Tasmania’s Health Minister and W.A.s State opposition leaders are to be congratulated for committing to investigating this travesty.
The children lining up at ‘gender clinics’ are heavily burdened with a hugely disproportionate prevalence of mental health disorders, a reality that would normally demand that medical professionals would adopt the most conservative approach possible – Rather It’s ever onward with the puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and then the finale mutilating surgery.
The oft quoted suicidality self-harm and suicidality are a reflection of the mental health conditions that they carry. I can find no reference to a single suicide in this cohort in Australia and they are extremely rare elsewhere.
The protagonists of this ghastly process quote studies outlining positive outcomes as proof of the safety and efficacy following ‘transition’. Long term studies, 20 to 30 years confirm very much the opposite with high suicide rates, attempted suicide, depression, criminality and early death.
The global trend is overwhelmingly to a more a more conservative approach and if our medical professionals refuses to ‘stop digging‘ then legislation must force them to.
Vincent, you are a clear head amongst all this craziness. I don't know the long term studies - all I know is that my son, who decided that he is a woman and whom I've not seen or heard from since he went off, at 18, to university. He is on the spectrum, the very poster child for the ROGD cohort - super intelligent, geeky, socially inept etc. I don't believe he will realize what he has done until it's too late and I dread to think of how it may turn out for him. I love and miss him every day.
I feel for your situation and am embarrassed by the position taken by the Australian (and global) medical fraternity on supporting and promoting the affirmative model of gender 'care'. As a recently retired doctor I have attempted to coerce the Royal Australian College of Physicians, of which I was a fellow, to make a stand and post a copy of a litter I wrote to the President-elect of that College.
President-elect The Royal Australasian College of Physicians
I feel compelled to express my concern and confusion with the position held by the RACP in relation to the ‘Affirmative Model’ of addressing gender dysphoria (GD) in minors.
The RACP’s statement on this matter from 5th March 2020:
The RACP strongly supports expert clinical care that is non-judgemental, supportive and welcoming for children, adolescents and their families experiencing gender dysphoria. Children and adolescents with gender dysphoria are a very vulnerable population, experiencing stigma and extremely high rates of depression, self-harm, attempted suicide and suicide.
I had assumed that the RACP would demand strong evidence in order to provide such unequivocal support particularly as the ‘clinical care’ involves irreversible surgical mutilation and sterilisation of minors. The evidence in support of this model of care is the lowest in the four-tiered ‘evidence hierarch
IV - Evidence from expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experience of respected authorities.
In 2020 RACP advised against a National inquiry into the treatment of children with gender dysphoria stating that it would not increase the scientific evidence available but would further harm vulnerable patients and their families through increased media and public attention.
It would seem a contradiction to support children being subjected to irreversible life-changing therapies on the basis of very poor evidence while an investigation as to the ethics of the procedure cannot proceed because it “would further harm vulnerable patients and their families through increased media and public attention”.
Vincent Keane, I am in NZ where we are told we have ten times the amount of kids on blockers than the rest of the world. On particular doctor is very keen on this. It seems that our medical profession is not swayed by Cass - the review doesn't apply to us as we do things differently.
The vacuous suggestion that “we do thinks differently than the UK” is the line being taken by ideologues and profiteers in Australia too. It’s a total scandal and so difficult for those whose children have fallen for the lies peddled by the gender cult.
The current requirements to ensure safety and efficacy of new or/experimental medical interventions have evolved to the point where the expression ‘evidence based medicine’ is applied. There exists a hierarchy of evidence such that the level of evidence available for the intervention must relate to the seriousness (or lack thereof) the condition (see below).
An invasive, mutilating, irreversible, sterilising intervention in an otherwise healthy child would be expected to satisfy level 1, perhaps in rare cases level 2.
In reality the level used to ‘justify’ the affirmative model of gender ‘care’ in children would, at best, satisfy level 5.
It is definitely NOT evidence based.
Level I - Evidence from a systematic review or meta-analysis of all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
Level II - Evidence obtained from well-designed RCTs
Level III - Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization
Level IV - Evidence from well-designed case-control and cohort studies
Level V - Evidence from systematic reviews of descriptive and qualitative studies
Level VI - Evidence from single descriptive or qualitative studies
Level VII - Evidence from the opinion of authorities and/or reports of expert committees
Tasmania’s Health Minister and W.A.s State opposition leaders are to be congratulated for committing to investigating this travesty.
