The Cass Review Final Report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:" it's obvious that has not been happening in many instances, and the fallout from what is likely to be a significant medical scandal is just beginning."

No. It is not obvious. What is obvious is that decades of ignoring transcare has been more detrimental to children and adults a extreme pivot, even if you believe that it's extreme, which I do not.


People who have absolutely no experience with this feel the need to chime in. "Parents are being manipulated. Parents have an agenda. Medical doctors have an agenda."

What do you think their agenda is? Their agenda is the best care of their children and their patients and your endless, useless input on something you have no concept of and do not have to deal with is just exhausting

When I see someone write "I'm tired" or "just exhausting" or something similar, I know they are on ideological weak grounds because they can't argue back convincingly, so they resort to these kinds of tropes.

The Cass report is highly damaging and summarized what many of us long thought and observed. Gender dysphoria is a real condition for a tiny number of children but it is separate from factual biology, and enablers blew it enormously out of proportions and effectively hoodwinked gullible progressive parents into thinking their kids were trans and fooling the kids themselves, many who were autistic or gay or lesbian and still figuring things out. Then throw in an undeniable aspect of female fetishization that does have a history within the gay community. Recipe for disaster. The sad thing is that quite a few of these kids permanently damaged their bodies as well as mental conditions because of enabling adults who thought they were being "kind".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s that one poster that is obsessed with fertility. Make sure you go through your natal puberty first, then at 16 freeze frozen sperm and eggs, then transition and this person is a-okay with it! What an ally, thinking about these trans kid’s future fertility. This poster must be a huge supporter of adults that transition after having kids. Thank you ally! 🏳️‍⚧️

Is it being “obsessed with fertilty” to say that we need to consider the impact on the child’s fertility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s that one poster that is obsessed with fertility. Make sure you go through your natal puberty first, then at 16 freeze frozen sperm and eggs, then transition and this person is a-okay with it! What an ally, thinking about these trans kid’s future fertility. This poster must be a huge supporter of adults that transition after having kids. Thank you ally! 🏳️‍⚧️

There is a brutal and very ugly history in this country of the dismissal of the value of and outright destruction of the fertility, reproductive health, and actual reproductive organs of exceptionally marginalized and vulnerable population groups. You can mock that history and make light of it if you want, but you will not persuade anyone with a sense of decency to your side with that approach.

So you’re a huge supporter of people with kids transitioning or people freezing sperm and eggs and then transitioning?

I actually think it should be required that health insurance cover freezing sperm and eggs for people before they transition. Do you agree?

People or children? If and adult consents fine. An 18 year old is far more able to consent than a 10 year old. But I still think there should be many steps for informed consent for adults. And as I understand it, the impacts on fertility are much less for adults anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The Cass analysis only shines a light on the paltry evidence supporting medicalized treatments for gender dysphoria in youth. The lack of that evidence has been known for years. The studies (and lack thereof) have been plainly visible to anyone with the willingness to be skeptical of religious dogma, neutral, and scientifically-minded for a long time. The criticisms of the report are transparently ideological and not grounded in solid data analysis.

However, thread will get shut down because the hard facts of the weakness of the studies and medical evidence are not welcome in places like DCUM, where religious belief prevails over scientific analysis with respect to discussion of medicalized treatment for gender dysphoria in youth. This is not the place for rigorous discussion of medical evidence and treatment pathways.

I also think it must be supremely painful for those parents who were emotionally manipulated into certain medical treatments with the execrable and not evidence-based threats of “dead son or live daughter,” or vice versa. For those people, this must all be awful. I don’t think the random DCUM threads are helpful to them.

It’s only “paltry” evidence because they excluded 98% of studies that supported transition as a therapy for lack of a double blind protocol without considering whether a double blind protocol would even be ethical/permitted by an IRB.

This is an area where there is broad agreement among the researchers and medical professionals and it’s all been politicized to help divert people’s attention from more important issues.

