Cass Report

[d4m10n]

You haven't established that.

The burden of the claim "using XYZ language is deceptive" is upon the claimant rather than the skeptic.

You haven't yet established the fact that anyone was deceived by the language in question.

If they thought that it would produce more of the outcomes of regular puberty than it actually does, then they were fooled.

Nearly effortless to posit patients were thus fooled; takes effort to find actual examples.

Your bar for deception is nonsensical.

I did not choose to focus on reproductive capacity as the crucial aspect of puberty (which you would know had you read the previous page) and was replying to that focus when it comes to the "deceptive" language in question.

 

[Ziggurat]

The burden of the claim "using XYZ language is deceptive" is upon the claimant rather than the skeptic.

You've conflated two different claims here, and moved your goalpost. "using XYZ language is deceptive" is a different claim than "ABC persons were deceived by XYZ language". You were trying to to demand proof of the latter, not the former. But the former is provable by simply examining the language itself.

You haven't established that anyone was deceived by the language in question.

I don't think I need to. The language itself is deceptive. We know people have been deceived on this issue. And the consequences of deception are sufficient that preventing deceptive language is justified even if no one has yet been deceived.

Nearly effortless to say some were thus fooled; takes effort to find actual examples.

We have examples of people who were fooled by promises of medical transition. Why you're hung up on trying to allow specific deceptive language on the basis that this specific deceptive language might not have fooled anyone yet is beyond me. I don't get your apologism. I don't get your enthusiasm for undermining guard rails on informed consent on the basis that we need to wait for someone to be deceived before we try to prevent deception. That's perverse.

 

[Rolfe]

All this started because Planigale talked about reversing the unwanted puberty, as if that's something that's possible, and then going through the other puberty, again as if that's something that's possible.

Semantics aside, we seem to agree that in fact it is only possible to go through puberty in the sex you actually are. If you don't do this, you remain in a permanently pre-pubertal state, although you may acquire some of the superficial secondary sexual characteristics of the sex you aren't, by taking cross-sex hormones. It is also not possible to undo puberty once you have been through it.

If we're agreed on this, then squabbling about terminology is a bit of a side issue.

 

[d4m10n]

You've conflated two different claims here, and moved your goalpost. "using XYZ language is deceptive" is a different claim than "ABC persons were deceived by XYZ language". You were trying to to demand proof of the latter, not the former. But the former is provable by simply examining the language itself.

If you use language in a way that deceives no one, you are not being deceptive. You might be attempting deception and failing, but even that is arguable in this instance because female patients do not expect all the usual results of male puberty, only the "superficial secondary sexual characteristics" mentioned above.

We have examples of people who were fooled by promises of medical transition.

What unmet expectations did they mention, specifically?

 

[Ziggurat]

If you use language in a way that deceives no one, you are not being deceptive. You might be attempting deception and failing,

You have this very bad habit of being pedantic about stuff that you have no reason to be pedantic about. The distinction between being deceptive and trying to be deceptive is not one that matters here. When it comes to informed consent and medical care, even attempting to be deceptive isn't acceptable. I can't believe I need to say that.

but even that is arguable in this instance because female patients do not expect all the usual results of male puberty, only the "superficial secondary sexual characteristics" mentioned above.

They... don't get those, not in full.

What unmet expectations did they mention, specifically?

Have you not heard any of the testimony of detransitioners?

 

[Rolfe]

I don't know if this was already posted, but another look wouldn't hurt.

PATHWAYS puberty blocker trial is a return to pre-Cass activism - Transgender Trend

The PATHWAYS puberty blocker trial is a return from Cass-based evidence to the activist-based ideology of the Tavistock GIDS.

www.transgendertrend.com

 

[d4m10n]

Have you not heard any of the testimony of detransitioners?

I've definitely heard Chloe Cole on a few interviews, but I don't specifically remember her saying she was deceived about what physical changes she should expect. Are you expecting me to remember the specific parts you are currently refusing to mention?

You have this very bad habit of being pedantic about stuff that you have no reason to be pedantic about.

