March 7, 2024 - 10:00am
How does a professional organisation respond when a scandal breaks? Some issue smooth denials, leaving not so much as a seam for critics to pick at. Some finger bad apples. Others dare to admit faults and strive for transparency. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) took a rather different tack, issuing a bizarre statement this week in response to the publication of files exposing malpractice at the organisation.
WPATH President Dr Marci Bowers begins by marking the territory (“We are the professionals who best know…”) and appealing to authority (“widely endorsed by major medical organizations around the world”), before moving on to distort the conflict (the WPATH files are not, in fact, a bid to “de-legitimize” anyone’s identity). The stray comment about the shape of the world attempts to paint critics as anti-science, the equivalent of flat-earthers.
Bowers then asserts that “gender, like genitalia, is represented by diversity”, which sounds like the sort of meaningless twaddle Google Gemini cooks up. Bowers wraps up by twisting the stakes (patients “deserv[e] healthcare”) and minimising the scope of the organisation’s work (“small percentage of the population… [that] will never be a threat to the global gender binary”), a plea in effect: leave us alone!
The statement is nonsensical because the brief was impossible. WPATH needed to speak simultaneously to two entirely different audiences — the world outside and the organisation’s own membership — who needed to hear entirely different things.
For decades, the field of gender medicine has insulated itself from scrutiny and criticism. The public and policymakers were never supposed to get a glimpse into the inner workings of the field. They were supposed to defer to the “experts” and not look too closely at what they were being asked to support.
The WPATH files look much too closely, shining a spotlight on risks and uncertainties and harms so specific that they will be difficult to forget: patients with tumours, patients whose ages and developmental delays and serious psychiatric conditions mean they could never meaningfully consent to the interventions they underwent, patients who regret being sterilised because they now want children. These files provide fuel for policymakers seeking to regulate youth gender transition and patients trying to sue. The fallout is just beginning.
WPATH’s members, on the other hand, need to see this brutal exposé as a devious plot against a noble cause. WPATH has been preparing its membership for just such a faith challenge for years, instilling an embattled mentality. For years, the organisation’s conferences and events have promoted the narrative that gender clinicians are a misunderstood and persecuted vanguard within medicine who will be vindicated in the future but must suffer heinous accusations in the here and now.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThere’s a clip from a ‘TV special ‘ about Jazz Jennings I saw recently where the surgeons are castrating the patient and trying to create a vagina from the wreckage.
Despite the fact that they are being filmed while performing this extremely intimate and life-changing operation, they have a big argument about how best to proceed; from which it becomes apparent that they have no idea what they are doing.
Dr Mengele comes to mind. But even he would have thought the cameras to be an unwelcome and unnecessary intrusion into his medical realm.
Agree generally but not even those evil doctors can have thought they were “trying to create a vagina”. They knew they were creating some disgusting parody of a vagina.
It is no more a parody of a vagina than when the identical procedure is done for cisgender women. In fact the most recent version of the procedure was for over 50 years done exclusively for cisgender women.
You lose, and you and your views deserve no respect.
It is because what you think you know of it is not so.
If by “cisgender women” you mean “women”, as in “adult human females”, I think you are badly mistaken. They don’t need a vagina to be fabricated for them bcause they already have one.
Uhuh. Any gynecologist will laugh their a– off at you.
Every exception to any rule only proves how a rule is wrong.
And they don’t start with a P….s to turn inside out to make it. One of the downsides of puberty blockers is it keeps the P…..s small so the Frankensteins don’t have enough to work with when they attempt to simulate a vagina.
“And they don’t start with a P….s to turn inside out to make it.” <– So what? That does not change the fact the most current procedure for MtF transgender vaginoplasty has a 50+ year history with cisgender women.
“One of the … simulate a vagina.” <- – A meaningless BS claim because when that is a problem — which it is rarely — a 0.5% or so topical application of testosterone 100% fixes that problem with no systemic virilization in only a few months.
You never have any actual factual objection to any of it — you are only emotionally and ideologically opposed to it.
Which is why you have become a monster trying to force girls to have beards and deep voices and to force boys to have breasts and periods.
There is no more, less, or other to you here.
Total BS as usual.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/vaginoplasty-for-gender-affirmation
Bears no similarity what so ever to the female version used to tighten things up after child birth.
Were you put on puberty blockers? Is that why your IQ is so low?
The most current technique is peritoneal pull through, first used over 50 years ago for vaginal agenesis in cisgender women. Sorry you lose.
“Bears no similarity what so ever to the female version used to tighten things up after child birth.” <– So what idiot? I’m talking a technique used for cisgender women born with out a vagina.
“Were you put on puberty blockers? Is that why your IQ is so low?” <– Were you? Because you never have any factual idea what you are talking about.
Well done! A little known condition that affects 1 in 4500 women. Maybe if you were more specific and accurate in the first place people would take more notice of you. It is interesting how often gender ideology leans for support on rare birth defects and rare genetic conditions like intersex or clown fish for support.
