Cass Report

[Ziggurat]

Letting people use the language they prefer is nothing like "surrender"

How am I not letting people use the language they prefer? I'm not a mod or an admin or an owner, I don't set the rules let alone enforce them. The only language that people don't get to use on this issue is the pronouns of the speaker's choice.

but demanding that they use your own preferred phrases does seem like you want them to do so.

I'm not demanding anything of the sort. I don't have the capability to demand it. I'm criticizing choices people make. Which *I* get to do when exercising *my* free speech rights. Are you trying to silence my ability to criticize?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Letting people use the language they prefer is nothing like "surrender" but demanding that they use your own preferred phrases does seem like you want them to do so.

You can use whatever language you want; I will continue to point out that your language is materially misleading and false.

 

[d4m10n]

You can use whatever language you want; I will continue to point out that your language is materially misleading and false.

No, you will continue to assert that phrases used by science writers, clinicians, and researchers are misleading without providing evidence that anyone (either here at ISF or in another context) was ever actually misled. When Alison George wrote that Dutch researchers "plan to investigate the effects on the brain of going through an artificial trans puberty" it is possible that readers of New Scientist were substantively misled, but I remain highly skeptical of that claim. It should be obvious in context what she meant, at least to the sort of folks who read popular science magazines.

 

[d4m10n]

Are you trying to silence my ability to criticize?

Look, if you want this thread to consist entirely of people who already agree with you that youth gender medicine is so harmful that it should be banned throughout the OECD, then by all means continue policing people's choice of phrases whenever they use language which is (still) mainstream in popular and scholarly scientific sources.

If you want to engage with some diversity of opinion, though, consider throttling that back and focusing on substantive questions rather than linguistic disagreements. People are more willing to engage when you are not actively denouncing them for lying just for being gendercritically incorrect in their choice of language.

 

[Ziggurat]

Look, if you want this thread to consist entirely of people who already agree with you that youth gender medicine is so harmful that it should be banned throughout the OECD, then by all means continue policing people's choice of phrases whenever they use language which is (still) mainstream in popular and scholarly scientific sources.

If you want to engage with some diversity of opinion, though, consider throttling that back and focusing on substantive questions rather than linguistic disagreements. People are more willing to engage when you are not actively denouncing them for lying just for being gendercritically incorrect in their choice of language.

No. Language matters. Stop pretending it doesn't.

 

[d4m10n]

Language matters. Stop pretending it doesn't.

If you're going to be such a stickler about language, you should strive to be a careful reader as well. The language I've actually used here (which does matter) will reveal that I've never once "pretended" that the phrases we use do not matter at all, but I have claimed that word choice matters significantly less than the substantive disagreements we have over scientifically falsifiable claims, at least for our purposes here in an informal, unprofessional forum which cannot effect actual medical practice anywhere.

For example, whether cross-sex hormones used in protocol induction of puberty [GC preferred phrase here] cause rewiring of neural circuits comparable to natural puberty in the opposite sex (link at #568) is a testable scientific question which I would like to know more about. We can only discuss this scientific question once we get past the unfortunate fact that the scientists and clinicians continue to use phrases which you find unacceptable in their discussions of the research, phrases which you will have to learn in order to discuss the material at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you're going to be such a stickler about language, you should strive to be a careful reader as well. The language I've actually used here (which does matter) will reveal that I've never once "pretended" that the phrases we use do not matter at all, but I have claimed that word choice matters significantly less than the substantive disagreements we have over scientifically falsifiable claims, at least for our purposes here in an informal, unprofessional forum which cannot effect actual medical practice anywhere.

What's your point? Unless you're suggesting that I'm not allowed to care about one issue if there's a bigger issue, then I don't see how this is relevant. And if you are suggesting that, well, that would just be wrong.

For example, whether cross-sex hormones used in protocol induction of puberty [GC preferred phrase here] cause rewiring of neural circuits comparable to natural puberty in the opposite sex (link at #568) is a testable scientific question which I would like to know more about. We can only discuss this scientific question once we get past the unfortunate fact that the scientists and clinicians continue to use phrases which you find unacceptable in their discussions of the research, phrases which you will have to learn in order to discuss the material at all.

I have never once stopped you from talking about that issue. I have never once tried to stop you from talking about that issue. If you aren't talking about that issue, it's because you have chosen not to, not because I made you stop talking about it. Don't blame me for your choice.

But here's the kicker. You don't even need any gender critical approved phrase. You can describe the thing in neutral and factual terms, such as this:

Whether cross-sex hormones used in the treatment of gender dysphoria in children cause rewiring of neural circuits comparable to natural puberty in the opposite sex is a testable scientific question which I would like to know more about.​

That's not "gender critical" language. That's just an accurate description.

 

[d4m10n]

That's not "gender critical" language. That's just an accurate description.

It might well be an accurate description if it included the specific timeframe we associate with pubertal development. That time frame might well be inferred from the use of the word "puberty" later in that sentence, but that inference only works if we are already controlling for age.

Back to my main point, though. If you want to interact with the Cass Report and the various systemic reviews they commissioned for the sake of understanding the scope and nature of the youth gender medicine, you are going to have to deal with the fact that they do not restrict their language as you do. For example, in this study the authors use puberty/pubertal to mean either natural puberty or the induced effects of GAHT, depending on context. For another example, see paragraph 15.20 in the final report. If you insist that "pubertal" can only refer to the natural process guided by endogenous hormones, you will find yourself unable to comprehend and evaluate the material, which was after all the original purpose of this thread.

