Thank you for this excellent compilation of studies: transition is not good, evidence-based or ethical healthcare at *any* age.
To the admirable warriors at Genspect, DIAG, Do No Harm, etc, a sincere thank you for all you do, but please, please, put this succinct message out there more prominently.
I think the language was a very intentional part of pushing this agenda . What this actually is ;elective non -medically necessary castration , mastectomies , plastic surgeries & drugs being prescribed off-label in a dangerous and reckless way .
Absolutely correct. I'm glad to see that more people seem to be seeing this now rather than defending transgenderism for adults in an attempt to appear "reasonable".
I agree with the general line of ethical reasoning in this article and think we should continue to talk about the upper age limit for "gender" medicalization procedures. There are a couple of technical issues with the authors' comments on research design and statistics.
It is possible to conduct "double blind" research when we are handing the research participants a pill, but pills or injections that have early effects or side effects will tell the user that they are taking the treatment, not the placebo. In that case, they and their assigned investigators are no longer "blinded." An example of how this can happen is with SSRI drugs for treatment of depression. Drug companies can claim that they used a double blinded research design, but these drugs have significant side effects for a substantial percentage of people who take them, and the side effects are apparent immediately. In the case of testosterone injections, women's bodies start to show the effects soon after initiating treatment, and if the dosage is high enough, masculinization can develop within a couple of months.
Most medical research includes control (comparison) groups but is not blinded. An example is research on treatments for breast cancer. Participants might be randomly assigned to a radiation group, a chemotherapy group and a surgery only group, then are told which one before they receive the treatment. In a lot of medical research it is not ethical to use a control group to rule out placebo effects (like an inert pill in drug testing), if the participants in the study have a condition that needs active treatment. "Treatment as usual" rather than a no-treatment control group is often used as the standard of comparison for an experimental treatment.
A second issue is that we actually do not know yet if GAC or any kind of social or medical transition increases risk of suicide for people who are "trans identified" or struggling with gender distress. We do have evidence in the articles listed by the authors that medical transition procedures do not prevent suicide with 100 per cent effectiveness in that population. We do not, however, know if the suicide rate would have been even higher if the people being studied had not transitioned.
I appreciate your perspective on the technical challenges of the research and statistics. But without clear and concise evidence that doctors are a) not doing harm merely for profit and b) that the (faulty) claims they hide behind to justify their actions are rigorously tested and proven accurate, they are merely conducting an experiment on humanity, often targeting neurodivergent individuals at a disproportional rate. The first precept of medicine should be the divining rod that guides their trajectory: “first, do no harm.” Anything less is ideologically driven, not scientifically sound.
I completely agree with your statement. I also will continue to point out errors in peoples' interpretations of research results, in a good faith effort to differentiate truth from misunderstandings and biases in stated conclusions. I happen to have some training in research design whereas most people have not, and feel a responsibility to offer an informed opinion.
I’m so glad you mentioned young adults and adults.
There are so many who were brainwashed in HS & college with COVID isolation exacerbating the issue. We need to reach & teach those individuals. They need competent, healing therapy. They seriously need de-programming.
I am so angry that despite all this mountain of evidence and huge numbers of mutilated kids and adults, no one has successfully been able to sue any of these fucking clinics and doctors. Most of them continue profiting from this madness, completely unbothered and undeterred.
I think you're right, AFT, but so heartbroken for the many young adults (including two of my own children) that have already been caught up in this and made irreversible "medical" changes.
I hear you. And I’m so sorry. I know how much it hurts. But I have to believe that God has plans to use our children’s suffering for a greater good that we can’t yet see or comprehend. They are not their bodies, and this life is just a temporal experience.
It's mind boggling that the cross sex sterilizing hormones prescribed to my vulnerble son with autistic traits at 19 on his first visit to Planned Parenthood is not worthy of criminal prosecution. In four years, he has deteriorated mentally and physically. No one at any age should be harmed by unethical damaging drugs and barbaric surgeries.
Yes. This.
Thank you for this excellent compilation of studies: transition is not good, evidence-based or ethical healthcare at *any* age.
