American lawfare; UK blocker trial on trial; Yalie paper debunked, again; hormones without check ups; retrofitting the Dutch protocol; Germany's guideline; top surgery on the NHS; research censorship
“The plaintiffs include Cameron, a 12-year-old “non-binary” boy, who was receiving the “medically necessary care” that the White House order would prohibit. The claim is that from the age of four “Cameron communicated to their parents that they were neither a boy nor a girl.”
So this seems a simple problem. If Cameron does not know he is a boy or a girl why not leave him as a boy. Surely this would be better than starting him on a lifelong regime of puberty blockers then oestrogen and finally castration and penectomy only for him to find at the end of that that maybe he was a boy after all.
I suspect that if there is ever any doubt as to which gender appears to be favoured by the child then a well balanced gender physician must promote that which differs from the one 'assigned at birth'.
Dr Spencer was fired from her position, and vilified and cancelled by colleagues, because she couldn’t morally defend what she was witnessing in QLD gender clinics.
So cutting off breasts is not regarded as dangerous and in the end heart breaking as theses females will not be able to breast feed their babies if they are ever able to reproduce. This is all so heartbreaking.
An ABC News article commended Dr. Michelle Telfer for “saving the lives of hundreds, even thousands of children without ever picking up a scalpel or treating a disease.”
This is nonsense. LONG-TERM outcome following gender transition demonstrates a miserable outcome for those poor souls thus 'treated'.
I cite a brief summary of four notable studies (all readily accessible on the internet) that shed light on the outcomes associated with gender transition:
1. Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria Study (1972–2017)
• Key Finding: While suicide risk in transgender individuals is higher than in the general population, this risk remains consistent across all stages of transition. The study noted no significant increase in suicide risk over time, and in some cases, a decrease in trans women.
2. Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons in Sweden (1973–2023)
• Key Finding: Individuals who underwent sex reassignment surgery (SRS) exhibited substantially higher risks of mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric conditions compared to the general population.
3. Suicide Mortality Among Adolescents in Finland (1996–2019)
• Key Finding: Gender dysphoria alone did not predict mortality or suicide among adolescents referred to gender identity clinics. Psychiatric comorbidities were the primary predictors of mortality, and medical gender reassignment did not mitigate suicide risk.
4. Somatic Morbidity and Cause of Death in Denmark (1978–2010)
• Key Finding: Among individuals who underwent SRS, somatic morbidity increased from 19.1% pre-surgery to 23.2% post-surgery, with a mortality rate of 9.6%. The average age at death was 53.5 years.
The Yale critique of the Cass Review was a recap of a ton of bad arguments often made by people pushing gender-affirming care. Greatest hits, if you like.
This rebuttal is a (long) list of the many many mistakes/incorrect statements by the authors of the Yale critique, by kind:
(1) the Cass Review’s contents and processes;
(2) the pediatric transgender healthcare evidence base;
(3) existing clinical practice guidelines, including claims that there is international medical consensus;
(4) evidence-based medical practice and guideline development; and
(5) conclusions regarding the validity of the Cass Review’s findings.
In each category are several different types of misstatements, all with rebuttals. Tables have direct quotations and more support for the rebuttals.
These are often things they have been saying for a long time (many who push gender-affirming care keep claiming that critics only want [blinded] RCT's and then attack RCTs, for instance, so here they say Cass required them or something).
For example, if you look at the earlier Yale "reports" a lot of the claims are recycled, so this undermines a whole family of papers by these authors, they just keep saying the same things over and over again...
Also the Yale critique authors are McNamara, Turban, Olson-Kennedy, Pang, Baker, Janssen, Scheim, Connelly, Alstott .They all put their names on this very long list of wrong or misleading (depending on which statement is being discussed) statements.
Regarding the Californian law suits;
“The plaintiffs include Cameron, a 12-year-old “non-binary” boy, who was receiving the “medically necessary care” that the White House order would prohibit. The claim is that from the age of four “Cameron communicated to their parents that they were neither a boy nor a girl.”
