The Cass Review Final Report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Every major US medical association – including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry – agrees that gender-affirming care is clinically appropriate for children and adults.”

It’s the current best practice.

And this study is going to change that. Thankfully.

That’s not what this study says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what a high ranking HHS official has consistently said about puberty blockers & hormones for kids:

“ Gender-affirming care is medical care. It is mental health care. It is suicide prevention care. It improves quality of life, and it saves lives. It is based on decades of study. It is a well-established medical practice... The positive value of gender-affirming care is not in serious scientific or medical dispute.”

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/04/30/remarks-by-hhs-assistant-secretary-for-health-adm-rachel-levine-for-the-2022-out-for-health-conference.html

What is remarkable about that quote is that literally every single line is either flat-out untrue or at best a hypothesis currently unsupported by sufficient medical evidence.

From a public policy point of view, it is infuriating. How can the government expect people to trust them on any public health issue after this, particularly when it comes to their children? The dereliction of duty by an entity we should be able to trust is horrific.

Public health has actually always been propaganda in large part.

No. That’s not true. There have been many, many examples of truthful and science-based public health efforts that save and improve many lives. Take all the anti-smoking initiatives: these have probably saved thousands of lives over the years. Or the child seat and seatbelt efforts. Or childhood vaccines.

You don’t get to discredit all public health because the current HHS is irredeemably ethically compromised on the issue of medicalized treatment for gender dysphoria in children. But it is absolutely true that overt lying like this adds to an extremely damaging narrative about public health that weakens all efforts overall. The HHS is explicitly lying here, provably so, and that’s incredibly damaging and harmful to all public health. And it is reasonable to be angry about that.

“propaganda” describes public messaging tactics that can be used for good or bad. it’s literally the heart of public health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gaslighting on nobody saying medicalized care for gender dysphoria is “settled science” is quite remarkable.

About five seconds of searching the Internet produced this from GLAAD, arguing that even the mildest investigation of the actual science by the NYT was “transphobic” because the science is, to quote their use of caps, “SETTLED.”

Specifically GLAAD demands that the NYT stop asking questions about science: “Stop questioning science that is SETTLED.”

https://glaad.org/new-york-times-sign-on-letter-from-lgtbq-allied-leaders-and-organizations/

You completely missed the point of the letter.

They don’t want the NYT to give anti-trans activists a platform to spread lies/misinformation.

wow talk about missing the point! the NYTimes is (supposedly) and impartial news organization. they are in fact supposed to report on any and all aspects of issues, including those that activitists are opposed to.

They don’t need to give voice to extremists pushing hate, like KKK members.

(That might disappoint anti-DEI posters…)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what a high ranking HHS official has consistently said about puberty blockers & hormones for kids:

“ Gender-affirming care is medical care. It is mental health care. It is suicide prevention care. It improves quality of life, and it saves lives. It is based on decades of study. It is a well-established medical practice... The positive value of gender-affirming care is not in serious scientific or medical dispute.”

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/04/30/remarks-by-hhs-assistant-secretary-for-health-adm-rachel-levine-for-the-2022-out-for-health-conference.html

Ok…and? That’s how science/medicine works. You act based on the current guidelines. Those change over time - obviously.

But when those current guidelines are proven false, you don’t kick and scream and insist they’re right. You change the guidelines. And follow the new ones. That’s how science/medicine works.

Ok. As soon as we have better guidelines, the medical practitioners will adjust.

Until then, they will stick with the current best practices.

As a medical practitioner, a study like this would be enough for me to change my practice. It would be enough for many of us.

Are you the prison podiatrist who thinks that transgenderism is a mental illness?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angry voices in here decrying the report belong to parents who trusted medical professionals' claims that the science on puberty blockers was settled.

If so, I understand their anger and the fear underlying it. It is terrifying to realize that "experts" misled you on the science, and that you consented to treatments that have not, in fact, been proven to be benign (or reversible).