This is defensive pedantry at worst—I'm not the one in this thread trying to berate other posters into changing their language for reasons which quite likely do not apply in this narrow context. Also, to be frank, this entire subthread stinks of smoked herring. We can rest fairly well assured that everyone trying to police language like "trans puberty" would still be dead set against youth gender medicine even if researchers and clinicians adopted their preferred language in lieu of current gender affirmative language.

When it comes to informed consent and medical care, even attempting to be deceptive isn't acceptable.

Would you be in favor of decriminalizing youth gender medicine if reforms were made to ensure no one was being deceived or otherwise lacking in informed consent?

 

[Ziggurat]

This is defensive pedantry at worst—I'm not the one in this thread trying to berate other posters into changing their language for reasons which quite likely do not apply in this narrow context.

You're the only one trying to make this a narrow context. The original objection was one of general principles about language, it wasn't specifically about how female minors being transitioned might interpret the term. And the more you try to defend this deceptive language with your own contortions about it, the more convinced I become that maybe holding the line on language actually is important.

Also, to be frank, this entire subthread stinks of smoked herring. We can rest fairly well assured that everyone trying to police language like "trans puberty" would still be dead set against youth gender medicine even if researchers and clinicians adopted their preferred language in lieu of current gender affirmative language.

Let's suppose that's true. So what? You seem to be suggesting that if medical transition for minors is prohibited completely, then we don't have to worry about what language gets used. The idea seems to be we don't have to be honest about it if it never happens. But that doesn't actually follow. For one thing, medical transition for minors isn't prohibited everywhere. For another, since even if that were achieved, it would be reversible (it could be permitted again in the future), so how we talk about it matters. This is a political question, after all. And voters are very much being deceived on these issues. How these things are discussed in general actually matters.

Would you be in favor of decriminalizing youth gender medicine if reforms were made to ensure no one was being deceived or otherwise lacking in informed consent?

Not in the absence of demonstrating that it's safe AND effective. Which starts with testing on animal models, not children.

And given the consistent history of deception on the issue (with almost universal claims by providers that puberty blockers are reversible), I do not know what reforms you think are even possible which would ensure honesty. The providers do not want to provide informed consent, and given the lack of evidence, they aren't even capable of providing informed consent.

 

[Rolfe]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2031389281030160478

 

[Rolfe]

Ah, here's a new article that covers this pretty well.

Puberty Blockers Aren't Curing Gender Dysphoria. They're Manufacturing It. | www.PhysiciansWeekly.com

New evidence suggests puberty blockers may deepen gender distress instead of easing it.

www.physiciansweekly.com

 

[d4m10n]

You're the only one trying to make this a narrow context.

There are literally people who move posts to AAH whenever they stray too far from the original topic, that is, evidence in support of youth gender medicine or the lack thereof. That is the narrow context for this discussion.

The original objection was one of general principles about language, it wasn't specifically about how female minors being transitioned might interpret the term.

Language is usage—as the linguists say—and I've yet to see any concrete examples of any individual (doctor/patient/poster) confused by “induction of puberty” or related phrases in the narrow context of youth gender medicine.

And the more you try to defend this deceptive language...

The more you avoid saying who exactly was deceived the more skeptical I become of your claim that the phrases under contention are actually (rather than merely potentially) deceptive.

You seem to be suggesting that if medical transition for minors is prohibited completely, then we don't have to worry about what language gets used.

If your endgame is completely banning medical transition for minors, getting the doctors to use clearer language doesn't even help you achieve your own goals. It's like giving your car a thorough tune-up on the way to the hydraulic auto crusher.

And voters are very much being deceived on these issues.

Have voters complained about being fooled into believing GAHT can provide all the usual benefits of natural puberty?

 

[Ziggurat]

If your endgame is completely banning medical transition for minors, getting the doctors to use clearer language doesn't even help you achieve your own goals. It's like giving your car a thorough tune-up on the way to the hydraulic auto crusher.

First off, that's not my only goal. Secondly, no, it's nothing like that. This is ultimately a political question. The language we use to describe things is quite central to how politics works. What language gets used to describe something is absolutely impactful to how the public responds. Which is why the TRAs fight so hard to use deceptive language.

