The Cass Review Final Report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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. “

Warmth, empathy and understanding should not be in the same sentence as medicine and science.

Well, there you have it, folks! Social and emotional factors are of no relevance to medicine and consideration of them cannot affect outcomes in ways measurable via science. You heard it here first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I didn’t read it because I’m not obsessed about what other families choose to do with their medical decisions—especially ones approved by the American Association of Pediatrics.

Did you know that vaccines cause autism? I read it somewhere. It must be true.

So just because a family approves of a certain treatment for gender dysphoria, we all have to shut up, regardless of the harm it may cause? What about faith healing parents who deny their children medical care because it's "against their religion"? Should they be excused?

If it's not YOUR kid, shut up. There are a lot of things I disagree with other parents about. It's not your business and ask yourself why you're so obsessed with this instead of the thousand other medical decisions parents make for and with their children.

Children are taken from homes and sent into foster care for less. The bottom line is that children cannot consent to life altering surgery and drugs.

I have an older teen trans kid who was miserable and transitioned several years ago and is now thriving and happy, going to an excellent college. We banked sperm should she ever want kids, which she says she does not. There has been no surgery and I don't know if there will ever be. She came out after most of puberty, so we didn't have to make any decisions about blockers, but looking back I think it would have been the right thing to do since she does have a few male characteristics, such as a deeper voice, which she has had to train to try and sound more feminine. If she had not gone through any male puberty she would be indistinguishable from cis female peers. However, because she was not THAT far through puberty she almost always passes, which will make life a lot easier for her. She was not a "child" when she came out, but she was under 18. Children are not being given HRT OR surgeries. Older teens are given HRT and sometimes (pretty rarely) surgeries, obviously with parents' permissions.

The people who are obsessed with this are the same people who will then call trans women predators who are trying to "invade women's spaces." And "take over" women's sports. They want it both ways--to deny trans people the ability to pass and then harass and vilify them when they don't. There is no winning. They want trans people to suffer. There is no legitimate reason for concern about what a tiny minority of people regarding these medical decisions unless you are the parent of a trans kid.

These arguments are never in good faith. They never come from a place of genuine concern. You can see right from the beginning of this thread the OP just wanted to talk about how bad it is to give minors HRT and used this study as a way to do it. Honestly, it's weird. It's a weird obsession.

I don't have to read that study because this is my life and my kid's life. It wasn't an easy decision to make and it wasn't made lightly. I feel angry when I see people trying to act like this matters to them when they have no skin in the game. It would be like me telling a bunch of people whose kids have an eating disorder that everything they're doing is wrong when my kid has never had an eating disorder. But I don't feel defensive--I feel annoyed and angry and just wish people would live their own lives and stay. out of our family's choices. It doesn't feel very different to me than people trying to take away abortion rights and get into people's reproductive freedoms.

We made the right decision for our kid. Thankfully we live in a state that has not just used this as a culture war issue to gin up votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I didn’t read it because I’m not obsessed about what other families choose to do with their medical decisions—especially ones approved by the American Association of Pediatrics.

Did you know that vaccines cause autism? I read it somewhere. It must be true.

So just because a family approves of a certain treatment for gender dysphoria, we all have to shut up, regardless of the harm it may cause? What about faith healing parents who deny their children medical care because it's "against their religion"? Should they be excused?

If it's not YOUR kid, shut up. There are a lot of things I disagree with other parents about. It's not your business and ask yourself why you're so obsessed with this instead of the thousand other medical decisions parents make for and with their children.

DP. I’m invested in this topic because I’ve encountered other areas of mental health care for my child where advocates want to shout down research they don’t like. I find that tendency extremely worrying. Also, I think that more broadly the attempts to falsely claim “the science is settled” impacts many other areas that concern me. Basically, this is one part of the troubling social media driven cancel culture that has far too much power.

If trans activists didn’t try to shut down views they dislike, we wouldn’t be here.

Cool. I'll trust that you'll made through the available info and make the best decision for your kid for their particular issues. But you won't give me the same courtesy?