Ohh have I admitted that on this particular subject you knew something that I and many others did not? Is that not what a discussion is supposed to achieve?
Does that make you always right or is it stopped clock syndrome?
Perhaps you could have the decency to admit when you are wrong ?
There are no exceptions in science which prove a rule — they all only prove how a rule is wrong.
You are wrong.
Being transgender is a physical variance of birth which occurs in about 1 in 150 people. No more, no less.
All your links expose how weak the science supporting that position is and there are just as many admittedly weak studies which contradict it. You believe what you want to believe and that is fine. However going round calling people liars and failing to admit when you get things wrong just shows you up for the narcissistic crank you are.
I will await the outcome of the Cass review studies – the UK has already mostly done the right thing by stopping dangerous medical practices based on weak evidence.
“All your links expose how weak the science supporting that position is” <– Never so you can point out how.
“and there are just as many admittedly weak studies which contradict it.” <– No there are not. The bulk of the published works are 10 to 1 against you, and all the high quality work is against you. This is why you and your ilk keep on being unable to make a factual argument for your viewpoint.
You just lie and refuse to admit it is high quality.
You believe what you believe and that is not okay — you advocating vicious, needless child abuse — as well as simply making up what ever you like in support of it.
“the UK has already mostly done the right thing by stopping dangerous medical practices based on weak evidence.” <– Except in reality it is not dangerous — compared to most medicine far from it — and is not stopped.
The actual plan is to increase it.
Because that is what the evidence supports.
“and there are just as many admittedly weak studies which contradict it.” <– No there are not. The bulk of the published works are 10 to 1 against you, and all the high quality work is against you. This is why you and your ilk keep on being unable to make a factual argument for your viewpoint.
ROFL until quite recently anything that did not agree with the ideology was shouted down by activists until it was withdrawn. There is no high quality work in the area if objective standards are applied, you assign high quality to things that say what you want to hear.
https://unherd.com/2020/06/eneuro/
It’s not enough to say that a medical procedure used for years to treat physical problems in the reproductive organs of non-trans people can or should be offered to trans-identifying people who are not physically ill – all the more the young ones. The medical considerations are different. You know that.
It’s so wicked. We adults know a vagina is not just a surgical cavity; a p***s not just a surgical protuberance. No way anyone whose puberty has been blocked can understand what their dating pool will consist of without a vagina or a p***s. Jazz Jennings & Jackie Green are what men looking for a walk on the wild side are looking for. No one else. I haven’t seen that televised conversation with Janette or Suzi.
(The word p***s gets asterisked by the software but not vagina!)
Actual adults know there are many, many ways human development can go atypically, medically — and attempting to prohibit the medical repair of that when it is done with such accuracy and good results is insane. When inflicted on children, such prohibition is child abuse.
Television is scripted or edited to have tension in it — that’s what makes for good viewing.
Jennings celebrity patient sought surgery from Bowers celebrity surgeon because it made for good television. Bowers is trained in and practices fairly old versions of the surgery, hence Jennings well publicized graft scar on her leg. Bowers’ generation of the procedure is not the best for dealing with limited original material — Jennings would probably have done far better with a 5th gen procedure like peritoneal pull through, which to my knowledge Bowers does not do. Jennings apparently refused to consider a topical testosterone cream the use of which would have alleviated any issues in the first place. Bowers would have been exercising better judgement had she declined to do the procedure — she did Jennings no favors. But it made for good televiosion.
Of course, that is a quite singular case applying in no way generally.
The mengeles here the social conservatives who want to force girls to have beards and deep voices and to force boys to have breasts and periods.
“Jennings would probably have done far better with”…going through male puberty as per his male physiology. All else is a failed fudge emperor with no clothes.
There seems to be certain groups in modern life that commit atrocity after atrocity and still get a free pass. If you think that decency, rationality and the disgust with which most people react to certain things like this will cause a change then I wouldn’t hold your breath.
I think that this time, at least a few of them will go down, at least from civil law suits, if not criminal.
Not likely. There has been no grounds for backlash for over 70 years and is still none now.
No, but there should be. Google the experiments of Dr. John Money on children. His ‘science’ stands at the heart of transgender activism.
I deeply appreciate it when my enemies are ridiculous.
Dr. John Money’s work is not “at the heart of transgender activism.”
Firstly because there is no such activism — only people wanting not to be abused by the likes of you.
Secondly because it was the fact Money’s work was proven not merely to be 100% wrong, but fraudulent, which began the current era of gender affirming care.
The opposite of what you imply is true.
At least things are finally going in the right direction in UK. This UK Government report tells us all we really need to know:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PB-0055/POST-PB-0055.pdf
The Cass Review commissioned two systematic reviews of evidence to report on what is known about the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost effectiveness of these treatments for children and young people. These reviews were compiled by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2020 and examined:
• GnRH analogues to block puberty to treat gender dysphoria
• gender-affirming hormones to treat gender dysphoria
Both studies concluded that the quality of evidence available at the time of the review was low and that the certainty about the outcomes of their use is low when assessed with GRADE, a tool used to measure the quality of evidence in clinical practice. This relates to the lack of reliable comparative studies on hormone treatments used in this context; incomplete reporting of treatments used; different approaches to measure outcomes; the influence of bias, confounding effects and chance on the results; and a lack of longterm follow up.
