A new peer-reviewed study of the Cass Review, the UK project that was used to stop trans teens’ healthcare, has been published.
The shrieking about this is because those who have made the decision as adults – and good luck to ’em, wholly free to do so – require their decision to be validated by the next generation containing more people taking the same decision.
For, if people look at the decisions taken by the generation ahead then say “Naaah, Mate” then and therefore those decisions taken by that earlier generation are called into question. Sure, sure, this happens to everyone and every generation. What in buggery were beehive hairdos, Cadbury’s Smash or Oasis ever about, eh? But when it comes to hacking your own genitals off there’s a little less willingness to go ah, well, mistakes and a little more insistence upon being confirmed in that choice by those following.
I like how he keeps posting the “peer reviewed” lies of other trannies screeching at the Cass Report, it reminds us of how far science and academia has fallen down and the purges that will be necessary to restore scholarship to a place of truth and reason.
Anyway, Gary wrote some nasty, shitty lies on his blog about Charlie Kirk, so I’m not worried about being unkind to him. He writes incessantly about the fictional category of “trans kids”, but what about his own children? It must be an absolute headfuck having a father who goes about looking like Les Dawson in drag and calling himself a “lesbian”. Fucking cringe.
But these deranged narcissists never worry about the emotional wreckage they leave behind. Never a hint of sympathy for the betrayed wives and psychologically ruined children of middle aged men who wank themselves into living their fetish 24/7.
Charlie Kirk was never an embarrassment to his children.
Yes…
Indeed, and….
Even better, Julia!
Tbf, I embarrass my kids all the time. It’s one of the perks.
Wot, they’re refusing flu jabs and blood pressure measurements to teenagers because they’re trannies?
“Mutilation is healthcare.” — Orwell
The whole Cass review thing is a bit weird. The “just think of the children” stuff doesn’t really seem to make much sense – firstly because puberty blockers are routinely used for other conditions with no evidence of harm, and secondly because the NHS has such long waiting lists for everything that no-one is being rushed into any serious medical intervention. Yet the key thrust of the whole review is “kids are being rushed into self-harming”. There was some article the other day with Wes Streeting saying the average waiting time for gender treatment is eight years and something like twenty five years in Scotland.
Frankly, if you can sustain the desire to have your bits cut off for that long, not only are you likely to be a fully grown adult, but any claim that it’s “just a phase” seems to be rubbish.
It’s therefore a bit odd that this review hasn’t thrown up thousands of children and adults who reverse their choices. It’s not like they’ve not had plenty of time on the NHS waiting lists to think about it all.
All in all, it sounds a bit too much like the gay panic of the 70’s (remember when they were going to turn all our kids queer?) and not much like a serious review of medical care. Something must be done! Let’s make the NHS even more inefficient!
firstly because puberty blockers are routinely used for other conditions with no evidence of harm,
You’re a liar. They’ve never been “routinely” prescribed to children at all. They were developed to help children suffering from precocious puberty, a rare condition where puberty can start at age 6.
It’s also a lie to say they cause no harm. Puberty blockers can cause infertility and chronic bone density loss. It’s not a coincidence that many FtM transsexuals need to use walking sticks in their 30’s.
Cass found that the supposed evidence for the purported benefits of puberty blockers was “remarkably weak”, and there’s very little real medical evidence to support their safety or efficacy in transgender identified children. That’s because all the “peer reviewed ” literature has been written by deranged trannies. Like the anti-Cass screed linked to above.
the NHS has such long waiting lists for everything that no-one is being rushed into any serious medical intervention.
Another lie. The documented evidence shows a fiftyfold rise in girls being referred to gender clinics in just 10 years. Since transgender isn’t a real medical diagnosis, and there’s no medical evidence that people can be born in the “wrong” sex or change their sex, every single one of these cases is an example of serious medical abuse masquerading as healthcare.
It’s therefore a bit odd that this review hasn’t thrown up thousands of children and adults who reverse their choices.
Meanwhile, in the real world, there are thousands of children and adults who regret undergoing so-called transgender treatments. You’re just pretending they don’t exist.
All in all, it sounds a bit too much like the gay panic of the 70’s (remember when they were going to turn all our kids queer?) and not much like a serious review of medical care. Something must be done! Let’s make the NHS even more inefficient!
