Thank you, Lisa. May it be widely reported, and make a real difference, here. Azeen Ghoryashi includes this quote from Dr Cass, and a link to Cass' interview with the BMJ:
“Children and young people have just been really poorly served,” Dr. Cass said in an interview with the editor of The British Medical Journal, released Tuesday. She added, “I can’t think of another area of pediatric care where we give young people potentially irreversible treatments and have no idea what happens to them in adulthood.”
Thanks Lisa, for this conversation I wondered about the this sentence "This is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint." I have seen many times where the TRAs misrepresent studies that do not show positive outcomes, but how often is it the other side? Gender medicine critics who look at studies showing positive outcomes but misrepresent those?
In that same vein, what should the standard be to allow use of puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones? I see the Endocrine Society warning about plastics interfering in natural hormonal processes on one hand, but then advocate for medications that intentionally interfere with those processes on the other. Is it even possible for those interventions to have a positive effect outside of something on the mental side of care? Personally I think the bar would need to be WAY higher to justify those interventions, even in adults.
Unlike previous studies, this one controlled for sexual orientation. Once that was accounted for, the brains of pre-HST trans-identified people were shown to be no different than others of their sex.
The implication of course being, that it's homosexuality that is a bit innate, and trans only appears to be by virtue of its association with it.
Children can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can
"consent" to have sex with an adult.
Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not
It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions.
To whom you are attracted sexually is purely subjective and therefore cannot reasonably be contested by an outside observer. Where you decide to live your life on a spectrum of superficial, stereotypical male to female attributes (and we all do) is also purely subjective and similarly cannot be questioned. However, your biological sex reflects an objective reality which cannot be changed by your subjective personal view and futile attempts to do so can result in serious health impacts to you as well as actual harms to members of the sex you are impersonating (especially women). Finally, others who are grounded in objective reality should never be forced to accept your subjective version of your actual biological sex.
Thank you, Lisa. May it be widely reported, and make a real difference, here. Azeen Ghoryashi includes this quote from Dr Cass, and a link to Cass' interview with the BMJ:
“Children and young people have just been really poorly served,” Dr. Cass said in an interview with the editor of The British Medical Journal, released Tuesday. She added, “I can’t think of another area of pediatric care where we give young people potentially irreversible treatments and have no idea what happens to them in adulthood.”
Thanks Lisa, for this conversation I wondered about the this sentence "This is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint." I have seen many times where the TRAs misrepresent studies that do not show positive outcomes, but how often is it the other side? Gender medicine critics who look at studies showing positive outcomes but misrepresent those?
In that same vein, what should the standard be to allow use of puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones? I see the Endocrine Society warning about plastics interfering in natural hormonal processes on one hand, but then advocate for medications that intentionally interfere with those processes on the other. Is it even possible for those interventions to have a positive effect outside of something on the mental side of care? Personally I think the bar would need to be WAY higher to justify those interventions, even in adults.
Yep.
Re: gender & sexuality not being separate, that link was also articulated by the brain study which debunked the "trans brain" hypothesis.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8
Unlike previous studies, this one controlled for sexual orientation. Once that was accounted for, the brains of pre-HST trans-identified people were shown to be no different than others of their sex.
The implication of course being, that it's homosexuality that is a bit innate, and trans only appears to be by virtue of its association with it.
And here's Hannah Barnes on BBC 4's Woman's Hour. Worth a listen: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001y28f
Anybody else see how the rise in trans by sex graph DIRECTLY maps onto Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge's social media graphs?
Lisa, my greatest wish is for you to contact Jonathan Haidt to write a guest essay for After Babel.
Children can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can
"consent" to have sex with an adult.
Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not
It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions.
To whom you are attracted sexually is purely subjective and therefore cannot reasonably be contested by an outside observer. Where you decide to live your life on a spectrum of superficial, stereotypical male to female attributes (and we all do) is also purely subjective and similarly cannot be questioned. However, your biological sex reflects an objective reality which cannot be changed by your subjective personal view and futile attempts to do so can result in serious health impacts to you as well as actual harms to members of the sex you are impersonating (especially women). Finally, others who are grounded in objective reality should never be forced to accept your subjective version of your actual biological sex.
The "report" further promulgates the lie that there is such a thing as "being trans."
"This Review is not about defining what it means to be trans, ..."
Utter evil. That's what the "report" is.
Pfff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8T3hQl6EQE
Thanks for hopping right on this, and keep it coming, Lisa!