The Scottish Government commissioned Healthcare Improvement Scotland to conduct a rapid review (not peer-reviewed) of the evidence on using GnRH analogues, published after the NICE review, in order to inform national commissioning of services. Published in July 2023, it concluded that although a few new studies had been published since the NICE review, they are of low quality and do not lend more certainty to the conclusions of the NICE evidence review.
Another systematic review of both types of hormone therapy was commissioned by the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, and was published in 2023. Of the 10,000 studies identified for consideration in the review, only 24 were of sufficient quality to be included. Of those included, the authors reported that the evidence was of low quality. This related to a lack of studies using a randomised control method to minimise bias, studies with small participant numbers, and a lack of long-term follow-up data.
Another academic systematic review of treatments was published in August 2023. This used an analytical tool called PRISMA, allowing researchers to evaluate outcomes from multiple studies. It included 19 studies, reported that there was no impact on gender dysphoria symptoms and drew the same conclusion as the previous reviews relating to a paucity of evidence and a lack of follow-up research on participants.
Unsurprisingly the interim policy on use of these powerful drugs on children:
https://www.engage.england.nhs.uk/consultation/puberty-suppressing-hormones/user_uploads/interim-policy-on-puberty-supressing-hormones-for-gender-incongruence-or-dysphoria.pdf
“Puberty suppressing hormones (PSH) are not recommended to be available as a routine commissioning treatment option for treatment of children and adolescents who have gender incongruence/dysphoria”
Hooray in UK at least we are now finally seeing the principles of evidence led medicine being applied to this area for children. We just need the same for young adults and we are there.
And in actual fact the recommendation of the Cass report is to have more of gender affirming care, Tavistock is in operation now.
Your viewpoint is the one lacking any evidentiary support.
While this came to my attention just yesterday.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2815512
“In this cohort study of 548 individuals with closed referrals to a pediatric gender clinic, 29 (5.3%) reportedly reidentified with their birth-registered sex before or during assessment. Two of these individuals reidentified during medical treatment, which corresponds to 1.0% of all patients who initiated medical treatment.”
“Although these findings suggest that sex reidentification rates may be very low during medical treatment, longitudinal follow-up studies, including qualitative self-report, are needed to understand different pathways of the gender identity experience.”
In other words a short term study done by people who rush to affirmation before these kids have a chance to understand the risks they are taking.”
Gender affirming care IS CONVERSION Therapy it focuses on talking kids into confirming their own beliefs rather than questioning them and then takes them down a path of converting them from the sex they are into infertile people who lose the joy of sex altogether.
A nice balanced (because it was made back in 2017) BBC documentary on the issue
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x58s24i
Trans activists have misappropriated many of the arguments used by the LGB community to win equality before the law. Many of those were of dubious scientific quality but it all helped the LGB argument.
Conversion therapy was one of the stronger arguments for LGB, as it was doing what it said on the tin ie it was taking people who needed no intervention to be who they are and trying to force them to be something else.
Affirmation takes people who think they are not who they really are and pumps them full of drugs and later gives them cosmetic surgery – absolutely nothing can turn a man into a fully functioning woman or vice versa.
The arguments made against the right of transgender people to exist and seek happiness are largely duplicates of the arguments once made against gay peolpe having those same rights.
“Affirmation takes people who think they are not who they really are” <– A lie, literally physically facts refute you. A transgender person has a physical sexual dimorphism between their ears at least atypical from that associated with their birth sex, and frequently perfectly typical of that sex opposite that of their birth sex.
“absolutely nothing can turn a man into a fully functioning woman or vice versa.” <– So what? It is only your conclusory conceit that that is what is involved.
“A transgender person has a physical sexual dimorphism between their ears”
That is your belief. It has no factual basis what so ever. It is one of the most cult like elements of your ideology that all you will ever do is continue to scream this in the face of all argument and evidence to the contrary.
“That is your belief. It has no factual basis what so ever.”
Yes it does idiot.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53500-y
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31882810
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17765230/
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/104/2/390/5104458
https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(21)00425-2/fulltext
https://psychcentral.com/news/2018/03/16/structural-brain-differences-for-transgender-people#1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31134582/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/
You are the one of the two of us with cult-like factless belief.
And of course UnHerd removes the list of links which refutes you — can’t have anything spooking the herd.
EDIT: Good, they had the guts to put it back — or — you’d think they’d have a smart enough of a bot to tell scientific citations from spam. Pubmed, ncbi, etc., these should be greenlit domains.
EDIT again: Or did they put it back. It appears to me, but seems to be ghosted. A shadow ban of science papers, nothing says confidence in an editorial stance like that!
