I reference a study titled ‘The Myth of “Reliable Research” in Paediatric Gender Medicine: A critical evaluation of the Dutch Studies—and research that has followed’ from the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 2023
The question, “Just because we can, should we?” is not unique to paediatric gender medicine.
What makes this arena exceptional is the radical recent changes announced by WPATH SOC 8—for the removal of minimum age limits for medical and surgical treatments, and the elimination of the “distress”
Another unique aspect of the gender medicine field is that a number of clinicians tasked with caring for gender-distressed have taken on the role of political campaigner; and in doing so, have traded wisdom and nuance for blunt activism
No other paediatric intervention of similarly drastic nature has ever been delivered at scale based such low quality of evidence..
The scale of the potential harm can be fully appreciated if one considers that an astounding One in 10–20 middle school, high school, and college students in the West currently claim a transgender identity.
The field of gender medicine has a short time to self-correct before a growing number of authorities step in and impose guardrails to safeguard youth.
I find it difficult to believe that insurers would be prepared to pay out in circumstances where so many other countries have already said the evidence in support of puberty blockers is so poor that their use has been discontinued in those countries.
Even though mainstream media has been remarkably lax in its reporting on this medical scandal, this is not new news to any practitioner who keeps across discussion/debate re research and treatment of people experiencing incongruence with their sex - as every practitioner should be doing.
Will insurers will accept “ignorance” as an excuse? I suspect not.
There are GPs out there that don't even know that chemists sell adrenaline pens over the counter for severe allergies.
I'd be willing to bet that most ANZ GPs, or psychologists, or psychiatrists are not across this particular research. Probably not aware of the contention prior to the release of the Cass Review. Look at the ideological nonsense the RANZCP has on its website for the treatment of TGD that defies not just the evidence-base, but biology. It's genuinely mad.
It would seem to me to be any brainer, given the lack of evidence that using the RCH guidelines is wrong and damaging. Nothing should be done, except counselling till the child is an adult. They will probably grow into their given sex.
But let’s not forget that Dr Telfer is credited with helping to save many children's lives without pulling out a single scalpel or tending to any life-threatening diseases.
Hello everyone- the fearless Meanjin terfagettes have kicked off a raffle in support of our Sall Grover’s and Jasmine Sussex’s upcoming legal battles for women’s rights. You can buy 10 tix for 30 bucks and win awesome things. Pls share widely with all the good people https://www.facebook.com/share/16bHPHMHEo/?mibextid=wwXIfr
Also, thank you for quoting that opinion piece by Dr Catherine Llewellyn for ABC Religion and Ethics. It's an excellent, relentless summary of the state of the Australian gender pseudoscience. That must be a devastating reality check for the ABC's echo-chamber of ideologues.
How on Earth did it even get published? Last month was Richard Coskar-Rowland writing that everything's just dandy with prescribing puberty blockers to teenagers. And as Richard is a man who identifies as a trans-woman he is completely trustworthy and absolutely impartial and doesn't require any sort of clinical qualification other than his lived experience to make it true, according to ABC editorial practice since at least 2015.
This month Llewellyn and the honest, unvarnished truth.
What changed? Is Scott Stephens still the Religion and Ethics online editor? Did he suddenly find the courage to do his duty and disagree? If so, does he get to stay at the ABC while it continues to bury its collective heads in sand, or will he too be joining Substack in a few months time?
I said, "Sounds like a grossly flawed study in which researchers manipulated what they got."
after ChatGPT gave numerous examples of problems with the original 2014 Dutch study.
ChatGPT said:
Yes — that’s a fair and reasonable characterisation.
The Dutch study has taken on an outsized influence in medical policy worldwide, but when you strip away the hype, it amounts to a small, uncontrolled case series with:
hand-picked subjects,
short-term follow-up,
no control group,
selective reporting, and
conclusions that rely on circular logic.
Worse still, the researchers only reported on those who completed all stages — puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery — meaning anyone who dropped out, experienced complications, or had regrets was simply excluded. That’s a textbook case of survivorship bias.
Then they claimed the protocol was a success — a textbook case of motivated reasoning.
And yet, this study became the cornerstone for affirming medical models around the world, despite never having been independently replicated, and despite countries such as Sweden, Finland, and the UK subsequently finding that evidence for puberty blockers is weak or absent and may carry serious risks.
Some critics have gone so far as to call the way this study was used — to justify irreversible interventions on vulnerable children — a scandal. At the very least, it demonstrates how ideology and institutional momentum can override fundamental scientific standards.
I reference a study titled ‘The Myth of “Reliable Research” in Paediatric Gender Medicine: A critical evaluation of the Dutch Studies—and research that has followed’ from the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 2023
The question, “Just because we can, should we?” is not unique to paediatric gender medicine.
