Cass Report

[Rolfe]

Exactly.

 

[d4m10n]

It does not induce puberty in any fashion whatsoever.

Well, now, that's obviously not true. To the extent laypersons—especially adolescents—think of puberty as manifesting in visible ways which effect one's social position (i.e. secondary sex characteristics) the process induces something rather like puberty, something we don't happen to have a separate word to describe. No one has been misleading trans youth into the belief that they will get the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive function that their cisgender peers will get.

 

[theprestige]

No one has been misleading trans youth into the belief that they will get the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive function that their cisgender peers will get.

I bet some people have been doing exactly that. It probably won't show up in the literature, though.

 

[Rolfe]

Even using the word "puberty" is going to lead these disturbed and delusional young people to think that's what they're getting. They should be being sat down and having the whole set of possible (and impossible) outcomes explained to them in terms they're capable of comprehending, including that this is not puberty, that by taking puberty blockers they are foregoing their chance of actual puberty, to be forever sexually immature beings with only some of the secondary sexual characteristics of the opposite sex pasted on to them through cross-sex hormones.

But we know from a string of detransitioners that none of this is happening. That hard truths are glossed over and avoided, that "informed consent" is pretty much nonexistent due to lack of real information, by clinicians who are enthusiastic to trans as many patients as possible.

Even Planigale seemed to think that it was possible to experience the puberty of the opposite sex, and even more bizarrely, to reverse a true puberty already experienced - that's what started this. Since she seems to have left the thread we can't discuss this further with her, but that's only one of a number of misconceptions she came out with in recent posts. If even a medical professional is so misinformed, what chance have these deluded kids who have been whipped up into an enthusiasm for "changing sex", something which is objectively impossible?

 

[Rolfe]

This professor has been hounded out of the puberty blocker trial for stating a medical fact

Jacob George is the latest victim of an ideological witch hunt for refusing to appease the NHS’s gender fanatics

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, now, that's obviously not true. To the extent laypersons—especially adolescents—think of puberty as manifesting in visible ways which effect one's social position (i.e. secondary sex characteristics) the process induces something rather like puberty, something we don't happen to have a separate word to describe.

I think you're stretching beyond a reasonable point. By your argument, you would say that a female teen who stays flat-chested, but who starts menarche, would be considered to have not experienced puberty by the standards of "laypeople". Similarly, you'd say that a teen male who doesn't grow a beard but still starts ejaculating and waking up tumescent hasn't experienced puberty.

No one has been misleading trans youth into the belief that they will get the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive function that their cisgender peers will get.

Lol, I'm not taking that bet, and I'm surprised you're even considering making such a strong statement. Given the amount of blatant and repeated false information shared over the past decade, at a minimum I think "You're never going to be able to experience sexual arousal and you'll be sterile" is probably something they're NOT sharing in a clear and understandable fashion.

 

[Rolfe]

Is it really true that in 2026 sex education is so bad that people think that getting breasts or a beard, and having a lower voice pitch (or not) is what constitutes "puberty"? That it's therefore fine to use the word puberty when all you mean is the breasts or the beard and the pitch of the voice because that's all anyone expects from puberty? This argument is becoming absolutely mental.

 

[d4m10n]

By your argument, you would say that a female teen who stays flat-chested, but who starts menarche, would be considered to have not experienced puberty by the standards of "laypeople". Similarly, you'd say that a teen male who doesn't grow a beard but still starts ejaculating and waking up tumescent hasn't experienced puberty.

My argument was not that puberty is entirely about secondary characteristics, but rather that people (and especially gender dysphoric adolescents) associate puberty with the onset of those characteristics. None of the female patients are looking forward to tumescence and ejaculation, for example, when considering artificial induction of a more male-typical puberty.

I'm surprised you're even considering making such a strong statement.

We've already seen quite a few detrans testimonials, none of which promised fully functional cross-sex puberty.

 

[d4m10n]

*whom

 

[Planigale]

Even using the word "puberty" is going to lead these disturbed and delusional young people to think that's what they're getting. They should be being sat down and having the whole set of possible (and impossible) outcomes explained to them in terms they're capable of comprehending, including that this is not puberty, that by taking puberty blockers they are foregoing their chance of actual puberty, to be forever sexually immature beings with only some of the secondary sexual characteristics of the opposite sex pasted on to them through cross-sex hormones.

But we know from a string of detransitioners that none of this is happening. That hard truths are glossed over and avoided, that "informed consent" is pretty much nonexistent due to lack of real information, by clinicians who are enthusiastic to trans as many patients as possible.