It’s my understanding that people, especially children, are diagnosed on self-report alone- unheard of in medicine. Could you please cite quality research which identifies physical differences between trans identifying people and others?
“Gender affirming care IS CONVERSION Therapy <– Nonsense imbecile. No transgender people are being made cisgender, neither is anyone’s sexual orientation being changed — no such thing is even being attempted.
“In other words a short term study” <– 10 years. Not short.
“it focuses on talking kids into confirming their own beliefs rather than questioning them” <– Bullshit. No more and no less to you or your views. It is called gender affirming only because unlike every other therapy approach it is no sort of conversion therapy which is trying convince someone to change.
There is nothing whatsoever of trying to make people infertile, and there is no chance of anyone losing the joy of sex — you believe myths, solely.
You can back nothing of what you say other than by more deceit.
It is as if you forget I know from personal experience and over 40 years of study that you are a factless, demented liar.
““In other words a short term study” <– 10 years. Not short.”
It takes data from a 10 year period but only looks at a very short part of it for each subject – there is no how are they now after 10 years. The study itself admits:
“Although these findings suggest that sex reidentification rates may be very low during medical treatment, longitudinal follow-up studies, including qualitative self-report, are needed to understand different pathways of the gender identity experience.”
That you need to cherry pick, twist and lie from your own “evidence” says it all.
Eg what part of
“Puberty suppressing hormones (PSH) are not recommended to be available as a routine commissioning treatment option for treatment of children and adolescents who have gender incongruence/dysphoria”
Is “recommending more affirmative care”?
Yes they have been gutless about dealing with the issue of kids who are already on these dangerous drugs and rather than banning them outright they allow for proper controlled experimentation, which will never happen.
There will be more exploratory psychological / psycosocial care that looks at the whole problem on an individual basis. Ie not just “affirming” the patient’s own delusions.
The study is one you claimed did not exist “The study itself admits:” <– There is nothing of admission to it, they are specifying the parameters of the study — it is one of the studies you claimed do not exist. It answers the question do youth as youth commonly disist from meeting the criteria for medical gender transition — and no they do not at a rate exceeding 1%.
Just as I have said.
I have already pointed out the near 8,000 participant approx. 20 years study showing adults whether or not they began transition as youth desist at a rate less than 1%.
I’m am not cherry picking anything — you can’t pick anything at all backing you up!
““Puberty suppressing hormones (PSH) are not recommended to be available as a routine commissioning treatment option for treatment of children and adolescents who have gender incongruence/dysphoria”” <– And yet they continue in fact as before — and will expand the current service. You make quite selective partial quotes.
“Yes they have been gutless about dealing with the issue of kids who are already on these dangerous drugs” <– You lie to claim they are dangerous drugs. They are not gutless, on the basis of facts they ignore you.
“There will be more exploratory psychological / psycosocial care that looks at the whole problem on an individual basis. Ie not just “affirming” the patient’s own delusions.” <– Except gender affirming care is looking at the whole person on an individual basis, the point of it is to rule out confounding diagnosis — delusions involved would be one. It is called gender affirming only because it is not like every other therapy an attempt at conversion therapy.
Conversion therapy is what you advocate.
https://cass.independent-review.uk/research/
A decent programme of studies. Unfortunately it will be quite a while before they will be published, especially as GIDS was so careless with patients’ data.
When they are released, I have no doubt that you will claim they are all biased lies or you will try to misrepresent them in some way.
I however, will read them thoroughly with an open mind and if necessary adjust my views in the light of new information, which I have confidence will have been subjected to appropriate scientific rigour (another reason why it will take time).
If GIDS were so careless with collecting patient data, no meaningful study at all can be drawn from that data one way or the other.
If so it is still no excuse for you to dismiss other exemplary work which refutes you, which I have brought to your attention.
“I however, will read them thoroughly with an open mind and if necessary adjust my views in the light of new information” <– No you won;t you have made it perfectly celar you ahve already made uop you mind on the bsis f yor own prejudices. Your cliam gender affriming care is oncvsersion is the sort of lie from you which proves that abjectly.
“I have confidence will have been subjected to appropriate scientific rigour (another reason why it will take time).” <– It has been studied for over 70 contiguous years. As the work become less of the heroic age of psychiatry and instead data driven, it has for 20 years gone against your now proven false viewpoint.
What about a 14 year old actress pretending to be dysphoric and getting a prescription for puberty blockers within 15 minutes? Is this all lies? Or is it appropriate care?
Prove it. Cite it.
Then of course I can take your lie apart.
You never “take any lies apart”. You just scream your own lies back. You have been shown to be a liar so many times by so many different people, but that will never change your mind – you are irretrievably stuck in a sick ideological cult.
“You just scream your own lies back” <– Funny, you never manage to quote any.
It is because you make everything up.
TP is the radical fringe driving this movement. To argue with her is useless. Facts do not matter and you will never convince her of anything. You are evil and want to kill kids and nothing g will dissuade her of that.
