I don't think many mainstream journos -- and this applied to me too as a newspaper reporter -- are aware enough of the many competing sources of news & views available to everyday sceptical, curious people.
Disinformation & misinformation does exist but these terms are often used now by people & institutions (including fact checking) to discredit inconvenient facts & contrary views while masquerading as neutral observers. Any disagreement with the claim of scientific consensus for the affirmative model comes in for this kind of treatment.
And thanks for including the Free Press piece - the whole Missouri Clinic thing is huge here and I feel that it is pivotal to the overall gender clinic scene here in the US.
Great article. I noted that the Ministry of Health social media team were tweeting that Marc Daalder’s article had much information that was wrong. Of course he does not have to correct it because of this. But the MOH information is clearly aligned with the information contained in the OIAs. And contrary to Daalder. The question is why persist with something that is easily refuted is a mystery.
Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital ‘Adolescent Medicine Gender Service website overview' includes the statement:
The RCH Gender Service provides care that is consistent with ‘The Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines for Trans and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents’.
On page 15 of that document, under the heading ‘Puberty Suppression’, the following is included:
The long term impact of puberty suppression on bone mineralisation is currently unknown
Again, referring to the RCH website, under the heading ‘Puberty Suppression’ the following statement is included:
Puberty blockers suppress the development of secondary sexual characteristics and are used for adolescents in the early stages of pubertal development. As they are reversible in their effects. . . . .
In relation to puberty blockers it is a contradiction to state that while their long term effects on bone-mineralisation are unknown they are reversable in their effects.
I don't think many mainstream journos -- and this applied to me too as a newspaper reporter -- are aware enough of the many competing sources of news & views available to everyday sceptical, curious people.
Disinformation & misinformation does exist but these terms are often used now by people & institutions (including fact checking) to discredit inconvenient facts & contrary views while masquerading as neutral observers. Any disagreement with the claim of scientific consensus for the affirmative model comes in for this kind of treatment.
Excellent article! Again, thank you for this!
Possible thanks to dogged detective work of Simon Tegg from Fully Informed NZ.
And thanks for including the Free Press piece - the whole Missouri Clinic thing is huge here and I feel that it is pivotal to the overall gender clinic scene here in the US.
Free Press living up to its name!
Most definitely!!!!
Great article. I noted that the Ministry of Health social media team were tweeting that Marc Daalder’s article had much information that was wrong. Of course he does not have to correct it because of this. But the MOH information is clearly aligned with the information contained in the OIAs. And contrary to Daalder. The question is why persist with something that is easily refuted is a mystery.
I suppose Daalder did not expect that anyone else would make public use of the OIA material.
Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital ‘Adolescent Medicine Gender Service website overview' includes the statement:
The RCH Gender Service provides care that is consistent with ‘The Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines for Trans and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents’.
On page 15 of that document, under the heading ‘Puberty Suppression’, the following is included:
The long term impact of puberty suppression on bone mineralisation is currently unknown
Again, referring to the RCH website, under the heading ‘Puberty Suppression’ the following statement is included:
Puberty blockers suppress the development of secondary sexual characteristics and are used for adolescents in the early stages of pubertal development. As they are reversible in their effects. . . . .
In relation to puberty blockers it is a contradiction to state that while their long term effects on bone-mineralisation are unknown they are reversable in their effects.
Hello Vincent, I'm surprised they haven't revised the claims they make. They've had plenty of opportunities.