It sounds like you’re trying, and failing, to concern troll while posing as the Reasonable Man. But reasonable men don’t tolerate the mutilation of children. Transgender “medicine” has nothing to do with gays or the 70’s, it’s more like the use of transorbital lobotomies in the 50’s. My advice is to stop lying, and stop being a tranny chaser.
Hope that helps x
Excellent fisking Steve. I was just going to call him a duplicitous fucking weasel, but your way is better.
I suppose we can now guess what the “T” in ‘Andy T’ means.
You’re a liar. They’ve never been “routinely” prescribed to children at all. They were developed to help children suffering from precocious puberty, a rare condition where puberty can start at age 6.
So… pretty much the same as trans kids – a rare condition that might be treated by puberty blockers. Yet in one case it’s seen as a normal response, and in the other we have angry protesters claiming kids are being forced into something against their will that will destroy their lives. Hysteria much?
Another lie. The documented evidence shows a fiftyfold rise in girls being referred to gender clinics in just 10 years.
Every accusation is a confession with you, isn’t it Steve? Referred is not the same as treated is it? Panic! Panic! Fifty sounds like such a big number!
Meanwhile, in the real world, there are thousands of children and adults who regret undergoing so-called transgender treatments. You’re just pretending they don’t exist.
You’re on a roll today, aren’t you? Are these thousands of children in the room with you now? Because they don’t appear to be in the report that’s meant to show they exist, do they?
But reasonable men don’t tolerate the mutilation of children.
Think of the children! What a load of nonsense from you. Someone questions your outrage and you leap straight to claims of mutilation. The outrage bus is a great way to avoid actually looking at the numbers, isn’t it? Do you have a whole folder of memes you can post when people press your buttons?
“So… pretty much the same as trans kids – a rare condition that might be treated by puberty blockers.”
Sounds like the only “same thing” is that it’s rare. I’m not sure how believing you are something you are not is treated by puberty blockers though.
“Yet in one case it’s seen as a normal response“
Who said that it was “a normal response”? Steve said basically the opposite as he was (rightly or wrongly) contesting “routine” prescription for other conditions and highlighting that they can cause harm.
A quick bit of googling answers your question – puberty blockers delay the point at which medical treatment becomes more invasive, giving people time to figure out if they’re serious about going through with it. The web tells me that the number of people who change their minds after a year or two of thinking it over is pretty low – something like 3%.
Steve implied they cause harm (fertility). In fact the Cass report searched through all of the studies and could find no evidence of actual harm. Instead what it says is there *might* be harm, but no-one’s found it yet in current dosages and periods. This is the difference between hysteria and evidence.
@AndyT – I think you are being disingenuous – the use in precocious puberty is to try to normalise growth and development (particularly eventual height and social/educational development) until normal puberty can begin. One of the observations about using PB’s in adolescents in gender clinics is that nearly all (as you note) go on to hormonal treatment for their preferred identity, although the levels of eventual regret and de-transition are not known, it is a phenomena. The Cass review showed that this was pretty much non-evidence based medicine. There is a difference between knowing the evidential basis for treatment, with risks and benefits, and jumping off a cliff in the dark.
The point I’m making is that much of the “debate” (mainly people shouting at each other) is disingenuous.
There are people trying to claim the Cass report says puberty blockers are harmful. It doesn’t.
There are people trying to claim it identifies “thousands” of detransitioners. It doesn’t.
There are people trying to say it says gender treatment should not be provided because it’s a woke mind virus. It really doesn’t say that.
And against your point it doesn’t take long to find that there are indeed studies on de-transitioning and regret rates that are astonishingly low.
As per my original post, the thing I find odd about the whole report is the lengths it goes to to take a lack of evidence for the things people are shouting about and turn it into a policy of withholding treatment. “We should stop providing medical care because someone might get hurt” is the oddest conclusion I’ve ever heard – especially in the context of any modern medicine where grown adults know we can’t provide 100% guarantees of anything. Go read the side effects on your paracetamol packet (causes autism!).
That’s even worse given the coroners report this week of the preventable suicide of a trans kid waiting on treatment. It doesn’t really matter whether it’s made up or real if the result of withholding treatment is preventable deaths – and most of the debate is about trying to prevent treatment rather than offering a meaningful alternative (unless you count the nut-job conversion therapy lot).