It’s fine if you want to believe what you want to believe but don’t try to argue “hard facts” support you.

Exactly.

They had objective standards for high-quality research. And the major conclusion is that we need more high-quality research before we can recommend when trans kids should get medically transitioned. That evidence may show benefits for some kids. But you simply cannot shut down the need to produce better evidence.

Explain how a double-blind protocol would be designed here. Ethically.

Explain how ethically a child can consent to loss of sexual function and fertility?

The design of research studies is complicated and I don’t pretend to be an expert. But to claim “oh we can’t do those studies therefore you have to accept crap reasearch as THE TRUTH” is totally toxic. Maybe there are some areas where you cannot do controlled research very well. That may be the case, but it doesn’t follow that you can exaggerate the conclusions of the less-definitive research. If all we have is poor quality evidence, then we cannot say “it’s SCIENCE that trans kids should medically transition!”

Children aren’t getting bottom surgery so that’s irrelevant.

Do we need more research? Sure.

Is it complicated to navigate the ethics while designing these studies? Yes.

Should anti-trans activists gatekeep studies because of this? No f-ing way.

It’s pure political posturing to completely ignore the studies that have been done because of the complex nature of the work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a biased report based on the input of transphobic people and organizations.

When you lead with this, the rest of your comment is not worth reading.

Supportive organizations were not allowed to give any input meanwhile the actively transphobic Sex Matters led by transphobe Maya Forstater was allowed to provide input.

Where did it say supportive organizations weren't allowed to give any input?

Again, what makes Maya Forstater a transphobe other than she believes, well, sex matters?

she calls trans women, men. that's transphobic. the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:" it's obvious that has not been happening in many instances, and the fallout from what is likely to be a significant medical scandal is just beginning."

No. It is not obvious. What is obvious is that decades of ignoring transcare has been more detrimental to children and adults a extreme pivot, even if you believe that it's extreme, which I do not.


People who have absolutely no experience with this feel the need to chime in. "Parents are being manipulated. Parents have an agenda. Medical doctors have an agenda."

What do you think their agenda is? Their agenda is the best care of their children and their patients and your endless, useless input on something you have no concept of and do not have to deal with is just exhausting

When I see someone write "I'm tired" or "just exhausting" or something similar, I know they are on ideological weak grounds because they can't argue back convincingly, so they resort to these kinds of tropes.

The Cass report is highly damaging and summarized what many of us long thought and observed. Gender dysphoria is a real condition for a tiny number of children but it is separate from factual biology, and enablers blew it enormously out of proportions and effectively hoodwinked gullible progressive parents into thinking their kids were trans and fooling the kids themselves, many who were autistic or gay or lesbian and still figuring things out. Then throw in an undeniable aspect of female fetishization that does have a history within the gay community. Recipe for disaster. The sad thing is that quite a few of these kids permanently damaged their bodies as well as mental conditions because of enabling adults who thought they were being "kind".

Wow. So many baseless, unsupported conclusions here.

The Cass report is highly flawed because it intentionally ignores large amounts of work on the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a biased report based on the input of transphobic people and organizations.

When you lead with this, the rest of your comment is not worth reading.

Supportive organizations were not allowed to give any input meanwhile the actively transphobic Sex Matters led by transphobe Maya Forstater was allowed to provide input.

Where did it say supportive organizations weren't allowed to give any input?

Again, what makes Maya Forstater a transphobe other than she believes, well, sex matters?

she calls trans women, men. that's transphobic. the end.

Yup. Let’s ask a bunch of bigots what they think. Sounds totally legit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The Cass analysis only shines a light on the paltry evidence supporting medicalized treatments for gender dysphoria in youth. The lack of that evidence has been known for years. The studies (and lack thereof) have been plainly visible to anyone with the willingness to be skeptical of religious dogma, neutral, and scientifically-minded for a long time. The criticisms of the report are transparently ideological and not grounded in solid data analysis.