But I encourage you to read the report. It is publicly available, and free; why not read it? At the least, perhaps you can generate some original criticism, rather than recycling the same three or four objections that are also circulating on other social media. I don't know where those talking points originated, but it's pretty clear that whoever came up with them had not read the entire report.

Literally no one claimed that. Not surprising that someone hyping up this biased report would throw out lazy strawman arguments.

Major medical organizations and organizations advocating for transgender youth just a few years ago were saying that puberty blockers were “fully reversible” and the science around medicalized treatment for transgender youth was settled science. There are many screenshots if you care to look. Of course that’s all been removed now, as it’s obviously inaccurate.

No one was saying it was “settled science”.

DP. Except people were. Activists and laypeople were. Especially as a mechanism to shut down conversations. I remember a specific instance of being told by a particular acquaintance that it was “settled science”.

I mean, just a few days ago CNN was claiming that “mainstream science” agreed that males have no athletic advantages over females (based on a single paper written 7 years ago).

“ But mainstream science does not support that conclusion. A 2017 report in the journal Sports Medicine that reviewed several related studies found “no direct or consistent research” on trans people having an athletic advantage over their cisgender peers, and critics say the bans add to the discrimination trans people face”.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/08/sport/naia-bans-trans-athletes-dawn-staley-reaj

CNN also consistently characterizes gender affirming care as evidence-based and a “gold standard”, depicting it as a scientific consensus (even in articles that are actually reporting on lack of consensus!)

“ Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based individualized care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned gender – the one the person was designated at birth – to their affirmed gender – the gender by which one wants to be known.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/02/26/health/endocrine-society-gender-affirming-care-guidelines

1. You are misrepresenting what was quoted in the first CNN article. It did not say that. Just look at the quote you included.

2. Neither article say it’s “settled science”. In fact, the second article is discussing updating guidelines.

“ The committee revising the guidelines has had its first meeting, said chairperson Dr. Joshua Safer. The last time the committee updated its gender-affirming care guidelines was in 2017; it previously revised them in 2009.

“To be clear, we’ve been following our usual guideline process that we apply to anything that we do, whether it’s diabetes or thyroid etc., to transgender medical care,” said Safer, a member of the Endocrine Society who also serves as executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in New York. “Being the doctors in the room, we look at current data to give appropriate recommendations.””

Huh? the first article literally says it is “mainstream science” that transitioned natal males have no athletic advantage. what does “mainstream science” mean to you?

The second article literally says that gender affirming endocrinolgy care (puberty blockers and hormones) are the “gold standard.” Then yes, they quote the doctors stating the exact opposite - that in fact nothing is “gold standard” and they are reassessing.

I’m looking forwards to CNN stealth dropping all of this verbiage as time goes on and it becomes clear that in fact there is no mainstream scientific consensus or gold standard.

1. Your comment was “males have no athletic advantages over females” which is very different than the quote. Transgender women are not representative of all males. Of course you’re being misleading.

2. The “gold standard” means the current best practices. Which change over time.

that’s some absurd back-bending. they cite ONE study on trans athletes then claim that all of “mainstream science” agrees (with a completely counter-instuitive and counter-experience result).

“gold standard” means a degree of consensus not “current best practices”. no gold standard in favor of puberty blockers and hormones actually existed, ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what a high ranking HHS official has consistently said about puberty blockers & hormones for kids:

“ Gender-affirming care is medical care. It is mental health care. It is suicide prevention care. It improves quality of life, and it saves lives. It is based on decades of study. It is a well-established medical practice... The positive value of gender-affirming care is not in serious scientific or medical dispute.”

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/04/30/remarks-by-hhs-assistant-secretary-for-health-adm-rachel-levine-for-the-2022-out-for-health-conference.html

Ok…and? That’s how science/medicine works. You act based on the current guidelines. Those change over time - obviously.

No, false claims of certainty are not “how science/medicine works.”

Just because some random food doctor doesn’t agree doesn’t mean they are “false claims”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gaslighting on nobody saying medicalized care for gender dysphoria is “settled science” is quite remarkable.

