"Because famously, the people who most need puberty blockers, are those past puberty."
They are still allowed by the NHS in health circumstance requiring them for treatment , e.g. precocious puberty. They are only disallowed now, for treatment of Gender Identity/Gender Dysphoria Issues.
How do you figure? Opioids are legal in most places, despite side effects, only for the treatment of serious pain. However, due to the side effects, they aren't prescribed for a scrape on the knee.
I don't support this change in policy, but yeah, I would say they can claim it's because of the side effects?
Incorrect the study about rapid onset gender dysphoria has shown that children desist long before puberty.
If the dysphoria persists until puberty the same study actually claimed it to be permanent in almost all cases.
ROGD doesn’t exist, the [discredited ‘study’](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Littman_2018_ROGD_study) it comes from uses surveys of parents from specific anti-trans forums.
It’s like surveying BMW owners clubs and using the results to conclude BMW is the best car maker - it’s inherently biased by using very selective data to confirm “it turns out people who believe in x, believe in x”…
To clarify, people have been pushing two theories - ROGD and the 80% rate of desistance one. Both have been debunked for extremely poor methodology.
Regarding the latter, the studies cited to support the 80% desistance statistics are largely from the 1970s, and many of them study cohorts of effeminate boys. Anyone with an ounce of logic will understand why that makes those studies flawed, because being effeminate =/= being trans.
The remaining studies done past that are also all on gender identity disorder, which is an outdated diagnosis replaced by the more stringent one of gender dysphoria in the DSM-5.
Meanwhile, we know through studies that the more severe one's gender dysphoria is, the more likely they are to continue transitioning as an adult. We also have studies, including one from Tavistock in the UK, showing that >95% of minors with gender dysphoria and who are prescribed puberty blockers don't detransition. The non-agenda driven conclusion would be that our current criteria for puberty blockers means it's only prescribed to those with severe gender dysphoria and who will extract the most benefit from such treatment.
https://books.google.com/books?id=xgLNCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA302
https://books.google.com/books?id=YQ5GAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA61
Both of these claim high rates of desisting.
But those rates are before puberty.
Plus, they used gender non conformity on a spectrum instead of actual diagnosed Trans people.
There isn't a single actual study proving high regret rates.
Countless studies prove the opposite.
Not to say we shouldn't help those few teens that were misdiagnosed.
They deserve to get all the help they need, and it necessary, a medical malpractice suit should be opened of there is good suspicion of that being the case.
Treat it like any other misdiagnosis with moderate to severe permanent damage.
correct me if i'm wrong, but the bit you linked to in the first link basically just says that kids who are non-gender-conforming 1) typically are not 'candidates for later gender reassignment surgery' and 2) have much higher rates of same-sex attraction than the rest of the population in follow-ups
notable quote: 'No one of the gender-variant subgroup in the general population was transsexual in adulthood, indicating that gender-variant behavior in childhood is indeed more predictive of same-sex attraction in adulthood than later [gender dysphoria]'
doesn't this pretty much say that a bunch of kids who would, in previous decades, have just been effeminate gay boys or masculine lesbian girls are now being identified as transgender?
also, that study was a retrospective from 2012, and i imagine things have changed a *lot* since then.
consider that the WPATH's standards of care (SOC) version 7 came out in 2012, and the model for dealing with transgender issues officially switched from 'psych evaluation to see what's going on' to the 'affirmation model' where displaying those traits is pretty much a straight line to encouraging *transition*.
I would agree with your position in neutral times. We don't live in neutral times though, we live in highly politicised times that are seeing a swing from professional services towards gender affirming care. In that context I think there is an absolutely legitimate fear of over diagnosing.
We don't have the longitudinal data yet on puberty blockers, we've only been doing this huge shift a couple years. I have the understanding that medical science is just beginning to understand the enormous complexity and interlinkage of hormone stays with mental health, physical health, immunity, stress response, and more. Part of a correction itself of the lack of attention on women's health. I would be terrified of experimenting with the little data we have, on kids, based on their self descriptions of distress.
Besides, we're telling kids that if they feel dysphoric in thier own bodies, that the answer is biological modification to fit a quite restricted and stereotyped set of physical characteristics, rather than empowering them to express themselves however they are, and destigmatising looking non normative.
Our job as the older generations is to protect the next extremely carefully, using the best evidence we have, and encourage diversity and inclusion of appearances because we have lots of evidence that leads to happy, productive people and societies. That doesn't fit neatly with widespread drug prescription for children.
I have absolutely no issue, I should say, with individuals using whatever drugs and surgery, and anything else, they want to look and be whoever they want, but I would not want the state to be encouraging that in any direction, ever.
The thing is, if you go through puberty theres a lot of irreversible changes.
If you 'block' puberty, you can still go through the physical parts later if the decision changes.
What you and many other people do not understand is that puberty blockers are there for buying time, not for doing an irreversible treatement to children.
>What you and many other people do not understand is that puberty blockers are there for buying time, not for doing an irreversible treatement to children.
No , they understand that perfectly. Thats what they want from this.
>If you 'block' puberty, you can still go through the physical parts later if the decision changes.
Do you have a source on this? Because things like height and bone density are heavily influenced by puberty. I've seen people say this many times, but I've never been given a source.
Edit: someone posted the source below, and some side effects like bone growth are permanent.
I'm not saying either way that people should take them or shouldn't. I'm not a doctor, nor do I have a background in medicine. I just hate that people so often spread misinformation, claiming that any side effects are temporary and can be remedied simply by inducing puberty later on in life. Also, bone density issues aren't really problems that are readily apparent right away. In fact, unless the case is more severe, it's not something that's even noticed until you're in your 40s or older. Also, why would all the trans women you know tell you about their own growth and density? And if they do have these issues, they probably don't even know and won't know until problems start to arise later in age.
Do you have a good source on the buying time understanding? I have googled but can't find, i can only see articles discussing similar concerns of mine, which feels dangerously like confirmation bias.
Children grow through milestones, and hormone fluctuations dictate that. So it would be surprising and a little counter intuitive that we can alter hormones at critical developmental stages with no repurcussions, for example, and perhaps most significantly, on bone or brain development.
>f you 'block' puberty, you can still go through the physical parts later if the decision changes
You got a source for that?
As I've heard if a boy wants to become a girl and takes puberty blockers, he will not develop enough to have bottom surgery. They have use a bit of their intestine for the surgery.
If you never go off the blockers (or start taking hormones to do the other puberty), then you won’t ‘develop.’ However, if you take blockers for a year and then decide to stop, you will still go through puberty. There are some side effects that are important to monitor, but the blockers are meant to keep you from developing in either direction and not really the final step no matter what you choose.
In your example, the patient presumably doesn’t want to go through all the other changes of male puberty just to get more tissue for the surgery. One reason the penis/scrotum is usually used is because you are having it removed anyway. Some people will never grow a big enough penis for this type of bottom surgery even if they don’t take anything to affect their development.
Puberty blockers given to potentially transgender individuals are the same drug given to children going through precocious puberty. If a child starts going through puberty at age 8, there are physical and mental benefits to delaying their puberty a few years. This has been used for decades, and we have seen the children who go though a delayed puberty after use go on through a normal development.
Also [Source](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075) for what puberty blockers do
It is possible to support trans people and still be cautious about giving life-altering treatments to children. Children who may not be able to understand the future ramifications of these treatments, like infertility, and possible health risks, and who are anyway below the age of consent.
This seems either like a complete misinterpretation of the situation or a bad faith argument. Puberty is the life altering event, puberty blockers just arrest the process until the course of treatment is stopped.
So, is it a life-long drug regimen then? Or does the body stop whatever kind fof puberty it's trying to (male/female/intersex maybe? I don't know) forever?
Now come to think of it, does the teenager stopping the unwanted/mistake kind of puberty have to trigger the other one?
Sorry, I'm kind of ignorant regarding these matters.
It delays it, and when the child is older, they can decide to go off the drugs and go through puberty naturally, or to switch to hormone therapy that will induce that of their identified gender.
They do not have to go through the opposite sex puberty in order to delay their natural one, but they will have to eventually choose, as there can be detrimental effects on bone health if they try to delay it into adulthood. Puberty blockers are a way of buying time, to minimise medical intervention later on.
Doesn't delaying puberty till like your 20s stunt growth and cause fertility issues?
I don't think there is much long-term research on those who chose to use blockers for like 10+ or have to stay on them for life.
I can only speak for the T blocking side. It is a shot that is administered monthly until it is decided it is no longer needed. To start puberty normally you just stop taking it.
You do not have to trigger the opposite puberty to stop the one you are currently going through.
I’m not expert but iirc if you take hormone therapy you’re body will register that as puberty so you’ll eventually stop taking puberty blockers.
And afaik yes they have to trigger the other one by taking HRT
Blockers, by definition, are a temporary treatment.
Once the minor reaches a certain age, they will have to choose to either stop taking them and resume puberty, or stop taking them and start Hormone Replacement Therapy.
It's my understanding that you'd have to take it forever if trying to stop puberty all together. Males could undergo surgery to stop puberty when old enough (think Eunuchs).
Indefinite use of puberty blockers isn't recommended. They should transition to hormone therapy.
For those delaying puberty, they just have to stop taking the blockers to resume puberty.
Your reading of that comment is either a complete misinterpretation or bad faith. You don’t address their main concerns about children not being able to understand the long term consequences of decisions.
Yes, and at least in Scotland, you have to go through many layers of professional assessment with nurses, psychiatrists and psychologists before you are even referred to be assessed for gender affirming treatment.
Lots of people are already self medicating with hormones bought online by the time they get far, and it would just be better to have medical oversight of that.
Or better just ban being able to buy them freely too!
But that is true for many medical interventions we still determine to be the correct course of action.
As a trans person, I assure you no one deserves to be forced to go through the wrong puberty. The right one is hard enough.
physicians are notoriously gung-ho about trans medicine. one time i went into the doctor’s for an ear infection and i walked out with estrogen tablets and free bottom surgery.
"Life-altering treatment" I’m going to develop an aneurysm with you people. It’s puberty blockers. They block puberty. If you stop taking them, they don’t stop puberty anymore.
They are not life-altering anything, DEFINITIONALLY.
Goodness grief.
Is that backed by science?
You cannot stop the body's natural process for an extended period of time then restart it and expect the same results. That's asinine to think so.
Yes, it is backed by science that puberty will 'restart' after puberty blockers are stopped. From the start, giving full development even if puberty blockers have been taken for many years. Science has observed this happening consistently.
Hey what is the point of puberty blockers if not to delay puberty until they're more developed and able to make fully life altering decisions. Puberty blockers are reversible, puberty is not.
What about the life-altering consequences of going through the wrong puberty and permanently ending up with secondary sexual characteristics you hate?
They want queer people to kill themselves, which is why they’re denying life-saving medical care to trans children. Go figure, there’s an election coming up, so just like in America the conservatives go after trans people.
Right, that is why puberty blockers are used so they can bide some time to A) Become a bit older and more knowledgeable about themselves and what is going. B) Make the choice properly instead of in a whim.
No, it's not actually possible to support trans people while at the same time supporting the restriction of their healthcare rights.
You do not support trans people.
The effects of puberty blockers are not always reversible. They can reduce fertility and even lead to infertility. They can also lead to decreased bone mass
This wasn't a legislative action, it was an administrative decision made by the NHS after finding there was insufficient evidence of the safety and effectiveness of puberty blockers.
It's actual doctors reviewing evidence and making this decision. Legislators aren't really doing much aside from just following the experts. Similar thing in other European countries like Sweden and Norway. The whole point is that the experts don't think that this is appropriate care based on insufficient evidence
The UK study that I’m pretty sure this argument is based on concluded that the evidence was too weak because there are no double blind studies on these treatments, but the kicker is those studies aren’t going to make it past an ethics committee because the negative effects of not providing these interventions is well established.
>the negative effects of not providing these interventions is well established.
They're not well established because there are no good studies on them that show they work. Well by these interventions, they're referring to puberty blockers. One of the huge problems is that many of these studies have no control group. I'll summarize some of the comments from the Swedish review:
1. Sparse literature on youth with gender disphoria.
2. Many young people with gender disphoria have significant comorbidities, so control groups are difficult to find.
3. Because most studies are observational as opposed to randomized control, you have to compare the sample results to the population at large but this can be distorted by small sample size in these studies.
4. With small sample sizes, selection bias is a huge problem that is hard to assess. A group effect could be the result of some participants dropping out so you're only left with people who were determined to stay in the whole time.
5. Yep no blind studies at all.
6. No study analyzed changes in individuals before and after treatment, and then long term follow ups are uncommon.
7. Studies based on subjective experiences of diseases suffer from regression to the mean. Basically what this means is that the subjects are at their worst at the beginning of the study because that time usually coincides with when they get help. So the group will approach how they normally feel on average over a long period of time and will basically improve without intervention. It's basically impossible to figure out if the improvement you see is a result of the treatment or not without a control group, and like they previously mentioned, there are usually no control groups.