Is anyone who wants you to stop questioning their parenting a trans activist? Does being a parent to a trans kid make you a trans activist? It kind of does of stuff like this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I didn’t read it because I’m not obsessed about what other families choose to do with their medical decisions—especially ones approved by the American Association of Pediatrics.

Did you know that vaccines cause autism? I read it somewhere. It must be true.

So just because a family approves of a certain treatment for gender dysphoria, we all have to shut up, regardless of the harm it may cause? What about faith healing parents who deny their children medical care because it's "against their religion"? Should they be excused?

If it's not YOUR kid, shut up. There are a lot of things I disagree with other parents about. It's not your business and ask yourself why you're so obsessed with this instead of the thousand other medical decisions parents make for and with their children.

DP. I’m invested in this topic because I’ve encountered other areas of mental health care for my child where advocates want to shout down research they don’t like. I find that tendency extremely worrying. Also, I think that more broadly the attempts to falsely claim “the science is settled” impacts many other areas that concern me. Basically, this is one part of the troubling social media driven cancel culture that has far too much power.

If trans activists didn’t try to shut down views they dislike, we wouldn’t be here.

So you’re fighting against transgender people because you’re butthurt over some social media posts made by random people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I didn’t read it because I’m not obsessed about what other families choose to do with their medical decisions—especially ones approved by the American Association of Pediatrics.

Did you know that vaccines cause autism? I read it somewhere. It must be true.

So just because a family approves of a certain treatment for gender dysphoria, we all have to shut up, regardless of the harm it may cause? What about faith healing parents who deny their children medical care because it's "against their religion"? Should they be excused?

If it's not YOUR kid, shut up. There are a lot of things I disagree with other parents about. It's not your business and ask yourself why you're so obsessed with this instead of the thousand other medical decisions parents make for and with their children.

Children are taken from homes and sent into foster care for less. The bottom line is that children cannot consent to life altering surgery and drugs.

And there you have it.

They want to make it illegal to support transgender kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Andrew Wakefield is not a doctor, so his "medical" opinion is irrelevant one way or the other.

The fact remains that Cass downgraded studies with the flimsy justification that children were provided "unblinded" medical care while receiving care.

http://uncommon-scents.blogspot.com/?m=1

Don’t defend the analysis in that letter if you want people to think you have even the most basic understanding of data analysis and medical studies. It’s embarrassingly bad.

I mean, there is a reason that quackery is endorsed by the King of Quacks.

Which part was wrong?

Oh, man, where to start? To do a full analysis would be a post that is too long for DCUM. So let’s just pick one idiotic sentence from the letter to start with:

It does not include a proper systematic literature review or material published in any language other than English as well as excluding most research evidence because it fails to reach the impossibly high bar of a double-blind trial.

Dispensing with the easy nonsense first: The claim about the lack of reviews from languages other than English is just stupid and betrays a complete lack of understanding of how meta-analysis of this type works. English is, right now, the global language of medical research. It is standard practice to only look at literature reviews that are in English, because the vast majority of them are in English.

But let’s take this claim at face value. Normally if you are claiming extensive non-English data is relevant to a medical literature review and meta-analysis, you would identify such sources and data. The problem the authors have is that relevant non-English data and literature does not actually exist in any statistically relevant manner. You don’t have to actually take my word for that: WPATH made that exact point themselves in Statement 2.4 of Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8. (I have linked directly to the PDF below if you want to read it yourself.) WPATH noted that 96% of the research literature concerning transgender care is in English. So, the point about the English language is just dumb. It’s also incumbent on the letter writers to identify all that extensive non-English literature if they believe that literature would have changed the outcome of the Cass review, and of course they didn’t do that, because they can’t. Link below:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644

Second of all, the claim that the Cass review excludes literature because it doesn’t reach the standard of a double-blind trial is also clearly false. First, as reference, the actual review is linked here:

https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf

There were six systematic reviews referenced in the Cass report. These are listed in Table 1, page 53 of the PDF. You can actually look at the reviews yourself if you want.

