I haven't looked at the scientific literature on transing kids in a while, but what I did read did not demonstrate that access to puberty blockers reduces suicidal ideation, nor were those blockers "reversible." The literature was clear that engaging in any transing process was harmful, and castration chemicals very harmful.
When I wrote on the how the numbers of trans children were manipulated by WPATH I looked only at the epidemiology that they created to support their argument. This paper takes a deep dive into the so-called Dutch studies that form the only "scientific" basis for what is claimed to be a growing number of transgender youth. This is from the introduction to the evaluation of the Dutch studies which you can find here --- it's 116 pages long.
This is from the introduction to part I of the study by Abbruzzese, Levine, and Mason
"There is no argument that the Dutch experience, and in particular two Dutch studies—de Vries et al. (2011), and de Vries et al. (2014)—forms the foundation of the practice of youth gender transition. It is evident when examining prevailing treatment guidelines. The Endocrine Society’s statements regarding the potential benefits of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in gender dysphoric adolescents are supported only by references to these two studies (Hembree et al., 2017, p. 12, p. 16). Similarly, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) “Standards of Care” guidelines version 7 (SOC 7)—the version under which the practice of medicalization of gender dysphoric youth became widespread—only references the Dutch experience (Coleman et al., 2012). Despite several newer studies available, the proponents of gender affirmation still correctly emphasize that “the best longitudinal data we have on transgender youth comes primarily out of the Dutch clinic…the Dutch studies in the Dutch model of care. That’s the prevailing model that most of the American clinics have based their care upon” (Janssen, 2022, 00:47:42). de Vries in her response to us, also agrees with this: “…indeed, as of today, the Dutch papers, and especially the de Vries et al., 2014 study, are still used as main evidence for provision of early medical intervention including puberty blockers in transgender youth (de Vries et al., 2014)” (de Vries, 2022, p. 2).
The two main Dutch studies in question, de Vries et al., 2011, and de Vries et al., 2014 (from here on, “the Dutch studies”) convincingly demonstrated that hormonal and surgical interventions can successfully change the phenotypical appearance of secondary sex characteristics of adolescents and young adults. What the studies failed to show, however, is that these physical changes resulted in meaningful psychological improvements significant enough to justify the adverse effects of the treatment—including the certainty of sterility."
So now it is clear that the "scientific basis" underpinning the surge in transgenderism AND WPATH's epidemiology supporting that surge are both deeply flawed and do not support any concept of an increase in transgenderism in youth --- particularly children.
While I haven't addressed it the entire concept of "Intersex" children is equally flawed. It is based primarily on rare incidence of Klinefelter Syndrome, genetic disorder resulting in an XXY individual and two rare medical conditions that involve an inability to process hormones properly.
Thank you! I downloaded that and Abbruzzese, et al. Will comb through the references on Abbruzzese.
Scares the crap out of me.
Even here in a large rural SW ID county, thanks to social media there were a few kids (females) expressing their depression by affecting traipsings of gender dysphoria in high school. I am not sure any of the 3 were being treated for depression.
I remember my neighbor girl being confused because sometimes she liked to dress tomboy and sometimes, she liked "girly," (she hadn't gone through puberty yet). Puberty took care of any questions for her and dressed however she wanted on any given day with no worries or angsting with her classmates.
It squicks me among the current vogue of "don't make assumptions" and the transing thing relying on extreme stereotypes.
I'm in the weeds again.
My anecdotal experience and what I've read, watched, is that suicide is significant AFTER the surgeries, not in the before.
I write to the communications director of the United Methodist Church today and asked them if understood what it meant to embrace the “T” in LGBTQ+. His response will be interesting.
That "respect for marriage" Act puts churches in the position where I believe they must choose. My friend's granddaughter's church had been leaning more and more woke, talking "Love" but not Salvation anymore. After the Act was passed, the pastor explained to the congregation that they had no choice, the church must submit. They will all find themselves being sued and fighting with the IRS over their 501 (3)(c) status whether they submit or not, as the point is to eliminate churches and the Act provides Lawfare tools.
I was astonished (I'm not jaded out yet) and appalled that that provision was tolerable to the Congress to be in there.