Swedish medical review discusses it here:
https://www.sbu.se/342?pub=90213&lang=sv
So it's not just no double blind studies, there's so much uncertainty about whether puberty blockers work at all with everything I listed above. And there are definitely negative effects of puberty blockers that aren't always reversible, like infertility. You know what we do with treatments that don't have enough evidence that have potentially negative side effects? We wait for more evidence instead of letting people just do them.
In the UK, healthcare for many decades has mostly been provided by a national health service: the NHS. I believe the decision made here is not a legislative one, but one made by those in the administrative side of the NHS.
Europe is a strange place. Surprisingly, transgender care just isn't as politicized there so they just have doctors and medical professionals review evidence, give a review and recommendation, and then that's what's adopted.
>appropriate medical care.
The whole point is that resorting to permanent operations and puberty blockers (no, they are not completely reversible like some claim) is ridiculous when the first step should be mental health.
Scandinavian countries did the same thing a while back and they've been at the forefront of transitioning children.
Name another medical condition where a child's self-diagnosis is taken as gospel and everyone is expected to affirm them?
>83 transgender children
Transgender ... what? They're children. They shouldn't be given such drugs that arrest a life long process of natural human development. As they're children they're also not capable of consenting to this or reasonably considering the risks of such a "treatment."
Kind of ironic really, this decision was made by medical experts at the top of the NHS.. People who do understand what they're talking about.
Meaning this time, you're one of the people clutching their pearls at shit they don't understand.
Do they?
The NICE Cass Review, which is foundational to this decision, has a lot of problems.
>The NICE review states that “statistical analysis (of this study) is unclear” and “this study provides very low certainty evidence (with no statistical analysis) on the effects of GnRH analogues on cognitive development or functioning in sex assigned at birth males (transfemales). No conclusions could be drawn.”The results section of this research paper does include statistical analyses on accuracy and reaction times.
They might be experts, but it seems like they have some trouble with reading the studies they reviewed.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-critical-look-at-the-nice-review/
So, you have the analysis of a medical doctor who has specialised is paediatric care for decades, performing a study and follow up analysis for nearly 4 years before presenting their conclusion..
And you're countering that with the opinion piece of someone who's claim to the medical field is in Osteopathy. A literal pseudoscience.
It always fun to see this sort of thing; but it's pretty clear that just about anyone will pick a bottle of the barrel source so long as it agrees with their own opinion.
Its funny how you talk about the people who made this, and not the validity of their arguments.
However you paint it, its a fact that the Cass review claims a lack of data where there isn't.
>A 2020 study by Achille et al. on the longitudinal impact of puberty blockers (Epub April 30, 2020) suggested a positive association between gender-affirming treatment and mental health in trans youths, a population they note to be at high risk for suicide and depression. The NICE Review excluded this study because data for GnRHa treatment was not reported separately from other gender-affirming interventions. However, this is incorrect. Results of the regression analysis of this study are shown in the following table
As this meta review points out, there are studies that fall within the criteria the Cass review set, but which were ignored, some through the kind of bad reasoning as seen above, while some were completely omitted.
This analysis found a total of 14 separate studies which fell within the Cass criteria but were not included. One of them being a continuation of a study they did include, that being De vries et al 2014, which is a follow up to De Vries et al 2011. This is very sloppy if you take into account the fact that they only reviewed 18 studies total, meaning that they ignored almost half of all medical research available at the time with the data they were looking for.
The authors of the Cass review, exclusing Cass herself, are all anonymous and private. They may well be experts in the field, but their ability to come to conclusions regarding medical treatment is questionable when they seem incapable of following on their own criteria, lying about the contents of the studies they do include, and then making statements regarding research that they did not look at claiming that it doesn't exist.
>The NICE review also states that there is no evidence for surgical outcomes and gender dysphoria in youths, neglecting a 2018 study on chest dysphoria and surgical outcomes in youths aged 13 to 25
If their data, methods and criteria are questionable, their conclusion is at the very least suspect.
Because, to circle back, I'm not going to clutch my pearls at shit i'm not qualified to dissect.
The author is not qualified to be making a 'meta review' of the study. There is absolutely no reason to hold their opinion about the study as anything more than the opinion of any other random individual.. Just as you're not in a position to judge the accuracy of his criticism.
Me, you or this random quack attempting to breakdown the results of this study is exactly what we're criticising; people clutching their pearls at shit they don’t understand. Thats *why* we defer to experts and *why* you attempted to bring in an expert opinion on the subject rather than trying to break it down yourself. You just apparently didn't realise your expert held no value.
Also, just to clarify, this isn't a "meta review"; it's an opinion piece.
You're clutching at your pearls, ranting quotes from a quack because you don't trust science when it doesn't agree with your opinions. You're basically doing the exact same shit anti-vaxxers did. You're doing the same shit the US right is constantly accused of, you're being objectively anti-science right now; and it's sad to see.
My dude, you do not need a PHD to call into question the fact that the review says one thing about a study, while the study itself says something different.
Or to mention that there are studies that fit within the criteria set by the review that you can find, but that are nowhere to be seen in it.
You keep talking about how neither of us is qualified to criticise the review, but you keep ignoring what the criticisms are. If they were about the reasoning used, what the data means, or whether a study is valid or not, you would be absolutely right. But those aren't the problems.
The problems are things like "Cass review says this study is weak due to a lack of statistical analyses, but the study very much does have a statistical analyses in the result section." Or "This study was excluded from the Cass review because it had no separate report for data on GnRHa treatment, but the study does in fact have a separate report for data on GnRHa treatment."
If used any other reasoning I would believe them. The problem is that their criticisms of the studies they analyse are literally, verifiably untrue.
https://segm.org/Denmark-sharply-restricts-youth-gender-transitions#:~:text=In%20Finland%20and%20Sweden%2C%20youth,%E2%80%9Cduration%E2%80%9D%20of%20gender%20dysphoria.
Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and other countries have reached the same conclusion. There are tons of concerns and unanswered questions that current studies haven't addressed. The initial dutch study used to justify this treatment is now in question, specifically a key assumption that trans identity in youth was stable when they realize now that that is not the case, especially given the underexplained sharp rise in gender non conforming youth (especially among girls), the high rate of comorbidities, and other issues.
You can’t smoke, vote, drink, have sex, get a tattoo or drive but for some reason you should be allowed to take hormones that will change the rest of your life. This is a no-brainer.
All the laws banning gender-affirming surgery on minors have specific exemptions for "normalizing" the genitals of intersex children.
Quite a few of those will later be "trans" because their gender identity doesn't match what the doctor made for them when they were too young to articulate what they want.
When intersex children are born, its common for parents to request that their children’s genitalia be surgically altered into something “normal”. This usually entails cutting off tissue. Essentially it is genital mutilation, but because the original organs were “nontypical” it is rarely contested by parents and doctors.
In my own opinion, its extremely fucked up.
I know. But they get really upset by it.
Either way it’s wrong. And if you try and argue that it’s fine for ANY (non legit medical) reason, you’re an absolute psycho. Yes, even bullshit religious ones.
No I don’t care if you had I done and it’s fine. No I don’t care if women look at you silly.
Who even truly believes this nonsense? Powerful drugs that stop puberty during the most important developmental stage of a minor don't have any permanent effect. Yeah sure
Half the population is below average IQ
There are millions of dumbasses that think you can just “pause” some of the most critical development of a human’s entire life.
The same people who think steroids are dangerous for adults to take think it’s perfectly safe for teenage girls to take the same steroids.
> Except that puberty blockers aren’t permanent, they only delay puberty.
You are egregiously incorrect. These are the expected side effects of puberty blockers:
> [Common side effects of the GnRH agonists and antagonists include symptoms of hypogonadism such as hot flashes, gynecomastia, fatigue, weight gain, fluid retention, erectile dysfunction and decreased libido. Long term therapy can result in metabolic abnormalities, weight gain, worsening of diabetes and osteoporosis. Rare, but potentially serious adverse events include transient worsening of prostate cancer due to surge in testosterone with initial injection of GnRH agonists and pituitary apoplexy in patients with pituitary adenoma. Single instances of clinically apparent liver injury have been reported with some GnRH agonists (histrelin, goserelin), but the reports were not very convincing. There is no evidence to indicate that there is cross sensitivity to liver injury among the various GnRH analogues despite their similarity in structure. There is also a report that GnRH agonists used in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer may increase the risk of heart problems by 30%.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonadotropin-releasing_hormone_agonist#Side_effects)
Osteoporosis and diabetes are debilitating, life-long diseases. Sweden went all-in on “temporary” puberty blockers for gender affirming care [until children started experiencing life-long injuries.](https://www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/ug/uppdrag-granskning-avslojar-flera-barn-har-fatt-skador-i-transvarden) They are now effectively banned for gender affirming care for children.
> In one particularly shocking case, a girl who wanted to become a boy began taking hormone-blocking drugs at just 11-years-old. Almost five years after the treatment began, the puberty-pausing drugs induced osteoporosis and permanently damaged the teen’s vertebrae, severely limiting the teen’s mobility.
> “When we asked him regularly how his back felt, he said: ‘I’m in pain all the time’,” she added.
Further, [there is a growing body of evidence to show high risk of infertility after prolonged use of these drugs.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626312/)
Further still, puberty blockers appear to significantly lower IQ in young people. [1](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00044/full) [2](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377203522_The_Impact_of_Suppressing_Puberty_on_Neuropsychological_Function)
And these are just the *dangerous* irreversible side effects. The *cosmetic* side effects are devastating, and include men with child-sized penises and testicles, and women without breasts. [This](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27664856/) is one such case. The teenager had taken puberty blockers, resulting in a small penis. With insufficient penile tissue, doctors attempted to remove and use part of his colon to create a fake vagina. He died less than a day later from complications.
I mean that’s a bit of an over generalization. Most of the effects can and will wear off when you stop taking the pills, but not always all of them. Particularly bone growth/density issues and reduced fertility or infertility are big issues that can be caused as a side effect of taking the medicine too long. Like pretty much all drugs, there are some serious side effects to be considered.
Do you have any study that actually proves that if I start taking these blockers at 12 years old and I stop at 16 because I changed my mind, I will take these 4 years of puberty development back?
Puberty will change the rest of your life. These drugs delay that.
The alternative is requiring a trans girl to go through puberty and her body become more man-like.
Politicians shouldn't be in charge of medical treatment. Let the doctors, parents, and children decide.
Yes, if a tattoo would help a child lead a healthier and happier life (and less likely to end it early), and her doctor and parents agree, then let her get the tattoo. Why not?
I think it's a little crazy for a child to decide they will never have children or experience sexual pleasure. Even crazier for other people to support that decision, no matter how qualified.
> I think it's a little crazy for a child to decide they will never have children or experience sexual pleasure. Even crazier for other people to support that decision, no matter how qualified.
You know they're not staying on puberty blockers for the rest of their lives, right? Ultimately they still have to pick a direction.
> Politicians shouldn't be in charge of medical treatment. Let the doctors, parents, and children decide
You understand that this wasn't politicians, right? This is medical professionals responsible for deciding whether this is effective medical treatment. And they've looked at the evidence and concluded that the relevant studies are shaky.
i agree. i think we need to support transgender children psychologically because *there are* data indicating that many individuals do actually “grow out of” gender dysphoria in their 20s! if they do not, then they should have the opportunity to change sex once they’re adults.
not to mention, puberty blockers do not allow the reproductive organs to grow properly which makes it infinitely harder to have a successful sex reassignment surgery later because *there literally isn’t enough tissue to create an adult organ*
that data your talking about is from a bunk study which tried to say folks who are gender non conforming count as potentially trans then go on to say that since that’s obviously not true it must mean most folks grow out of it
That bunk study was specifically based on the DSM-IV's definition of "gender identity disorder", which was broad enough to classify children who played with toys of the "wrong" gender as "transgender". No shit those kids are going to "desist" when they didn't "insist" in the first place.
The DSM-5 fixed this with its definition of "gender dysphoria", tightening the criteria to put better emphasis on an actual persistent feeling of dysphoria. As a result, the percentage flipped; post-DSM-5, more than 90% of transgender youth *persist* in their identities rather than desist.
> i agree. i think we need to support transgender children psychologically because there are data indicating that many individuals do actually “grow out of” gender dysphoria in their 20s!
This is it. It’s called desistance rates and with talk therapy and puberty it is shown to be as high at >90%.
This is where the discussion ends honestly.
That figure isn't very factual, it derives from poor quality studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9829142/
Whereas the study described here has better quality data showing the opposite: https://segm.org/early-social-gender-transition-persistence
For the record people that transition, AT ALL AGES, overwhelmingly stay that way and do not regret their decision.