Even Planigale seemed to think that it was possible to experience the puberty of the opposite sex, and even more bizarrely, to reverse a true puberty already experienced - that's what started this. Since she seems to have left the thread we can't discuss this further with her, but that's only one of a number of misconceptions she came out with in recent posts. If even a medical professional is so misinformed, what chance have these deluded kids who have been whipped up into an enthusiasm for "changing sex", something which is objectively impossible?

You are making the cardinal mistake of thinking that you can read other peoples thoughts!

I do not think that that hormonal therapy does other than give a superficial appearnce more resembling that of the desired gender. Of course there is no way that hormones can induce menarche in someone born male.

The point I was trying to make was a different one so I'll use different words. Assuming we can identify those who despite appropriate psychological intervention will still want to opt for the superficial change in appearance that comes from taking hormonal therapy, are the outcomes for those individuals better if they go through puberty and then take hormonal therapy and hormonal blockers, or if puberty is delayed and hormonal therapy given. I don't know the answer to this. I think it is a possible topic of research. Whilst finger length ratios are not going to change, if a MTF person doesn't go through male puberty, then they won't develop an adam's apple and won't 'need' surgery for this. For a FTM, they won't develop breasts so won't require surgery.

I entirely agree that those with gender dysphoria need realistic information that any change from hormonal therapy is superficial that their sex will remain unchanged, and the effects of hormones and surgery is superficial and would involve life long therapy which has significant negative health aspects. That to some extent this is an irrevocable decision, you can't just go back to what you would have been had you not taken the hormonal therapy.

However, puberty blockers of themselves aren't terrible if used for a limited period. When stopped a delayed natural puberty will normally occur. Another reasonable research question is whether in those with severe gender dysphoria using puberty blockers to buy time for e.g. psychological therapies to work and allowing a planned supported cis puberty to occur ends up being less distressing than going through an 'unplanned' immediate puberty. It would be 'normal' practice to defer premature puberty in young e.g. pre-teen children to an age at which they can cope better with puberty.

Puberty blockers in themselves aren't terrible drugs. It is the whole system and what happens after that is the problem.

My prejudice is that (in as kind a way as possible) those with gender dysphoria should be told that this is as good as it gets and that you just have to make the best of what god gave you. That you cannot change sex and transitioning only provides a superficial sham of the other gender. But that is my prejudice; that doesn't mean I cannot see that some evidence would be a good thing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My argument was not that puberty is entirely about secondary characteristics, but rather that people (and especially gender dysphoric adolescents) associate puberty with the onset of those characteristics. None of the female patients are looking forward to tumescence and ejaculation, for example, when considering artificial induction of a more male-typical puberty.

I have skepticism. It seemed that your argument was defending as acceptable medical literature using the term "inducing puberty" when they refer to prompting the growth of breasts via exogenous estrogen paired with testosterone suppressants, or prompting the growth of a beard and deep voice.

Now you've replaced that bailey with the motte of "laypeople associate puberty with secondary sex characteristics".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Whilst finger length ratios are not going to change, if a MTF person doesn't go through male puberty, then they won't develop an adam's apple and won't 'need' surgery for this.

I know I'm being pedantic... but this topic really, really needs specificity. The entire topic is awash in squishy language and substitutions of figurate language where literal terms are needed.

That said... I want to rephrase your statement:

Whilst finger length ratios are not going to change, if a MTF person doesn't go through male puberty, then they won't develop an adam's apple and won't 'need' surgery for this.

If a male youth doesn't go through male puberty, then they have not gone through puberty. That said, you're correct - if a male youth doesn't go through puberty, they will retain their childlike body and won't develop adult bodies.

 

[d4m10n]

It seemed that your argument was defending as acceptable medical literature using the term "inducing puberty" when they refer to prompting the growth of breasts via exogenous estrogen paired with testosterone suppressants, or prompting the growth of a beard and deep voice.

We can safely assume that endocrinologists writing guidelines for other medical specialists understand that cross-sex puberty lacks many of the features of ordinary puberty, so I addressed the problem of doctors overpromising to patients.

 

[theprestige]

We can safely assume that endocrinologists writing guidelines for other medical specialists understand that cross-sex puberty lacks many of the features of ordinary puberty, so I addressed the problem of doctors overpromising to patients.

There's no such thing as cross-sex puberty. There is no cocktail of hormones, puberty blockers, and wishful thinking, that results in sex crossover.