I haven't looked at the scientific literature on transing kids in a while, but what I did read did not demonstrate that access to puberty blockers reduces suicidal ideation, nor were those blockers "reversible." The literature was clear that engaging in any transing process was harmful, and castration chemicals very harmful.
When I wrote on the how the numbers of trans children were manipulated by WPATH I looked only at the epidemiology that they created to support their argument. This paper takes a deep dive into the so-called Dutch studies that form the only "scientific" basis for what is claimed to be a growing number of transgender youth. This is from the introduction to the evaluation of the Dutch studies which you can find here --- it's 116 pages long.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346
This is from the introduction to part I of the study by Abbruzzese, Levine, and Mason
"There is no argument that the Dutch experience, and in particular two Dutch studies—de Vries et al. (2011), and de Vries et al. (2014)—forms the foundation of the practice of youth gender transition. It is evident when examining prevailing treatment guidelines. The Endocrine Society’s statements regarding the potential benefits of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in gender dysphoric adolescents are supported only by references to these two studies (Hembree et al., 2017, p. 12, p. 16). Similarly, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) “Standards of Care” guidelines version 7 (SOC 7)—the version under which the practice of medicalization of gender dysphoric youth became widespread—only references the Dutch experience (Coleman et al., 2012). Despite several newer studies available, the proponents of gender affirmation still correctly emphasize that “the best longitudinal data we have on transgender youth comes primarily out of the Dutch clinic…the Dutch studies in the Dutch model of care. That’s the prevailing model that most of the American clinics have based their care upon” (Janssen, 2022, 00:47:42). de Vries in her response to us, also agrees with this: “…indeed, as of today, the Dutch papers, and especially the de Vries et al., 2014 study, are still used as main evidence for provision of early medical intervention including puberty blockers in transgender youth (de Vries et al., 2014)” (de Vries, 2022, p. 2).
The two main Dutch studies in question, de Vries et al., 2011, and de Vries et al., 2014 (from here on, “the Dutch studies”) convincingly demonstrated that hormonal and surgical interventions can successfully change the phenotypical appearance of secondary sex characteristics of adolescents and young adults. What the studies failed to show, however, is that these physical changes resulted in meaningful psychological improvements significant enough to justify the adverse effects of the treatment—including the certainty of sterility."
So now it is clear that the "scientific basis" underpinning the surge in transgenderism AND WPATH's epidemiology supporting that surge are both deeply flawed and do not support any concept of an increase in transgenderism in youth --- particularly children.
While I haven't addressed it the entire concept of "Intersex" children is equally flawed. It is based primarily on rare incidence of Klinefelter Syndrome, genetic disorder resulting in an XXY individual and two rare medical conditions that involve an inability to process hormones properly.
Thank you! I downloaded that and Abbruzzese, et al. Will comb through the references on Abbruzzese.
Scares the crap out of me.
Even here in a large rural SW ID county, thanks to social media there were a few kids (females) expressing their depression by affecting traipsings of gender dysphoria in high school. I am not sure any of the 3 were being treated for depression.
I remember my neighbor girl being confused because sometimes she liked to dress tomboy and sometimes, she liked "girly," (she hadn't gone through puberty yet). Puberty took care of any questions for her and dressed however she wanted on any given day with no worries or angsting with her classmates.
It squicks me among the current vogue of "don't make assumptions" and the transing thing relying on extreme stereotypes.
I'm in the weeds again.
My anecdotal experience and what I've read, watched, is that suicide is significant AFTER the surgeries, not in the before.
I am grateful to have you as a reader.
I write to the communications director of the United Methodist Church today and asked them if understood what it meant to embrace the “T” in LGBTQ+. His response will be interesting.
Ahhh! That will be interesting.
That "respect for marriage" Act puts churches in the position where I believe they must choose. My friend's granddaughter's church had been leaning more and more woke, talking "Love" but not Salvation anymore. After the Act was passed, the pastor explained to the congregation that they had no choice, the church must submit. They will all find themselves being sued and fighting with the IRS over their 501 (3)(c) status whether they submit or not, as the point is to eliminate churches and the Act provides Lawfare tools.
I was astonished (I'm not jaded out yet) and appalled that that provision was tolerable to the Congress to be in there.