Facts don’t matter to you — I am putting them in front of you, and you dismiss them.
It is necessarily a consequence of those facts that you are seeking to inflict horrible abuse on some children.
“and nothing g will dissuade her of that” <– Another falsehood from you — you would only have to have facts backing up your argument. You have none.
The investigation was conducted by Radio Canada, the Quebec wing of the CBC. It wasn’t some far right podcaster, but the federally state funded news corporation. It happened. You can jump up and down and scream all you want, but it happened.
I have no idea what happened and you do not either. Where is the transcript of events agreed to by both party’s?
This same sort of accusation has already been made is deunked in other cases.
You say you were an early reader and you’re a genius, stll working as an engineer.
If that’s the case, your writing style and abusive language are…well….unusual. They do you no credit and do not strengthen your argument.
Word salad deserving the same reply here as in the prior thread:
That <1% regret rate is confirmed again.
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/groundbreaking-study-shows-extremely
By a large, long term study just released.
You lose.
Because you deserve to.
You favor your emotions over facts and logic.
The study does not actually say what you or Erin say it does.
Then prove it.
I know you can not.
Already have elsewhere on this thread. The study is neither large nor long term. It looks at an aspect of desistence during a short phase of treatment and says nothing at all about detransition yet the LIAR Erin titles her lies: “Groundbreaking Study Shows Extremely Low Detransition Rates With Innovative Methodology”
“Already have elsewhere on this thread.” <– No you have not — you have asserted it without facts or logic backing up that assertion.
554 is not small, 10 years is not short.
Even if the dropped rate is added to the desist rate, it rises only together to <1%.
You lose. And, you lie.
The studies underway under the Cass review are looking at all 9000 patients ever to walk through the door at GIDS – that is large. 554 (actually the study says 548 and liar Erin says 552) is not large – I never said it was small. The timescale aspect has already been discussed but it is 7 years (1 Jan 2014 – 31 Dec 2020) not 10 and it only looked at a small part of each subject’s treatment, not full end to end:
“Although these findings suggest that sex reidentification rates may be very low during medical treatment, longitudinal follow-up studies, including qualitative self-report, are needed to understand different pathways of the gender identity experience.”
At least you appear to agree that Erin lied in her title when she said detransition – the subjects had not transitioned in the first place. The 29 (5.3%) were amongst the lucky few who managed to get off the affirmative care conversion therapy conveyor belt.
“Patients who reidentified with their birth-registered sex comprised 5.3% (29 of 548; 95% CI, 3.6%-7.5%) of all referral closures. Except for 2 patients, reidentification occurred before or during early stages of assessment (93.1%; 95% CI, 77.2%-99.2%). Two patients who reidentified with their birth-registered sex did so following initiation of puberty suppression or gender-affirming hormone treatment (1.0% of 196 patients who initiated any gender-affirming medical treatment; 95% CI, 0.1%-3.6%).”
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2815512#:~:text=Conclusions%20and%20Relevance%20These%20findings,sex%20during%20the%20study%20period.
So not only can you not speak French, neither you nor Erin can read English. All you do is latch onto 1%, which relates to the 2 people lucky enough to escape the conversion therapy conveyor belt after starting on hormones. We have known for ages that once the kids start taking the pills they are doomed, which is why in UK (whilst UK is lagging behind Scandinavian countries we do seem to be ahead of the anglosphere for the right reasons for once):
“Puberty suppressing hormones (PSH) are not recommended to be available as a routine commissioning treatment option for treatment of children and adolescents who have gender incongruence/dysphoria”
“The studies underway … have gender incongruence/dysphoria”
Clear evidence you don’t bother reading or have no scruples about lying.
4 people were dropped from the dataset as they could not be contacted — Erin lied in no way. If you had read it, you would know that.
Again, you are complaining a study that was exactly something you asked for was done — and it disproves you. So now you are complaining it was not some other study — but those have been done also, and they also disprove you.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/
554 is not a small dataset — I pity you that you have to tell the lie that is — and the 7900+ in that study is exhaustive, very close to statistically definitive as a sample size for the whole population of the planet. You can ask for more, just not honestly,
“the subjects had not transitioned in the first place” <– Yes, they had. Transition can be social, hormonal, surgical. You are a slippery liar.
“affirmative care conversion therapy conveyor belt.” <– There is no such thing. I have already disposed elsewhere of your lie that there is any conveyor belt or that gender affirming care is any conversion therapy. People who no longer meet the criteria for medical transition are not continuing to be so treated erroneously other than at at most a rate of 1% of whom medically transitions.
That is what the data in both studies supports.
You read things into it that do not exist.
You only wish they did.
“4 people were dropped from the dataset as they could not be contacted — Erin lied in no way. If you had read it, you would know that.”
I did read it, which is why I know that, but the number to quote is the number in the cohort and therefore the denominator used in the 5.3%. The 1% is 2 out of 196 all of which supports “not large” ie what I actually said. The lie Erin told, which you fail to admit is a LIE, is that the 1% was a detransition rate – it was an aspect of the desistence rate and had nothing to do with detransition at all.
