Gender reassignment/affirming surgery

[icehorse]

Already have. It's garbage.

This is a gobsmackingly shameless response to the Cass Report.

For those of you who don't know, the NHS England commissioned this independent report 4 years ago. Hillary Cass headed the project. Dr. Cass has a distinguished career, including being the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child health. The report is almost 400 pages long, and is easily downloadable. The Cass report provides a scathing review of trans medicine and its impact is helping to cause the closure of clinics throughout the UK who have been practicing scandalously bad medicine.

Sure they are. And not biased at all.

You also need better sources.

Again, for those of you reading along. The WPATH files were recently released, again easily downloadable. WPATH (in various incarnations), is the organization that has more or less driven trans medicine for the last 40+ years. WPATH's protocols for trans health care have been the de facto standard throughout the western world.

The WPATH files were initiated by a whistleblower within WPATH, who made copies of videos of internal WPATH meetings, and who also made copies of hundreds of internal WPATH memos. Again, all easily downloadable and viewable / readable. These materials demonstrate that WPATH has been guilty of shockingly bad medicine:

- Making up protocols as they go along,
- proceeding with treatments all the while admitting that the patients and their families were incapable of informed consent,
- admitting internally that their treatments were unsafe, but telling the world they were safe
and on and on.

@ImmortalFlame - I know you'll do your best to try to besmirch these sources, but the Cass report is impeccable and the WPATH files came right from the source of WPATH itself and WPATH has not denied these files validity.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is a gobsmackingly shameless response to the Cass Report.

Your assessment basically means nothing considering your history of ignoring scientific studies that contradict your claims and your history or citing non-scientific sources.

I trust doctors. Who I work with. Who assess the report as having no validity.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh puhleeze. It's not like it is just one articles. There are many many articles saying the exact same thing. Maybe you simply need to concede the point.

Oh sure, well, if LOTS of articles are saying it, it must be true.

It's not like we can, y'know, check with the NHS directly and see that their policy ISN'T AN OUTRIGHT BAN.

NHS England » Clinical policy: puberty suppressing hormones

www.england.nhs.uk

No, "many many articles" say it is, so it must be so.

Yes, they are.

Evidence, please.

Although these surgeries are less common, they do happen. A transgender boy can get a mastectomy at a gender affirming clinic, for example. Bottom surgery is of course less common than top surgery, but it also occurs.

Sources, please. From what I have read, this is far, far, far from routine, and the result of such surgeries do not match up with what you're claiming.

Considering that the media is pretty left in its bias,

Depends on what "media" you're referring to. Considering you're citing The New York Post, which has a right-leaning bias, this is obviously a very silly thing to argue.

and very affirming of the transgender movement, I would say the very fact that these stories are even running is a very good indication that they are accurate.

Wow. What a good standard for evidence. "If it's being reported, it must be true!"

Think about it.

I do, which is why I don't immediately believe headlines. Since I also work in healthcare, I ought to know.

There is a transgender woman who appeared on Dr Phil. She wanted to help transgender youths, and went to work at a clinic for gender affirming care. On the show, she reveals the truth of what goes on there, and the lies that parents are told. Dr Phil's streaming website is www.meritplus.com Watching is free, although you have to form an account. This specific video is on Dr Phil Primetime, under the title of "The Whistleblowers; How Young is Too Young to Transition?"

Make a point, don't scaremonger about individual cases.

 

[icehorse]

Your assessment basically means nothing considering your history of ignoring scientific studies that contradict your claims and your history or citing non-scientific sources.

I trust doctors. Who I work with. Who assess the report as having no validity.

I have no such history, although it appears you might.

As for the doctors you work with... Most of the time doctors have to rely on other specialists to provide them with protocols for their patients. Medicine is far too broad for every doctor to be expert in every area of medicine.

In the case of trans medicine, doctors have overwhelmingly been relying on WPATH. WPATH claimed it was doing good science and good medicine, and WPATH was widely held in high esteem. So it's not surprising that you might have worked with doctors who followed some protocol (or a derivative thereof), of WPATH's standard of care. Thousands of doctors have followed WPATH's lead.

And again, the WPATH files prove that WPATH consistently does bad science and bad medicine, and covers those facts up.

For you to say the Cass report has no validity, you'd have to show a collection of studies that provide high quality evidence that the drugs and sometimes surgeries called for in gender affirming care (GAC), are safe and effective. Cass's team spent four years looking for such evidence and could find none. In fact, they found - not surprisingly - that the drugs and surgeries are very dangerous. So GAC is dangerous and unproven. Worse than unproven, it's unproven in the face of a mountain of evidence.

So bring it on. The sooner the better. Where are your studies? Because it sure looks like GAC is ruining confused kids lives every day. Hop to it!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Oh sure, well, if LOTS of articles are saying it, it must be true.

Okay, this is where I end a conversation that can go nowhere. If you are unwilling to accept the sourcing of a point, there can be no reasonable conversation. Be well.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Take a look at the WPATH files and the newly released Cass report. With all due respect, you seem to be working from old data.