However, thread will get shut down because the hard facts of the weakness of the studies and medical evidence are not welcome in places like DCUM, where religious belief prevails over scientific analysis with respect to discussion of medicalized treatment for gender dysphoria in youth. This is not the place for rigorous discussion of medical evidence and treatment pathways.

I also think it must be supremely painful for those parents who were emotionally manipulated into certain medical treatments with the execrable and not evidence-based threats of “dead son or live daughter,” or vice versa. For those people, this must all be awful. I don’t think the random DCUM threads are helpful to them.

It’s only “paltry” evidence because they excluded 98% of studies that supported transition as a therapy for lack of a double blind protocol without considering whether a double blind protocol would even be ethical/permitted by an IRB.

This is an area where there is broad agreement among the researchers and medical professionals and it’s all been politicized to help divert people’s attention from more important issues.

It’s fine if you want to believe what you want to believe but don’t try to argue “hard facts” support you.

Exactly.

They had objective standards for high-quality research. And the major conclusion is that we need more high-quality research before we can recommend when trans kids should get medically transitioned. That evidence may show benefits for some kids. But you simply cannot shut down the need to produce better evidence.

Explain how a double-blind protocol would be designed here. Ethically.

Explain how ethically a child can consent to loss of sexual function and fertility?

The design of research studies is complicated and I don’t pretend to be an expert. But to claim “oh we can’t do those studies therefore you have to accept crap reasearch as THE TRUTH” is totally toxic. Maybe there are some areas where you cannot do controlled research very well. That may be the case, but it doesn’t follow that you can exaggerate the conclusions of the less-definitive research. If all we have is poor quality evidence, then we cannot say “it’s SCIENCE that trans kids should medically transition!”

Children aren’t getting bottom surgery so that’s irrelevant.

Do we need more research? Sure.

Is it complicated to navigate the ethics while designing these studies? Yes.

Should anti-trans activists gatekeep studies because of this? No f-ing way.

It’s pure political posturing to completely ignore the studies that have been done because of the complex nature of the work.

It’s frankly scary how you can be so ignorant yet have your pitchforks out for anyone you deem “anti-trans.” The impact on fertility for children is not due to bottom surgery. It is happens when their reproductive systems cannot develop because they don’t go through normal puberty and then they take cross-sex hormones. That’s the medical care that many kids are getting. It can also impact sexual function as well.

And I know “gate keep” is a trendy term, but wtf is “gate keeping” a scientific study? Do you think research that aligns with your beliefs should be exempt from critique, ie, gatekeeping?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:" it's obvious that has not been happening in many instances, and the fallout from what is likely to be a significant medical scandal is just beginning."

No. It is not obvious. What is obvious is that decades of ignoring transcare has been more detrimental to children and adults a extreme pivot, even if you believe that it's extreme, which I do not.


People who have absolutely no experience with this feel the need to chime in. "Parents are being manipulated. Parents have an agenda. Medical doctors have an agenda."

What do you think their agenda is? Their agenda is the best care of their children and their patients and your endless, useless input on something you have no concept of and do not have to deal with is just exhausting

When I see someone write "I'm tired" or "just exhausting" or something similar, I know they are on ideological weak grounds because they can't argue back convincingly, so they resort to these kinds of tropes.

The Cass report is highly damaging and summarized what many of us long thought and observed. Gender dysphoria is a real condition for a tiny number of children but it is separate from factual biology, and enablers blew it enormously out of proportions and effectively hoodwinked gullible progressive parents into thinking their kids were trans and fooling the kids themselves, many who were autistic or gay or lesbian and still figuring things out. Then throw in an undeniable aspect of female fetishization that does have a history within the gay community. Recipe for disaster. The sad thing is that quite a few of these kids permanently damaged their bodies as well as mental conditions because of enabling adults who thought they were being "kind".