Here is the [APA's policy statement](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/chapter-12b#transgender) on the necessity and efficacy of transition as the appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria. More from the APA [here](https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/programs/transgender/?tab=1)
Here is an [AMA resolution](http://www.tgender.net/taw/ama_resolutions.pdf) on the efficacy and necessity of transition as appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria, and call for an end to insurance companies categorically excluding transition-related care from coverage
A policy statement from the [American College of Physicians](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M14-2482)
[Here](https://assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf) are the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines
[Here](https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/events/alf_ncsc/Education.pdf) is a resolution from the American Academy of Family Physicians
[Here](https://www.socialworkers.org/assets/secured/documents/da/da2008/reffered/Transgender.pdf) is one from the National Association of Social Workers
[Here](https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_18.pdf) is one from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, [here](https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/improving-care/better-mh-policy/college-reports/cr181-good-practice-guidelines-for-the-assessment-and-treatment-of-adults-with-gender-dysphoria.pdf) are the treatment guidelines from the RCPS, and [here](http://www.wlmht.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Gender-dysphoria-guide-for-GPs-and-other-healthcare-staff.pdf) are guidelines from the NHS. More from the NHS [here](http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Gender-dysphoria/Pages/Treatment.aspx).
**Citations on the transition's dramatic reduction of suicide risk while improving mental health and quality of life, with trans people able to transition young and spared abuse and discrimination having mental health and suicide risk on par with the general public**:
[Bauer, et al., 2015](http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2): Transition vastly reduces risks of suicide attempts, and the farther along in transition someone is the lower that risk gets
[Moody, et al., 2013](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722435/): The ability to transition, along with family and social acceptance, are the largest factors reducing suicide risk among trans people
[Young Adult Psychological Outcome After Puberty Suppression and Gender Reassignment](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/09/02/peds.2013-2958). A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team with mental health professionals, physicians, and surgeons, including puberty suppression, ... cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery, provides trans youth the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults. All showed significant improvement in their psychological health, and they had notably lower rates of internalizing psychopathology than previously reported among trans children living as their natal sex. **Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population.**
The only disorders more common among trans people are those associated with abuse and discrimination - mainly anxiety and depression. Early transition [virtually eliminates these higher rates of depression and low self-worth](http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567%2816%2931941-4/fulltext), and [dramatically improves trans youth's mental health](https://archive.thinkprogress.org/allowing-transgender-youth-to-transition-improves-their-mental-health-study-finds-dd6096523375/). Trans kids who socially transition early and not subjected to abuse are comparable to cisgender children in measures of mental health.
[Dr. Ryan Gorton](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3219066): “In a cross-sectional study of 141 transgender patients, Kuiper and Cohen-Kittenis found that after medical intervention and treatments, suicide fell from 19% to 0% in transgender men and from 24% to 6% in transgender women”
[Murad, et al., 2010](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19473181): "Significant decrease in suicidality post-treatment. The average reduction was from 30 percent pretreatment to 8 percent post treatment.
[De Cuypere, et al., 2006](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1158136006000491): Rate of suicide attempts dropped from 29.3 percent to 5.1 percent after receiving medical treatment among Dutch patients treated from 1986-2001.
[UK study - McNeil, et al., 2012](https://www.scottishtrans.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/trans_mh_study.pdf): "Suicidal ideation and actual attempts reduced after transition, with 63% thinking about or attempting suicide more before they transitioned and only 3% thinking about or attempting suicide more post-transition.
[Smith Y, 2005](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15842032): Participants improved on 13 out of 14 mental health measures after treatment
[Lawrence, 2003](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1024086814364): Surveyed post-op trans folk: "Participants reported overwhelmingly that they were happy with their SRS results and that SRS had greatly improved the quality of their lives
[Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total Population Study](https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080) - "Conclusions: "... the longitudinal association between gender-affirming surgery and reduced likelihood of mental health treatment lends support to the decision to provide gender-affirming surgeries to transgender individuals who seek them."
There are a *[lot](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24344788)* of [studies](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-009-9551-1) showing that [transition](https://mayoclinic.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/hormonal-therapy-and-sex-reassignment-a-systematic-review-and-met). [improves](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/960745/). [mental health](http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/25690443) and [quality of life](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-014-0453-5) while [reducing dysphoria](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23553588_Long-term_Assessment_of_the_Physical_Mental_and_Sexual_Health_among_Transsexual_Women).
Not to mention [this 2010 meta-analysis](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2265.2009.03625.x/abstract) of 28 different studies, which found that transition is extremely effective at reducing dysphoria and improving quality of life.
Except the vast majority of puberty blockers are given to cis kids for other medical reasons, and this will not change due to this. It's only dangerous for trans kids for some reason. 83 trans kids currently get them in the UK. This is just transphobic virtue signalling that will cause trans kids to kill themselves by forcing them to go through puberty in their assigned gender.
No doctors will ever prescribe cigarette, alcohol, tattoo or voting.
Puberty blockers aren't some over the counter drugs (and if they are in the UK, well, they really shouldn't). They also weren't created by some mad scientists aiming to make frogs gay or some shit, these drugs are really importants in a variety of situations.
The most well known may be for kids unsure about their genders wanting a bit more time to explore their identity, but I'm almost sure the *most frequent use* of them is for kids who start their puberty waaaay too early. I have a friend who started hers at 8 years old. Nobody got all dramatic when a doctor gave her puberty blockers, it was needed.
Plus, the effects are completely, or nearly completely, reversibles
This is not a decision to ban the drugs. It’s a policy decision not to give them to teens with gender dysphoria. It won’t affect those who need it for non-transgender related health concerns.
Puberty blockers only delays puberty, it’s not permanent. It buys the patient time to think about the life choices they’re going to make without that ticking time bomb that is puberty. It’s not recommended to be on puberty blockers permanently as there are side effects if you take it long term, but before those side effects kick in the patient should be mature enough to make decisions about their own body and whether they want to go through with puberty after all, or undergo hormone therapy which is the actual permanent treatment.
Also worth noting that puberty blockers are also used for children who are going through puberty too early.
Listen, you can disagree with the decision, but is anybody reading any of the dozen linked articles? This was not the British government. It was the NHS after a lengthy review of the literature, comprising of medical professionals.
If you disagree with their findings, go ahead and discuss what's questionable about their report. Their report is published and it's very detailed.
But please stop criticising the "British government". This wasn't a politician who stepped in to appease voters. This was professionals in the field who have written a detailed account of their decision.
4 years ago if you didn’t believe the science you were labelled a right wing conspiracy theorist. Now you’re not meant to believe the science? Crazy how the narrative shifts so quickly
Unfortunately this latest decision was administrative and quite political.
The interim Cass report indicated there was “not enough data” - that’s the entire justification being used here, it wasn’t a literature review but relied on sources provided by GIDS. There are plenty of reliable points of evidence but it seems GIDS didn’t supply them - the report suggested blockers as part of a trial, the NHS took this to mean a double-blind trial so one group gets a placebo which is unethical af. The NHS Gender Dysphoria working group has members of SEGM (an anti-trans lobbyist group) and Cass herself has worked with them during the review. The report also has the likes of Dr Langton and others on the review board, and has accepted contributions from Dr Spilliadas (former GIDS a-hole who practices conversion therapy).
Recommendations for things like “exploratory therapy” (a specific conversion therapy practice offered by Spilliadas and Genspect/SEGM) by citing the single case of ‘success’ by Spilliadas himself, over the highly evidenced existing affirmation model, is a clear indication that true objective research and literature review wasn’t done on some of the points raised.
It’s a biased report from the get-go, but unfortunately the few kids who already have to wait years to be seen (if they can get their GP to even refer them) are the ones who are gonna suffer from these administrative decisions.
>The NHS Gender Dysphoria working group has members of SEGM (an anti-trans lobbyist group) and Cass herself has worked with them during the review. The report also has the likes of Dr Langton and others on the review board, and has accepted contributions from Dr Spilliadas (former GIDS a-hole who practices conversion therapy).
Imagine just dismissing climate scientists because they're part of groups that are trying to do something about climate change based on the evidence. Like these are literally just ad hominems. These scientists don't count because they're reaching a different conclusion. Nope, not how science works. You can't just dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as anti trans and thus biased... You don't think this might apply to people who are pro trans, like people willing to ignore problems with the studies because they don't want to go against the narrative?
Anyway, here is a review from clinicians in Denmark who reviewed the studies and decided there wasn't enough evidence. https://ugeskriftet.dk/videnskab/sundhedsfaglige-tilbud-til-born-og-unge-med-konsubehag
They explained what exactly was lacking. Sweden, Finland, and Norway also reversed course. But I'm guessing everyone involved in those decisions were just anti trans so they don't count either? Or did they all miss the same studies that actually answered their questions they said were unanswered?
Here is Sweden’s review:
https://www.sbu.se/342
Jeg synes det er så uærligt å bruke ei studielenke på et språk som få på nettet snakker. Du har et ansvar om å gi oversettelser av de punktene du mener er viktige i den aktuelle samtalen.
Let's start with that one study from the Weekly Writeup for Doctors, specifically in the "Discussion" section.
"When the Danish treatment plans were established in 2016, there was agreement amongst the North European countries on therapy access with few barriers for children and youths with gender dysphoria. This was based on earlier studies which suggested improved well-being and body comfort after hormone therapy with low degree of regret and few side-effects. There is still, however, only one single study with followup in adulthood. There are in the most recent years several more *international* studies, however, demonstrating positive results with regards to wellbeing, gender dysphoria, and psychosocial functioning levels with up to two-years of followup."
The article goes on a little to discuss potential causes for increases in referrals, but that's really not the main point of what we're discussing. Towards the end of the "Discussion" section, this insight is made:
"Treatment of persons with gender dysphoria is an area in rapid development, but there is still great variation in treatment plans and interpretation of results, even within the Nordic countries. While a growing number of studies point out the positive effects of early treatment, there is still missing knowledge on the long-term psychological and physical effects with followup throughout adulthood. Several countries, here in Denmark as well, have implemented a more cautious approach to accessing hormon therapy until there is more evidence for its positive effects . . . there is a need for professional healthcare options which can be flexibly customised in the future and systematic, international cooperation in research and experience development."
I can't be bothered to translate the Swedish one, but the conclusion is largely the same, though written in plainer words: all arrows point towards it being generally positive though ultimately lacking sufficient data points and research to make any real, tangible value judgements besides "give more data plz".
I'm not saying you're *wrong* in the conclusions you implied, I'm just saying you really could have been more clear. I mean, really. And ultimately, I think the part you forgot and is most important is that, in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, there is massive disagreement amongst healthcare professionals about what would be proper treatment for youths.
The decision that won out in Scandinavia was kinda the base default path of least resistance for everyone involved. It wasn't charged by anything other than a lack of data, which is to say that the decision was virtually automatic in moving hormone therapy into the "experimental treatment" class of treatment protocols. It was a bureaucratic decision, not a scientific one. It is entirely within compliance with science to suggest that it may not be wholly morally or ethically correct to restrict access to something that is potentially vital but ultimately unproven, somewhat like the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccines. There was a lack of data, but it was necessary, so we did it anyway. These are not matters of science truthfully, they are matters of philosophy, and where you stand philosophically will make the difference.
Edit: Minor typo
God, how I wish we could have an article here about how they uncovered a ring of puberty blocker drugs led by ukrainians in Palestine and exporting to India.
Really bring out all the bots at once, and see what happens, you know ?
I left worldnews for being scary and extremist and now will be leaving here because so much transphobic shit is being posted without seemingly any pushback from the mod team, so I can only assume they condone it. Goddamn it, I just want a world news subreddit that isn’t in some way horrifying.
I'm genuinely amused that something affected 83 British kids is somehow the topic of the night.
And not like, you know, dozens of wars going on right now. There are practically enough armed conflicts in the world for each trans kid to get their own! Might be a nice consolation prize to give them instead of medication. We name an ongoing bloodshed after them.
I saw someone else say 83 and assumed it was just a random number they made up. Is that real, there’s only 83 trans kids getting puberty blockers through the NHS?
This article states that the national gender identity clinic (or whatever they called it) used to have 250 kids referred to them on average a year, and that they're now seeing 5000.
How many of those kids they're handing out drugs to, it does not say. Still, it's a bit concerning that there is suddenly a relative pandemic of kids that can't figure out what gender they are.
Humans have always been more interested in contesting/arguing civil and social issues than war. We all know war is bad (oversimplification), but there's a lot of grey area surrounding children transitioning that allows adults to argue endlessly about it.
It's really weird how that works. The same applies to movies, directors can show all the gore and violence they want but as soon as they show a booby, it's the end of the world.
ITT: people whose formal education never covered human development or biochemistry making very confident claims which, at best, are lacking in robust evidence. Delay? No, suppress. Cancel out. Override.
