Trans activists and allies should welcome a parliamentary inquiry into youth gender medicine and gender clinics.
If, as activists claim, current medical standards and practices are safe, effective and ethical, they should embrace an inquiry because it will ratify the current approach and silence critics.
If activists and allies are sincere about their oft-stated concern for people's health and welfare, they should embrace any recommendations the parliamentary inquiry might make for changes and improvements to standards and practices in gender clinics. Wouldn't it be better for gender clinics to take the time and make the effort to screen would-be patients so that only true trans people are medicalised than to uncritically accept every person who's fallen for trans indoctrination only to see many of them them detransition, perahaps as whistle blowers, years later? Also, prompt compliance with reforms might provide gender clinics with a safe harbour against subsequent litigation by former patients.
Unfortunately, there's almost always a very large gap between what the players in today's trans industrial complex should do and what they actually do. Far from embracing either of the reasonable propositions above, activists are - as usual - resorting to falsehoods, half truths, distraction and hypocrisy to derail the proposed inquiry. It is likely that trans activists somewhere are also seeking to cancel and censor proponents of the parliamentary inquiry.
What's undisputably false is that the inquiry would be an attack on "the LGBTQ community." First, the concept an "LGBT community" is an anti-democratic political fiction that allows activists to claim to speak for a group of people who would never elect them as their leaders. In addition to the excellent points Mr. Lane has made about the growing fault line between lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, on the one hand, the trans and queer social constructs on the other, gay men are under pressure from some on the TQ side of the divide (and even from other gay men) to accept female-to-male transexuals in all-male spaces, including on-line erotic spaces. Sorry, ladies, facial hair, a deeper voice and - in the best case scenario - fake male genitalia do not a gay man make.
“I can only answer that in good faith we thought it was a good idea.”
The AMA's marketing of the Intravaginal Sling (IVS) Tunneller device as an "Australian medical design breakthrough" to treat incontinence and prolapse, despite women's reports of complications in Western Australian public hospital trials from as early as 1989, was "a long way from our proudest hour", said current AMA president Dr Michael Gannon.
The Australian Medical Association (often referred to as ‘the peak professional body for doctors in Australia’) acted as exclusive distributor of an Australian-invented pelvic mesh device use for the treatment of pelvic prolapse in women, a not uncommon problem following pregnancy.
It was first used in Australia in 1998.
The device did not undergo any formal clinical trial and resulted in a litany of irreversible complications including dyspareunia, intractable pain, incontinence, systemic autoimmune conditions and invasion of the vaginal well.
Following withdrawal TGA of the device billions of dollars in litigation were paid out.
“I can only answer that in good faith the AMA thought it was a good product. History will not judge that decision kindly”. Dr Gannon, the then head of the AMA stated (Dr Gannon is a West Australian specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist).
Thanks for the heads up Bernard - I wrote to all 76 senators this morning individually. Apparently the vote was delayed - so back on in august. Time for us to write to everyone. I received a call from one senator. He advised we need all LNP and independents to support the motion for it to get up. Labour and greens will vote against. Doesn’t seem possible we’ll get enough votes then. But definitely worth writing to them and giving our views.
Thanks for this information and your useful analysis Bernard. I wasn’t aware it was happening. Will check in with Women’s Forum Australia as they may be responding.
"Arkansas Trans Ban Unconstitutional: Judge Declares 311 Statements Of Fact In Ruling
Over 311 statements of fact were established in the Arkansas gender affirming care ban case. Not a single fact was found in the state's favor, and several major talking points were debunked."
Excellent article Bernard. It's overwhelmingly likely that nobody in power will want to find out if something is "rotten in that state of Denmark". You've accurately summarised the usual excuses the powers-that-be trot out to justify their failure to subject this radical new medical phenomenon to scrutiny. The rationale that vulnerable people will be damaged by questions and debate is trotted out regularly in regard to multiple issues of late. It's absurd to argue that it would be "harmful" to examine these practices and to let kids and young people know that "gender affirming" treatment may be unnecessary, is non-evidence-based and is liable to cause disability, disfigurement and disease. Amazing that the prospect of experiencing temporary feelings of discomfort when an unhappy truth is revealed is considered so dangerous as to preclude truth telling at all.
