I find it difficult to conjure up a medical intervention that is more unacceptable and inappropriate than that of the affirmative model of ‘treating’ gender dysphoria (GD) in children.
I cite a few of the many arguments against this dreadful detour down a medical abyss:
• It is not evidence based.
• Some 80% of children presenting with GD will ‘desist’ (no longer experience the distress of GD following puberty) and there is no way to determine which 20% would ‘persist’ with GD.
• It impacts a cohort already heavily burdened with mental health challenges prior to emergence of the GD.
• Children given of-label drugs with unknown long term effects.
• Children are surgically mutilated and irreversibly sterilised.
• It is banned in ever more countries in Europe (those that originally pioneered the model) and much of the Western World.
• Medical defence for medical practitioners is withdrawn in ever more locations.
• Despite the insistence of protagonists as to the positive outcomes following ‘gender reassignment’, studies of long-term outcome (10 to 20 years) indicate a higher rate mental health issues and suicide.
"... Arguably, medicine is moving beyond its traditional, narrow goal of promoting health, biostatistically conceived.”
Good Lord. I guess "first do no harm" is also becoming quaint and parochial.
It seems to me that, at its heart, the war being waged isn't just for the health and welfare of our children, but for science against pseudo-scientific and anti-scientific mysticism. The "critical theory" juggernaut is pure fraud. It needs to be said, loudly and frequently, that there ARE no "other ways of knowing".
Thank you for featuring John Anderson's interview with Helen Joyce. I think this is one of her better interviews as she gives some good contextual information for those outside the UK. From13:39 she talks about the Tavistock clinic and at 18:00, in response to John's question, she notes how "gender care" is based an a system referrals and a "chain of trust" whereby, a doctor or specialist assumes the referring doctor or specialist has done their job.
Now look at https://www.hnekidshealth.nsw.gov.au/specialist_services/gender which outlines the referral model which funnels kids to Maple Leaf House in NSW (the one that made the papers this week for keeping bad records). Note especially a) the GP referral letter and b) the Gender forest at the bottom of the page .
Basically the model relies on parents and/or schools and/or children to self diagnose as gender dysphoric (steps 1 and 2 in the gender forest diagram) and you are then encouraged to make an appointment with your GP (using the referral letter where the parent tells the doctor their child's 'goals' and the doctor is given pathways to get them to gender clinics). That's step 3. And from there you enter the wonderful world of the gender clinic where you pick fruits like hormones and sterility and surgery (step 4). It's sick. Nowhere is there any prompt to consider assessment of the child's psychological condition, social circumstances (difficulties or bullying at school), no exploration of underlying trauma or abuse, no investigation of comorbidities like autism. Just: hello doc, I want you to help my child achieve their gender goals (this is all ideology; not medicine). And once you say hello doc, the promise is that "Your GP will give you a referral for a paediatrician who has experience caring for young people who don’t believe the gender they were given is right for them."
Wham bam straight onto a medical pathway. The whole process is unethical in my view.
Now consider how the "chain of trust" will work when that child is mutilated and later regrets what is done to them. The clinic will wipe their hands and say, well we get referrals from GPs for those wanting to transition. The GP will say, well parents sent me this letter asking for help. Parents will be left carrying the can. Any lawyers here? What chance does a kid have even to get justice under this appalling model? Are we going to end up with children suing their parents in future? Is it time we start warning parents and schools that they are not indemnified?
"We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of PSH [puberty blockers] to make the treatment routinely available at this time."
This statement is weakened by the phrase "at this time". Another way this statement is weakened is by using the weasel word 'routinely'. Does it mean puberty blockers are available in some situations? The word routine can be interpreted in different ways.
This was exploited by an ABC journalist who wrote "In a nutshell, it recommends the service [NHS] significantly limit the prescribing of medications — colloquially known as puberty blockers — for people aged under 18."
The best sentence is the shortest sentence.
A better statement might be "We have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of puberty blockers to make the treatment available."