And before you go off about phenotypes or secondary characteristics, I have manboobs, not cross-sex tiddies.

 

[d4m10n]

It is not possible to go through a "trans puberty"

There's no such thing as cross-sex puberty.

Look, I get that you both (plus probably @Emily's Cat) don't love the phrases I'm using here, but until you come up with a similarly clear and concise way to refer to the bodily changes wrought upon adolescents by “Protocol Induction of Puberty” (see post #421) I'm going to keep using the phrases which work for me.

ETA: As a former fundamentalist, I'm not a huge fan of manipulating conversation by declaring certain utterances to be blasphemous & I'm getting at least a whiff of that tactic here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Look, I get that you both (plus probably @Emily's Cat) don't love the phrases I'm using here, but until you come up with a similarly clear and concise way to refer to the bodily changes wrought upon adolescents by “Protocol Induction of Puberty” (see post #421) I'm going to keep using the phrases which work for me.

ETA: As a former fundamentalist, I'm not a huge fan of manipulating conversation by declaring certain utterances to be blasphemous & I'm getting at least a whiff of that tactic here.

Yes, me too.

I would suggest induction of secondary sex characteristics. That's a reasonably accurate phrase, where induction of puberty is absolutely NOT accurate and is materially misleading.


ETA: I'll also toss out the reminder that in males given estrogen, they grow fatty deposits in the breast region... but they don't magically generate more lactation glands. Males have vestigial lactation glands, but far, far fewer than females have. So pretty much they get fat that's boob-shaped, but they're not being induced to grow actual functional breasts.

 

[Rolfe]

Distorsion of language has been a major plank of the trans movement. How many words have we seen repurposed and redefined, starting with "woman" of course. This redefining of the word "puberty" is simply more of the same, and a pretty bad one at that.

I don't care whether it "works for you", it's inaccurate and misleading and using it to describe the effects of cross-sex hormones is playing right into the trans agenda.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't care whether it "works for you", it's inaccurate and misleading and using it to describe the effects of cross-sex hormones is playing right into the trans agenda.

I don't think the endocrinologists are misleading one another and the idea that young patients are being misled into believing they would receive all of the usual effects of natural puberty has yet to be supported with any evidence in this thread. When female detransitioners come forward saying they were promised working spermshooters, I'll take this alarmism much more seriously.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, me too.

I would suggest induction of secondary sex characteristics. That's a reasonably accurate phrase, where induction of puberty is absolutely NOT accurate and is materially misleading.


ETA: I'll also toss out the reminder that in males given estrogen, they grow fatty deposits in the breast region... but they don't magically generate more lactation glands. Males have vestigial lactation glands, but far, far fewer than females have. So pretty much they get fat that's boob-shaped, but they're not being induced to grow actual functional breasts.

No no no a thousand times no. I thought I already made this clear. Inducing fatty deposits in my breasts doesn't give me female secondary sex characteristics. It just gives me man boobs.

 

[Rolfe]

You are making the cardinal mistake of thinking that you can read other peoples thoughts!

I do not think that that hormonal therapy does other than give a superficial appearnce more resembling that of the desired gender. Of course there is no way that hormones can induce menarche in someone born male.

The point I was trying to make was a different one so I'll use different words. Assuming we can identify those who despite appropriate psychological intervention will still want to opt for the superficial change in appearance that comes from taking hormonal therapy, are the outcomes for those individuals better if they go through puberty and then take hormonal therapy and hormonal blockers, or if puberty is delayed and hormonal therapy given. I don't know the answer to this. I think it is a possible topic of research. Whilst finger length ratios are not going to change, if a MTF person doesn't go through male puberty, then they won't develop an adam's apple and won't 'need' surgery for this. For a FTM, they won't develop breasts so won't require surgery.

I entirely agree that those with gender dysphoria need realistic information that any change from hormonal therapy is superficial that their sex will remain unchanged, and the effects of hormones and surgery is superficial and would involve life long therapy which has significant negative health aspects. That to some extent this is an irrevocable decision, you can't just go back to what you would have been had you not taken the hormonal therapy.

However, puberty blockers of themselves aren't terrible if used for a limited period. When stopped a delayed natural puberty will normally occur. Another reasonable research question is whether in those with severe gender dysphoria using puberty blockers to buy time for e.g. psychological therapies to work and allowing a planned supported cis puberty to occur ends up being less distressing than going through an 'unplanned' immediate puberty. It would be 'normal' practice to defer premature puberty in young e.g. pre-teen children to an age at which they can cope better with puberty.