So this seems a simple problem. If Cameron does not know he is a boy or a girl why not leave him as a boy. Surely this would be better than starting him on a lifelong regime of puberty blockers then oestrogen and finally castration and penectomy only for him to find at the end of that that maybe he was a boy after all.
The inclusion of a non-binary kid couldn't be resisted, even though it scrambles the binary rationale of trans whereby kids are supposedly given
"hormone replacement therapy" as if they somehow ended up with the wrong sex hormones.
I suspect that if there is ever any doubt as to which gender appears to be favoured by the child then a well balanced gender physician must promote that which differs from the one 'assigned at birth'.
The problem is there is no such thing as “gender medicine”. It’s all dictated by transactivists. For example look at the calibre of DEI “adviser” dictating policy to the AMA. https://open.substack.com/pub/genevievegluck/p/trans-identified-male-hired-by-australian-596?r=d6rnf&utm_medium=ios
Brave people like Dr Jillian Spencer have spoken out about the harm of surgically mutilating vulnerable children, too young to consent to a tattoo https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/BCVKAPBERQ4V59B6QRRR/full
Dr Spencer was fired from her position, and vilified and cancelled by colleagues, because she couldn’t morally defend what she was witnessing in QLD gender clinics.
So cutting off breasts is not regarded as dangerous and in the end heart breaking as theses females will not be able to breast feed their babies if they are ever able to reproduce. This is all so heartbreaking.
THE MYTH THAT GENDER TRANSITION SAVES LIVES;
An ABC News article commended Dr. Michelle Telfer for “saving the lives of hundreds, even thousands of children without ever picking up a scalpel or treating a disease.”
This is nonsense. LONG-TERM outcome following gender transition demonstrates a miserable outcome for those poor souls thus 'treated'.
I cite a brief summary of four notable studies (all readily accessible on the internet) that shed light on the outcomes associated with gender transition:
1. Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria Study (1972–2017)
• Key Finding: While suicide risk in transgender individuals is higher than in the general population, this risk remains consistent across all stages of transition. The study noted no significant increase in suicide risk over time, and in some cases, a decrease in trans women.
2. Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons in Sweden (1973–2023)
• Key Finding: Individuals who underwent sex reassignment surgery (SRS) exhibited substantially higher risks of mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric conditions compared to the general population.
3. Suicide Mortality Among Adolescents in Finland (1996–2019)
• Key Finding: Gender dysphoria alone did not predict mortality or suicide among adolescents referred to gender identity clinics. Psychiatric comorbidities were the primary predictors of mortality, and medical gender reassignment did not mitigate suicide risk.
4. Somatic Morbidity and Cause of Death in Denmark (1978–2010)
• Key Finding: Among individuals who underwent SRS, somatic morbidity increased from 19.1% pre-surgery to 23.2% post-surgery, with a mortality rate of 9.6%. The average age at death was 53.5 years.
The Yale critique of the Cass Review was a recap of a ton of bad arguments often made by people pushing gender-affirming care. Greatest hits, if you like.
This rebuttal is a (long) list of the many many mistakes/incorrect statements by the authors of the Yale critique, by kind:
(1) the Cass Review’s contents and processes;
(2) the pediatric transgender healthcare evidence base;
(3) existing clinical practice guidelines, including claims that there is international medical consensus;
(4) evidence-based medical practice and guideline development; and
(5) conclusions regarding the validity of the Cass Review’s findings.
In each category are several different types of misstatements, all with rebuttals. Tables have direct quotations and more support for the rebuttals.
These are often things they have been saying for a long time (many who push gender-affirming care keep claiming that critics only want [blinded] RCT's and then attack RCTs, for instance, so here they say Cass required them or something).
For example, if you look at the earlier Yale "reports" a lot of the claims are recycled, so this undermines a whole family of papers by these authors, they just keep saying the same things over and over again...
Also the Yale critique authors are McNamara, Turban, Olson-Kennedy, Pang, Baker, Janssen, Scheim, Connelly, Alstott .They all put their names on this very long list of wrong or misleading (depending on which statement is being discussed) statements.