“554 is not a small dataset” so having worked out 552-4 = 548 and 548 was the number that should have been used if you understood anything about study results would you care to explain where your 554 comes from?
The systematic review you keep banging on about has been ripped apart many times for the junk that it is. Erin clearly realises this which is why she heralded the not large, not long term Perth study as:
“Groundbreaking Study Shows Extremely Low Detransition Rates With Innovative Methodology”
You can repeat your lies, they are still lies.
People who cannot be contacted must be dropped from the dataset — they can not legitimately be in the denominator or numerator.
Demonstrate desistance is not detransition. They are used interchangeably in every other part of this topic.
554 might be an error on my part — not a substantive one, it would move the needle only by about 1 part in 300. 552 is to the betterment of my argument, so, I fear not.
“The systematic review you keep banging on about has been ripped apart many times for the junk that it is.” <– No, it has not. That is why you can not cite any such, and never have.
“The systematic review you keep banging on about has been ripped apart many times for the junk that it is.” <– No, it has not. That is why you can not cite any such, and never have.
Expertly exposed for the junk it is here:
https://unherd.com/2023/04/the-media-is-spreading-bad-trans-science/
“Gordon Guyatt, one of the godfathers of the so-called evidence-based medicine movement, to ask him whether he thought the Cornell project qualified as a systematic literature review. His response was: “It meets criteria for a profoundly flawed systematic review!”
Desistance and detransition are fundamentally different and only poor science would put them together which is why they are often used poorly.
https://can-sg.org/frequently-asked-questions/what-do-the-terms-detransition-and-desistance-mean/
But as I have said many times before there are no proper scientific studies available those that exist are weak, very weak or are so poor they have to be excluded.
“People who cannot be contacted must be dropped from the dataset — they can not legitimately be in the denominator or numerator.”
Obviously so why say 552 and not 548?
“554 might be an error on my part” finally a minor admission. And the 10 years Vs the reality of 7?
Because it started with 552, imbecile. The fact 4 were dropped for the reason given should be noted.
And I note you have no idea of how scientific observation should actually be conducted. If you throw out outliers or erroneous data, you note that — you don’t conceal it.
10 is the reality, because corrections for errors or new data discovered takes place right up to publication — and are made afterwards as required in errata. If the day before publication there were an additional person still in the database who called them up to say they detransitioned, the paper would have been updated to that effect.
The relevant number is 548 – you have admitted that. If 552 is to be used then it must be in full context and in Erin’s flawed piece, which you just sucked up because it had 1%, it was not. The 1% came from only 196 subjects so again a totally misleading use of numbers that we expect from gender ideologues.
I have an MSc therefore there is no way I am an imbecile. To get that MSc i had to do a number of critical analysis of other papers and design conduct, present and publish my own experiment.
10 is not the reality if they had waited another 10 years to publish it would not be 20 years. The reality is 7 years worth of data was used but the period that was covered for each subject was even less than that.
Nobody detransitioned, all 29 (5.3% desisted) but some may detransition later but this study was never designed to find out as it was neither large nor long term just a quick record search and spew out some numbers which did not tell us anything we did not already know – once you start on the gender affirmation conversion therapy conveyor belt there is very little hope of getting off.
WPATH itself admits what I am saying is correct:
“It’s also worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of studies being discussed here concern adults, while the legislative discussion mostly centres on adolescents. The most recent version of WPATH’s Standards of Care is very open about the lack of evidence when it comes to the latter: “Despite the slowly growing body of evidence supporting the effectiveness of early medical intervention, the number of studies is still low, and there are few outcome studies that follow youth into adulthood. Therefore, a systematic review regarding outcomes of treatment in adolescents is not possible.”
Middle-aged men, perhaps like yourself, usually don’t regret it. They mostly keep their sexual function & have already had children. Very different cohort.
I am not and have never been a middle aged man, and no one no matter what their age at beginning medical transition or their birth sex regrets medical transition at a rate higher than 1%. All “cohorts” are the same.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35690947/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2815512
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129132924.htm
The article misses perhaps the most important part of the message to members, which is don’t engage with this, leave it to us and we will just trot out the same statement endlessly.
https://twitter.com/benryanwriter/status/1765160383885484259
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil!
If only the trans activist movement had a defined charismatic leader it would be the perfect cult.
Judith Butler – Wikipedia
Judith would have been among the first to start the nonsense, but there are many prominent members spewing out the rhetoric, they don’t all look to a single point eg Judith to tell them what to do in the way that other cults have.
The statement from Bowers reminds me of the good old days from Covid. Trust us. Don’t question us. We are the science. And anyone who dares question us is evil, malign and wants to kill grandma.
The regime media in Canada is so broken that none of this will be covered by a single newspaper, radio or TV station. Only the small independents will cover any part of the story.