About five seconds of searching the Internet produced this from GLAAD, arguing that even the mildest investigation of the actual science by the NYT was “transphobic” because the science is, to quote their use of caps, “SETTLED.”

Specifically GLAAD demands that the NYT stop asking questions about science: “Stop questioning science that is SETTLED.”

https://glaad.org/new-york-times-sign-on-letter-from-lgtbq-allied-leaders-and-organizations/

You completely missed the point of the letter.

They don’t want the NYT to give anti-trans activists a platform to spread lies/misinformation.

wow talk about missing the point! the NYTimes is (supposedly) and impartial news organization. they are in fact supposed to report on any and all aspects of issues, including those that activitists are opposed to.

They don’t need to give voice to extremists pushing hate, like KKK members.

(That might disappoint anti-DEI posters…)

Let’s re-cap here. A PP, possibly you, was insisting that “nobody” was claiming that medicalized care for gender dysphoria was “settled science.” A link was then provided showing most influential LGBTQ+ organization in the United States stating explicitly that science was “SETTLED” and in fact going even further than that and demanding that the NYT not ask any questions of that “SETTLED” science.

You don’t get to rewrite what GLAAD literally wrote because you’ve been proven spectacularly wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gaslighting on nobody saying medicalized care for gender dysphoria is “settled science” is quite remarkable.

About five seconds of searching the Internet produced this from GLAAD, arguing that even the mildest investigation of the actual science by the NYT was “transphobic” because the science is, to quote their use of caps, “SETTLED.”

Specifically GLAAD demands that the NYT stop asking questions about science: “Stop questioning science that is SETTLED.”

https://glaad.org/new-york-times-sign-on-letter-from-lgtbq-allied-leaders-and-organizations/

You completely missed the point of the letter.

They don’t want the NYT to give anti-trans activists a platform to spread lies/misinformation.

wow talk about missing the point! the NYTimes is (supposedly) and impartial news organization. they are in fact supposed to report on any and all aspects of issues, including those that activitists are opposed to.

They don’t need to give voice to extremists pushing hate, like KKK members.

(That might disappoint anti-DEI posters…)

Again, they are reporters, not advocates. I fully expect them to “give voice” to anyone and everyone that is part of an issue they report on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angry voices in here decrying the report belong to parents who trusted medical professionals' claims that the science on puberty blockers was settled.

If so, I understand their anger and the fear underlying it. It is terrifying to realize that "experts" misled you on the science, and that you consented to treatments that have not, in fact, been proven to be benign (or reversible).

But I encourage you to read the report. It is publicly available, and free; why not read it? At the least, perhaps you can generate some original criticism, rather than recycling the same three or four objections that are also circulating on other social media. I don't know where those talking points originated, but it's pretty clear that whoever came up with them had not read the entire report.

Literally no one claimed that. Not surprising that someone hyping up this biased report would throw out lazy strawman arguments.

Major medical organizations and organizations advocating for transgender youth just a few years ago were saying that puberty blockers were “fully reversible” and the science around medicalized treatment for transgender youth was settled science. There are many screenshots if you care to look. Of course that’s all been removed now, as it’s obviously inaccurate.

No one was saying it was “settled science”.

DP. Except people were. Activists and laypeople were. Especially as a mechanism to shut down conversations. I remember a specific instance of being told by a particular acquaintance that it was “settled science”.

I mean, just a few days ago CNN was claiming that “mainstream science” agreed that males have no athletic advantages over females (based on a single paper written 7 years ago).

“ But mainstream science does not support that conclusion. A 2017 report in the journal Sports Medicine that reviewed several related studies found “no direct or consistent research” on trans people having an athletic advantage over their cisgender peers, and critics say the bans add to the discrimination trans people face”.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/08/sport/naia-bans-trans-athletes-dawn-staley-reaj

CNN also consistently characterizes gender affirming care as evidence-based and a “gold standard”, depicting it as a scientific consensus (even in articles that are actually reporting on lack of consensus!)

“ Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based individualized care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned gender – the one the person was designated at birth – to their affirmed gender – the gender by which one wants to be known.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/02/26/health/endocrine-society-gender-affirming-care-guidelines

1. You are misrepresenting what was quoted in the first CNN article. It did not say that. Just look at the quote you included.

2. Neither article say it’s “settled science”. In fact, the second article is discussing updating guidelines.

“ The committee revising the guidelines has had its first meeting, said chairperson Dr. Joshua Safer. The last time the committee updated its gender-affirming care guidelines was in 2017; it previously revised them in 2009.

“To be clear, we’ve been following our usual guideline process that we apply to anything that we do, whether it’s diabetes or thyroid etc., to transgender medical care,” said Safer, a member of the Endocrine Society who also serves as executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in New York. “Being the doctors in the room, we look at current data to give appropriate recommendations.””

Huh? the first article literally says it is “mainstream science” that transitioned natal males have no athletic advantage. what does “mainstream science” mean to you?

The second article literally says that gender affirming endocrinolgy care (puberty blockers and hormones) are the “gold standard.” Then yes, they quote the doctors stating the exact opposite - that in fact nothing is “gold standard” and they are reassessing.

I’m looking forwards to CNN stealth dropping all of this verbiage as time goes on and it becomes clear that in fact there is no mainstream scientific consensus or gold standard.

1. Your comment was “males have no athletic advantages over females” which is very different than the quote. Transgender women are not representative of all males. Of course you’re being misleading.

2. The “gold standard” means the current best practices. Which change over time.

that’s some absurd back-bending. they cite ONE study on trans athletes then claim that all of “mainstream science” agrees (with a completely counter-instuitive and counter-experience result).

“gold standard” means a degree of consensus not “current best practices”. no gold standard in favor of puberty blockers and hormones actually existed, ever.

“Gold standard” means best available, the benchmark that possible alternatives are compared against.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard_(test)


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC557893/

“The concept of a “golden standard” implies a level of perfection that can never be attained by any biological test, and will provoke criticism like that ventilated by Duggan.2 In contrast, a gold standard in its true meaning, derived from the monetary gold standard, merely denotes the best tool available at that time to compare different measures. Even in its glory days, the monetary gold standard was never considered perfect. It was subject to endless debate, and in the end it was abandoned for a better system. Similarly, today's gold standard tests will be replaced by better ones. As was eloquently stated by Versi: “It is the absolute truth that is never reached; gold standards are constantly challenged and superseded when appropriate.””

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what a high ranking HHS official has consistently said about puberty blockers & hormones for kids:

“ Gender-affirming care is medical care. It is mental health care. It is suicide prevention care. It improves quality of life, and it saves lives. It is based on decades of study. It is a well-established medical practice... The positive value of gender-affirming care is not in serious scientific or medical dispute.”

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/04/30/remarks-by-hhs-assistant-secretary-for-health-adm-rachel-levine-for-the-2022-out-for-health-conference.html

Ok…and? That’s how science/medicine works. You act based on the current guidelines. Those change over time - obviously.

No, false claims of certainty are not “how science/medicine works.”

Just because some random food doctor doesn’t agree doesn’t mean they are “false claims”.

Have you lost your marbles entirely? What on earth are you going on about with random food doctors? The Cass review was authored by one of the most well-respected pediatricians in the entire UK and her analysis has the explicit endorsement of some of the UKs most well-respected physicians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angry voices in here decrying the report belong to parents who trusted medical professionals' claims that the science on puberty blockers was settled.

If so, I understand their anger and the fear underlying it. It is terrifying to realize that "experts" misled you on the science, and that you consented to treatments that have not, in fact, been proven to be benign (or reversible).

But I encourage you to read the report. It is publicly available, and free; why not read it? At the least, perhaps you can generate some original criticism, rather than recycling the same three or four objections that are also circulating on other social media. I don't know where those talking points originated, but it's pretty clear that whoever came up with them had not read the entire report.

Literally no one claimed that. Not surprising that someone hyping up this biased report would throw out lazy strawman arguments.