BTW it may not have been reported much (except by you on other posts here, no doubt) but given that testosterone causes or can cause vaginal and uterine atrophy, urinary tract inflammation, incontinence, agonising uterine cramps on orgasm, and early menopause, it seems unlikely that "gender affirming care" for girls isn't also causing loss of sexual pleasure, let alone the appalling, pleasure destroying and health-wrecking consequences of having a phalloplasty. For those who don't know, this means the attachment of a non-functional pseudo-penis constructed from other tissues. Gender critical commentator Exulansic refers to this and other "affirming" surgeries as "genital origami".
Detransitioner Chloe Cole recently told Dr Jordan Peterson, through tears, that she suffers from sexual dysfunction, at 18, as a result of testosterone treatment. That kids are trading away their sexual function and fertility, starting at an age when they have never even kissed anyone, and that weak, fearful politicians can turn a blind eye rather than risk invoking the rage of activist doctors and trans privilege activists is simply unconscionable.
As for the "transition or die" suicide narrative, not only is it not evidence-based, it's uniquely abusive to tell patients with any health problem that they "must" undergo radical medical treatment or else they will inevitably die by their own hand. Having worked as a nurse for over 30 years, and a counsellor for over 10 years, this is something I have never seen before and would never have considered health professionals capable of. Suicide experts should be condemning this vociferously. One should never tell a person with emotional difficulties that they're at risk of suicide. To do so not only coerces them into treatment that may not be good for them but encourages the belief that they can't trust themselves, that they may do something impulsively destructive, that their life isn't worth living unless they have the treatment and that anyone who stands in the way of the supposedly "life saving treatment" (e.g. cautious parents or health professionals) doesn't care whether they live or die. It's a shocking dereliction of duty that directly violates the Do No Harm principle.
Trans activists and allies should welcome a parliamentary inquiry into youth gender medicine and gender clinics.
If, as activists claim, current medical standards and practices are safe, effective and ethical, they should embrace an inquiry because it will ratify the current approach and silence critics.
If activists and allies are sincere about their oft-stated concern for people's health and welfare, they should embrace any recommendations the parliamentary inquiry might make for changes and improvements to standards and practices in gender clinics. Wouldn't it be better for gender clinics to take the time and make the effort to screen would-be patients so that only true trans people are medicalised than to uncritically accept every person who's fallen for trans indoctrination only to see many of them them detransition, perahaps as whistle blowers, years later? Also, prompt compliance with reforms might provide gender clinics with a safe harbour against subsequent litigation by former patients.
Unfortunately, there's almost always a very large gap between what the players in today's trans industrial complex should do and what they actually do. Far from embracing either of the reasonable propositions above, activists are - as usual - resorting to falsehoods, half truths, distraction and hypocrisy to derail the proposed inquiry. It is likely that trans activists somewhere are also seeking to cancel and censor proponents of the parliamentary inquiry.
What's undisputably false is that the inquiry would be an attack on "the LGBTQ community." First, the concept an "LGBT community" is an anti-democratic political fiction that allows activists to claim to speak for a group of people who would never elect them as their leaders. In addition to the excellent points Mr. Lane has made about the growing fault line between lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, on the one hand, the trans and queer social constructs on the other, gay men are under pressure from some on the TQ side of the divide (and even from other gay men) to accept female-to-male transexuals in all-male spaces, including on-line erotic spaces. Sorry, ladies, facial hair, a deeper voice and - in the best case scenario - fake male genitalia do not a gay man make.
“I can only answer that in good faith we thought it was a good idea.”
The AMA's marketing of the Intravaginal Sling (IVS) Tunneller device as an "Australian medical design breakthrough" to treat incontinence and prolapse, despite women's reports of complications in Western Australian public hospital trials from as early as 1989, was "a long way from our proudest hour", said current AMA president Dr Michael Gannon.
