Cass Report

[Ziggurat]

So long as you don't mind driving off people willing to argue for gender affirmation, I say go for it.

Personally, I think these threads are much better off with a diversity of viewpoints.

If they cannot argue for gender affirmation honestly, then are their contributions actually helpful?

And this forum has never actually been very welcoming to diverse viewpoints. Hang out in any of the politics threads if you want proof of that. This is about the ONLY topic on which leftist orthodoxy doesn't hold sway, and that's only been possible because a subset of posters have stood up for gender critical viewpoints. And now you're saying they shouldn't do that. Well ◊◊◊◊ that.

 

[theprestige]

I'm not the one asking other people to adopt my own preferred pronouns phrases here.

Bad terminology is bad terminology. I object to pseudoscientific trans affirming language for exact same reasons I object to preferred pronouns. It's misleading. Orwellianly so.

Pretty sure you won't find that phrase in any of the scientific literature about gender, but I'll add it to my decoder ring.

Yes, and that's a major problem I have with the current state of the scientific literature about gender sex.

Also, there is no scientific literature about gender. Just pseudoscience gobbledygook from captured institutions.

I think it would make a good deal more sense for us to talk about whether cross-sex puberty has specific beneficial or detrimental effects than to attempt to get everyone on the same page regarding linguistic pointers to the process.

We've already discussed in depth the specific detrimental effects of deranging puberty in the name of trans affirmation, and the lack of evidence for any specific beneficial effects. We don't need to have that discussion all over again, to restate the obvious conclusion that such trans-affirming treatment deranges puberty, and shouldn't be soft-pedaled with milder language.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because the word police gave me a citation for using that particular word, just a page or two back.

If the gender medicalists scrupulously avoided phrases like “trans puberty” and “Protocol Induction of Puberty” with their adolescent patients and their guardians, they would just come up with even more appealing phrases instead, like "gender affirming maturation" or summat. You're going after labels rather than underlying intent, which is starting to become something of a theme.

I'm going after intent... which includes going after misleading language.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This little rabbit hole opened up because of the accusation that calling GAHT for minors "trans puberty" was deceptive, which is to say that the label doesn't match what's in the tin. This is true in a literal sense, if we take puberty to mean all of the usual aspects of sexual maturation, but untrue in the sense that no one was actually fooled, at least so far as we know from the detrans lawsuits. Teen girls are able to comprehend that they will not literally develop their own wedding tackle and go on to impregnate their future wives.

You're missing the point here. I can't tell if it's accidental, or if it's another round of your devil's advocate approach, or if you are intentionally eliding it.

The point here is that both the term "trans puberty" and "induction of puberty" as used imply that some actual puberty takes place - and that's not true. Youth who take blockers and progress directly to cross sex hormones have some of the associated characteristics that the opposite sex develops during puberty - but they themselves do NOT experience puberty. They do NOT experience sexual maturation.

It's not just nitpicking about language. It's calling out deceptive language that intentionally masks and obfuscates the damage being done.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

I think that if reforms were made to ensure nobody was being deceived or misled, there'd be a whole ◊◊◊◊ ton less demand in the first place.

Look, you're hanging your hat on a technicality here. Doctors say "take blockers, then take testosterone, and you'll grow up to be a man". If you're motivated to play games with words, you can say "but nobody actually thinks that means females are going to sprout a penis and start ejaculating". And maybe you're right, at least most of the time. But that's not the point.

What doctors ought to be saying is "take blockers, then take testosterone, and you'll lock yourself into a pubescent state that inhibits the completion of your cognitive abilities, introduces many serious health risks, prevents you from reaching sexual maturity and experiencing arousal or orgasm, will leave you sterile, and the very best you can hope for is that you'll kind of look like a man as long as nobody looks too closely"

And that's an entirely different message. And it's one that is being obfuscated and hidden from patients, and it negates the entire concept of informed consent.

 

[Emily's Cat]

These days it sometimes seems that all you need to be a radical feminist is to be trans-exclusionary. While I don't identify as a classical radfem, I do identify as a TERF. Trans privilege ideology is antithetical to feminism in all its forms.

Not even that. You don't have to be trans-exclusionary, you only need to be male-in-female-spaces-exclusionary. I can be as much of a classical feminist who welcomes females with transgender identities as I like, and I'll *still* get called a TERF.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think it would make a good deal more sense for us to talk about whether cross-sex puberty has specific beneficial or detrimental effects than to attempt to get everyone on the same page regarding linguistic pointers to the process.