The children lining up at ‘gender clinics’ are heavily burdened with a hugely disproportionate prevalence of mental health disorders, a reality that would normally demand that medical professionals would adopt the most conservative approach possible – Rather It’s ever onward with the puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and then the finale mutilating surgery.
The oft quoted suicidality self-harm and suicidality are a reflection of the mental health conditions that they carry. I can find no reference to a single suicide in this cohort in Australia and they are extremely rare elsewhere.
The protagonists of this ghastly process quote studies outlining positive outcomes as proof of the safety and efficacy following ‘transition’. Long term studies, 20 to 30 years confirm very much the opposite with high suicide rates, attempted suicide, depression, criminality and early death.
The global trend is overwhelmingly to a more a more conservative approach and if our medical professionals refuses to ‘stop digging‘ then legislation must force them to.
Vincent, you are a clear head amongst all this craziness. I don't know the long term studies - all I know is that my son, who decided that he is a woman and whom I've not seen or heard from since he went off, at 18, to university. He is on the spectrum, the very poster child for the ROGD cohort - super intelligent, geeky, socially inept etc. I don't believe he will realize what he has done until it's too late and I dread to think of how it may turn out for him. I love and miss him every day.
Gay J,
I feel for your situation and am embarrassed by the position taken by the Australian (and global) medical fraternity on supporting and promoting the affirmative model of gender 'care'. As a recently retired doctor I have attempted to coerce the Royal Australian College of Physicians, of which I was a fellow, to make a stand and post a copy of a litter I wrote to the President-elect of that College.
President-elect The Royal Australasian College of Physicians
I feel compelled to express my concern and confusion with the position held by the RACP in relation to the ‘Affirmative Model’ of addressing gender dysphoria (GD) in minors.
The RACP’s statement on this matter from 5th March 2020:
The RACP strongly supports expert clinical care that is non-judgemental, supportive and welcoming for children, adolescents and their families experiencing gender dysphoria. Children and adolescents with gender dysphoria are a very vulnerable population, experiencing stigma and extremely high rates of depression, self-harm, attempted suicide and suicide.
I had assumed that the RACP would demand strong evidence in order to provide such unequivocal support particularly as the ‘clinical care’ involves irreversible surgical mutilation and sterilisation of minors. The evidence in support of this model of care is the lowest in the four-tiered ‘evidence hierarch
IV - Evidence from expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experience of respected authorities.
In 2020 RACP advised against a National inquiry into the treatment of children with gender dysphoria stating that it would not increase the scientific evidence available but would further harm vulnerable patients and their families through increased media and public attention.
It would seem a contradiction to support children being subjected to irreversible life-changing therapies on the basis of very poor evidence while an investigation as to the ethics of the procedure cannot proceed because it “would further harm vulnerable patients and their families through increased media and public attention”.
Vincent Keane, I am in NZ where we are told we have ten times the amount of kids on blockers than the rest of the world. On particular doctor is very keen on this. It seems that our medical profession is not swayed by Cass - the review doesn't apply to us as we do things differently.
The vacuous suggestion that “we do thinks differently than the UK” is the line being taken by ideologues and profiteers in Australia too. It’s a total scandal and so difficult for those whose children have fallen for the lies peddled by the gender cult.
The lame "doing things differently" excuse translated is "we are on a good thing, get off our backs, we will do what we like."
The current requirements to ensure safety and efficacy of new or/experimental medical interventions have evolved to the point where the expression ‘evidence based medicine’ is applied. There exists a hierarchy of evidence such that the level of evidence available for the intervention must relate to the seriousness (or lack thereof) the condition (see below).
An invasive, mutilating, irreversible, sterilising intervention in an otherwise healthy child would be expected to satisfy level 1, perhaps in rare cases level 2.
In reality the level used to ‘justify’ the affirmative model of gender ‘care’ in children would, at best, satisfy level 5.
It is definitely NOT evidence based.
Level I - Evidence from a systematic review or meta-analysis of all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
Level II - Evidence obtained from well-designed RCTs
Level III - Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization
Level IV - Evidence from well-designed case-control and cohort studies
Level V - Evidence from systematic reviews of descriptive and qualitative studies
Level VI - Evidence from single descriptive or qualitative studies
Level VII - Evidence from the opinion of authorities and/or reports of expert committees