To the admirable warriors at Genspect, DIAG, Do No Harm, etc, a sincere thank you for all you do, but please, please, put this succinct message out there more prominently.
Thanks for this well-argued, well-cited piece. I've saved it in my bookmarks and subscribed to your Substack.
I think the language was a very intentional part of pushing this agenda . What this actually is ;elective non -medically necessary castration , mastectomies , plastic surgeries & drugs being prescribed off-label in a dangerous and reckless way .
Absolutely correct. I'm glad to see that more people seem to be seeing this now rather than defending transgenderism for adults in an attempt to appear "reasonable".
I agree with the general line of ethical reasoning in this article and think we should continue to talk about the upper age limit for "gender" medicalization procedures. There are a couple of technical issues with the authors' comments on research design and statistics.
It is possible to conduct "double blind" research when we are handing the research participants a pill, but pills or injections that have early effects or side effects will tell the user that they are taking the treatment, not the placebo. In that case, they and their assigned investigators are no longer "blinded." An example of how this can happen is with SSRI drugs for treatment of depression. Drug companies can claim that they used a double blinded research design, but these drugs have significant side effects for a substantial percentage of people who take them, and the side effects are apparent immediately. In the case of testosterone injections, women's bodies start to show the effects soon after initiating treatment, and if the dosage is high enough, masculinization can develop within a couple of months.
Most medical research includes control (comparison) groups but is not blinded. An example is research on treatments for breast cancer. Participants might be randomly assigned to a radiation group, a chemotherapy group and a surgery only group, then are told which one before they receive the treatment. In a lot of medical research it is not ethical to use a control group to rule out placebo effects (like an inert pill in drug testing), if the participants in the study have a condition that needs active treatment. "Treatment as usual" rather than a no-treatment control group is often used as the standard of comparison for an experimental treatment.
A second issue is that we actually do not know yet if GAC or any kind of social or medical transition increases risk of suicide for people who are "trans identified" or struggling with gender distress. We do have evidence in the articles listed by the authors that medical transition procedures do not prevent suicide with 100 per cent effectiveness in that population. We do not, however, know if the suicide rate would have been even higher if the people being studied had not transitioned.
I appreciate your perspective on the technical challenges of the research and statistics. But without clear and concise evidence that doctors are a) not doing harm merely for profit and b) that the (faulty) claims they hide behind to justify their actions are rigorously tested and proven accurate, they are merely conducting an experiment on humanity, often targeting neurodivergent individuals at a disproportional rate. The first precept of medicine should be the divining rod that guides their trajectory: “first, do no harm.” Anything less is ideologically driven, not scientifically sound.
I completely agree with your statement. I also will continue to point out errors in peoples' interpretations of research results, in a good faith effort to differentiate truth from misunderstandings and biases in stated conclusions. I happen to have some training in research design whereas most people have not, and feel a responsibility to offer an informed opinion.
I’m so glad you mentioned young adults and adults.
There are so many who were brainwashed in HS & college with COVID isolation exacerbating the issue. We need to reach & teach those individuals. They need competent, healing therapy. They seriously need de-programming.
I am so angry that despite all this mountain of evidence and huge numbers of mutilated kids and adults, no one has successfully been able to sue any of these fucking clinics and doctors. Most of them continue profiting from this madness, completely unbothered and undeterred.
Their day of reckoning is coming. Don’t lose faith, it will happen.
I think you're right, AFT, but so heartbroken for the many young adults (including two of my own children) that have already been caught up in this and made irreversible "medical" changes.
I hear you. And I’m so sorry. I know how much it hurts. But I have to believe that God has plans to use our children’s suffering for a greater good that we can’t yet see or comprehend. They are not their bodies, and this life is just a temporal experience.
Exactly: "Medical ethics and scientific standards don’t expire on one’s 18th birthday." Thank you for this article.
It's mind boggling that the cross sex sterilizing hormones prescribed to my vulnerble son with autistic traits at 19 on his first visit to Planned Parenthood is not worthy of criminal prosecution. In four years, he has deteriorated mentally and physically. No one at any age should be harmed by unethical damaging drugs and barbaric surgeries.