It also plays into this weird social media thing where apparently the entire medical profession is obsessed with “mutilating” children against their and their parents’ best interests, and doing so over multi-year long periods. Funnily enough, the Cass report doesn’t say that either.
I’m actually on a “trans” drug – Sprironolactone – for reasons regarding an unusual heart issue I have. The list of side effects are quite terrifying (an include feminisation, like growing breasts).
However, I do not take much of it which is where the dishonesty likely lies “children take it”.
It’s about mad people validating their own fantasies. What you used to do in education, if a child told you they thought they might be gay for example but weren’t sure, is enourage them to take it very slowly and carefully and explore it further, and see how it goes. Most of them will not be gay. I thought I might be at one point ; I’m not.
The transgender mafia’s solution when a young person wonders if they are gay is to test it by putting them in a 40 adult male orgy for 24 hours.
Trannies keep their pecker in a jar, just in case they decide to trans-trans.
“There was some article the other day with Wes Streeting saying the average waiting time for gender treatment is eight years and something like twenty five years in Scotland.”
In which case one would expect to see virtually zero cases of ‘gender treatment’ being given to under 18 year olds. Is that the case?
The “Conflicting Interests” section in the Authors section is…. enlightening… about the actual scientific worth of this “peer-reviewed” article…
Fair warning, is a migraine-inducing acronym salad, but makes firmly clear that the vlew of authors and “peer-reviewers” are ….less than neutral… about the subject matter.
This besides the fact that the “Conflicting Interests” section should be …minimal, preferably not containing anything.
Something these “academics” seem to have missed, or most likely were never taught..
“Sure, sure, this happens to everyone and every generation.”
And everyone, of every generation, is always convinced that this doesn’t apply to their own opinions, and they therefore have the right to force them on others who they think have wrong opinions. They have to be overruled in making decisions regarding their own healthcare for their own good and the good of society.
We had the same argument recently about vaccinations and vaccine mandates. People disagreed about whether it was better to be treated or better not to be. People who thought it was better to be treated were convinced they were right and therefore overruled those who didn’t want to, for their own good, or so they thought. Our society is infected with authoritarianism. Next time round, I suspect, the other side will ban vaccinations, even for those who want them. Because there are authoritarians of every opinion.
There’s no point in even starting on the deeply technical argument about which medical treatment is actually better until you have first established the principle of whose decision it is. Do people have a right to decide their own treatment? Even if it later turns out to be a mistake? Do children have rights? And if not, who makes the decision for them? The courts? The politicians? The church? Schools? Society? Their own parents? You?
Freedom is a concept some people find difficult or impossible to understand.
There’s no point in even starting on the deeply technical argument about which medical treatment is actually better until you have first established the principle of whose decision it is.
Not true. Evaluations of medical treatments are primarily empirical matters. Whose decision it is to have a treatment is an entirely separate issue.
As for rights, they don’t exist outside of a legal system. Non-legal rights-talk is metaphorical and rhetorical.
Actually the first thing to decide is if there is a medical condition which requires treatment. Human biological sex is not a a medical condition which requires treatment.
This sort of concern trolling is very common amongst paedophiles and other bad actors who want to harm children. Supporters of PIE and other nonce organisations were very vocal about how oppressive it was for parents to prevent perverts from fucking their kids. And of course the nonce/tranny crossover is massive.
“Not true. Evaluations of medical treatments are primarily empirical matters. Whose decision it is to have a treatment is an entirely separate issue.”
That’s what I said.
“As for rights, they don’t exist outside of a legal system.”
Not true. Legal systems codify socially-developed moral systems. This is like saying that languages don’t exist outside of dictionaries.
“Actually the first thing to decide is if there is a medical condition which requires treatment.”
No. The first thing to decide is who gets to decide whether it’s a condition that ‘requires’ treating. “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
“Human biological sex is not a a medical condition which requires treatment.”
That’s not up to you – except in regard to your own biological sex.
There are plenty of common instances of normal sexual development that people feel need to be treated: breast enlargement, breast reduction, permanent hair removal, circumcision, etc. There are plenty of medical and semi-medical treatments that people can elect to have done that are not “required”: piercings, tattooing, etc. Do we tell people they’re no longer allowed to get tattoos because you don’t think it’s a medical condition requiring treatment? What business is it of yours?
“This sort of concern trolling is very common amongst paedophiles and other bad actors who want to harm children.”