Major medical organizations and organizations advocating for transgender youth just a few years ago were saying that puberty blockers were “fully reversible” and the science around medicalized treatment for transgender youth was settled science. There are many screenshots if you care to look. Of course that’s all been removed now, as it’s obviously inaccurate.

No one was saying it was “settled science”.

DP. Except people were. Activists and laypeople were. Especially as a mechanism to shut down conversations. I remember a specific instance of being told by a particular acquaintance that it was “settled science”.

I mean, just a few days ago CNN was claiming that “mainstream science” agreed that males have no athletic advantages over females (based on a single paper written 7 years ago).

“ But mainstream science does not support that conclusion. A 2017 report in the journal Sports Medicine that reviewed several related studies found “no direct or consistent research” on trans people having an athletic advantage over their cisgender peers, and critics say the bans add to the discrimination trans people face”.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/08/sport/naia-bans-trans-athletes-dawn-staley-reaj

CNN also consistently characterizes gender affirming care as evidence-based and a “gold standard”, depicting it as a scientific consensus (even in articles that are actually reporting on lack of consensus!)

“ Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based individualized care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned gender – the one the person was designated at birth – to their affirmed gender – the gender by which one wants to be known.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/02/26/health/endocrine-society-gender-affirming-care-guidelines

1. You are misrepresenting what was quoted in the first CNN article. It did not say that. Just look at the quote you included.

2. Neither article say it’s “settled science”. In fact, the second article is discussing updating guidelines.

“ The committee revising the guidelines has had its first meeting, said chairperson Dr. Joshua Safer. The last time the committee updated its gender-affirming care guidelines was in 2017; it previously revised them in 2009.

“To be clear, we’ve been following our usual guideline process that we apply to anything that we do, whether it’s diabetes or thyroid etc., to transgender medical care,” said Safer, a member of the Endocrine Society who also serves as executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in New York. “Being the doctors in the room, we look at current data to give appropriate recommendations.””

Huh? the first article literally says it is “mainstream science” that transitioned natal males have no athletic advantage. what does “mainstream science” mean to you?

The second article literally says that gender affirming endocrinolgy care (puberty blockers and hormones) are the “gold standard.” Then yes, they quote the doctors stating the exact opposite - that in fact nothing is “gold standard” and they are reassessing.

I’m looking forwards to CNN stealth dropping all of this verbiage as time goes on and it becomes clear that in fact there is no mainstream scientific consensus or gold standard.

1. Your comment was “males have no athletic advantages over females” which is very different than the quote. Transgender women are not representative of all males. Of course you’re being misleading.

2. The “gold standard” means the current best practices. Which change over time.

that’s some absurd back-bending. they cite ONE study on trans athletes then claim that all of “mainstream science” agrees (with a completely counter-instuitive and counter-experience result).

“gold standard” means a degree of consensus not “current best practices”. no gold standard in favor of puberty blockers and hormones actually existed, ever.

“Gold standard” means best available, the benchmark that possible alternatives are compared against.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard_(test)


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC557893/

“The concept of a “golden standard” implies a level of perfection that can never be attained by any biological test, and will provoke criticism like that ventilated by Duggan.2 In contrast, a gold standard in its true meaning, derived from the monetary gold standard, merely denotes the best tool available at that time to compare different measures. Even in its glory days, the monetary gold standard was never considered perfect. It was subject to endless debate, and in the end it was abandoned for a better system. Similarly, today's gold standard tests will be replaced by better ones. As was eloquently stated by Versi: “It is the absolute truth that is never reached; gold standards are constantly challenged and superseded when appropriate.””

I mean, the status of pediatric gender medicine didn’t even meet your (dishonest) interpretation of what CNN met. there never was a “best tool available.” and of course advocates strenuously disagreed that it was a matter of “endless debate.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what a high ranking HHS official has consistently said about puberty blockers & hormones for kids:

“ Gender-affirming care is medical care. It is mental health care. It is suicide prevention care. It improves quality of life, and it saves lives. It is based on decades of study. It is a well-established medical practice... The positive value of gender-affirming care is not in serious scientific or medical dispute.”