Wow. So many baseless, unsupported conclusions here.

The Cass report is highly flawed because it intentionally ignores large amounts of work on the field.

it doesn’t “intentionally ignore” anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The Cass analysis only shines a light on the paltry evidence supporting medicalized treatments for gender dysphoria in youth. The lack of that evidence has been known for years. The studies (and lack thereof) have been plainly visible to anyone with the willingness to be skeptical of religious dogma, neutral, and scientifically-minded for a long time. The criticisms of the report are transparently ideological and not grounded in solid data analysis.

However, thread will get shut down because the hard facts of the weakness of the studies and medical evidence are not welcome in places like DCUM, where religious belief prevails over scientific analysis with respect to discussion of medicalized treatment for gender dysphoria in youth. This is not the place for rigorous discussion of medical evidence and treatment pathways.

I also think it must be supremely painful for those parents who were emotionally manipulated into certain medical treatments with the execrable and not evidence-based threats of “dead son or live daughter,” or vice versa. For those people, this must all be awful. I don’t think the random DCUM threads are helpful to them.

It’s only “paltry” evidence because they excluded 98% of studies that supported transition as a therapy for lack of a double blind protocol without considering whether a double blind protocol would even be ethical/permitted by an IRB.

This is an area where there is broad agreement among the researchers and medical professionals and it’s all been politicized to help divert people’s attention from more important issues.

It’s fine if you want to believe what you want to believe but don’t try to argue “hard facts” support you.

Exactly.

They had objective standards for high-quality research. And the major conclusion is that we need more high-quality research before we can recommend when trans kids should get medically transitioned. That evidence may show benefits for some kids. But you simply cannot shut down the need to produce better evidence.

Explain how a double-blind protocol would be designed here. Ethically.

Explain how ethically a child can consent to loss of sexual function and fertility?

The design of research studies is complicated and I don’t pretend to be an expert. But to claim “oh we can’t do those studies therefore you have to accept crap reasearch as THE TRUTH” is totally toxic. Maybe there are some areas where you cannot do controlled research very well. That may be the case, but it doesn’t follow that you can exaggerate the conclusions of the less-definitive research. If all we have is poor quality evidence, then we cannot say “it’s SCIENCE that trans kids should medically transition!”

Puberty blockers also significantly impact IQ and have other life changing impacts on bone density, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The Cass analysis only shines a light on the paltry evidence supporting medicalized treatments for gender dysphoria in youth. The lack of that evidence has been known for years. The studies (and lack thereof) have been plainly visible to anyone with the willingness to be skeptical of religious dogma, neutral, and scientifically-minded for a long time. The criticisms of the report are transparently ideological and not grounded in solid data analysis.

However, thread will get shut down because the hard facts of the weakness of the studies and medical evidence are not welcome in places like DCUM, where religious belief prevails over scientific analysis with respect to discussion of medicalized treatment for gender dysphoria in youth. This is not the place for rigorous discussion of medical evidence and treatment pathways.

I also think it must be supremely painful for those parents who were emotionally manipulated into certain medical treatments with the execrable and not evidence-based threats of “dead son or live daughter,” or vice versa. For those people, this must all be awful. I don’t think the random DCUM threads are helpful to them.

It’s only “paltry” evidence because they excluded 98% of studies that supported transition as a therapy for lack of a double blind protocol without considering whether a double blind protocol would even be ethical/permitted by an IRB.

This is an area where there is broad agreement among the researchers and medical professionals and it’s all been politicized to help divert people’s attention from more important issues.

It’s fine if you want to believe what you want to believe but don’t try to argue “hard facts” support you.

Exactly.

They had objective standards for high-quality research. And the major conclusion is that we need more high-quality research before we can recommend when trans kids should get medically transitioned. That evidence may show benefits for some kids. But you simply cannot shut down the need to produce better evidence.

Explain how a double-blind protocol would be designed here. Ethically.