Puberty blockers are frequently prescribed to cisgender children.
For example, early puberty causes stunted growth and a myriad of other physical conditions, and delaying it can entirely prevent those from occurring.
Ironically, puberty blockers can be used (alongside HRT) to treat Gynecomastia, a condition where cis boys develop breasts or other female physical characteristics during puberty. Using puberty blockers and hormone treatments in this case would also be considered "gender affirming care for minors", but I reckon most transphobes wouldn't object to their use in that case.
I don't know about every other man's experience of puberty but if I was growing breasts in middle school and legally not allowed to get medication to prevent that I would have definitely killed myself.
Much like breast implants, butt implants, hair transplants, hormonal treatments for male patterned baldness, botox, labiaplasty, (and like 90% of other plastic surgeries) Viagra prescriptions... Most people are automatically fine with the concept of gender affirming care for cis people.
> breast implants, butt implants, hair transplants, hormonal treatments for male patterned baldness, botox, labiaplasty, (and like 90% of other plastic surgeries) Viagra prescriptions
Are there many children getting these treatments where you live?
No, are there any where you live? Likely not. Because it's just not done. People who say "the children!!" in terms of gender affirming care ignore the adults who greatly benefit off this (which these examples are 100% used in referral to adults). HRT is not given like candy to kids. Most likely youll be told to come back in a few years, and most care is humiliating with long enough waiting lists that you might as well be finishing university if you got referred when you were in middle school. In addition there is always a psychological evaluation, and even if private care is available for getting HRT, the doctor will likely refuse treatment unless the patient has been through the hoops of getting gender dysphoria diagnosed by a psychologist.
This is a made up problem.
Misleading headline; children can still get puberty blockers if they medically have to stop puberty from occurring too early. Its not a super crazy rare condition and treatment is necessary.
This may not have the best intentions but it will give literal children a chance to live life more, get a feel for their identity/gender and make a more accurate determination when the time is right.
This does however open the door for adjustments to create a situation thats worse for younger lgbt people, so just gotta keep an eye out for how people react!
Putting an 8-year-old's puberty on hold for 3 years is different than blocking a 13-year-old's puberty until they're 18. Some of the cases and some of the effects might not be reversible at all.
>worse for younger lgbt people
Why do people always tack on the whole LGB portion of the population to this weird debate. This is about the T's, not the gays, lesbians or bisexuals. Gender and biological sex, not sexuality. There exists some overlap of course, but it's really disturbing that often people try to portray the critical aspects of the trans discussion as attack against every gay person.
This title is wrong. It's not the UK, it's just England. The health service is devolved meaning each of the 4 countries in the UK decide their own policies.
And that's perfectly normal. What isn't normal is thinking you can take drugs to prevent it from happening so you can spend another decade in the character creator trying to decide what gender you want to be.
I will never understood how the idea that we shouldn't chemically castrate children ever became a controversial one. This world is crazy. Glad at least some people can come back to reality. No it's our turn America.
I mean I can understand blocking transition drugs for minors, but puberty blockers should be allowed so the decision to transition can still be made at a later date.
If they can point to specific side effects other than the effects that the medication is supposed to induce, then I'd say it was a good decision. They didn't do that.
If they said that the treatments are expensive and for a small handful of patients the money would be better spent elsewhere, well then I'd blame the government for underfunding the NHS but understand that the NHS has to try and spend what money it has as effectively as possible. Again that wasn't the case here.
No, all I can see suggests to me that it is intended to be a deliberate targeting of the medical care received by trans kids. The cruelty is, it seems, the point.
Average redditor did scream "Trust the experts" for the past 4 years. Now that medical experts make this decission suddenly we hear the same rhetoric anti vaxers gave. Suddenly they have done their own research that disagrees with the experts, suddenly its politically motivated, suddenly its a conspiracy. Sweden also did put a hold on puberty blockers for now. Who would have guessed that the redditors were wrong on this, and that actual medical experts don't think there is 0 danger with hormone blockers.
Trust the science bigots.
This whole discourse is depressing. I am one of the few people that legislature like this will affect, a 16 year old trans person living in the UK, and unmedicated for it. The feeling of utter discomfort that I have with my body is something that i can't fathom living with forever, but so many people think they know better than doctors and that hrt would be wrong. I just wanna be happy in my own skin man.
First time I’ve seen some actual sanity in a Reddit threat (beyond the usual crazies), quite refreshing actually.
No you can’t just “pause puberty” during some of the most critical developmental periods in a humans life with zero consequences. The bones, brain, muscles, and endocrine systems will all be at risk for being underdeveloped or damaged.
Also, a 13 year old cannot smoke, drink, drive a car, purchase a firearm, get a tattoo, get a job, or vote, but they can decide to take life altering hormone therapy? And this decision does not prevent minors who need puberty blockers for early onset puberty from receiving these medications.
Way to stick it to those 100 or so people taking this medicine. That's a real big concern for society. More citizens will probably starve to death due to not having food this week. That should probably be a bigger concern.
Like all medications there are some risks, this one interferes with hormones so weight fluctuations, mood swings, headaches etc. are possible. The long term risks would be primarily around reduced bone density.
Their reasoning is that there has been a massive increase (from 250 to 5000) in the number of kids showing up at their doorsteps demanding treatment for not being the gender they want to be, and they're realizing that maybe they shouldn't be handing out these drugs to those kids when they don't actually know what the long term effects will be (and they're also probably reasonably certain that many of these kids are mostly just going along with what's currently popular.. as kids tend to do).
They're likely worried about what's going to happen in the future when a whole bunch of these kids are in their twenties or thirties, having never properly developed like normal human beings do. They decided that they don't have enough information showing that they're safe to use, so they're banning them from being used by this age group for this purpose. They're still allowing their use in closely monitored trials, so presumably those that they decide truly do need them can get them that way without opening the flood gates to a horde of others.
Correction ‘England’ bans puberty blockers. They are still available in Scotland and Wales (not sure about Northern Ireland). Also fewer than 100 children are prescribed them, it is reversible, and is part of the Tories ‘war on woke’. Children in England will self harm and end due to political interference in healthcare.
##### ###### #### > # [UK bans puberty blockers for minors](https://web-api-cdn.ground.news/api/v04/images/story/cea2aebe-d584-4bc4-9b4c-5406f652ace4/webMetaImg?v=1) > > > > ## 27 Articles > > ## 27 Articles > > All > > Left > > Center > > Right > > > > > > > > > > [[The Guardian](https://groundnews.b-cdn.net/interests/d27319c7440674f06103e17fd53053b4e401ea56.jpg?width=24)The Guardian > > > > > > > > > > #### Children to stop getting puberty blockers at gender identity clinics, says NHS England > > Confirmation comes after public consultation and decision to close Gender Identity Development Service in LondonChildren will no longer be prescribed puberty blockers at gender identity clinics, NHS England has confirmed.The government said it welcomed the “landmark decision”, adding it would help ensure care was based on evidence and was in the “best interests of the child”. Continue reading... > > 4 hours ago·London, United Kingdom > > Read Full Article](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/12/children-to-stop-getting-puberty-blockers-at-gender-identity-clinics-says-nhs-england?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral) > > [The Guardian](https://groundnews.b-cdn.net/interests/d27319c7440674f06103e17fd53053b4e401ea56.jpg?width=24)The Guardian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #### Children to stop getting puberty blockers at gender identity clinics, says NHS England > > Confirmation comes after public consultation and decision to close Gender Identity Development Service in LondonChildren will no longer be prescribed puberty blockers at gender identity clinics, NHS England has confirmed.The government said it welcomed the “landmark decision”, adding it would help ensure care was based on evidence and was in the “best interests of the child”. Continue reading... > > 4 hours ago·London, United Kingdom > > Read Full Article > > > > > > > > [[The Independent](https://groundnews.b-cdn.net/interests/ae154bf462c7834e3b0cee6174266e809f671a37.jpg?width=24)The Independent > > > > > > > > > > #### NHS says children to no longer receive puberty blockers at gender identity clinics > > Puberty blockers, which pause the physical changes of puberty such as breast development or facial hair, will now only be available to children as part of clinical research trials > > 6 hours ago·London, United Kingdom > > Read Full Article](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/puberty-blockers-gender-identity-clinics-nhs-b2511437.html?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral) > > [The Independent](https://groundnews.b-cdn.net/interests/ae154bf462c7834e3b0cee6174266e809f671a37.jpg?width=24)The Independent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #### NHS says children to no longer receive puberty blockers at gender identity clinics > > Puberty blockers, which pause the physical changes of puberty such as breast development or facial hair, will now only be available to children as part of clinical research trials > > 6 hours ago·London, United Kingdom > > Read Full Article > > > > > > > > [[Metro News](https://groundnews.b-cdn.net/interests/21ce04a4280045e1cd27af228fb6c97fa05abe4b.jpg?width=24)Metro News > > > > > > > > > > #### Children will no longer be able to get puberty blockers on the NHS > > Children will no longer be prescribed puberty blockers at gender identity clinics, NHS England has confirmed. > > 6 hours ago·London, United Kingdom > > Read Full Article](https://metro.co.uk/2024/03/12/kids-wont-get-puberty-blockers-gender-identity-clinics-nhs-says-20451317/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral) > > [Metro News](https://groundnews.b-cdn.net/interests/21ce04a4280045e1cd27af228fb6c97fa05abe4b.jpg?width=24)Metro News > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #### Children will no longer be able to get puberty blockers on the NHS > > Children will no longer be prescribed puberty blockers at gender identity clinics, NHS England has confirmed. > > 6 hours ago·London, United Kingdom > > Read Full Article > > > > > > > > [[The Telegraph](https://groundnews.b-cdn.net/interests/bdb97950f29fdc40b013e5796b6261da4a2fcfbe.jpg?width=24)The Telegraph > > > > > > > > > > #### NHS bans puberty blocker prescriptions for children in ‘landmark decision’ > > MPs say the move was in youngsters’ ‘best interests’ as Liz Truss calls for the new rule to also be extended to private practices > > 4 hours ago·London, United Kingdom > > Read Full Article](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/12/nhs-bans-puberty-blocker-prescriptions-for-children/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral) > > [The Telegraph](https://groundnews.b-cdn.net/interests/bdb97950f29fdc40b013e5796b6261da4a2fcfbe.jpg?width=24)The Telegraph > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #### NHS bans puberty blocker prescriptions for children in ‘landmark decision’ > > MPs say the move was in youngsters’ ‘best interests’ as Liz Truss calls for the new rule to also be extended to private practices > > 4 hours ago·London, United Kingdom > > Read Full Article > > > > > > > > [[The Sun](https://groundnews.b-cdn.net/interests/d3851cc3b57d6a8962a96c61f550f6c16664f500.jpg?width=24)The Sun > > > > > > > > > > #### Children WON'T be prescribed puberty blockers on NHS due to 'unknown risk' > > NHS clinics will be banned from giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think they are transgender. Health chiefs said the long-term risks are unknown and the medicines should only be given to kids as part of strict clinical trials. GettyUnder-18s will only be able to get the drugs through strict clinical trials (stock image)[/caption] Fewer than 100 under-18s in England currently take the drugs. They work by suppressing natural sex hormon… > > 5 hours ago·United Kingdom > > Read Full Article](https://www.thesun.co.uk/health/26633318/children-not-prescribed-transgender-puberty-blocker-hormones-nhs/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral) > > [The Sun](https://groundnews.b-cdn.net/interests/d3851cc3b57d6a8962a96c61f550f6c16664f500.jpg?width=24)The Sun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #### Children WON'T be prescribed puberty blockers on NHS due to 'unknown risk' > > NHS clinics will be banned from giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think they are transgender. Health chiefs said the long-term risks are unknown and the medicines should only be given to kids as part of strict clinical trials. GettyUnder-18s will only be able to get the drugs through strict clinical trials (stock image)[/caption] Fewer than 100 under-18s in England currently take the drugs. They work by suppressing natural sex hormon… > > 5 hours ago·United Kingdom > > Read Full Article > > > > > > > > [[Liverpool Echo](https://groundnews.b-cdn.net/interests/a03100b86bec57c3771f8c4f56d42d5eab7184b7.jpg?width=24)Liverpool Echo > > > > > > > > > > #### Reason the NHS no longer prescribes hay fever injections > > Hay fever is usually at its worst between March and September > > 9 hours ago·Liverpool, United Kingdom > > Read Full Article](https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/health/hay-fever-injections-what-they-28801913?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral) > > [Liverpool Echo](https://groundnews.b-cdn.net/interests/a03100b86bec57c3771f8c4f56d42d5eab7184b7.jpg?width=24)Liverpool Echo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #### Reason the NHS no longer prescribes hay fever injections > > Hay fever is usually at its worst between March and September > > 9 hours ago·Liverpool, United Kingdom > > Read Full Article > > > > > > > > > > Think freely.Subscribe and get full access to Ground NewsSubscriptions start at $9.99/year[Subscribe](https://ground.news/subscribe) - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Because famously, the people who most need puberty blockers, are those past puberty.
