Main Edition
US
FRUndercurrents
Happening today beneath the surface
WPATH blocked publication of its own gender research
WPATH President Marci Bowers performs a gender procedure. Credit: Getty
Happening today beneath the surface
WPATH President Marci Bowers performs a gender procedure. Credit: Getty
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.
SubscribeWill be interesting to see how WPATH and its foot soldiers wave away the leaked emails.
There must be some kind of serious legal consequence for people whose lying has led directly to the mutilation and sterilisation of thousands of children.
Yes, there should be consequences. They will affect the “gender critical” in the main, by far.
They will tell the truth.
You won’t believe it, you are a committed pro-child abuse fanatic.
The leaked email shows they are not so much interested in the truth.
No liar, because those those emails do not say what you claim they do.
There are clearly two questions to ask about gender-affirming medications: 1. Do they work? and 2. Do they cause harm? Responsible medicine says the answers should be Yes and No. Gender activists are taking the tack that as long as the first answer is Yes then whatever the second answer is doesn’t really matter.
The Canadian medical establishment is taking this stance.
“There actually is a lot of evidence, just not in the form of randomized clinical trials,” said Dr. Jake Donaldson, a family physician in Calgary who treats transgender patients, including prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapy in some cases.
“That would be kind of like saying for a pregnant woman, since we lacked randomized clinical trials for the care of people in pregnancy, we’re not going to provide care for you.… It’s completely unethical.”
Pro-meds doctors interviewed in this CBC piece also seemed to dismiss the issue of long-term irreversible effects entirely. Their definition of ‘evidence’: We prescribe the blockers because they work, and if there’s no obvious side effects what’s the problem?
“Donaldson called the systematic review paper and the broader Cass Review “politically motivated.”
Interesting that Donaldson should use pregnant women (something trans women can never be) in his argument. Perhaps he should look at what happened with the off label prescription of Thalidomide to pregnant women.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal
Which has no bearing whatsoever on this, since there are no such results with respect to either HRT or blockers for well over 40 years.
Of course, lies and scaremongering are all you have, and the best you have to offer.
No in fact. Much medicine causes harm.
The responsible approach is to ask if the treatment works weal compared to harm.
Because the effects of blockers, HRT, and surgery are already known and obvious, it is not possible — in addition to being unethical — to attempt or carry randomized trials,let alone double blind ones.
Even Cass has admitted that herself.
85% of all medical treatment has the same problem — what is defined as being “high quality” data is not ethical or even possible to collect. Nevertheless, medicine is happily permitted to be done.
The fact is that all this medicalisation is totally unnecessary in the first place, as children are being brainwashed by people like you into believing they really need to ruin their bodies. You promise them the moon and what do they receive? A lower intellect, osteoporosis and surgery scars.
“as children are being brainwashed by people like you” <– Not only is there no such thing, it is not possible.
“A lower intellect, osteoporosis” <– More lies. You will find no evidence for such.
“and surgery scars.” <– Those who choose such are to the tune of 99+ out of 100 of them, very glad they could do so.
But then you are only a very stupid, ignorant, child abuser.
So you are admitting there is harm then? Seems like quite a narrative change for you than even a few weeks ago.
Liar, I have changed no narrative on my part at all. I have always said there is a regret rate just below 1%, haven’t I?
Oh Jim? Still waiting for you to acknowledge your lies.
Oh Jim, I’m still waiting . . .
Still waiting, Jim.
The main argument for juvenile transgender treatment is that hysterical kids and young people will always feel better if their protestations are affirmed. It’s precisely the same as getting a new toy or more pocket money/freedom after bawling or screeching about it.
But the state must intervene when sinister medical and private surgical parties can involved, as is the case with UK government, and there the matter can largely be closed. Unlike with anorexia/bulimia where this isn’t possible as the young people just carry on until they are admitted to hospital in a critical condition.
“The main argument for juvenile transgender treatment is that hysterical kids and young people will always feel better if their protestations are affirmed.” <– A lie. The main argument for gender affirming care for youth is that the gender identity produced in a person by that gender developed while in utero was not amenable to change after birth, and that it is unreasonable to attempt to force someone who is a man or woman, or a boy or a girl, to instead fake being simply a female or male respectively.
Quote from other branch: There is nothing worse in the world than a self-confident, stupid woman.
You are a cannibal, madam!
No, but you are a factless fool
You have never failed to lie about or repeat lies about transgender people and research pertaining to them in the past — it is only a matter of time before your claims are debunked.
An example:
“Knowing that there is little/no evidence about children and adolescents is helpful.”
Because you are fanatics in favor of abusing some children, you will pretend that refers to there being little data at all — when in fact it refers to no data subset in particular.
So why does systematic review after systematic review, including the one commissioned by WPATH, not find the clear positive evidence? Data is not evidence. Low quality studies are not worth anything. Those studies which are of better quality give conflicting answers – that is what is meant by lack of the sort of evidence needed for evidence based medicine.
It is a falsehood that systematic reviews do not do so — including by WPATH.
Data is evidence, anecdote is likely not.
“Low quality studies are not worth anything.” <– And you have no idea what you are talking about. 85% of all medical treatment is backed up by studies which are not “high quality”, because only double blind randomized clinical trials are defined to be “high quality” — and for most medical problems including this ions, those are not possible or are not ethical to do even if possible.
“Those studies which are of better quality give conflicting answers” <– No, they do not, the overwhelmingly endorse gender affirming care.
Cass chose inclusion and exclusion criteria to support the result she would be well regarded for by her paymasters, no more, no less.
Cass is a fraud on the order of Andrew Wakefield, as her forked tongue statements since prove.
Wake up! Your own leaders in the field of “transgender health” have been caught lying and covering up findings they commissioned themselves. Did you not read the article?
No imbecile, people like the “Unherd Staff” are lying. I read the article, I see the holes in the “The Unherd Staff’s” story.
At this point, trans activists have no other choice but to repeat their talking points from years ago and ignore the mounting medical evidence against them, and the continuing discovery from news outlets of the ugly inner workings of WPATH. If this were a chess match, we are in endgame, and they are trying every move to forestall checkmate, which is inevitable.
Can’t wait till the first court cases come flooding in against this child abuse.
And I know you will wait forever. There will be no such flood.