Explain how ethically a child can consent to loss of sexual function and fertility?

The design of research studies is complicated and I don’t pretend to be an expert. But to claim “oh we can’t do those studies therefore you have to accept crap reasearch as THE TRUTH” is totally toxic. Maybe there are some areas where you cannot do controlled research very well. That may be the case, but it doesn’t follow that you can exaggerate the conclusions of the less-definitive research. If all we have is poor quality evidence, then we cannot say “it’s SCIENCE that trans kids should medically transition!”

Children aren’t getting bottom surgery so that’s irrelevant.

Do we need more research? Sure.

Is it complicated to navigate the ethics while designing these studies? Yes.

Should anti-trans activists gatekeep studies because of this? No f-ing way.

It’s pure political posturing to completely ignore the studies that have been done because of the complex nature of the work.

Jazz Jennings was a minor and there have been others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:" it's obvious that has not been happening in many instances, and the fallout from what is likely to be a significant medical scandal is just beginning."

No. It is not obvious. What is obvious is that decades of ignoring transcare has been more detrimental to children and adults a extreme pivot, even if you believe that it's extreme, which I do not.


People who have absolutely no experience with this feel the need to chime in. "Parents are being manipulated. Parents have an agenda. Medical doctors have an agenda."

What do you think their agenda is? Their agenda is the best care of their children and their patients and your endless, useless input on something you have no concept of and do not have to deal with is just exhausting

When I see someone write "I'm tired" or "just exhausting" or something similar, I know they are on ideological weak grounds because they can't argue back convincingly, so they resort to these kinds of tropes.

The Cass report is highly damaging and summarized what many of us long thought and observed. Gender dysphoria is a real condition for a tiny number of children but it is separate from factual biology, and enablers blew it enormously out of proportions and effectively hoodwinked gullible progressive parents into thinking their kids were trans and fooling the kids themselves, many who were autistic or gay or lesbian and still figuring things out. Then throw in an undeniable aspect of female fetishization that does have a history within the gay community. Recipe for disaster. The sad thing is that quite a few of these kids permanently damaged their bodies as well as mental conditions because of enabling adults who thought they were being "kind".

Wow. So many baseless, unsupported conclusions here.

The Cass report is highly flawed because it intentionally ignores large amounts of work on the field.

it doesn’t “intentionally ignore” anything.

+1

But they’re going to keep repeating it because it’s all they’ve got. Even the BMJ guy disagrees.
There’s a scientific paper that throws all their beliefs into question. They’re having a very hard time with that.

I’ve long said the pendulum has swung too far with the whole trans movement. Let’s hope this is a swing back in the right direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The Cass analysis only shines a light on the paltry evidence supporting medicalized treatments for gender dysphoria in youth. The lack of that evidence has been known for years. The studies (and lack thereof) have been plainly visible to anyone with the willingness to be skeptical of religious dogma, neutral, and scientifically-minded for a long time. The criticisms of the report are transparently ideological and not grounded in solid data analysis.

However, thread will get shut down because the hard facts of the weakness of the studies and medical evidence are not welcome in places like DCUM, where religious belief prevails over scientific analysis with respect to discussion of medicalized treatment for gender dysphoria in youth. This is not the place for rigorous discussion of medical evidence and treatment pathways.

I also think it must be supremely painful for those parents who were emotionally manipulated into certain medical treatments with the execrable and not evidence-based threats of “dead son or live daughter,” or vice versa. For those people, this must all be awful. I don’t think the random DCUM threads are helpful to them.

It’s only “paltry” evidence because they excluded 98% of studies that supported transition as a therapy for lack of a double blind protocol without considering whether a double blind protocol would even be ethical/permitted by an IRB.

This is an area where there is broad agreement among the researchers and medical professionals and it’s all been politicized to help divert people’s attention from more important issues.

It’s fine if you want to believe what you want to believe but don’t try to argue “hard facts” support you.