I think it makes even more sense to recognize that "cross-sex puberty" doesn't exist in the first place.

You're asking us to focus on the detriments and benefits of homeopathic treatments, and insisting that we cannot first recognize that they aren't reasonably considered "treatments" in the first goddamned place!

 

[d4m10n]

I think it makes even more sense to recognize that "cross-sex puberty" doesn't exist in the first place.

Are you at all confused about what process I'm referring to here? If not, please let me know what you call it and I'll add that to my decoder ring alongside "deranged puberty" and whatever other phrases are considered gendercritically correct hereabouts.

 

[d4m10n]

We've already discussed in depth the specific detrimental effects of deranging puberty in the name of trans affirmation...

If that were true then we shouldn't be seeing unevidenced claims such as "you'll lock yourself into a pubescent state that inhibits the completion of your cognitive abilities" which have yet to be supported in the relevant medical literature. That is the sort of testable claim that can only be falsified or validated doing the kind of human testing which you folks are seeking to legally ban.

 

[d4m10n]

The point here is that both the term "trans puberty" and "induction of puberty" as used imply that some actual puberty takes place - and that's not true.

"Synthesis of high and moderate-quality studies showed consistent evidence demonstrating induction of puberty, although with varying feminising/masculinising effects."

https://adc.bmj.com/content/109/Suppl_2/s48

 

[Emily's Cat]

Are you at all confused about what process I'm referring to here? If not, please let me know what you call it and I'll add that to my decoder ring alongside "deranged puberty" and whatever other phrases are considered gendercritically correct hereabouts.

I know what you're referring to. And my point stands: it is in no fashion whatsoever a puberty.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Synthesis of high and moderate-quality studies showed consistent evidence demonstrating induction of puberty, although with varying feminising/masculinising effects."

https://adc.bmj.com/content/109/Suppl_2/s48

It's misleading and false language.

 

[d4m10n]

It's misleading and false language.

As a skeptic I can either take your word on this or trust the experts commissioned by Dr. Cass to perform systematic reviews.

 

[theprestige]

If that were true then we shouldn't be seeing unevidenced claims such as "you'll lock yourself into a pubescent state that inhibits the completion of your cognitive abilities" which have yet to be supported in the relevant medical literature.

Now you're just being anti-science. These claims have been evidenced.

That is the sort of testable claim that can only be falsified or validated doing the kind of human testing which you folks are seeking to legally ban.

We already know a lot about how puberty blockers and other trans-affirming treatments work, having already used them for other purposes and gathered data that way. We've also done animal trials that are not promising for the trans-affirming faction.

 

[d4m10n]

These claims have been evidenced.

Where? I don't recall anything in the Cass Review concluding that cross-sex puberty prevents cognitive development comparable to ordinary puberty.

 

[theprestige]

Where? I don't recall anything in the Cass Review concluding that cross-sex puberty prevents cognitive development comparable to ordinary puberty.

Our discussion of these issues has, in spite of the best efforts of the mod team, ranged far beyond the narrow confines of the Cass report.

 

[d4m10n]

Happy to read any medical research on point, if you folks happen to find it.

 

[d4m10n]

And now you're saying they shouldn't do that.

Standing up for what you believe is great, of course.

Demanding that other people to change their language to accommodate your beliefs, not so much.

Two people can have an argument about cross-sex hormone therapy during the crucial window of sexual maturation (or any other scientific issue) without having to agree on the same phrases in advance.

(Maybe not two people here at present.)

 

[Ziggurat]

Standing up for what you believe is great, of course.

Demanding that other people to change their language to accommodate your beliefs, not so much.

The only actual demand made was to clinical practitioners. And your objections don't apply there. They are not in fact free to use whatever language they like.

You personally can use whatever terminology you want, but your choice isn't above criticism. And again, your objections seem selective, not principled.

 

[d4m10n]

You personally can use whatever terminology you want, but your choice isn't above criticism.

Every criticism offered so far has been incredibly weak, so I'm left to conclude that this isn't about modeling reality correctly. No one has been misled by articles using phrases like "artificial trans puberty," we can tell perfectly well what the authors meant.