What these reviews do among other points is grade the quality of evidence available for the subject. That’s typical in meta-analysis, so much so that there is a general protocol for how studies are graded into one of four categories: high, moderate, low, very low. People who don’t understand this, like the letter writers and signatories, assume that studies that are not graded “high,” (which is based on neutral analytical factors) are not evaluated. That is simply not true, and was not true in the Cass review.

This is already too long and I’m not going to go through every page, but as an example look at Section 14 of the report, which discusses puberty blockers. 14.19 talks about how the evidence was assessed for quality, and then the low quality evidence was excluded. But the moderate quality studies were indeed kept. This is just one example of how that sentence is transparently false.

I could probably do this for every single line of that stupid letter if I wanted to waste the rest of my day on abject nonsense, but I have better things to do.

You’re nit picking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Andrew Wakefield is not a doctor, so his "medical" opinion is irrelevant one way or the other.

The fact remains that Cass downgraded studies with the flimsy justification that children were provided "unblinded" medical care while receiving care.

http://uncommon-scents.blogspot.com/?m=1

Don’t defend the analysis in that letter if you want people to think you have even the most basic understanding of data analysis and medical studies. It’s embarrassingly bad.

I mean, there is a reason that quackery is endorsed by the King of Quacks.

Which part was wrong?

Oh, man, where to start? To do a full analysis would be a post that is too long for DCUM. So let’s just pick one idiotic sentence from the letter to start with:

It does not include a proper systematic literature review or material published in any language other than English as well as excluding most research evidence because it fails to reach the impossibly high bar of a double-blind trial.

Dispensing with the easy nonsense first: The claim about the lack of reviews from languages other than English is just stupid and betrays a complete lack of understanding of how meta-analysis of this type works. English is, right now, the global language of medical research. It is standard practice to only look at literature reviews that are in English, because the vast majority of them are in English.

But let’s take this claim at face value. Normally if you are claiming extensive non-English data is relevant to a medical literature review and meta-analysis, you would identify such sources and data. The problem the authors have is that relevant non-English data and literature does not actually exist in any statistically relevant manner. You don’t have to actually take my word for that: WPATH made that exact point themselves in Statement 2.4 of Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8. (I have linked directly to the PDF below if you want to read it yourself.) WPATH noted that 96% of the research literature concerning transgender care is in English. So, the point about the English language is just dumb. It’s also incumbent on the letter writers to identify all that extensive non-English literature if they believe that literature would have changed the outcome of the Cass review, and of course they didn’t do that, because they can’t. Link below:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644

Second of all, the claim that the Cass review excludes literature because it doesn’t reach the standard of a double-blind trial is also clearly false. First, as reference, the actual review is linked here:

https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf

There were six systematic reviews referenced in the Cass report. These are listed in Table 1, page 53 of the PDF. You can actually look at the reviews yourself if you want.

What these reviews do among other points is grade the quality of evidence available for the subject. That’s typical in meta-analysis, so much so that there is a general protocol for how studies are graded into one of four categories: high, moderate, low, very low. People who don’t understand this, like the letter writers and signatories, assume that studies that are not graded “high,” (which is based on neutral analytical factors) are not evaluated. That is simply not true, and was not true in the Cass review.

This is already too long and I’m not going to go through every page, but as an example look at Section 14 of the report, which discusses puberty blockers. 14.19 talks about how the evidence was assessed for quality, and then the low quality evidence was excluded. But the moderate quality studies were indeed kept. This is just one example of how that sentence is transparently false.

I could probably do this for every single line of that stupid letter if I wanted to waste the rest of my day on abject nonsense, but I have better things to do.

You’re nit picking.

Dude, it’s science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I didn’t read it because I’m not obsessed about what other families choose to do with their medical decisions—especially ones approved by the American Association of Pediatrics.

Did you know that vaccines cause autism? I read it somewhere. It must be true.

So just because a family approves of a certain treatment for gender dysphoria, we all have to shut up, regardless of the harm it may cause? What about faith healing parents who deny their children medical care because it's "against their religion"? Should they be excused?