Exactly.

They had objective standards for high-quality research. And the major conclusion is that we need more high-quality research before we can recommend when trans kids should get medically transitioned. That evidence may show benefits for some kids. But you simply cannot shut down the need to produce better evidence.

Explain how a double-blind protocol would be designed here. Ethically.

Explain how ethically a child can consent to loss of sexual function and fertility?

The design of research studies is complicated and I don’t pretend to be an expert. But to claim “oh we can’t do those studies therefore you have to accept crap reasearch as THE TRUTH” is totally toxic. Maybe there are some areas where you cannot do controlled research very well. That may be the case, but it doesn’t follow that you can exaggerate the conclusions of the less-definitive research. If all we have is poor quality evidence, then we cannot say “it’s SCIENCE that trans kids should medically transition!”

Children aren’t getting bottom surgery so that’s irrelevant.

Do we need more research? Sure.

Is it complicated to navigate the ethics while designing these studies? Yes.

Should anti-trans activists gatekeep studies because of this? No f-ing way.

It’s pure political posturing to completely ignore the studies that have been done because of the complex nature of the work.

If you don’t know how hormones affect fertility and sexual function, you should not be engaging in debate with anyone. You’ve already lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The Cass analysis only shines a light on the paltry evidence supporting medicalized treatments for gender dysphoria in youth. The lack of that evidence has been known for years. The studies (and lack thereof) have been plainly visible to anyone with the willingness to be skeptical of religious dogma, neutral, and scientifically-minded for a long time. The criticisms of the report are transparently ideological and not grounded in solid data analysis.

However, thread will get shut down because the hard facts of the weakness of the studies and medical evidence are not welcome in places like DCUM, where religious belief prevails over scientific analysis with respect to discussion of medicalized treatment for gender dysphoria in youth. This is not the place for rigorous discussion of medical evidence and treatment pathways.

I also think it must be supremely painful for those parents who were emotionally manipulated into certain medical treatments with the execrable and not evidence-based threats of “dead son or live daughter,” or vice versa. For those people, this must all be awful. I don’t think the random DCUM threads are helpful to them.

It’s only “paltry” evidence because they excluded 98% of studies that supported transition as a therapy for lack of a double blind protocol without considering whether a double blind protocol would even be ethical/permitted by an IRB.

This is an area where there is broad agreement among the researchers and medical professionals and it’s all been politicized to help divert people’s attention from more important issues.

It’s fine if you want to believe what you want to believe but don’t try to argue “hard facts” support you.

Exactly.

They had objective standards for high-quality research. And the major conclusion is that we need more high-quality research before we can recommend when trans kids should get medically transitioned. That evidence may show benefits for some kids. But you simply cannot shut down the need to produce better evidence.

Explain how a double-blind protocol would be designed here. Ethically.

Explain how ethically a child can consent to loss of sexual function and fertility?

The design of research studies is complicated and I don’t pretend to be an expert. But to claim “oh we can’t do those studies therefore you have to accept crap reasearch as THE TRUTH” is totally toxic. Maybe there are some areas where you cannot do controlled research very well. That may be the case, but it doesn’t follow that you can exaggerate the conclusions of the less-definitive research. If all we have is poor quality evidence, then we cannot say “it’s SCIENCE that trans kids should medically transition!”

Children aren’t getting bottom surgery so that’s irrelevant.

Do we need more research? Sure.

Is it complicated to navigate the ethics while designing these studies? Yes.

Should anti-trans activists gatekeep studies because of this? No f-ing way.

It’s pure political posturing to completely ignore the studies that have been done because of the complex nature of the work.

It’s frankly scary how you can be so ignorant yet have your pitchforks out for anyone you deem “anti-trans.” The impact on fertility for children is not due to bottom surgery. It is happens when their reproductive systems cannot develop because they don’t go through normal puberty and then they take cross-sex hormones. That’s the medical care that many kids are getting. It can also impact sexual function as well.