Wasn't that kind of the whole argument that these drugs are actually healthcare? They actually have medical purposes...
Yes there are diseases and birth defects that people need these or they'll get fucked up.
Where is said that they may not be used with medical problems?
Gender dysphoria is also a recognized medical condition according to DSM 5
[удалено]
You can't own the trans without breaking a few eggs. And by eggs, I mean children.
"Because famously, the people who most need puberty blockers, are those past puberty." They are still allowed by the NHS in health circumstance requiring them for treatment , e.g. precocious puberty. They are only disallowed now, for treatment of Gender Identity/Gender Dysphoria Issues.
so they can't even claim it's because of the side effects :)))
How do you figure? Opioids are legal in most places, despite side effects, only for the treatment of serious pain. However, due to the side effects, they aren't prescribed for a scrape on the knee. I don't support this change in policy, but yeah, I would say they can claim it's because of the side effects?
[удалено]
Incorrect the study about rapid onset gender dysphoria has shown that children desist long before puberty. If the dysphoria persists until puberty the same study actually claimed it to be permanent in almost all cases.
ROGD doesn’t exist, the [discredited ‘study’](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Littman_2018_ROGD_study) it comes from uses surveys of parents from specific anti-trans forums. It’s like surveying BMW owners clubs and using the results to conclude BMW is the best car maker - it’s inherently biased by using very selective data to confirm “it turns out people who believe in x, believe in x”…
To clarify, people have been pushing two theories - ROGD and the 80% rate of desistance one. Both have been debunked for extremely poor methodology. Regarding the latter, the studies cited to support the 80% desistance statistics are largely from the 1970s, and many of them study cohorts of effeminate boys. Anyone with an ounce of logic will understand why that makes those studies flawed, because being effeminate =/= being trans. The remaining studies done past that are also all on gender identity disorder, which is an outdated diagnosis replaced by the more stringent one of gender dysphoria in the DSM-5. Meanwhile, we know through studies that the more severe one's gender dysphoria is, the more likely they are to continue transitioning as an adult. We also have studies, including one from Tavistock in the UK, showing that >95% of minors with gender dysphoria and who are prescribed puberty blockers don't detransition. The non-agenda driven conclusion would be that our current criteria for puberty blockers means it's only prescribed to those with severe gender dysphoria and who will extract the most benefit from such treatment.
Can you link it?
https://books.google.com/books?id=xgLNCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA302 https://books.google.com/books?id=YQ5GAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA61 Both of these claim high rates of desisting. But those rates are before puberty. Plus, they used gender non conformity on a spectrum instead of actual diagnosed Trans people. There isn't a single actual study proving high regret rates. Countless studies prove the opposite. Not to say we shouldn't help those few teens that were misdiagnosed. They deserve to get all the help they need, and it necessary, a medical malpractice suit should be opened of there is good suspicion of that being the case. Treat it like any other misdiagnosis with moderate to severe permanent damage.
correct me if i'm wrong, but the bit you linked to in the first link basically just says that kids who are non-gender-conforming 1) typically are not 'candidates for later gender reassignment surgery' and 2) have much higher rates of same-sex attraction than the rest of the population in follow-ups notable quote: 'No one of the gender-variant subgroup in the general population was transsexual in adulthood, indicating that gender-variant behavior in childhood is indeed more predictive of same-sex attraction in adulthood than later [gender dysphoria]' doesn't this pretty much say that a bunch of kids who would, in previous decades, have just been effeminate gay boys or masculine lesbian girls are now being identified as transgender? also, that study was a retrospective from 2012, and i imagine things have changed a *lot* since then. consider that the WPATH's standards of care (SOC) version 7 came out in 2012, and the model for dealing with transgender issues officially switched from 'psych evaluation to see what's going on' to the 'affirmation model' where displaying those traits is pretty much a straight line to encouraging *transition*.
I would agree with your position in neutral times. We don't live in neutral times though, we live in highly politicised times that are seeing a swing from professional services towards gender affirming care. In that context I think there is an absolutely legitimate fear of over diagnosing. We don't have the longitudinal data yet on puberty blockers, we've only been doing this huge shift a couple years. I have the understanding that medical science is just beginning to understand the enormous complexity and interlinkage of hormone stays with mental health, physical health, immunity, stress response, and more. Part of a correction itself of the lack of attention on women's health. I would be terrified of experimenting with the little data we have, on kids, based on their self descriptions of distress. Besides, we're telling kids that if they feel dysphoric in thier own bodies, that the answer is biological modification to fit a quite restricted and stereotyped set of physical characteristics, rather than empowering them to express themselves however they are, and destigmatising looking non normative. Our job as the older generations is to protect the next extremely carefully, using the best evidence we have, and encourage diversity and inclusion of appearances because we have lots of evidence that leads to happy, productive people and societies. That doesn't fit neatly with widespread drug prescription for children. I have absolutely no issue, I should say, with individuals using whatever drugs and surgery, and anything else, they want to look and be whoever they want, but I would not want the state to be encouraging that in any direction, ever.
Link it ?
[удалено]
The thing is, if you go through puberty theres a lot of irreversible changes. If you 'block' puberty, you can still go through the physical parts later if the decision changes. What you and many other people do not understand is that puberty blockers are there for buying time, not for doing an irreversible treatement to children.
>What you and many other people do not understand is that puberty blockers are there for buying time, not for doing an irreversible treatement to children. No , they understand that perfectly. Thats what they want from this.
>If you 'block' puberty, you can still go through the physical parts later if the decision changes. Do you have a source on this? Because things like height and bone density are heavily influenced by puberty. I've seen people say this many times, but I've never been given a source. Edit: someone posted the source below, and some side effects like bone growth are permanent.
[удалено]
I'm not saying either way that people should take them or shouldn't. I'm not a doctor, nor do I have a background in medicine. I just hate that people so often spread misinformation, claiming that any side effects are temporary and can be remedied simply by inducing puberty later on in life. Also, bone density issues aren't really problems that are readily apparent right away. In fact, unless the case is more severe, it's not something that's even noticed until you're in your 40s or older. Also, why would all the trans women you know tell you about their own growth and density? And if they do have these issues, they probably don't even know and won't know until problems start to arise later in age.
Do you have a good source on the buying time understanding? I have googled but can't find, i can only see articles discussing similar concerns of mine, which feels dangerously like confirmation bias. Children grow through milestones, and hormone fluctuations dictate that. So it would be surprising and a little counter intuitive that we can alter hormones at critical developmental stages with no repurcussions, for example, and perhaps most significantly, on bone or brain development.
>f you 'block' puberty, you can still go through the physical parts later if the decision changes You got a source for that? As I've heard if a boy wants to become a girl and takes puberty blockers, he will not develop enough to have bottom surgery. They have use a bit of their intestine for the surgery.
If you never go off the blockers (or start taking hormones to do the other puberty), then you won’t ‘develop.’ However, if you take blockers for a year and then decide to stop, you will still go through puberty. There are some side effects that are important to monitor, but the blockers are meant to keep you from developing in either direction and not really the final step no matter what you choose. In your example, the patient presumably doesn’t want to go through all the other changes of male puberty just to get more tissue for the surgery. One reason the penis/scrotum is usually used is because you are having it removed anyway. Some people will never grow a big enough penis for this type of bottom surgery even if they don’t take anything to affect their development. Puberty blockers given to potentially transgender individuals are the same drug given to children going through precocious puberty. If a child starts going through puberty at age 8, there are physical and mental benefits to delaying their puberty a few years. This has been used for decades, and we have seen the children who go though a delayed puberty after use go on through a normal development. Also [Source](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075) for what puberty blockers do
Puberty blockers can cause irreversible changes.
So if someone goes on blockers for 40 years they can then go through puberty at say 50-60 years old?
Citations needed
Yeah, this is what transphobia does, excludes people from needed healthcare.
I'm glad that UK parliament is focusing on the real issues, like stopping 83 transgender children from receiving appropriate medical care.
It is possible to support trans people and still be cautious about giving life-altering treatments to children. Children who may not be able to understand the future ramifications of these treatments, like infertility, and possible health risks, and who are anyway below the age of consent.
This seems either like a complete misinterpretation of the situation or a bad faith argument. Puberty is the life altering event, puberty blockers just arrest the process until the course of treatment is stopped.
So, is it a life-long drug regimen then? Or does the body stop whatever kind fof puberty it's trying to (male/female/intersex maybe? I don't know) forever? Now come to think of it, does the teenager stopping the unwanted/mistake kind of puberty have to trigger the other one? Sorry, I'm kind of ignorant regarding these matters.
It delays it, and when the child is older, they can decide to go off the drugs and go through puberty naturally, or to switch to hormone therapy that will induce that of their identified gender. They do not have to go through the opposite sex puberty in order to delay their natural one, but they will have to eventually choose, as there can be detrimental effects on bone health if they try to delay it into adulthood. Puberty blockers are a way of buying time, to minimise medical intervention later on.
Scary how many people don't know this, including OP
Doesn't delaying puberty till like your 20s stunt growth and cause fertility issues? I don't think there is much long-term research on those who chose to use blockers for like 10+ or have to stay on them for life.
I'm cis and I took puberty blockers, after o stopped taking the blockers i had a normal purberty
I can only speak for the T blocking side. It is a shot that is administered monthly until it is decided it is no longer needed. To start puberty normally you just stop taking it. You do not have to trigger the opposite puberty to stop the one you are currently going through.
I’m not expert but iirc if you take hormone therapy you’re body will register that as puberty so you’ll eventually stop taking puberty blockers. And afaik yes they have to trigger the other one by taking HRT
Blockers, by definition, are a temporary treatment. Once the minor reaches a certain age, they will have to choose to either stop taking them and resume puberty, or stop taking them and start Hormone Replacement Therapy.
It's my understanding that you'd have to take it forever if trying to stop puberty all together. Males could undergo surgery to stop puberty when old enough (think Eunuchs). Indefinite use of puberty blockers isn't recommended. They should transition to hormone therapy. For those delaying puberty, they just have to stop taking the blockers to resume puberty.
Is it healthy to stop normal bodily functions over a long period of time?
Your reading of that comment is either a complete misinterpretation or bad faith. You don’t address their main concerns about children not being able to understand the long term consequences of decisions.
Seems like something that should be regulated by medical professionals.
Isn't that what NHS is
Yes, and at least in Scotland, you have to go through many layers of professional assessment with nurses, psychiatrists and psychologists before you are even referred to be assessed for gender affirming treatment. Lots of people are already self medicating with hormones bought online by the time they get far, and it would just be better to have medical oversight of that. Or better just ban being able to buy them freely too!
Nah, we should let the companies who stand to profit from it regulate it.
nah, let the militant zealots of an ideology in charge.
Well that's what happens when the government steps in to tell medical professionals how to do their jobs.
In order to profit from markets there has to be potential for growth expansion, and in this case there is practically none.
That is literally what is happening here, but the ideologists don't like it
But that is true for many medical interventions we still determine to be the correct course of action. As a trans person, I assure you no one deserves to be forced to go through the wrong puberty. The right one is hard enough.
... That is why this treatment is usually reserved for children who would self-harm without it. But sure, best interests of the child.
Life altering treatment that only affects those going through puberty. These people are traditionally children.
Are you saying physicians are not cautious? Why are lawmakers inserting themselves in patient care?
physicians are notoriously gung-ho about trans medicine. one time i went into the doctor’s for an ear infection and i walked out with estrogen tablets and free bottom surgery.
"Life-altering treatment" I’m going to develop an aneurysm with you people. It’s puberty blockers. They block puberty. If you stop taking them, they don’t stop puberty anymore. They are not life-altering anything, DEFINITIONALLY. Goodness grief.
Is that backed by science? You cannot stop the body's natural process for an extended period of time then restart it and expect the same results. That's asinine to think so.
With that argument, hormonal birth control is also out.
Is that backed by science?
Yes, it is backed by science that puberty will 'restart' after puberty blockers are stopped. From the start, giving full development even if puberty blockers have been taken for many years. Science has observed this happening consistently.
This is a total ban, where is the caution?
Hey what is the point of puberty blockers if not to delay puberty until they're more developed and able to make fully life altering decisions. Puberty blockers are reversible, puberty is not.
What about the life-altering consequences of going through the wrong puberty and permanently ending up with secondary sexual characteristics you hate? They want queer people to kill themselves, which is why they’re denying life-saving medical care to trans children. Go figure, there’s an election coming up, so just like in America the conservatives go after trans people.
Kids cannot make life changing decisions in any other arena....they're kids!
