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."
I had missed that part of Judge Moody about Tavistock being "decentralized", which I now recall was the instantaneous reaction of trans activist, especially Mermaids and a writer called Owen Jones?? who writes for The Guardian. And various spokes-people pushed back clearly stating that it was a clinical, not logistical/backlog, decision.
BTW, that line of thought was propagated in this NYTimes article regarding NHS decision to limit puberty blockers to "clinical trials". Note second sentence:
"Britain’s National Health Service announced on Friday that it would limit the use of puberty-suppressing drugs to children enrolled in clinical trials. The change comes as the agency’s pediatric gender services have struggled to keep up with soaring demand."
Jack Turban & a clinician here in Oz ran the line that gender-affirming care was being expanded. It’s true the waiting list was/is a problem, but partly because as soon as a gender issue comes up kids are pulled out of the mainstream mental health system & left in limbo on the Tavistock queue, when they could help sooner if someone would go past affirmation to do some therapeutic exploration. That’s part of the Cass message.
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.
Yes, Jenny, it is a shocking state of affairs, once you begin to grasp it & I have trouble applying a reality test to the latest grim development because in any area of life other than “gender medicine” it would seem outrageously improbable.
On sexual dysfunction I have tended to focus on the effect of early puberty blockers on males, but I take your point about testosterone. Quite a few detransitioners have said vaginal atrophy & ensuing hysterectomy were simply never mentioned when they were started on testosterone.
One issue I don’t understand. It’s been reported that early puberty blocking prevents a male experiencing orgasm during a critical period & that orgasm thereafter may never be obtainable.
Is this a specific small-gametes problem or is there a parallel with females started early on puberty blockers?
Totally agree Bernard, it is barely believable. Maybe we’re living in a dystopian Truman show-like alternative world? That’s a good question re puberty blockers’ potentially different effects on boys vs girls. I’ll consult my brains trust and get back to you.
Hi Bernard I've asked a couple of people in the know and the answers were: "it's very complicated" and "we don't know". Perhaps it's just another example of the way in which 1) modern medicine is interfering with processes it doesn't even understand and b) male and female bodies are different.
In case it's of use to you or anyone else, somebody offered up this article. I haven't had time to look it over but the "find" function didn't produce any references to "orgasm" in it. It looks rather dense and indigestible! Apparently it concludes that pubertal timing predicts adult psychosexuality, which makes sense of course, but why the effects of puberty suppression on orgasm should vary between girls and boys is the question and I don't see an answer here--but maybe someone else will. Talia N. Shirazi a, Heather Self a, Khytam Dawood b, Rodrigo Cárdenas b, Lisa L.M. Welling c, Kevin A. Rosenfield a, Triana L. Ortiz d, Justin M. Carré d, Ravikumar Balasubramanian e, Angela Delaney f, William Crowley e, S. Marc Breedlove g, David A.
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.
Thanks Ollie. I wrote late at night & in haste. Still so much to be said about this topic, seen wrongly by many as a niche issue.
“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).
The same Gannon of the medical indemnity insurer MDA National.
Bernard, Yes, I believe it is!
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
Had a quick look at the Arkansas judgment. Not impressive.
More here https://twitter.com/Bernard_Lane/status/1673180026932695041?s=20
BL
I had missed that part of Judge Moody about Tavistock being "decentralized", which I now recall was the instantaneous reaction of trans activist, especially Mermaids and a writer called Owen Jones?? who writes for The Guardian. And various spokes-people pushed back clearly stating that it was a clinical, not logistical/backlog, decision.
BTW, that line of thought was propagated in this NYTimes article regarding NHS decision to limit puberty blockers to "clinical trials". Note second sentence:
"Britain’s National Health Service announced on Friday that it would limit the use of puberty-suppressing drugs to children enrolled in clinical trials. The change comes as the agency’s pediatric gender services have struggled to keep up with soaring demand."
https://web.archive.org/web/20230609204556/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/health/puberty-blockers-transgender-children-britain-nhs.html
Jack Turban & a clinician here in Oz ran the line that gender-affirming care was being expanded. It’s true the waiting list was/is a problem, but partly because as soon as a gender issue comes up kids are pulled out of the mainstream mental health system & left in limbo on the Tavistock queue, when they could help sooner if someone would go past affirmation to do some therapeutic exploration. That’s part of the Cass message.
Thank you so much....
Not had a chance to look yet. Was the court told of the systematic reviews of the evidence internationally?
I don't know. Here is a link to the ruling and it can be skimmed.
https://twitter.com/geraldposner/status/1671328868492255234
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.
Yes, Jenny, it is a shocking state of affairs, once you begin to grasp it & I have trouble applying a reality test to the latest grim development because in any area of life other than “gender medicine” it would seem outrageously improbable.
On sexual dysfunction I have tended to focus on the effect of early puberty blockers on males, but I take your point about testosterone. Quite a few detransitioners have said vaginal atrophy & ensuing hysterectomy were simply never mentioned when they were started on testosterone.
One issue I don’t understand. It’s been reported that early puberty blocking prevents a male experiencing orgasm during a critical period & that orgasm thereafter may never be obtainable.
Is this a specific small-gametes problem or is there a parallel with females started early on puberty blockers?
Totally agree Bernard, it is barely believable. Maybe we’re living in a dystopian Truman show-like alternative world? That’s a good question re puberty blockers’ potentially different effects on boys vs girls. I’ll consult my brains trust and get back to you.
Hi Bernard I've asked a couple of people in the know and the answers were: "it's very complicated" and "we don't know". Perhaps it's just another example of the way in which 1) modern medicine is interfering with processes it doesn't even understand and b) male and female bodies are different.
Thanks Jenny. Still much unknown, I guess. B
In case it's of use to you or anyone else, somebody offered up this article. I haven't had time to look it over but the "find" function didn't produce any references to "orgasm" in it. It looks rather dense and indigestible! Apparently it concludes that pubertal timing predicts adult psychosexuality, which makes sense of course, but why the effects of puberty suppression on orgasm should vary between girls and boys is the question and I don't see an answer here--but maybe someone else will. Talia N. Shirazi a, Heather Self a, Khytam Dawood b, Rodrigo Cárdenas b, Lisa L.M. Welling c, Kevin A. Rosenfield a, Triana L. Ortiz d, Justin M. Carré d, Ravikumar Balasubramanian e, Angela Delaney f, William Crowley e, S. Marc Breedlove g, David A.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2020.104733
Dr Breedlove seems just the person for this exercise!
Ha ha! Perfect.
Any word on if this was debated in the Senate yet or when it might be?
They didn’t get to it today. Has to wait until next sittings starting July 31.