What's your point?

For the nth time, we'd be better off discussing specific questions which might be answered by science than bitching about words and phrases used by the people doing the science.

 

[Ziggurat]

Back to my main point, though. If you want to interact with the Cass Report and the various systemic reviews they commissioned for the sake of understanding the scope and nature of the youth gender medicine, you are going to have to deal with the fact that they do not restrict their language as you do.

Are you under the impression that I am not able to understand language which I criticize? I assure you, that is not the case.

For the nth time, we'd be better off discussing specific questions which might be answered by science than bitching about words and phrases used by the people doing the science.

For the nth time, I'm not restricting what you discuss in any way, shape, or form.

 

[d4m10n]

Are you under the impression that I am not able to understand language which I criticize?

A bit, yes.

For example, you claimed that "induced puberty" impairs cognitive development at #575 but the only evidence you provided was about pubertal blockade, which is an earlier phase in the treatment pathway, prior to pubertal induction.

 

[Ziggurat]

A bit, yes.

For example, you claimed that "induced puberty" impairs cognitive development at #575 but the only evidence you provided was about pubertal blockade, which is an earlier phase in the treatment pathway, prior to pubertal induction.

Are you seriously arguing that we don't have to worry about impaired cognitive development with "pubertal induction" because that impairment happens earlier in treatment? That's... quite the take.

 

[d4m10n]

Are you seriously arguing that we don't have to worry about impaired cognitive development with "pubertal induction" because that impairment happens earlier in treatment?

I am seriously arguing that pubertal blockade is actually a different treatment than cross-sex GAHT, that it is possible to undergo only one of the two treatments, and that the costs/benefits must therefore be measured separately. It is theoretically possible that both blockade and GAHT significantly decrease some desirable outcome (e.g. bone density, IQ) but it is also possible that the latter treatment tends to cancel out the former one.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am seriously arguing that pubertal blockade is actually a different treatment than cross-sex GAHT, that it is possible to undergo only one of the two treatments, and that the costs/benefits must therefore be measured separately.

Indeed, this is theoretically possible.

It is not, however, the recommended treatment protocol that your source uses. The source you cited as justification for calling cross-sex hormone treatment "puberty".

 

[d4m10n]

The source you cited as justification for calling cross-sex hormone treatment "puberty".

The vast majority of the time, cross-sex hormones are administered to people who have already been through all the usual neurological and physiological changes wrought by natural puberty, so it would make no sense to invoke the idea of an induced puberty; that concept only makes sense when cross-sex hormones are prescribed very early or else prescribed after some months or years of pubertal blockade.

That aside, I'm not trying to justify calling it anything in particular, I am trying to redirect the thread back to it's original purpose ("focus solely on the scientifically answerable questions") instead of allowing it to become yet another gender critical echo chamber in which you all snipe at posters for using language drawn from mainstream sources (e.g. scientific journals/magazines, clinical guidelines, etc.) in order to create an atmosphere of political conformity which subverts the point of the thread.

tl;dr - If you are going to side-track this thread with semantic squabbles, at least try to tie it back to some empirical question about youth gender medicine.

 

[Ziggurat]

That aside, I'm not trying to justify calling it anything in particular, I am trying to redirect the thread back to it's original purpose ("focus solely on the scientifically answerable questions") instead of allowing it to become yet another gender critical echo chamber in which you all snipe at posters for using language drawn from mainstream sources (e.g. scientific journals/magazines, clinical guidelines, etc.) in order to create an atmosphere of political conformity which subverts the point of the thread.

The fact that "mainstream" sources are abusing language to push an agenda is very much on topic. The idea that we should not discuss that because some people might not like me saying that is irrelevant. I have no obligation to keep silent for anyone's comfort.

tl;dr - If you are going to side-track this thread with semantic squabbles, at least try to tie it back to some empirical question about youth gender medicine.

You brought in the alleged authority to justify the term. Discussing how they use the term isn't *me* side tracking anything. And the empirical reality is that they use the term to describe administration of cross sex hormones after puberty blockers.

 

[Rolfe]

MPs can’t stay silent on this grotesque experiment on kids

The NHS’s puberty-blockers trial will do enormous damage to children if it isn’t promptly stopped.

www.spiked-online.com

 

[d4m10n]

The fact that "mainstream" sources are abusing language to push an agenda is very much on topic.

As the author of the OP, I suggest you re-read it.

You brought in the alleged authority to justify the term.

No one needs to justify any of their terms here, though sometimes explanations are helpful.

 

[Rolfe]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2040458550481449126

 

[Rolfe]

Same article, I think.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2040740080877277625

Or as another commentator put it...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2040556274748715345

 

[wobs]

A 2hour talk from Philosophy Tube on conversion therapy in the UK.

I watched it with not a huge knowledge on the subject, and no strong opinions either way, but there in compelling evidence in it to point to the Cass report supporting conversion therapy.

She goes into the Cass report from about 1.30.00 into it, but may ref it earlier, I watched the whole thing last week.

She's a trans woman herself, so you could argue she has her own biased, but she points out multiple biases in the report (summarised 1.47.00), and makes the claim that a person's body should not be up to professional's to decide what happens to them. It should be the individual.