Have voters complained about being fooled into believing GAHT can provide all the usual benefits of natural puberty?

Voters rarely ever acknowledge that they were fooled, and aren't always even aware that they were.

 

[d4m10n]

What language gets used to describe something is absolutely impactful to how the public responds.

Do you sincerely believe the public is being exposed to phrases like "trans puberty" which kicked off this subthread? Seems fairly niche, but maybe that is happening at The Atlantic or what-have-you, and maybe the reading public is ignorant enough to believe that "trans puberty" implies fully functional primary opposite sex characteristics rather than merely more passable body habitus. Seems like quite a stretch in order to avoid the obvious fact that policing language in this thread won't likely help anyone outside of ISF, but okay. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The language we use to describe things is quite central to how politics works.

This might well explain why we need to learn at least two phrases to describe various political movements. For example, when someone says "gender critical feminists" and someone else says "TERFs" I realize that they are talking about almost the same group of people, but with different labels. For another example, when someone says "pro-life activists" and someone else says "forced birthers" I realize that they are talking about almost the same group of people, but with different labels. So it is with "trans puberty" and whatever it is you decide to call it. I'll have to learn two sets of labels if I want to engage with both sides of the debate, and I'm going to use my freedom to code-switch between the two as I see fit even if you continue to complain that by doing so I will somehow mislead the considerable fraction of the voting public who consult obscure skeptic boards for political guidance.

Which is why the TRAs fight so hard to use deceptive language.

Are you counting the endocrinologists who put together the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline was TRAs here? I had thought that the rights activists themselves were distinct from the medical practitioners they supposedly "captured" with their values and ideas.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you sincerely believe the public is being exposed to phrases like "trans puberty" which kicked off this subthread?

To the extent that they're being exposed to these issues at all (not everyone is), yes.

Are you counting the endocrinologists who put together the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline was TRAs here? I had thought that the rights activists themselves were distinct from the medical practitioners they supposedly "captured" with their values and ideas.

Institutions are captured, not individuals. Individuals are just cowed. The individuals who do the capturing are TRAs. If you go along with the TRA agenda without believing in it, you might not be a TRA, but the distinction doesn't really matter externally.

 

[d4m10n]

Institutions are captured, not individuals.

Institutions (such as the aforementioned Endocrine Society) are made up of individuals, any of whom can be true believers in an ideology, "just cowed" by true believers, or somewhere in between. I think it's fair to presume that the individual authors of the guideline in question are all true believers—or else they would not have signed up to promote protocols for induction of puberty in the first place—but I don't think it makes sense to conflate them with activists like Chase Strangio and Zinnia Jones who don't have another profession.

To the extent that they're being exposed to these issues at all...

...they are being exposed to them by mainstream news sources which probably use language which you would find insufficiently deferential to the gender critically correct terminology, to be sure. Recent reporting on youth gender medicine at the NYT, for example, has been fairly skeptical of the entire field (e.g. Bazelon, Ghorayshi, Singal) but still couched in the usual terminology so as not to confuse general readership by introducing a parallel lexicon at the outset.

 

[Rolfe]

The Endocrine Society is controlled by committed trans activists. Hope that helps.

 

[d4m10n]

Feels like the CT forum but ok…

 

[theprestige]

I find that the time to

Have voters complained about being fooled into believing GAHT can provide all the usual benefits of natural puberty?

I feel like the best time to denounce deceptive language is long before it rises to the level of having to put it to a formal vote and pass a goddamn law about it.

 

[d4m10n]

Who was deceived?

It is possible that some teen girl somewhere was led to believe she'd grow up to impregnate her wife because she took "puberty" far too literally in the context of discussions about the process of transition, but it doesn't seem all that likely given the numbers involved.

 

[theprestige]

Who was deceived?

For me it's a matter of risk assessment. What are the consequences if even one person is deceived? Well, the consequences are pretty horrific. I'm more interested in mitigating the risk up front, rather than waiting to see how many children get mutilated because the reality wasn't clearly explained ahead of time.