort of puberty is misleading and dishonest.

I also want everyone, including Planigale, to understand that puberty, one experienced, cannot be undone. You can't unbake a cake. You can go through puberty, then take steps as an adult to change your appearance to resemble the opposite sex so far as is possible. On the other hand you can prevent yourself going through puberty, remain an oversized juvenile, and again take steps to change your appearance to resemble the opposite sex so far as is possible.

Unless you change your mind and try to go back to your real sex, that's it. There's no undoing a puberty that has happened, and nobody can possibly go through the puberty of the sex they aren't.

 

[theprestige]

I have a healthy set of man boobs. Maybe @Planigale thinks I've been through a diet-induced trans puberty.

 

[d4m10n]

I want the clinical practice guidelines to not be fraught with lies and minsinformation.

Which specific sentence from those guidelines did you find most objectionable on those criteria?

 

[Rolfe]

I remember someone right at the beginning of this thread scoffing at the idea that anyone would support trans medicine, particularly for children, on the grounds that there was a lot of money in it. It's such a tiny group of people, how could it be profitable. Even then people tried to point out how much money there was over the lifetime of one trans person, surgery, multiple revision surgeries when things went wrong, hormones (for an entire life), electrolysis, voice training, outside man-shaped dresses and shoes, you name it.

Since then we've had it admitted that the trans clinic was bankrolling the Tavistock, a leaked video of an internal meeting at the time Johns Hopkins reversed its decision (taken on clinical grounds) to discontinue trans treatments, laying out how profitable it all is, and now this.

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/exclusive-nhs-saw-an-opportunity-for-income-generation-from-first-child-gender-clinic-in-belfast-5614982

It's not quite clear how the money was to be made, I think by taking in patients from elsewhere and billing for it, and I don't think it actually went ahead, but again it illustrates how much money can be attached to making someone a patient for life - £1 million was mentioned in this context - and how that lights up some people's eyes.

 

[jt512]

Babylon Bee: Iranian Generals Kicking Themselves for Not Just Meeting Over Zoom

 

[d4m10n]

Babylon Bee: Iranian Generals Kicking Themselves for Not Just Meeting Over Zoom

Are you in the correct thread?

 

[jt512]

Oops. I wondered what happened to that post.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Which specific sentence from those guidelines did you find most objectionable on those criteria?

Repeated phrasing around "inducing puberty" when they're talking about applying cross-sex exogenous hormones.

That's false information, it's dishonest and materially misleading. It's gaslighting patients and lying to the public in my view.

 

[d4m10n]

That's false information, it's dishonest and materially misleading.

Do you really believe doctors are telling their transgender patients they will experience all the usual aspects and outcomes of natural puberty?

If not, where is the lie?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you really believe doctors are telling their transgender patients they will experience all the usual aspects and outcomes of natural puberty?

If not, where is the lie?

It does not induce puberty in any fashion whatsoever. That's the lie. Embedding it throughout research and clinical materials using blatantly false and misleading information is the lie.