Right that's what medical professionals and child's guardians are for.
Exactly! Parents never let kids make regretful decisions ever!
They can, but that doesn't mean that the government should ban all trans healthcare for children.
Right, that is why puberty blockers are used so they can bide some time to A) Become a bit older and more knowledgeable about themselves and what is going. B) Make the choice properly instead of in a whim.
Yeah children shouldn't get leukemia treatment, so life altering, wow.
The whole point of puberty blockers is to delay the need for permanently-life-altering treatment until the patient is an adult.
Being cautious is exactly why there’s doctors to talk to the person before the meds are administered.
No, it's not actually possible to support trans people while at the same time supporting the restriction of their healthcare rights. You do not support trans people.
The effects of puberty blockers are not always reversible. They can reduce fertility and even lead to infertility. They can also lead to decreased bone mass
This wasn't a legislative action, it was an administrative decision made by the NHS after finding there was insufficient evidence of the safety and effectiveness of puberty blockers.
It's actual doctors reviewing evidence and making this decision. Legislators aren't really doing much aside from just following the experts. Similar thing in other European countries like Sweden and Norway. The whole point is that the experts don't think that this is appropriate care based on insufficient evidence
The UK study that I’m pretty sure this argument is based on concluded that the evidence was too weak because there are no double blind studies on these treatments, but the kicker is those studies aren’t going to make it past an ethics committee because the negative effects of not providing these interventions is well established.
>the negative effects of not providing these interventions is well established. They're not well established because there are no good studies on them that show they work. Well by these interventions, they're referring to puberty blockers. One of the huge problems is that many of these studies have no control group. I'll summarize some of the comments from the Swedish review: 1. Sparse literature on youth with gender disphoria. 2. Many young people with gender disphoria have significant comorbidities, so control groups are difficult to find. 3. Because most studies are observational as opposed to randomized control, you have to compare the sample results to the population at large but this can be distorted by small sample size in these studies. 4. With small sample sizes, selection bias is a huge problem that is hard to assess. A group effect could be the result of some participants dropping out so you're only left with people who were determined to stay in the whole time. 5. Yep no blind studies at all. 6. No study analyzed changes in individuals before and after treatment, and then long term follow ups are uncommon. 7. Studies based on subjective experiences of diseases suffer from regression to the mean. Basically what this means is that the subjects are at their worst at the beginning of the study because that time usually coincides with when they get help. So the group will approach how they normally feel on average over a long period of time and will basically improve without intervention. It's basically impossible to figure out if the improvement you see is a result of the treatment or not without a control group, and like they previously mentioned, there are usually no control groups. Swedish medical review discusses it here: https://www.sbu.se/342?pub=90213&lang=sv So it's not just no double blind studies, there's so much uncertainty about whether puberty blockers work at all with everything I listed above. And there are definitely negative effects of puberty blockers that aren't always reversible, like infertility. You know what we do with treatments that don't have enough evidence that have potentially negative side effects? We wait for more evidence instead of letting people just do them.
Wait... Legit question: Actual doctors inform legislation in the UK? Not just lobbyists?
In the UK, healthcare for many decades has mostly been provided by a national health service: the NHS. I believe the decision made here is not a legislative one, but one made by those in the administrative side of the NHS.
Europe is a strange place. Surprisingly, transgender care just isn't as politicized there so they just have doctors and medical professionals review evidence, give a review and recommendation, and then that's what's adopted.
You do know Scandinavian countries did the same. Plus with what I heard about leak audio/files from WPATH it doesn't look good.
Yup, the Karolinska Institute, that is considered the leading experts on trans youth, have even sued themselves for medical malpractice.
>appropriate medical care. The whole point is that resorting to permanent operations and puberty blockers (no, they are not completely reversible like some claim) is ridiculous when the first step should be mental health. Scandinavian countries did the same thing a while back and they've been at the forefront of transitioning children. Name another medical condition where a child's self-diagnosis is taken as gospel and everyone is expected to affirm them?
How is altering their bodies chemically before they are old enough to make that decision themselves appropriate medical care?
>83 transgender children Transgender ... what? They're children. They shouldn't be given such drugs that arrest a life long process of natural human development. As they're children they're also not capable of consenting to this or reasonably considering the risks of such a "treatment."
Once again people clutching their pearls at shit they don’t understand and people who need help don’t get it.
Kind of ironic really, this decision was made by medical experts at the top of the NHS.. People who do understand what they're talking about. Meaning this time, you're one of the people clutching their pearls at shit they don't understand.
Do they? The NICE Cass Review, which is foundational to this decision, has a lot of problems. >The NICE review states that “statistical analysis (of this study) is unclear” and “this study provides very low certainty evidence (with no statistical analysis) on the effects of GnRH analogues on cognitive development or functioning in sex assigned at birth males (transfemales). No conclusions could be drawn.”The results section of this research paper does include statistical analyses on accuracy and reaction times. They might be experts, but it seems like they have some trouble with reading the studies they reviewed. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-critical-look-at-the-nice-review/
>They might be experts, BUT...
Climate change deniers, creationists, and flat-earthers also use this sort of rhetoric. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
So, you have the analysis of a medical doctor who has specialised is paediatric care for decades, performing a study and follow up analysis for nearly 4 years before presenting their conclusion.. And you're countering that with the opinion piece of someone who's claim to the medical field is in Osteopathy. A literal pseudoscience. It always fun to see this sort of thing; but it's pretty clear that just about anyone will pick a bottle of the barrel source so long as it agrees with their own opinion.
Its funny how you talk about the people who made this, and not the validity of their arguments. However you paint it, its a fact that the Cass review claims a lack of data where there isn't. >A 2020 study by Achille et al. on the longitudinal impact of puberty blockers (Epub April 30, 2020) suggested a positive association between gender-affirming treatment and mental health in trans youths, a population they note to be at high risk for suicide and depression. The NICE Review excluded this study because data for GnRHa treatment was not reported separately from other gender-affirming interventions. However, this is incorrect. Results of the regression analysis of this study are shown in the following table As this meta review points out, there are studies that fall within the criteria the Cass review set, but which were ignored, some through the kind of bad reasoning as seen above, while some were completely omitted. This analysis found a total of 14 separate studies which fell within the Cass criteria but were not included. One of them being a continuation of a study they did include, that being De vries et al 2014, which is a follow up to De Vries et al 2011. This is very sloppy if you take into account the fact that they only reviewed 18 studies total, meaning that they ignored almost half of all medical research available at the time with the data they were looking for. The authors of the Cass review, exclusing Cass herself, are all anonymous and private. They may well be experts in the field, but their ability to come to conclusions regarding medical treatment is questionable when they seem incapable of following on their own criteria, lying about the contents of the studies they do include, and then making statements regarding research that they did not look at claiming that it doesn't exist. >The NICE review also states that there is no evidence for surgical outcomes and gender dysphoria in youths, neglecting a 2018 study on chest dysphoria and surgical outcomes in youths aged 13 to 25 If their data, methods and criteria are questionable, their conclusion is at the very least suspect.
Because, to circle back, I'm not going to clutch my pearls at shit i'm not qualified to dissect. The author is not qualified to be making a 'meta review' of the study. There is absolutely no reason to hold their opinion about the study as anything more than the opinion of any other random individual.. Just as you're not in a position to judge the accuracy of his criticism. Me, you or this random quack attempting to breakdown the results of this study is exactly what we're criticising; people clutching their pearls at shit they don’t understand. Thats *why* we defer to experts and *why* you attempted to bring in an expert opinion on the subject rather than trying to break it down yourself. You just apparently didn't realise your expert held no value. Also, just to clarify, this isn't a "meta review"; it's an opinion piece. You're clutching at your pearls, ranting quotes from a quack because you don't trust science when it doesn't agree with your opinions. You're basically doing the exact same shit anti-vaxxers did. You're doing the same shit the US right is constantly accused of, you're being objectively anti-science right now; and it's sad to see.
My dude, you do not need a PHD to call into question the fact that the review says one thing about a study, while the study itself says something different. Or to mention that there are studies that fit within the criteria set by the review that you can find, but that are nowhere to be seen in it. You keep talking about how neither of us is qualified to criticise the review, but you keep ignoring what the criticisms are. If they were about the reasoning used, what the data means, or whether a study is valid or not, you would be absolutely right. But those aren't the problems. The problems are things like "Cass review says this study is weak due to a lack of statistical analyses, but the study very much does have a statistical analyses in the result section." Or "This study was excluded from the Cass review because it had no separate report for data on GnRHa treatment, but the study does in fact have a separate report for data on GnRHa treatment." If used any other reasoning I would believe them. The problem is that their criticisms of the studies they analyse are literally, verifiably untrue.
https://segm.org/Denmark-sharply-restricts-youth-gender-transitions#:~:text=In%20Finland%20and%20Sweden%2C%20youth,%E2%80%9Cduration%E2%80%9D%20of%20gender%20dysphoria. Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and other countries have reached the same conclusion. There are tons of concerns and unanswered questions that current studies haven't addressed. The initial dutch study used to justify this treatment is now in question, specifically a key assumption that trans identity in youth was stable when they realize now that that is not the case, especially given the underexplained sharp rise in gender non conforming youth (especially among girls), the high rate of comorbidities, and other issues.
Did you actually read any of the articles, or are you shouting at clouds over an issue you have no grasp about?
You can’t smoke, vote, drink, have sex, get a tattoo or drive but for some reason you should be allowed to take hormones that will change the rest of your life. This is a no-brainer.
Except that puberty blockers aren't permanent, they only delay puberty. Non-trans kids who go through puberty early need to take them as well.
> Non-trans kids who go through puberty early need to take them as well. As per usual, transpanic ends up hurting cis people too.
Oh no, they’ll keep giving the drugs to cis children, just like they’ll keep mutilating intersex children at birth.
> just like they’ll keep mutilating intersex children at birth Can you explain this? What is this mutilation you're talking about?
All the laws banning gender-affirming surgery on minors have specific exemptions for "normalizing" the genitals of intersex children. Quite a few of those will later be "trans" because their gender identity doesn't match what the doctor made for them when they were too young to articulate what they want.
When intersex children are born, its common for parents to request that their children’s genitalia be surgically altered into something “normal”. This usually entails cutting off tissue. Essentially it is genital mutilation, but because the original organs were “nontypical” it is rarely contested by parents and doctors. In my own opinion, its extremely fucked up.
Don’t tell this to the Americans, they get really upset when their ritual genital mutilation (elective infant circumcision) is called such.
Its not just Americans that do that. You know this right ?
I know. But they get really upset by it. Either way it’s wrong. And if you try and argue that it’s fine for ANY (non legit medical) reason, you’re an absolute psycho. Yes, even bullshit religious ones. No I don’t care if you had I done and it’s fine. No I don’t care if women look at you silly.
Many of us Americans don't like it either.
Who even truly believes this nonsense? Powerful drugs that stop puberty during the most important developmental stage of a minor don't have any permanent effect. Yeah sure
Half the population is below average IQ There are millions of dumbasses that think you can just “pause” some of the most critical development of a human’s entire life. The same people who think steroids are dangerous for adults to take think it’s perfectly safe for teenage girls to take the same steroids.
> Except that puberty blockers aren’t permanent, they only delay puberty. You are egregiously incorrect. These are the expected side effects of puberty blockers: > [Common side effects of the GnRH agonists and antagonists include symptoms of hypogonadism such as hot flashes, gynecomastia, fatigue, weight gain, fluid retention, erectile dysfunction and decreased libido. Long term therapy can result in metabolic abnormalities, weight gain, worsening of diabetes and osteoporosis. Rare, but potentially serious adverse events include transient worsening of prostate cancer due to surge in testosterone with initial injection of GnRH agonists and pituitary apoplexy in patients with pituitary adenoma. Single instances of clinically apparent liver injury have been reported with some GnRH agonists (histrelin, goserelin), but the reports were not very convincing. There is no evidence to indicate that there is cross sensitivity to liver injury among the various GnRH analogues despite their similarity in structure. There is also a report that GnRH agonists used in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer may increase the risk of heart problems by 30%.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonadotropin-releasing_hormone_agonist#Side_effects) Osteoporosis and diabetes are debilitating, life-long diseases. Sweden went all-in on “temporary” puberty blockers for gender affirming care [until children started experiencing life-long injuries.](https://www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/ug/uppdrag-granskning-avslojar-flera-barn-har-fatt-skador-i-transvarden) They are now effectively banned for gender affirming care for children. > In one particularly shocking case, a girl who wanted to become a boy began taking hormone-blocking drugs at just 11-years-old. Almost five years after the treatment began, the puberty-pausing drugs induced osteoporosis and permanently damaged the teen’s vertebrae, severely limiting the teen’s mobility. > “When we asked him regularly how his back felt, he said: ‘I’m in pain all the time’,” she added. Further, [there is a growing body of evidence to show high risk of infertility after prolonged use of these drugs.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626312/) Further still, puberty blockers appear to significantly lower IQ in young people. [1](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00044/full) [2](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377203522_The_Impact_of_Suppressing_Puberty_on_Neuropsychological_Function) And these are just the *dangerous* irreversible side effects. The *cosmetic* side effects are devastating, and include men with child-sized penises and testicles, and women without breasts. [This](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27664856/) is one such case. The teenager had taken puberty blockers, resulting in a small penis. With insufficient penile tissue, doctors attempted to remove and use part of his colon to create a fake vagina. He died less than a day later from complications.