In Montreal last week, Radio Canada – the Quebec wing of the CBC – hired a 14 year old actress to enter a gender clinic. She was prescribed puberty blockers within 10 minutes. Not one media outlet covered the story – not even the English wing of the CBC.
“The statement from … of the CBC.” <– Then liar why can’t you find any facts to back you up?
Why can’t you expose your claims to scrutiny?
Not hard to find – JFGI
“Please note: we’ve had some pushback from Canadians writing to us to say that these numbers can’t be correct because of a belief system many of us have that our healthcare system would approach this issue with more caution. Unfortunately, this position does not stand up to scrutiny or testing. For example, Radio-Canada wanted to see how quickly a 14-year-old girl would be able to obtain a testosterone prescription. It took their undercover 14-year-old less than 10 minutes to obtain the script.”
https://genderreport.ca/puberty-blockers/
There’s a link to the radio article if your French is up to it.
Are you going to retract your “liar” accusation?
“Are you going to retract your “liar” accusation?” <– Only if I have reason to, which I do not. Montreal is not even mentioned at your link, and nothing at all about a 14 year getting any prescription is at the link to a French language webpage linked to there.
Evidence for what is claimed can not be scrutinized from what you have linked to, it can not even be found. It is all assertion only.
Have you listened to the broadcast? Clearly not.
Uhuh. Every word I said there is true.
Where is your transcript of the broadcast?
Why do I need to provide a transcript? What’s wrong don’t you speak French? You called Jim a liar for saying.
“The regime media in Canada is so broken that none of this will be covered by a single newspaper, radio or TV station. Only the small independents will cover any part of the story.
In Montreal last week, Radio Canada – the Quebec wing of the CBC – hired a 14 year old actress to enter a gender clinic. She was prescribed puberty blockers within 10 minutes. Not one media outlet covered the story – not even the English wing of the CBC.”
The key part of that has been demonstrated to be true in English, yet you hide behind your own deficiencies to avoid admitting you were wrong and apologising to Jim for calling him a liar.
“Why do I need to provide a transcript?” <– Because you are the one making the claim your representations of it are accurately representative of gender affirming care.
“The key part of that has been demonstrated to be true in English” <– Does not exist, it is assertion only.
You call someone a liar and demand proof. Proof is provided, but due to your inadequate education, you can’t understand the proof, so you make up further lies. I have never “making the claim your representations of it are accurately representative of gender affirming care.”
What I know about gender affirming care in UK is iaw what I posted higher up the thread – you even lie about that. What Jim is saying about the situation in Canada is born out by a very simple Google search and then listening to an interesting piece on Radio Canada in French.
Not that I would dare to suggest your transgender identity is a mental health issue, but it is very clear that you have some very serious mental health issues for which you really ought to seek professional help that does not involve hormones or surgery.
“You call someone a liar and demand proof. Proof is provided,” <– You have lied before, you are a liar. You were making the assertion this happened in Montreal and that it is representative of gender affirming care — you have yet to provide any proof of that.
“. I have never “making the claim your representations of it are accurately representative of gender affirming care.”” <– Are you now admitting you have no evidence that anything happened in Montreal which is representative of gender affirming care?
“What I know about gender affirming care in UK is iaw what I posted higher up the thread” <– No, that is what you assert is true of gender affirming care in the UK , you never have provided any evidence.
“What Jim is saying about the situation in Canada is born out by a very simple Google search and then listening to an interesting piece on Radio Canada in French.” <– Is it? Prove it. If every exact word said of it was true, it would still only be a single anecdote — and the last time your ilk tried anything like that, it turned out to be an 18yo seeking informed consent HRT as an adult and had nothing to do with minors or gender affirming care.
You are making all the claims about it. Prove them. All the way prove them.
“Not that I … hormones or surgery.” <– Says the person deluded enough to claim gender affirming care is conversion therapy, when it is solely the opposite.
Thanks for proving yet again “very clear that you have some very serious mental health issues for which you really ought to seek professional help that does not involve hormones or surgery.”
And once again you argue by assertion only, not managing to find any facts that back up your viewpoint — and resorting to equally baseless claims your opponents are insane.
You need to produce a transcript agreed to by both parties of that supposed 14yo getting blockers on a first visit — one which backs up your claims and implication — or you have nothing.
Your sort has already lied in this exact situation before. I have no reason to doubt you are doing it again.
Of course, even if you can, you have to prove puberty blockers actually have any downsides to speak of, and you can’t do that either.
No you need to listen to the broadcast, except you are insufficiently educated to understand it.
NICE are content that there is insufficient evidence to continue routinely prescribing them – that is good enough for now however if you want some evidence that are harmful.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apa.17150
I don’t think you understand what the word “liar” means. It means someone who knowingly distorts the truth. Here, we’re discussing genuinely held beliefs.
Stop using a word that you don’t understand.
Oh yes I do. A liar is someone trying to deliberately deceive by saying what they know they have no excuse to believe.
“Here, we’re discussing genuinely held beliefs.'” <– No, we almost certainly are not. We are discussing claimed beliefs motivated by factless emotion and ideology — that from the social conservatives.