If it's not YOUR kid, shut up. There are a lot of things I disagree with other parents about. It's not your business and ask yourself why you're so obsessed with this instead of the thousand other medical decisions parents make for and with their children.

Children are taken from homes and sent into foster care for less. The bottom line is that children cannot consent to life altering surgery and drugs.

And there you have it.

They want to make it illegal to support transgender kids.

Support doesn’t equal blindly agreeing with children that there’s something medically wrong with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. “

Warmth, empathy and understanding should not be in the same sentence as medicine and science.

Well, there you have it, folks! Social and emotional factors are of no relevance to medicine and consideration of them cannot affect outcomes in ways measurable via science. You heard it here first.

Excellent! So glad we agree. Science is about facts, not feelings. So nice that we are on the same side. Progress!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I didn’t read it because I’m not obsessed about what other families choose to do with their medical decisions—especially ones approved by the American Association of Pediatrics.

Did you know that vaccines cause autism? I read it somewhere. It must be true.

So just because a family approves of a certain treatment for gender dysphoria, we all have to shut up, regardless of the harm it may cause? What about faith healing parents who deny their children medical care because it's "against their religion"? Should they be excused?

If it's not YOUR kid, shut up. There are a lot of things I disagree with other parents about. It's not your business and ask yourself why you're so obsessed with this instead of the thousand other medical decisions parents make for and with their children.

Children are taken from homes and sent into foster care for less. The bottom line is that children cannot consent to life altering surgery and drugs.

I have an older teen trans kid who was miserable and transitioned several years ago and is now thriving and happy, going to an excellent college. We banked sperm should she ever want kids, which she says she does not. There has been no surgery and I don't know if there will ever be. She came out after most of puberty, so we didn't have to make any decisions about blockers, but looking back I think it would have been the right thing to do since she does have a few male characteristics, such as a deeper voice, which she has had to train to try and sound more feminine. If she had not gone through any male puberty she would be indistinguishable from cis female peers. However, because she was not THAT far through puberty she almost always passes, which will make life a lot easier for her. She was not a "child" when she came out, but she was under 18. Children are not being given HRT OR surgeries. Older teens are given HRT and sometimes (pretty rarely) surgeries, obviously with parents' permissions.

The people who are obsessed with this are the same people who will then call trans women predators who are trying to "invade women's spaces." And "take over" women's sports. They want it both ways--to deny trans people the ability to pass and then harass and vilify them when they don't. There is no winning. They want trans people to suffer. There is no legitimate reason for concern about what a tiny minority of people regarding these medical decisions unless you are the parent of a trans kid.

These arguments are never in good faith. They never come from a place of genuine concern. You can see right from the beginning of this thread the OP just wanted to talk about how bad it is to give minors HRT and used this study as a way to do it. Honestly, it's weird. It's a weird obsession.

I don't have to read that study because this is my life and my kid's life. It wasn't an easy decision to make and it wasn't made lightly. I feel angry when I see people trying to act like this matters to them when they have no skin in the game. It would be like me telling a bunch of people whose kids have an eating disorder that everything they're doing is wrong when my kid has never had an eating disorder. But I don't feel defensive--I feel annoyed and angry and just wish people would live their own lives and stay. out of our family's choices. It doesn't feel very different to me than people trying to take away abortion rights and get into people's reproductive freedoms.

We made the right decision for our kid. Thankfully we live in a state that has not just used this as a culture war issue to gin up votes.

Thank you for taking the time to write this out. I appreciate your eloquence in saying what I have a hard time voicing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Andrew Wakefield is not a doctor, so his "medical" opinion is irrelevant one way or the other.

The fact remains that Cass downgraded studies with the flimsy justification that children were provided "unblinded" medical care while receiving care.

http://uncommon-scents.blogspot.com/?m=1

Don’t defend the analysis in that letter if you want people to think you have even the most basic understanding of data analysis and medical studies. It’s embarrassingly bad.