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/04/30/remarks-by-hhs-assistant-secretary-for-health-adm-rachel-levine-for-the-2022-out-for-health-conference.html

Ok…and? That’s how science/medicine works. You act based on the current guidelines. Those change over time - obviously.

No, false claims of certainty are not “how science/medicine works.”

Just because some random food doctor doesn’t agree doesn’t mean they are “false claims”.

Have you lost your marbles entirely? What on earth are you going on about with random food doctors? The Cass review was authored by one of the most well-respected pediatricians in the entire UK and her analysis has the explicit endorsement of some of the UKs most well-respected physicians.

It seems like you’re having trouble following. We are discussing the link above.

Great quote from it:
“Those who now attack our LGBTQI+ community are driven by an agenda that has nothing to do with medicine, nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with warmth, empathy, compassion or understanding. “

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what a high ranking HHS official has consistently said about puberty blockers & hormones for kids:

“ Gender-affirming care is medical care. It is mental health care. It is suicide prevention care. It improves quality of life, and it saves lives. It is based on decades of study. It is a well-established medical practice... The positive value of gender-affirming care is not in serious scientific or medical dispute.”

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/04/30/remarks-by-hhs-assistant-secretary-for-health-adm-rachel-levine-for-the-2022-out-for-health-conference.html

Ok…and? That’s how science/medicine works. You act based on the current guidelines. Those change over time - obviously.

But when those current guidelines are proven false, you don’t kick and scream and insist they’re right. You change the guidelines. And follow the new ones. That’s how science/medicine works.

Ok. As soon as we have better guidelines, the medical practitioners will adjust.

Until then, they will stick with the current best practices.

As a medical practitioner, a study like this would be enough for me to change my practice. It would be enough for many of us.

Are you the prison podiatrist who thinks that transgenderism is a mental illness?

I don't know who PP is, but I am a new poster and medical practitioner working at a federal facility in the perioperative area.

I wonder if the feds will tap the brakes on the current no-questions-asked approval of gender surgeries in federal hospitals, paid for by taxpayers. Probably not, because Biden needs to win and can't alienate any more Gen Z voters.

Sensing a window closing, there has been a quantifiable surge of eligible people booking gender surgeries in my facility. They'll freely acknowledge this during the pre-op assessment period. They're probably not wrong about what will happen if Trump wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angry voices in here decrying the report belong to parents who trusted medical professionals' claims that the science on puberty blockers was settled.

If so, I understand their anger and the fear underlying it. It is terrifying to realize that "experts" misled you on the science, and that you consented to treatments that have not, in fact, been proven to be benign (or reversible).

But I encourage you to read the report. It is publicly available, and free; why not read it? At the least, perhaps you can generate some original criticism, rather than recycling the same three or four objections that are also circulating on other social media. I don't know where those talking points originated, but it's pretty clear that whoever came up with them had not read the entire report.

Literally no one claimed that. Not surprising that someone hyping up this biased report would throw out lazy strawman arguments.

Major medical organizations and organizations advocating for transgender youth just a few years ago were saying that puberty blockers were “fully reversible” and the science around medicalized treatment for transgender youth was settled science. There are many screenshots if you care to look. Of course that’s all been removed now, as it’s obviously inaccurate.

No one was saying it was “settled science”.

DP. Except people were. Activists and laypeople were. Especially as a mechanism to shut down conversations. I remember a specific instance of being told by a particular acquaintance that it was “settled science”.

I mean, just a few days ago CNN was claiming that “mainstream science” agreed that males have no athletic advantages over females (based on a single paper written 7 years ago).

“ But mainstream science does not support that conclusion. A 2017 report in the journal Sports Medicine that reviewed several related studies found “no direct or consistent research” on trans people having an athletic advantage over their cisgender peers, and critics say the bans add to the discrimination trans people face”.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/08/sport/naia-bans-trans-athletes-dawn-staley-reaj

CNN also consistently characterizes gender affirming care as evidence-based and a “gold standard”, depicting it as a scientific consensus (even in articles that are actually reporting on lack of consensus!)

“ Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based individualized care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned gender – the one the person was designated at birth – to their affirmed gender – the gender by which one wants to be known.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/02/26/health/endocrine-society-gender-affirming-care-guidelines

1. You are misrepresenting what was quoted in the first CNN article. It did not say that. Just look at the quote you included.

2. Neither article say it’s “settled science”. In fact, the second article is discussing updating guidelines.

“ The committee revising the guidelines has had its first meeting, said chairperson Dr. Joshua Safer. The last time the committee updated its gender-affirming care guidelines was in 2017; it previously revised them in 2009.

“To be clear, we’ve been following our usual guideline process that we apply to anything that we do, whether it’s diabetes or thyroid etc., to transgender medical care,” said Safer, a member of the Endocrine Society who also serves as executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in New York. “Being the doctors in the room, we look at current data to give appropriate recommendations.””

Huh? the first article literally says it is “mainstream science” that transitioned natal males have no athletic advantage. what does “mainstream science” mean to you?

The second article literally says that gender affirming endocrinolgy care (puberty blockers and hormones) are the “gold standard.” Then yes, they quote the doctors stating the exact opposite - that in fact nothing is “gold standard” and they are reassessing.

I’m looking forwards to CNN stealth dropping all of this verbiage as time goes on and it becomes clear that in fact there is no mainstream scientific consensus or gold standard.

1. Your comment was “males have no athletic advantages over females” which is very different than the quote. Transgender women are not representative of all males. Of course you’re being misleading.

2. The “gold standard” means the current best practices. Which change over time.

that’s some absurd back-bending. they cite ONE study on trans athletes then claim that all of “mainstream science” agrees (with a completely counter-instuitive and counter-experience result).

“gold standard” means a degree of consensus not “current best practices”. no gold standard in favor of puberty blockers and hormones actually existed, ever.

“Gold standard” means best available, the benchmark that possible alternatives are compared against.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard_(test)


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC557893/

“The concept of a “golden standard” implies a level of perfection that can never be attained by any biological test, and will provoke criticism like that ventilated by Duggan.2 In contrast, a gold standard in its true meaning, derived from the monetary gold standard, merely denotes the best tool available at that time to compare different measures. Even in its glory days, the monetary gold standard was never considered perfect. It was subject to endless debate, and in the end it was abandoned for a better system. Similarly, today's gold standard tests will be replaced by better ones. As was eloquently stated by Versi: “It is the absolute truth that is never reached; gold standards are constantly challenged and superseded when appropriate.””

I mean, the status of pediatric gender medicine didn’t even meet your (dishonest) interpretation of what CNN met. there never was a “best tool available.” and of course advocates strenuously disagreed that it was a matter of “endless debate.”

You misspelled accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what a high ranking HHS official has consistently said about puberty blockers & hormones for kids:

“ Gender-affirming care is medical care. It is mental health care. It is suicide prevention care. It improves quality of life, and it saves lives. It is based on decades of study. It is a well-established medical practice... The positive value of gender-affirming care is not in serious scientific or medical dispute.”

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/04/30/remarks-by-hhs-assistant-secretary-for-health-adm-rachel-levine-for-the-2022-out-for-health-conference.html

Ok…and? That’s how science/medicine works. You act based on the current guidelines. Those change over time - obviously.

No, false claims of certainty are not “how science/medicine works.”

Just because some random food doctor doesn’t agree doesn’t mean they are “false claims”.

Have you lost your marbles entirely? What on earth are you going on about with random food doctors? The Cass review was authored by one of the most well-respected pediatricians in the entire UK and her analysis has the explicit endorsement of some of the UKs most well-respected physicians.

It seems like you’re having trouble following. We are discussing the link above.

Great quote from it:
“Those who now attack our LGBTQI+ community are driven by an agenda that has nothing to do with medicine, nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with warmth, empathy, compassion or understanding. “

So, yes, you’ve lost your marbles.