And this is a classic “Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are bad” sort of argument.
The question of who gets to make the decisions regarding children’s lives comes up in a very wide variety of issues across the whole of society. Who decides whether to vaccinate children? The state, the doctors, their parents, or the child? Who decides what children get taught? Schools, teachers, the state, parents, or children? Who decides what children can eat? The nanny state, Jamie Oliver, parents, or children?
It’s got nothing to do with paedophiles. It’s a simple question of whether you think the state has the right to intervene in how you bring up your children, to classify what you are doing to them – letting them eat sweets or teaching them that global warming is bunk – as ‘harm’. Should social services be able to take your children away if they discover you’re a Reform voter? That sort of question.
If you think that the state has the right to intervene, then you shouldn’t be surprised if it sometimes decides to intervene in ways you don’t like. If you would like to keep the state from poking it’s nose into your life, then the same thing applies to you poking your nose into everyone else’s lives.
NIV
That’s what I said.
No, you didn’t. You said:
There’s no point in even starting on the deeply technical argument about which medical treatment is actually better until you have first established the principle of whose decision it is.
I said:
Evaluations of medical treatments are primarily empirical matters. Whose decision it is to have a treatment is an entirely separate issue.
If you can’t see the difference, sea kelp…
Legal systems codify socially-developed moral systems.
No, legal systems embody shared moral intuitions, diluted by pragmatism. A moral intuition of what is mine and what is yours – even if shared – is not the same as a legally defined and enforceable property right! Our moral obligations emerge from our nature as an advanced social species. Re-casting our moral discourse in rights-talk is metaphorical and rhetorical…and often misleading. Human and Natural Rights are a fiction.
“If you can’t see the difference, sea kelp…”
There are two distinct issues. One is “the deeply technical argument about which medical treatment is actually better“. Evaluating risks and consequences is in principle empirical but determining what the evidence proves or doesn’t prove is a deeply technical matter about which people observably (i.e. empirically) disagree. The other is “the principle of whose decision it is” which by being decided separately is an entirely separate issue.
What you said is a subset of what I said. All I added to it was that there was no point in starting on debating the “primarily empirical matters” until the “entirely separate issue” had been resolved.
That’s because while it is an empirical matter what the risks and consequences are, the determination of which risks/consequences are better is a personal one, and depends on who is making the decision. To take a less controversial example: is a 10% higher chance of survival after five years worth six months of nausea and pain? Or is a 10% higher chance of survival after five years worth £30k for the pills? The chances of survival, the nausea and pain, and the £30k cost are all empirical. The decision about which is “better” depends on whether the patient or the NHS bureaucrats are making the decision.
I find this a lot, where people disagree with me by making statements with which I 100% agree. I can only assume they’re reading something into what I said that I didn’t intend.
“No, legal systems embody shared moral intuitions, diluted by pragmatism. A moral intuition of what is mine and what is yours – even if shared – is not the same as a legally defined and enforceable property right!”
Again, I don’t disagree. “Rights” are an empirically observed feature of socially-evolved moral intuitions that law seeks to encode and emulate. One type of right is codified in law and the other is socially recognised and observed. Like: one use of language is informal slang and the other is written down and defined in a dictionary. They’re different. But the formal codification follows/emulates/simplifies/unifies the informal ones.
Otherwise, how could we argue about what the laws should be?
The dictionary will tell you that some words are “verbs” and some words are “nouns”, but it is not the dictionary that makes them so. It is not the dictionary writer that gives words their meanings. Authoritarians think if they can take over the dictionary publishers, they can redefine and freeze the language everyone uses to make it impossible for anyone to argue with them. But it is possible. We just disagree with your definitions.
If you think Smash was poor stuff you should try the Idaho mashed potato powder that’s in the supermarkets. One trial is quite enough. Uuurgh.
As with quite a few issues beloved of the Left, a “peer reviewed study” claimed to show that hormones & mutilation reduced the risk of trans kids committing suicide. This was used for a while to pressure parents – “you can have a live daughter or a dead son”. Once people who weren’t biased had a chance to look at the study it was of poor quality, didn’t actually measure what its supporters claimed, i.e., suicide, had a very small sample size, etc.
You can do a totally BS study and if you claim it supports a Leftie cause it’ll be treated as solid gold by the old media. Any criticism of your study will be relegated to the back pages.