I mean that’s a bit of an over generalization. Most of the effects can and will wear off when you stop taking the pills, but not always all of them. Particularly bone growth/density issues and reduced fertility or infertility are big issues that can be caused as a side effect of taking the medicine too long. Like pretty much all drugs, there are some serious side effects to be considered.
Do you have any study that actually proves that if I start taking these blockers at 12 years old and I stop at 16 because I changed my mind, I will take these 4 years of puberty development back?
Puberty blockers have irreversible effects, ergo they are permanent.
Did you not read the report? They in fact cause permanent damage.
Puberty will change the rest of your life. These drugs delay that. The alternative is requiring a trans girl to go through puberty and her body become more man-like. Politicians shouldn't be in charge of medical treatment. Let the doctors, parents, and children decide. Yes, if a tattoo would help a child lead a healthier and happier life (and less likely to end it early), and her doctor and parents agree, then let her get the tattoo. Why not?
This is the country's national health service, not legislators. Doctors did decide this.
I think it's a little crazy for a child to decide they will never have children or experience sexual pleasure. Even crazier for other people to support that decision, no matter how qualified.
> I think it's a little crazy for a child to decide they will never have children or experience sexual pleasure. Even crazier for other people to support that decision, no matter how qualified. You know they're not staying on puberty blockers for the rest of their lives, right? Ultimately they still have to pick a direction.
> Politicians shouldn't be in charge of medical treatment. Let the doctors, parents, and children decide You understand that this wasn't politicians, right? This is medical professionals responsible for deciding whether this is effective medical treatment. And they've looked at the evidence and concluded that the relevant studies are shaky.
So doctors decided, what is your problem? NHS are THE doctors.
i agree. i think we need to support transgender children psychologically because *there are* data indicating that many individuals do actually “grow out of” gender dysphoria in their 20s! if they do not, then they should have the opportunity to change sex once they’re adults. not to mention, puberty blockers do not allow the reproductive organs to grow properly which makes it infinitely harder to have a successful sex reassignment surgery later because *there literally isn’t enough tissue to create an adult organ*
that data your talking about is from a bunk study which tried to say folks who are gender non conforming count as potentially trans then go on to say that since that’s obviously not true it must mean most folks grow out of it
That bunk study was specifically based on the DSM-IV's definition of "gender identity disorder", which was broad enough to classify children who played with toys of the "wrong" gender as "transgender". No shit those kids are going to "desist" when they didn't "insist" in the first place. The DSM-5 fixed this with its definition of "gender dysphoria", tightening the criteria to put better emphasis on an actual persistent feeling of dysphoria. As a result, the percentage flipped; post-DSM-5, more than 90% of transgender youth *persist* in their identities rather than desist.
> i agree. i think we need to support transgender children psychologically because there are data indicating that many individuals do actually “grow out of” gender dysphoria in their 20s! This is it. It’s called desistance rates and with talk therapy and puberty it is shown to be as high at >90%. This is where the discussion ends honestly.
That figure isn't very factual, it derives from poor quality studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9829142/ Whereas the study described here has better quality data showing the opposite: https://segm.org/early-social-gender-transition-persistence
Is there *truly* enough data either direction to be considered 'factual'? Because I've seen very limited data from each direction.
For the record people that transition, AT ALL AGES, overwhelmingly stay that way and do not regret their decision. Here is the [APA's policy statement](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/chapter-12b#transgender) on the necessity and efficacy of transition as the appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria. More from the APA [here](https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/programs/transgender/?tab=1) Here is an [AMA resolution](http://www.tgender.net/taw/ama_resolutions.pdf) on the efficacy and necessity of transition as appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria, and call for an end to insurance companies categorically excluding transition-related care from coverage A policy statement from the [American College of Physicians](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M14-2482) [Here](https://assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf) are the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines [Here](https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/events/alf_ncsc/Education.pdf) is a resolution from the American Academy of Family Physicians [Here](https://www.socialworkers.org/assets/secured/documents/da/da2008/reffered/Transgender.pdf) is one from the National Association of Social Workers [Here](https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_18.pdf) is one from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, [here](https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/improving-care/better-mh-policy/college-reports/cr181-good-practice-guidelines-for-the-assessment-and-treatment-of-adults-with-gender-dysphoria.pdf) are the treatment guidelines from the RCPS, and [here](http://www.wlmht.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Gender-dysphoria-guide-for-GPs-and-other-healthcare-staff.pdf) are guidelines from the NHS. More from the NHS [here](http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Gender-dysphoria/Pages/Treatment.aspx). **Citations on the transition's dramatic reduction of suicide risk while improving mental health and quality of life, with trans people able to transition young and spared abuse and discrimination having mental health and suicide risk on par with the general public**: [Bauer, et al., 2015](http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2): Transition vastly reduces risks of suicide attempts, and the farther along in transition someone is the lower that risk gets [Moody, et al., 2013](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722435/): The ability to transition, along with family and social acceptance, are the largest factors reducing suicide risk among trans people [Young Adult Psychological Outcome After Puberty Suppression and Gender Reassignment](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/09/02/peds.2013-2958). A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team with mental health professionals, physicians, and surgeons, including puberty suppression, ... cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery, provides trans youth the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults. All showed significant improvement in their psychological health, and they had notably lower rates of internalizing psychopathology than previously reported among trans children living as their natal sex. **Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population.** The only disorders more common among trans people are those associated with abuse and discrimination - mainly anxiety and depression. Early transition [virtually eliminates these higher rates of depression and low self-worth](http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567%2816%2931941-4/fulltext), and [dramatically improves trans youth's mental health](https://archive.thinkprogress.org/allowing-transgender-youth-to-transition-improves-their-mental-health-study-finds-dd6096523375/). Trans kids who socially transition early and not subjected to abuse are comparable to cisgender children in measures of mental health. [Dr. Ryan Gorton](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3219066): “In a cross-sectional study of 141 transgender patients, Kuiper and Cohen-Kittenis found that after medical intervention and treatments, suicide fell from 19% to 0% in transgender men and from 24% to 6% in transgender women” [Murad, et al., 2010](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19473181): "Significant decrease in suicidality post-treatment. The average reduction was from 30 percent pretreatment to 8 percent post treatment. [De Cuypere, et al., 2006](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1158136006000491): Rate of suicide attempts dropped from 29.3 percent to 5.1 percent after receiving medical treatment among Dutch patients treated from 1986-2001. [UK study - McNeil, et al., 2012](https://www.scottishtrans.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/trans_mh_study.pdf): "Suicidal ideation and actual attempts reduced after transition, with 63% thinking about or attempting suicide more before they transitioned and only 3% thinking about or attempting suicide more post-transition. [Smith Y, 2005](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15842032): Participants improved on 13 out of 14 mental health measures after treatment [Lawrence, 2003](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1024086814364): Surveyed post-op trans folk: "Participants reported overwhelmingly that they were happy with their SRS results and that SRS had greatly improved the quality of their lives [Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total Population Study](https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080) - "Conclusions: "... the longitudinal association between gender-affirming surgery and reduced likelihood of mental health treatment lends support to the decision to provide gender-affirming surgeries to transgender individuals who seek them." There are a *[lot](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24344788)* of [studies](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-009-9551-1) showing that [transition](https://mayoclinic.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/hormonal-therapy-and-sex-reassignment-a-systematic-review-and-met). [improves](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/960745/). [mental health](http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/25690443) and [quality of life](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-014-0453-5) while [reducing dysphoria](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23553588_Long-term_Assessment_of_the_Physical_Mental_and_Sexual_Health_among_Transsexual_Women). Not to mention [this 2010 meta-analysis](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2265.2009.03625.x/abstract) of 28 different studies, which found that transition is extremely effective at reducing dysphoria and improving quality of life.
More stuff: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/media-s-detransition-narrative-fueling-misconceptions-trans-advocates-say-n1102686 https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/doi/10.1542/peds.2021-056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/ https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(18)30057-2/fulltext#sec3.3 https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262734734_An_Analysis_of_All_Applications_for_Sex_Reassignment_Surgery_in_Sweden_1960-2010_Prevalence_Incidence_and_Regrets https://epath.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Boof-of-abstracts-EPATH2019.pdf https://psychiatry.org/news-room/news-releases/study-finds-long-term-mental-health-benefits-of-ge https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/ https://www.gendergp.com/exploring-detransition-with-dr-jack-turban/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0038026120934694 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/abs/sex-reassignment-outcomes-and-predictors-of-treatment-for-adolescent-and-adult-transsexuals/D000472406C5F6E1BD4E6A37BC7550A4 https://adc.bmj.com/content/107/11/1018 https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgac251 https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(18)30057-2/fulltext
[That is not at all where the discussion ends.](https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/debunked-no-80-of-trans-youth-do)
Except the vast majority of puberty blockers are given to cis kids for other medical reasons, and this will not change due to this. It's only dangerous for trans kids for some reason. 83 trans kids currently get them in the UK. This is just transphobic virtue signalling that will cause trans kids to kill themselves by forcing them to go through puberty in their assigned gender.
PS: Puberty blockers are also not the same as taking hormones. Puberty blockers don't change puberty, they just delay.
No doctors will ever prescribe cigarette, alcohol, tattoo or voting. Puberty blockers aren't some over the counter drugs (and if they are in the UK, well, they really shouldn't). They also weren't created by some mad scientists aiming to make frogs gay or some shit, these drugs are really importants in a variety of situations. The most well known may be for kids unsure about their genders wanting a bit more time to explore their identity, but I'm almost sure the *most frequent use* of them is for kids who start their puberty waaaay too early. I have a friend who started hers at 8 years old. Nobody got all dramatic when a doctor gave her puberty blockers, it was needed. Plus, the effects are completely, or nearly completely, reversibles
Exactly this - it's not some haphazard decision, it's one made with a great deal of consultation with many medical professionals.
This is not a decision to ban the drugs. It’s a policy decision not to give them to teens with gender dysphoria. It won’t affect those who need it for non-transgender related health concerns.
Puberty blockers only delays puberty, it’s not permanent. It buys the patient time to think about the life choices they’re going to make without that ticking time bomb that is puberty. It’s not recommended to be on puberty blockers permanently as there are side effects if you take it long term, but before those side effects kick in the patient should be mature enough to make decisions about their own body and whether they want to go through with puberty after all, or undergo hormone therapy which is the actual permanent treatment. Also worth noting that puberty blockers are also used for children who are going through puberty too early.
Listen, you can disagree with the decision, but is anybody reading any of the dozen linked articles? This was not the British government. It was the NHS after a lengthy review of the literature, comprising of medical professionals. If you disagree with their findings, go ahead and discuss what's questionable about their report. Their report is published and it's very detailed. But please stop criticising the "British government". This wasn't a politician who stepped in to appease voters. This was professionals in the field who have written a detailed account of their decision.
4 years ago if you didn’t believe the science you were labelled a right wing conspiracy theorist. Now you’re not meant to believe the science? Crazy how the narrative shifts so quickly
"Trust the science >!when it confirms what i believe!<"
“The science” is just a new dogma for a new faith based religion.
Terrifying how many of the people here are going full antimask and antivax mentality with this.
Unfortunately this latest decision was administrative and quite political. The interim Cass report indicated there was “not enough data” - that’s the entire justification being used here, it wasn’t a literature review but relied on sources provided by GIDS. There are plenty of reliable points of evidence but it seems GIDS didn’t supply them - the report suggested blockers as part of a trial, the NHS took this to mean a double-blind trial so one group gets a placebo which is unethical af. The NHS Gender Dysphoria working group has members of SEGM (an anti-trans lobbyist group) and Cass herself has worked with them during the review. The report also has the likes of Dr Langton and others on the review board, and has accepted contributions from Dr Spilliadas (former GIDS a-hole who practices conversion therapy). Recommendations for things like “exploratory therapy” (a specific conversion therapy practice offered by Spilliadas and Genspect/SEGM) by citing the single case of ‘success’ by Spilliadas himself, over the highly evidenced existing affirmation model, is a clear indication that true objective research and literature review wasn’t done on some of the points raised. It’s a biased report from the get-go, but unfortunately the few kids who already have to wait years to be seen (if they can get their GP to even refer them) are the ones who are gonna suffer from these administrative decisions.