I have looked at the summary of the Cass Report, but the whole this is 300+ pages. Could you point to something in particular? It does suggest that there are a lot of unknowns with puberty blockers and hormones, but was also supportive of individualized care, ambiguously cautious of the use of puberty blockers and hormones while emphasizing a holistic approach.

The WPATH files I am less certain about. You are referring to leaked emails where doctors describe their transgender patients getting cancer, correct? Do you have any unbiased sources for this that can verify the authenticity of the leaked material? Is the leaked material capable of showing anything like causation in a way that goes beyond known dangers?

And since when do we give people drugs if we're still researching the risks? And since when do we give people dangerous drugs when we have no evidence of their efficacy?

All drugs come with inherent risks, and even drugs long established as safe can come with new risks when used in different ways or with other drugs. Danger is relative.

did you take a look at the page I provided a link to?

Yes. It is a link listing transgender wins in various sports and games. This does not equal destroying women's sports.

This what we've been discussing. Allowing bad men into women's safe spaces. Allowing men to ruin women's sports. Allowing men to take jobs reserved for women. Allowing activists to attempt to curtail speech.

And I disagree this is occurring in any significant level to warrant curtailing other people's rights.

But wait? Jobs reserved for women? That appears new to me but maybe I missed it?

Again, I agree with you that we should fight discrimination. I hope I've made that clear several times now?

I think so. But you appear to be hyperbolizing things like "bad men dressing as women to assault them" in order to paint transgender activists as misogynists.

But the problem is that in this case the solutions are poorly thought out and are causing a host of misogynistic side effects. These solutions are zero-sum and they don't have to be.

I disagree this is occurring in any significant level to warrant curtailing other people's rights.

So yes! Fight discrimination, I'm with you. But not at the expense of women and girls.

I agree as well. Show the expense is occurring.

Again, you're working from old information. Check out the WPATH files and the Cass report.

Actually, I am taking into account various sources including the Cass report, which also stated than there are unknowns. Puberty blockers have been used in medicine since the 1980s, and was approved by the FDA in 1993. It's not as if these are absolutely new to the medical field. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be further studied or used with caution, but they aren't complete unknowns.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have no such history,

Whatever you say, champ.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Okay, this is where I end a conversation that can go nowhere. If you are unwilling to accept the sourcing of a point, there can be no reasonable conversation. Be well.

You're right. Why should I trust what NHS policy says rather than what a right-wing news source SAYS the NHS policy says?

What an unreasonable position to have.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

And again, the WPATH files prove that WPATH consistently does bad science and bad medicine, and covers those facts up.

Do they? Leaked emails first need to be authenticated. Then, the information needs to be verified, and, on top of that, the information needs to show causation not correlation.

For you to say the Cass report has no validity, you'd have to show a collection of studies that provide high quality evidence that the drugs and sometimes surgeries called for in gender affirming care (GAC), are safe and effective. Cass's team spent four years looking for such evidence and could find none. In fact, they found - not surprisingly - that the drugs and surgeries are very dangerous. So GAC is dangerous and unproven.

From what I understand the Cass report shows that there are unknowns with the drugs:

"The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.
The use of masculinising / feminising hormones in those under the age of 18 also presents many unknowns, despite their longstanding use in the adult transgender population. The lack of long-term follow-up data on those commencing treatment at an earlier age means we have inadequate information about the range of outcomes for this group."

It also states that:

"Services should establish a separate pathway for pre-pubertal children and their families. ensuring that they are prioritised for early discussion about how parents can best support their child in a balanced and non-judgemental way. When families/carers are making decisions about social transition of pre-pubertal children, services should ensure that they can be seen as early as possible by a clinical professional with relevant experience."

Final Report – Cass Review

cass.independent-review.uk

So it seems less like "GAC is dangerous and unproven" and more like GAC is something that still needs study but care should still be provided but with more of a holistic approach.

Again, it's a 300+ page study. If you could point to specific parts in it, that'd be great.

I think we need to keep in mind that this is medicine we are discussing. As fun as it is to discuss it here at RF, in the end it is between the family and their doctor. I am not a medical professional. We can only look at sudies and make conclusions based on our knowledge and bias. The care should be available for families to make the best and most informed decision they can. There may be some negative consequences. This is true of all medicine.

 

[libre]

Considering that the media is pretty left in its bias, and very affirming of the transgender movement, I would say the very fact that these stories are even running is a very good indication that they are accurate.

The existence of a free press does not indicate that media sensationalizing trans healthcare is accurate.

 

[icehorse]

I have looked at the summary of the Cass Report, but the whole this is 300+ pages. Could you point to something in particular? It does suggest that there are a lot of unknowns with puberty blockers and hormones, but was also supportive of individualized care, ambiguously cautious of the use of puberty blockers and hormones while emphasizing a holistic approach.

All drugs come with inherent risks, and even drugs long established as safe can come with new risks when used in different ways or with other drugs. Danger is relative.

While the Cass report raises many concerns, I think we can focus on the following for now:

The Cass report concluded that there is no good evidence that GAC drugs and then surgeries improve mental health outcomes.