And I know “gate keep” is a trendy term, but wtf is “gate keeping” a scientific study? Do you think research that aligns with your beliefs should be exempt from critique, ie, gatekeeping?

Puberty blockers don’t destroy fertility and hormone treatment happens at an older age. Fertility isn’t truly lost until gonads are removed, if ever. Irrelevant.

Yes, by ignoring substantial amount of work in the field the anti-trans activists are gatekeeping.

Or, if you think this report isn’t biased, I’d love to hear how this supposed ethical, double-blind protocol would work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The Cass analysis only shines a light on the paltry evidence supporting medicalized treatments for gender dysphoria in youth. The lack of that evidence has been known for years. The studies (and lack thereof) have been plainly visible to anyone with the willingness to be skeptical of religious dogma, neutral, and scientifically-minded for a long time. The criticisms of the report are transparently ideological and not grounded in solid data analysis.

However, thread will get shut down because the hard facts of the weakness of the studies and medical evidence are not welcome in places like DCUM, where religious belief prevails over scientific analysis with respect to discussion of medicalized treatment for gender dysphoria in youth. This is not the place for rigorous discussion of medical evidence and treatment pathways.

I also think it must be supremely painful for those parents who were emotionally manipulated into certain medical treatments with the execrable and not evidence-based threats of “dead son or live daughter,” or vice versa. For those people, this must all be awful. I don’t think the random DCUM threads are helpful to them.

It’s only “paltry” evidence because they excluded 98% of studies that supported transition as a therapy for lack of a double blind protocol without considering whether a double blind protocol would even be ethical/permitted by an IRB.

This is an area where there is broad agreement among the researchers and medical professionals and it’s all been politicized to help divert people’s attention from more important issues.

It’s fine if you want to believe what you want to believe but don’t try to argue “hard facts” support you.

Exactly.

They had objective standards for high-quality research. And the major conclusion is that we need more high-quality research before we can recommend when trans kids should get medically transitioned. That evidence may show benefits for some kids. But you simply cannot shut down the need to produce better evidence.

Explain how a double-blind protocol would be designed here. Ethically.

Explain how ethically a child can consent to loss of sexual function and fertility?

The design of research studies is complicated and I don’t pretend to be an expert. But to claim “oh we can’t do those studies therefore you have to accept crap reasearch as THE TRUTH” is totally toxic. Maybe there are some areas where you cannot do controlled research very well. That may be the case, but it doesn’t follow that you can exaggerate the conclusions of the less-definitive research. If all we have is poor quality evidence, then we cannot say “it’s SCIENCE that trans kids should medically transition!”

Children aren’t getting bottom surgery so that’s irrelevant.

Do we need more research? Sure.

Is it complicated to navigate the ethics while designing these studies? Yes.

Should anti-trans activists gatekeep studies because of this? No f-ing way.

It’s pure political posturing to completely ignore the studies that have been done because of the complex nature of the work.

It’s frankly scary how you can be so ignorant yet have your pitchforks out for anyone you deem “anti-trans.” The impact on fertility for children is not due to bottom surgery. It is happens when their reproductive systems cannot develop because they don’t go through normal puberty and then they take cross-sex hormones. That’s the medical care that many kids are getting. It can also impact sexual function as well.

And I know “gate keep” is a trendy term, but wtf is “gate keeping” a scientific study? Do you think research that aligns with your beliefs should be exempt from critique, ie, gatekeeping?

Puberty blockers don’t destroy fertility and hormone treatment happens at an older age. Fertility isn’t truly lost until gonads are removed, if ever. Irrelevant.

Yes, by ignoring substantial amount of work in the field the anti-trans activists are gatekeeping.

Or, if you think this report isn’t biased, I’d love to hear how this supposed ethical, double-blind protocol would work.

What older age do you think hormone treatment is happening at?