I mean, there is a reason that quackery is endorsed by the King of Quacks.

Which part was wrong?

the part where they completely misunderstand that the studies were ranked based on quality; not ideology. if they think specific studies are stronger than they were represented, they should specifically say why. instead they just come up with a vapid, tweetable conclusion: “the Cass Report is biased! It screened out all the pro-medical-transition studies!”

They are using criteria that cuts out (devalues) many studies purely because of the size & nature of the studies.

Need more data? Stop trying to ban treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I didn’t read it because I’m not obsessed about what other families choose to do with their medical decisions—especially ones approved by the American Association of Pediatrics.

Did you know that vaccines cause autism? I read it somewhere. It must be true.

So just because a family approves of a certain treatment for gender dysphoria, we all have to shut up, regardless of the harm it may cause? What about faith healing parents who deny their children medical care because it's "against their religion"? Should they be excused?

If it's not YOUR kid, shut up. There are a lot of things I disagree with other parents about. It's not your business and ask yourself why you're so obsessed with this instead of the thousand other medical decisions parents make for and with their children.

Children are taken from homes and sent into foster care for less. The bottom line is that children cannot consent to life altering surgery and drugs.

And there you have it.

They want to make it illegal to support transgender kids.

Support doesn’t equal blindly agreeing with children that there’s something medically wrong with them.

Strawman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Andrew Wakefield is not a doctor, so his "medical" opinion is irrelevant one way or the other.

The fact remains that Cass downgraded studies with the flimsy justification that children were provided "unblinded" medical care while receiving care.

http://uncommon-scents.blogspot.com/?m=1

Don’t defend the analysis in that letter if you want people to think you have even the most basic understanding of data analysis and medical studies. It’s embarrassingly bad.

I mean, there is a reason that quackery is endorsed by the King of Quacks.

Which part was wrong?

Oh, man, where to start? To do a full analysis would be a post that is too long for DCUM. So let’s just pick one idiotic sentence from the letter to start with:

It does not include a proper systematic literature review or material published in any language other than English as well as excluding most research evidence because it fails to reach the impossibly high bar of a double-blind trial.

Dispensing with the easy nonsense first: The claim about the lack of reviews from languages other than English is just stupid and betrays a complete lack of understanding of how meta-analysis of this type works. English is, right now, the global language of medical research. It is standard practice to only look at literature reviews that are in English, because the vast majority of them are in English.

But let’s take this claim at face value. Normally if you are claiming extensive non-English data is relevant to a medical literature review and meta-analysis, you would identify such sources and data. The problem the authors have is that relevant non-English data and literature does not actually exist in any statistically relevant manner. You don’t have to actually take my word for that: WPATH made that exact point themselves in Statement 2.4 of Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8. (I have linked directly to the PDF below if you want to read it yourself.) WPATH noted that 96% of the research literature concerning transgender care is in English. So, the point about the English language is just dumb. It’s also incumbent on the letter writers to identify all that extensive non-English literature if they believe that literature would have changed the outcome of the Cass review, and of course they didn’t do that, because they can’t. Link below:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644

Second of all, the claim that the Cass review excludes literature because it doesn’t reach the standard of a double-blind trial is also clearly false. First, as reference, the actual review is linked here:

https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf

There were six systematic reviews referenced in the Cass report. These are listed in Table 1, page 53 of the PDF. You can actually look at the reviews yourself if you want.

What these reviews do among other points is grade the quality of evidence available for the subject. That’s typical in meta-analysis, so much so that there is a general protocol for how studies are graded into one of four categories: high, moderate, low, very low. People who don’t understand this, like the letter writers and signatories, assume that studies that are not graded “high,” (which is based on neutral analytical factors) are not evaluated. That is simply not true, and was not true in the Cass review.

This is already too long and I’m not going to go through every page, but as an example look at Section 14 of the report, which discusses puberty blockers. 14.19 talks about how the evidence was assessed for quality, and then the low quality evidence was excluded. But the moderate quality studies were indeed kept. This is just one example of how that sentence is transparently false.