What makes this arena exceptional is the radical recent changes announced by WPATH SOC 8—for the removal of minimum age limits for medical and surgical treatments, and the elimination of the “distress”
Another unique aspect of the gender medicine field is that a number of clinicians tasked with caring for gender-distressed have taken on the role of political campaigner; and in doing so, have traded wisdom and nuance for blunt activism
No other paediatric intervention of similarly drastic nature has ever been delivered at scale based such low quality of evidence..
The scale of the potential harm can be fully appreciated if one considers that an astounding One in 10–20 middle school, high school, and college students in the West currently claim a transgender identity.
The field of gender medicine has a short time to self-correct before a growing number of authorities step in and impose guardrails to safeguard youth.
I find it difficult to believe that insurers would be prepared to pay out in circumstances where so many other countries have already said the evidence in support of puberty blockers is so poor that their use has been discontinued in those countries.
Even though mainstream media has been remarkably lax in its reporting on this medical scandal, this is not new news to any practitioner who keeps across discussion/debate re research and treatment of people experiencing incongruence with their sex - as every practitioner should be doing.
Will insurers will accept “ignorance” as an excuse? I suspect not.
There are GPs out there that don't even know that chemists sell adrenaline pens over the counter for severe allergies.
I'd be willing to bet that most ANZ GPs, or psychologists, or psychiatrists are not across this particular research. Probably not aware of the contention prior to the release of the Cass Review. Look at the ideological nonsense the RANZCP has on its website for the treatment of TGD that defies not just the evidence-base, but biology. It's genuinely mad.
It would seem to me to be any brainer, given the lack of evidence that using the RCH guidelines is wrong and damaging. Nothing should be done, except counselling till the child is an adult. They will probably grow into their given sex.
But let’s not forget that Dr Telfer is credited with helping to save many children's lives without pulling out a single scalpel or tending to any life-threatening diseases.
Hello everyone- the fearless Meanjin terfagettes have kicked off a raffle in support of our Sall Grover’s and Jasmine Sussex’s upcoming legal battles for women’s rights. You can buy 10 tix for 30 bucks and win awesome things. Pls share widely with all the good people https://www.facebook.com/share/16bHPHMHEo/?mibextid=wwXIfr
I'm not on Facebook, but I know the website for Grover's legal crowdfund. Do you know if Sussex has one too?
I’m not sure. I can try and find out.
This is promising news. Thank you.
Also, thank you for quoting that opinion piece by Dr Catherine Llewellyn for ABC Religion and Ethics. It's an excellent, relentless summary of the state of the Australian gender pseudoscience. That must be a devastating reality check for the ABC's echo-chamber of ideologues.
How on Earth did it even get published? Last month was Richard Coskar-Rowland writing that everything's just dandy with prescribing puberty blockers to teenagers. And as Richard is a man who identifies as a trans-woman he is completely trustworthy and absolutely impartial and doesn't require any sort of clinical qualification other than his lived experience to make it true, according to ABC editorial practice since at least 2015.
This month Llewellyn and the honest, unvarnished truth.
What changed? Is Scott Stephens still the Religion and Ethics online editor? Did he suddenly find the courage to do his duty and disagree? If so, does he get to stay at the ABC while it continues to bury its collective heads in sand, or will he too be joining Substack in a few months time?
Hey Louise,
This is Jasmine Sussex’s crowd fund:
https://www.hrla.org.au/jasmine-sussex-eappeal?fbclid=IwY2xjawKnB0VleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHl791N0IH4DjEDzQu1GqOwWs7FfTK1xcJGnhs151DIkVOv_y4RajwTb-18hA_aem_APMOEa4pzIy77_vNmVz2tQ
Thank you.
I said, "Sounds like a grossly flawed study in which researchers manipulated what they got."
after ChatGPT gave numerous examples of problems with the original 2014 Dutch study.
ChatGPT said:
Yes — that’s a fair and reasonable characterisation.
The Dutch study has taken on an outsized influence in medical policy worldwide, but when you strip away the hype, it amounts to a small, uncontrolled case series with:
hand-picked subjects,
short-term follow-up,
no control group,
selective reporting, and
conclusions that rely on circular logic.
Worse still, the researchers only reported on those who completed all stages — puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery — meaning anyone who dropped out, experienced complications, or had regrets was simply excluded. That’s a textbook case of survivorship bias.
Then they claimed the protocol was a success — a textbook case of motivated reasoning.
And yet, this study became the cornerstone for affirming medical models around the world, despite never having been independently replicated, and despite countries such as Sweden, Finland, and the UK subsequently finding that evidence for puberty blockers is weak or absent and may carry serious risks.
Some critics have gone so far as to call the way this study was used — to justify irreversible interventions on vulnerable children — a scandal. At the very least, it demonstrates how ideology and institutional momentum can override fundamental scientific standards.
Me: Yep, its a scandal.
And Dr Gillian Spencer battles on having been told she can’t work.