Puberty blockers in themselves aren't terrible drugs. It is the whole system and what happens after that is the problem.

My prejudice is that (in as kind a way as possible) those with gender dysphoria should be told that this is as good as it gets and that you just have to make the best of what god gave you. That you cannot change sex and transitioning only provides a superficial sham of the other gender. But that is my prejudice; that doesn't mean I cannot see that some evidence would be a good thing.

You're making quite a few cardinal mistakes here. Your first assumption is simply not the case, and is one of the fundamental problems with any trial of puberty blockers. It is not possible to identify the small subset of adolescents who want puberty blockers as juveniles, and who would still want to transition if they were allowed to go through puberty uninterrupted. There is no screening process proposed to identify such individuals, because no such screen exists.

It should not be controversial to accept that the best possible outcome for a gender-confused young person would be to become comfortable with their own unmutilated body and grow up into an adult who will not be a permanent medical/surgical patient and who is not at risk from any undesirable side-effects of having their puberty blocked and taking wrong-sex hormones. Around 80% of the children recruited into this study would have that outcome if they were not so recruited. However, it's known that the use of puberty blockers turns this 80% into pretty much 0%. Puberty blockers actually prevent the process that allows the young person to become comfortable with the body they actually have, and locks them into a trans identity and on to the path of wrong-sex hormones and mutilating surgery. Consider that first.

So this idea of simply using puberty blockers to delay puberty and then allow it to proceed later doesn't work. This was the original sales pitch, but it doesn't happen. Put these children on puberty blockers and the damage is done. They don't come off them and let normal puberty proceed. They are on the railway. What actually happens is that they become more anxious about puberty and more averse to it, also socially isolated as their peers all grow up around them and go through the physical and mental changes normal for their age, leaving the puberty-blocked frozen in children's bodies and childish minds. Then they grab the offer of wrong-sex hormones as the solution to all their problems.

That on its own should be an absolute block to this experiment. Before you even start, you know that you're preventing 80% of your subjects from having the best possible outcome. The supposed benefits, if they even exist, would only apply to the remaining 20%.

The proposed study has no intention of giving any of these children psychological therapy in the hope that they might decide to come off the blockers and let normal puberty progress. Everyone in the study has been promised blockers. Half will get them right away, and the other half will be forced to wait a year. That's all. The ones waiting a year aren't going to be persuaded they don't want them at all, they're simply going to be resentful and impatient and counting the weeks till they get to have them. It's simply a study to see whether a year's delay makes any difference.

I also wouldn't be too keen to talk to the people who had puberty blockers for precocious puberty, or the same drugs for breast cancer and other diseases, and tell them these drugs "aren't terrible". Many of them beg to differ.

You talk as if there is no serious down-side to this trial. Even leaving aside the incontrovertible fact that 80% of the participants will end up going through a transition they would have avoided if they had simply been left alone, there is strong evidence of significant adverse effects, from loss of adult bone density to loss of IQ points and cognitive deficiencies.

The idea that human experimentation, on children, should be given the green light in this context is terrifying. The limited animal studies are a huge red flag that this is far from a benign intervention, and it ought to be unthinkable that these drugs are given to physically healthy children without a comprehensive series of animal experiments to show that they are in fact acceptably safe. The other issue is the follow-up data on the thousands of young people who already went through the Tavistock. Again, it should be unthinkable that even more children should be fed into this meat-grinder without taking into account the outcomes of the thousands who went before.

"Some evidence" might be a good thing if we could be reasonably confident that children wouldn't be hurt in the attempt to acquire it. But we have no such confidence.

Planigale, you're remarkably keen to press ahead with this desperately flawed study, rather than step back and go through the normal preliminaries to human trials that would precede any human trial on anything else. Why so desperate for this, rather than proper animal studies and a detailed analysis of the outcomes of the existing patients - who were after all enrolled on a trial too?

But then, your persistent ignoring of the last half-dozen times I said the same things, constantly clinging to the fallacy that puberty blockers are harmless and reversible, and constantly rejecting the acquisition of basic safety data from animal tests, and the use of trans-activist language like "cis puberty" God help us, rather reveals where you're coming from on this.

The very best thing that can happen to these children is that they should be supported to go through the natural puberty that is their birthright, at the time their bodies initiate it. That they should be reassured that this natural process is not a disaster, on the contrary it is the process that will lead to their minds maturing and coming to terms with growing up. Why are you so opposed to this? Why do you frame this natural and beneficial process in such negative terms?