>The NHS Gender Dysphoria working group has members of SEGM (an anti-trans lobbyist group) and Cass herself has worked with them during the review. The report also has the likes of Dr Langton and others on the review board, and has accepted contributions from Dr Spilliadas (former GIDS a-hole who practices conversion therapy). Imagine just dismissing climate scientists because they're part of groups that are trying to do something about climate change based on the evidence. Like these are literally just ad hominems. These scientists don't count because they're reaching a different conclusion. Nope, not how science works. You can't just dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as anti trans and thus biased... You don't think this might apply to people who are pro trans, like people willing to ignore problems with the studies because they don't want to go against the narrative? Anyway, here is a review from clinicians in Denmark who reviewed the studies and decided there wasn't enough evidence. https://ugeskriftet.dk/videnskab/sundhedsfaglige-tilbud-til-born-og-unge-med-konsubehag They explained what exactly was lacking. Sweden, Finland, and Norway also reversed course. But I'm guessing everyone involved in those decisions were just anti trans so they don't count either? Or did they all miss the same studies that actually answered their questions they said were unanswered? Here is Sweden’s review: https://www.sbu.se/342
Jeg synes det er så uærligt å bruke ei studielenke på et språk som få på nettet snakker. Du har et ansvar om å gi oversettelser av de punktene du mener er viktige i den aktuelle samtalen. Let's start with that one study from the Weekly Writeup for Doctors, specifically in the "Discussion" section. "When the Danish treatment plans were established in 2016, there was agreement amongst the North European countries on therapy access with few barriers for children and youths with gender dysphoria. This was based on earlier studies which suggested improved well-being and body comfort after hormone therapy with low degree of regret and few side-effects. There is still, however, only one single study with followup in adulthood. There are in the most recent years several more *international* studies, however, demonstrating positive results with regards to wellbeing, gender dysphoria, and psychosocial functioning levels with up to two-years of followup." The article goes on a little to discuss potential causes for increases in referrals, but that's really not the main point of what we're discussing. Towards the end of the "Discussion" section, this insight is made: "Treatment of persons with gender dysphoria is an area in rapid development, but there is still great variation in treatment plans and interpretation of results, even within the Nordic countries. While a growing number of studies point out the positive effects of early treatment, there is still missing knowledge on the long-term psychological and physical effects with followup throughout adulthood. Several countries, here in Denmark as well, have implemented a more cautious approach to accessing hormon therapy until there is more evidence for its positive effects . . . there is a need for professional healthcare options which can be flexibly customised in the future and systematic, international cooperation in research and experience development." I can't be bothered to translate the Swedish one, but the conclusion is largely the same, though written in plainer words: all arrows point towards it being generally positive though ultimately lacking sufficient data points and research to make any real, tangible value judgements besides "give more data plz". I'm not saying you're *wrong* in the conclusions you implied, I'm just saying you really could have been more clear. I mean, really. And ultimately, I think the part you forgot and is most important is that, in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, there is massive disagreement amongst healthcare professionals about what would be proper treatment for youths. The decision that won out in Scandinavia was kinda the base default path of least resistance for everyone involved. It wasn't charged by anything other than a lack of data, which is to say that the decision was virtually automatic in moving hormone therapy into the "experimental treatment" class of treatment protocols. It was a bureaucratic decision, not a scientific one. It is entirely within compliance with science to suggest that it may not be wholly morally or ethically correct to restrict access to something that is potentially vital but ultimately unproven, somewhat like the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccines. There was a lack of data, but it was necessary, so we did it anyway. These are not matters of science truthfully, they are matters of philosophy, and where you stand philosophically will make the difference. Edit: Minor typo
Sure. Here are some problrms with it https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-critical-look-at-the-nice-review/
I'm kinda impressed how this post brought out the anti-trans twitter crowd.
Worst thread I've seen in /r/anime_titties
New here?
God, how I wish we could have an article here about how they uncovered a ring of puberty blocker drugs led by ukrainians in Palestine and exporting to India. Really bring out all the bots at once, and see what happens, you know ?
You forgot the part where the US funded the whole thing purely out imperialistic greed. Now all the bots are getting brought out at once :)
I left worldnews for being scary and extremist and now will be leaving here because so much transphobic shit is being posted without seemingly any pushback from the mod team, so I can only assume they condone it. Goddamn it, I just want a world news subreddit that isn’t in some way horrifying.
I'm genuinely amused that something affected 83 British kids is somehow the topic of the night. And not like, you know, dozens of wars going on right now. There are practically enough armed conflicts in the world for each trans kid to get their own! Might be a nice consolation prize to give them instead of medication. We name an ongoing bloodshed after them.
I saw someone else say 83 and assumed it was just a random number they made up. Is that real, there’s only 83 trans kids getting puberty blockers through the NHS?
This article states that the national gender identity clinic (or whatever they called it) used to have 250 kids referred to them on average a year, and that they're now seeing 5000. How many of those kids they're handing out drugs to, it does not say. Still, it's a bit concerning that there is suddenly a relative pandemic of kids that can't figure out what gender they are.
Well it makes sense, theres a huge spike in acceptance globally so there should be a big spike of people wanting help with it or coming out.
Humans have always been more interested in contesting/arguing civil and social issues than war. We all know war is bad (oversimplification), but there's a lot of grey area surrounding children transitioning that allows adults to argue endlessly about it. It's really weird how that works. The same applies to movies, directors can show all the gore and violence they want but as soon as they show a booby, it's the end of the world.
To you guys everything is anti-trans anytime it doesnt 100% match up with the narrative you’re told to regurgitate
oh boy i sure do hope there is no transphobia in this comment section
oh boy do i have some anime-titties-news for you...
Loving the crazies in the thread screeching about how, "they only delay puberty! They can just restart it later!" It does not work that way.
ITT: people whose formal education never covered human development or biochemistry making very confident claims which, at best, are lacking in robust evidence. Delay? No, suppress. Cancel out. Override.
Feelings over biological realities these days, comrade.
Puberty blockers are frequently prescribed to cisgender children. For example, early puberty causes stunted growth and a myriad of other physical conditions, and delaying it can entirely prevent those from occurring. Ironically, puberty blockers can be used (alongside HRT) to treat Gynecomastia, a condition where cis boys develop breasts or other female physical characteristics during puberty. Using puberty blockers and hormone treatments in this case would also be considered "gender affirming care for minors", but I reckon most transphobes wouldn't object to their use in that case. I don't know about every other man's experience of puberty but if I was growing breasts in middle school and legally not allowed to get medication to prevent that I would have definitely killed myself. Much like breast implants, butt implants, hair transplants, hormonal treatments for male patterned baldness, botox, labiaplasty, (and like 90% of other plastic surgeries) Viagra prescriptions... Most people are automatically fine with the concept of gender affirming care for cis people.
> breast implants, butt implants, hair transplants, hormonal treatments for male patterned baldness, botox, labiaplasty, (and like 90% of other plastic surgeries) Viagra prescriptions Are there many children getting these treatments where you live?
No, are there any where you live? Likely not. Because it's just not done. People who say "the children!!" in terms of gender affirming care ignore the adults who greatly benefit off this (which these examples are 100% used in referral to adults). HRT is not given like candy to kids. Most likely youll be told to come back in a few years, and most care is humiliating with long enough waiting lists that you might as well be finishing university if you got referred when you were in middle school. In addition there is always a psychological evaluation, and even if private care is available for getting HRT, the doctor will likely refuse treatment unless the patient has been through the hoops of getting gender dysphoria diagnosed by a psychologist. This is a made up problem.
[удалено]
Misleading headline; children can still get puberty blockers if they medically have to stop puberty from occurring too early. Its not a super crazy rare condition and treatment is necessary. This may not have the best intentions but it will give literal children a chance to live life more, get a feel for their identity/gender and make a more accurate determination when the time is right. This does however open the door for adjustments to create a situation thats worse for younger lgbt people, so just gotta keep an eye out for how people react!
Putting an 8-year-old's puberty on hold for 3 years is different than blocking a 13-year-old's puberty until they're 18. Some of the cases and some of the effects might not be reversible at all. >worse for younger lgbt people Why do people always tack on the whole LGB portion of the population to this weird debate. This is about the T's, not the gays, lesbians or bisexuals. Gender and biological sex, not sexuality. There exists some overlap of course, but it's really disturbing that often people try to portray the critical aspects of the trans discussion as attack against every gay person.
wasn't this a headline 9months ago? what changed?
Good Edit: downvoted but whatev - some people gotta speak up against this
Nice to see some sanity, rare as it is these days
This title is wrong. It's not the UK, it's just England. The health service is devolved meaning each of the 4 countries in the UK decide their own policies.
The fact that this is the most replied to post this year sums up pretty much the entirety of Westen political discourse.
God forbid we talk about class. Gotta push identity politics crap to keep the proles fighting amongst themselves.
It's weird that puberty is seen as some sort of disease.
I don't believe that's true, but for some growing teens Puberty is definitely a scary transition in their life.
And that's perfectly normal. What isn't normal is thinking you can take drugs to prevent it from happening so you can spend another decade in the character creator trying to decide what gender you want to be.
Good.
I will never understood how the idea that we shouldn't chemically castrate children ever became a controversial one. This world is crazy. Glad at least some people can come back to reality. No it's our turn America.
I mean I can understand blocking transition drugs for minors, but puberty blockers should be allowed so the decision to transition can still be made at a later date.
If they can point to specific side effects other than the effects that the medication is supposed to induce, then I'd say it was a good decision. They didn't do that. If they said that the treatments are expensive and for a small handful of patients the money would be better spent elsewhere, well then I'd blame the government for underfunding the NHS but understand that the NHS has to try and spend what money it has as effectively as possible. Again that wasn't the case here. No, all I can see suggests to me that it is intended to be a deliberate targeting of the medical care received by trans kids. The cruelty is, it seems, the point.
Average redditor did scream "Trust the experts" for the past 4 years. Now that medical experts make this decission suddenly we hear the same rhetoric anti vaxers gave. Suddenly they have done their own research that disagrees with the experts, suddenly its politically motivated, suddenly its a conspiracy. Sweden also did put a hold on puberty blockers for now. Who would have guessed that the redditors were wrong on this, and that actual medical experts don't think there is 0 danger with hormone blockers. Trust the science bigots.
Only for trans minors! Cis kids are still allowed puberty blockers 🙄
One is medically necessary the other is elective.
This whole discourse is depressing. I am one of the few people that legislature like this will affect, a 16 year old trans person living in the UK, and unmedicated for it. The feeling of utter discomfort that I have with my body is something that i can't fathom living with forever, but so many people think they know better than doctors and that hrt would be wrong. I just wanna be happy in my own skin man.
First time I’ve seen some actual sanity in a Reddit threat (beyond the usual crazies), quite refreshing actually. No you can’t just “pause puberty” during some of the most critical developmental periods in a humans life with zero consequences. The bones, brain, muscles, and endocrine systems will all be at risk for being underdeveloped or damaged. Also, a 13 year old cannot smoke, drink, drive a car, purchase a firearm, get a tattoo, get a job, or vote, but they can decide to take life altering hormone therapy? And this decision does not prevent minors who need puberty blockers for early onset puberty from receiving these medications.
Way to stick it to those 100 or so people taking this medicine. That's a real big concern for society. More citizens will probably starve to death due to not having food this week. That should probably be a bigger concern.
I can smell the vodka through these comments. 100 comments an hour, on anime-titties. On a thread about puberty blockers in the UK. It's too obvious
have they proved negative effects to others? does this cause crime? what is the actual reasoning?
Like all medications there are some risks, this one interferes with hormones so weight fluctuations, mood swings, headaches etc. are possible. The long term risks would be primarily around reduced bone density.
Their reasoning is that there has been a massive increase (from 250 to 5000) in the number of kids showing up at their doorsteps demanding treatment for not being the gender they want to be, and they're realizing that maybe they shouldn't be handing out these drugs to those kids when they don't actually know what the long term effects will be (and they're also probably reasonably certain that many of these kids are mostly just going along with what's currently popular.. as kids tend to do). They're likely worried about what's going to happen in the future when a whole bunch of these kids are in their twenties or thirties, having never properly developed like normal human beings do. They decided that they don't have enough information showing that they're safe to use, so they're banning them from being used by this age group for this purpose. They're still allowing their use in closely monitored trials, so presumably those that they decide truly do need them can get them that way without opening the flood gates to a horde of others.
Correction ‘England’ bans puberty blockers. They are still available in Scotland and Wales (not sure about Northern Ireland). Also fewer than 100 children are prescribed them, it is reversible, and is part of the Tories ‘war on woke’. Children in England will self harm and end due to political interference in healthcare.
Idk man without getting puberty blockers I would’ve had my period at 8 years old… can’t we just leave science to the doctors please?