Yep, you’ve just demonstrated for all to see that you don’t understand the word.
No I understand it perfectly — those who say what they have no excuse to believe are liars.
If you can demonstrate they are delusional as opposed to willful about their prevarication, you would have the beginnings of a point.
Same in Australia. Not a whisper about the WPATH files in our mainstream media.
Probably there won’t be, excepts laughs at your expense — by the time the globe had so rotated, the exposés and debunkings of Shellenberger’s lies were already out.
There is nothing for there to be any “fallout” about.
Shellenberger is merely misquoting and taking people out of context where he is not lying outright.
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-216-instances-of-factual
That’s just a start to the debunking of Shellenberger’s lies.
You social conservatives deserve no peace, you deserve no respect.
For the sake of your moral vanity you aim to force some boys to have breasts and periods, and you want to force some girls to have beard and deep voices.
You have no facts backing up your claims.
There is no more or less to you than that.
Are you a nutcase ?
No I am the only sane and informed person here so far.
He’s a very damaged individual, and as much as I disagree with him, he has my deepest sympathies. Saying that, his views on the mutilation of children are utterly barbaric and, dare I say it, evil. The fact that many good people are ignoring or dismissing the horrors being inflicted on sexually confused minors is deeply concerning.
No because you seek force some boys to have breasts and periods, and you want to force some girls to have beard and deep voices — purposefully — your views are and the intended results of them are evil.
They also have the disadvantage of having no facts whatsoever backing them up.
You are a willful liar believing silly lies.
I ignore nothing, including the fact you are making things up.
Bigot more like!
‘clinicians standing up and telling their fellow believers how they overcame their doubts’
Same function as testimony at a Christian revival meeting or evangelistic event. To sway the sceptics and reassure the doubters.
I wonder if the size of the cheque influences them in overcoming their doubts?
As much as for chemotherapy for cancer, sure.
The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) took a rather different tack, issuing a bizarre statement this week in response to the publication of files exposing malpractice at the organisation.
The irony. Because who could possibly oppose sterilizing children. Between this bunch and the psychological community’s move to pathologize normal events of childhood, society has gone off the rails.
It is not bizarre, it is simply factual.
“Because who could possibly oppose sterilizing children” <– Who could pretend that is even a fair statement — but you are a dedicated bigot who wants to force girls to have beards and deep voices and you want to force boys to have breasts and periods.
“the psychological community’s move to pathologize normal events of childhood” <– It is not normal for a boy to have a feminine puberty, and it is not normal for a girl to have a masculine one. It only happens at most to about 1 in 150 people — when they seek medical treatment for such, they should be able to have it.
Because you refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that is what is going on, you are off the rails.
I’m more convinced than ever that human intellect, critical thinking, and judgement are inversely proportional to the size of the group of humans under consideration. When people make decisions as a group, they are subjected to all sorts of peer pressure, signaling, and social effects that subtly change their behavior. Among the more obvious ways is that their sense of responsibility for the outcome drops. They consider the matter less seriously than if they were solely responsible for the outcome. People tend to create their own peer groups, then enforce standards and norms, with penalties for dissenters. Some side with a perceived majority out of fear or social insecurities. They lock themselves into one way of thinking and become resistant to dissenting opinions. The long and the short of it is the more humans you have, the stupider they get.
This is why every military that has ever existed has a clearly established chain of command, to avoid the nonsense that occurs when people try to accomplish any serious task collectively. Generally speaking, there’s no more serious activity than warfare, which involves the risking and taking of lives on a massive scale. In such a case, there is no room for excuses, no referring of the matter to a committee, no consensus based decision making process, no elections, no votes, no groupthink, no politics, no popularity contests, no posturing. Making a mistake or hesitating can mean the deaths of lots of people and change the fate of nations. Somebody has to be in charge. Somebody has to make the final call. Somebody has to make snap decisions with limited information. Most importantly, somebody has to be accountable if things go badly because mistakes were made.
Great points!
I’ve found this to be precisely case with musicians and bands. A trio can get away with being a collective most of the time, but anything over 3 needs a leader with both/either improvisation and composition. And the larger the ensemble the more control is necessary. Otherwise absolutely nothing gets accomplished. Trios are like special ops without the need for management as long as the members are serving the entirety and the needs of the moment. Even a genius like Stevie Wonder has a band leader.
I hope every single one of them that overcame ANY doubt whatsoever is completely and utterly destroyed financially, socially and critically. Their names must become like the worst sewage.
The question these doctors should answer is:
“What would have happened if you had said “no” to a new type of treatment you had reservations about?”
We know from enough gender clinicians that since around 2015, saying “no” to a request for gender treatment has been likely to result in fury from trans lobbyists, demands for repentance if lucky, pressure for disciplinary measures, complaints, being branded transphobic, loss of work, being hounded out of their jobs ….
I would like to see this level of honesty from WPATH and other gender clinicians.