I find it difficult to conjure up a medical intervention that is more unacceptable and inappropriate than that of the affirmative model of ‘treating’ gender dysphoria (GD) in children.
I cite a few of the many arguments against this dreadful detour down a medical abyss:
• It is not evidence based.
• Some 80% of children presenting with GD will ‘desist’ (no longer experience the distress of GD following puberty) and there is no way to determine which 20% would ‘persist’ with GD.
• It impacts a cohort already heavily burdened with mental health challenges prior to emergence of the GD.
• Children given of-label drugs with unknown long term effects.
• Children are surgically mutilated and irreversibly sterilised.
• It is banned in ever more countries in Europe (those that originally pioneered the model) and much of the Western World.
• Medical defence for medical practitioners is withdrawn in ever more locations.
• Despite the insistence of protagonists as to the positive outcomes following ‘gender reassignment’, studies of long-term outcome (10 to 20 years) indicate a higher rate mental health issues and suicide.
"... Arguably, medicine is moving beyond its traditional, narrow goal of promoting health, biostatistically conceived.”
Good Lord. I guess "first do no harm" is also becoming quaint and parochial.
It seems to me that, at its heart, the war being waged isn't just for the health and welfare of our children, but for science against pseudo-scientific and anti-scientific mysticism. The "critical theory" juggernaut is pure fraud. It needs to be said, loudly and frequently, that there ARE no "other ways of knowing".
Thank you for featuring John Anderson's interview with Helen Joyce. I think this is one of her better interviews as she gives some good contextual information for those outside the UK. From13:39 she talks about the Tavistock clinic and at 18:00, in response to John's question, she notes how "gender care" is based an a system referrals and a "chain of trust" whereby, a doctor or specialist assumes the referring doctor or specialist has done their job.
Now look at https://www.hnekidshealth.nsw.gov.au/specialist_services/gender which outlines the referral model which funnels kids to Maple Leaf House in NSW (the one that made the papers this week for keeping bad records). Note especially a) the GP referral letter and b) the Gender forest at the bottom of the page .
Basically the model relies on parents and/or schools and/or children to self diagnose as gender dysphoric (steps 1 and 2 in the gender forest diagram) and you are then encouraged to make an appointment with your GP (using the referral letter where the parent tells the doctor their child's 'goals' and the doctor is given pathways to get them to gender clinics). That's step 3. And from there you enter the wonderful world of the gender clinic where you pick fruits like hormones and sterility and surgery (step 4). It's sick. Nowhere is there any prompt to consider assessment of the child's psychological condition, social circumstances (difficulties or bullying at school), no exploration of underlying trauma or abuse, no investigation of comorbidities like autism. Just: hello doc, I want you to help my child achieve their gender goals (this is all ideology; not medicine). And once you say hello doc, the promise is that "Your GP will give you a referral for a paediatrician who has experience caring for young people who don’t believe the gender they were given is right for them."
Wham bam straight onto a medical pathway. The whole process is unethical in my view.
Now consider how the "chain of trust" will work when that child is mutilated and later regrets what is done to them. The clinic will wipe their hands and say, well we get referrals from GPs for those wanting to transition. The GP will say, well parents sent me this letter asking for help. Parents will be left carrying the can. Any lawyers here? What chance does a kid have even to get justice under this appalling model? Are we going to end up with children suing their parents in future? Is it time we start warning parents and schools that they are not indemnified?
The Cass report concludes
"We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of PSH [puberty blockers] to make the treatment routinely available at this time."
This statement is weakened by the phrase "at this time". Another way this statement is weakened is by using the weasel word 'routinely'. Does it mean puberty blockers are available in some situations? The word routine can be interpreted in different ways.
This was exploited by an ABC journalist who wrote "In a nutshell, it recommends the service [NHS] significantly limit the prescribing of medications — colloquially known as puberty blockers — for people aged under 18."
The best sentence is the shortest sentence.
A better statement might be "We have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of puberty blockers to make the treatment available."