The Australian Medical Association (often referred to as ‘the peak professional body for doctors in Australia’) acted as exclusive distributor of an Australian-invented pelvic mesh device use for the treatment of pelvic prolapse in women, a not uncommon problem following pregnancy.
It was first used in Australia in 1998.
The device did not undergo any formal clinical trial and resulted in a litany of irreversible complications including dyspareunia, intractable pain, incontinence, systemic autoimmune conditions and invasion of the vaginal well.
Following withdrawal TGA of the device billions of dollars in litigation were paid out.
“I can only answer that in good faith the AMA thought it was a good product. History will not judge that decision kindly”. Dr Gannon, the then head of the AMA stated (Dr Gannon is a West Australian specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist).
Thanks for the heads up Bernard - I wrote to all 76 senators this morning individually. Apparently the vote was delayed - so back on in august. Time for us to write to everyone. I received a call from one senator. He advised we need all LNP and independents to support the motion for it to get up. Labour and greens will vote against. Doesn’t seem possible we’ll get enough votes then. But definitely worth writing to them and giving our views.
Thanks for this information and your useful analysis Bernard. I wasn’t aware it was happening. Will check in with Women’s Forum Australia as they may be responding.
Any thoughts on this:
"Arkansas Trans Ban Unconstitutional: Judge Declares 311 Statements Of Fact In Ruling
Over 311 statements of fact were established in the Arkansas gender affirming care ban case. Not a single fact was found in the state's favor, and several major talking points were debunked."
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/arkansas-trans-ban-unconstitutional
Excellent article Bernard. It's overwhelmingly likely that nobody in power will want to find out if something is "rotten in that state of Denmark". You've accurately summarised the usual excuses the powers-that-be trot out to justify their failure to subject this radical new medical phenomenon to scrutiny. The rationale that vulnerable people will be damaged by questions and debate is trotted out regularly in regard to multiple issues of late. It's absurd to argue that it would be "harmful" to examine these practices and to let kids and young people know that "gender affirming" treatment may be unnecessary, is non-evidence-based and is liable to cause disability, disfigurement and disease. Amazing that the prospect of experiencing temporary feelings of discomfort when an unhappy truth is revealed is considered so dangerous as to preclude truth telling at all.
BTW it may not have been reported much (except by you on other posts here, no doubt) but given that testosterone causes or can cause vaginal and uterine atrophy, urinary tract inflammation, incontinence, agonising uterine cramps on orgasm, and early menopause, it seems unlikely that "gender affirming care" for girls isn't also causing loss of sexual pleasure, let alone the appalling, pleasure destroying and health-wrecking consequences of having a phalloplasty. For those who don't know, this means the attachment of a non-functional pseudo-penis constructed from other tissues. Gender critical commentator Exulansic refers to this and other "affirming" surgeries as "genital origami".
Detransitioner Chloe Cole recently told Dr Jordan Peterson, through tears, that she suffers from sexual dysfunction, at 18, as a result of testosterone treatment. That kids are trading away their sexual function and fertility, starting at an age when they have never even kissed anyone, and that weak, fearful politicians can turn a blind eye rather than risk invoking the rage of activist doctors and trans privilege activists is simply unconscionable.
As for the "transition or die" suicide narrative, not only is it not evidence-based, it's uniquely abusive to tell patients with any health problem that they "must" undergo radical medical treatment or else they will inevitably die by their own hand. Having worked as a nurse for over 30 years, and a counsellor for over 10 years, this is something I have never seen before and would never have considered health professionals capable of. Suicide experts should be condemning this vociferously. One should never tell a person with emotional difficulties that they're at risk of suicide. To do so not only coerces them into treatment that may not be good for them but encourages the belief that they can't trust themselves, that they may do something impulsively destructive, that their life isn't worth living unless they have the treatment and that anyone who stands in the way of the supposedly "life saving treatment" (e.g. cautious parents or health professionals) doesn't care whether they live or die. It's a shocking dereliction of duty that directly violates the Do No Harm principle.
Any word on if this was debated in the Senate yet or when it might be?