I could probably do this for every single line of that stupid letter if I wanted to waste the rest of my day on abject nonsense, but I have better things to do.

You’re nit picking.

Dude, it’s science.

Letter: they don’t include non-English studies.

Nit picker: well there aren’t anyway that many so it’s ridiculous they even mentioned it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I didn’t read it because I’m not obsessed about what other families choose to do with their medical decisions—especially ones approved by the American Association of Pediatrics.

Did you know that vaccines cause autism? I read it somewhere. It must be true.

So just because a family approves of a certain treatment for gender dysphoria, we all have to shut up, regardless of the harm it may cause? What about faith healing parents who deny their children medical care because it's "against their religion"? Should they be excused?

If it's not YOUR kid, shut up. There are a lot of things I disagree with other parents about. It's not your business and ask yourself why you're so obsessed with this instead of the thousand other medical decisions parents make for and with their children.

Children are taken from homes and sent into foster care for less. The bottom line is that children cannot consent to life altering surgery and drugs.

And there you have it.

They want to make it illegal to support transgender kids.

Support doesn’t equal blindly agreeing with children that there’s something medically wrong with them.

Strawman.

Ok, support doesn’t equal agreeing with children that there’s something physically medically wrong with them when there isn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I didn’t read it because I’m not obsessed about what other families choose to do with their medical decisions—especially ones approved by the American Association of Pediatrics.

Did you know that vaccines cause autism? I read it somewhere. It must be true.

So just because a family approves of a certain treatment for gender dysphoria, we all have to shut up, regardless of the harm it may cause? What about faith healing parents who deny their children medical care because it's "against their religion"? Should they be excused?

If it's not YOUR kid, shut up. There are a lot of things I disagree with other parents about. It's not your business and ask yourself why you're so obsessed with this instead of the thousand other medical decisions parents make for and with their children.

Children are taken from homes and sent into foster care for less. The bottom line is that children cannot consent to life altering surgery and drugs.

I have an older teen trans kid who was miserable and transitioned several years ago and is now thriving and happy, going to an excellent college. We banked sperm should she ever want kids, which she says she does not. There has been no surgery and I don't know if there will ever be. She came out after most of puberty, so we didn't have to make any decisions about blockers, but looking back I think it would have been the right thing to do since she does have a few male characteristics, such as a deeper voice, which she has had to train to try and sound more feminine. If she had not gone through any male puberty she would be indistinguishable from cis female peers. However, because she was not THAT far through puberty she almost always passes, which will make life a lot easier for her. She was not a "child" when she came out, but she was under 18. Children are not being given HRT OR surgeries. Older teens are given HRT and sometimes (pretty rarely) surgeries, obviously with parents' permissions.

The people who are obsessed with this are the same people who will then call trans women predators who are trying to "invade women's spaces." And "take over" women's sports. They want it both ways--to deny trans people the ability to pass and then harass and vilify them when they don't. There is no winning. They want trans people to suffer. There is no legitimate reason for concern about what a tiny minority of people regarding these medical decisions unless you are the parent of a trans kid.

These arguments are never in good faith. They never come from a place of genuine concern. You can see right from the beginning of this thread the OP just wanted to talk about how bad it is to give minors HRT and used this study as a way to do it. Honestly, it's weird. It's a weird obsession.

I don't have to read that study because this is my life and my kid's life. It wasn't an easy decision to make and it wasn't made lightly. I feel angry when I see people trying to act like this matters to them when they have no skin in the game. It would be like me telling a bunch of people whose kids have an eating disorder that everything they're doing is wrong when my kid has never had an eating disorder. But I don't feel defensive--I feel annoyed and angry and just wish people would live their own lives and stay. out of our family's choices. It doesn't feel very different to me than people trying to take away abortion rights and get into people's reproductive freedoms.

We made the right decision for our kid. Thankfully we live in a state that has not just used this as a culture war issue to gin up votes.

Again this is about silencing alternative viewpoints, not your kid transitioning post-puberty.