The Cass report doesn't really look at the question of the safety of these drugs. Do you agree that puberty blockers and cross sex hormones come with substantial risks and dangers?

The WPATH files I am less certain about. You are referring to leaked emails where doctors describe their transgender patients getting cancer, correct? Do you have any unbiased sources for this that can verify the authenticity of the leaked material? Is the leaked material capable of showing anything like causation in a way that goes beyond known dangers?

The WPATH files contain an hour long video plus leaked internal documents. These demonstrate that WPATH routinely does bad science and bad medicine. These files were released a month or two ago, and WPATH has not denied their authenticity. The WPATH report is over 200 pages long, but below is a copy of the executive summary.

Yes. It is a link listing transgender wins in various sports and games. This does not equal destroying women's sports.

In your opinion, how much cheating by trans women can women's sports absorb before they are destroyed? Additionally, why would we want to support such a clearly zero-sum solution?

I think we need to keep in mind that this is medicine we are discussing. As fun as it is to discuss it here at RF, in the end it is between the family and their doctor. I am not a medical professional. We can only look at sudies and make conclusions based on our knowledge and bias. The care should be available for families to make the best and most informed decision they can. There may be some negative consequences. This is true of all medicine.

It's not fun for me. Confused kids are having their lives destroyed using protocols that have no good evidence to support them. Additionally, members of WPATH have admitted that frequently families are incapable of providing informed consent. Add to that the fact that many doctors are in the position of having to rely on WPATH guidelines.

It would be much better if the situation was as you described: families receiving good, comprehensible information from well informed doctors. But the information is based on bad science, the information is too complex to allow for informed consent, and the doctors have been misinformed.

 

[libre]

the doctors have been misinformed.

and there it is.
The medical professionals have been misinformed and need gender critical folks to save them. right.

 

[McBell]

While the Cass report raises many concerns, I think we can focus on the following for now:

The Cass report concluded that there is no good evidence that GAC drugs and then surgeries improve mental health outcomes.

Page number?
I mean the page number of the page in the Cass report that makes the above claimed statement.

 

[icehorse]

and there it is.
The medical professionals have been misinformed and need gender critical folks to save them. right.

Tell me which of the following claims - step by step - you disagree with:

1 - Medicine is an extremely broad field, and no single doctor can be expert in all areas of medicine.
2 - Doctors frequently rely on other doctors to give them specialized medical protocols.
3 - Doctors must trust other doctors or organizations that are seen to be leaders in a given specialty area.

We'll go from there...

 

[icehorse]

Page number?
I mean the page number of the page in the Cass report that makes the above claimed statement.

This claim is made throughout the report, but there is a very kind, diplomatic version of this claim near the beginning, from pages 20-22.

Again, the main claim here is that the evidence is weak. GAC is often an extreme set of interventions with lifelong negative side-effects, for which there is no good evidence that it provides beneficial outcomes.

This is not an attack on trans people. It's an attack on gender affirming care.

 

[Ignatius A]

Calling people the name they want to be called is "craziness" that "needs to be stopped?"
What's crazy about it?

Nobody ever responds to his point, so I'll pose it to you:
All you have to do is what you've probably been doing your entire life thus far: Refer to people as they've asked to be referred to as. I mean, you haven't check the genitals of every person you've ever met before deciding whether you'll call them what they've asked to be called, right?

I'll happily respond to that point. If I observe someone I've never spoken to before and they appear to be a woman, no matter what they are wearing, I will call the person, her, she, ma'am, miss, Mrs, Ms. etc. . If the person goes off on me because of it, then I will treat them like the rude animal they are and I won't give a s**t what they want to be called.

 

[icehorse]

My reasoning that we should extend the same courtesy to trans people that we extend to every other person we meet in life is the "kind of reasoning that makes [you] less inclined to comply?" Really? Why?

There are two distinct situations to consider here:

1 - Interpersonal, one on one communications.
2 - Public policies, and cancel culture.

Do you think that misgendering or deadnaming a person should go on your permanent police record? Do you think such an act ought to cost a person their job?

For example, it is my honest opinion that a trans woman is not a woman. Should my opinion be put into a permanent police record? (And fwiw, opinions similar to what I just said, have resulted in over 200,000 such additions to police records in he UK.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'll happily respond to that point. If I observe someone I've never spoken to before and they appear to be a woman, no matter what they are wearing, I will call the person, her, she, ma'am, miss, Mrs, Ms. etc. . If the person goes off on me because of it, then I will treat them like the rude animal they are and I won't give a s**t what they want to be called.

So, you meet a person that you perceive to be a woman. They say, "My name is Bruce. Please call me Bruce."
And you say .... what? "No, I will not call you Bruce. You are a woman."
And you perceive the other person to be the rude "animal" in this exchange??

And you're telling me, that that's too much for you to call the person Bruce? Because your feelings tell you that it's a woman? What if it turns out the person is just a masculine woman? How do you know it's a woman for sure without analyzing the persons genitalia and DNA? Is it possible you could be mistaken?

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are two distinct situations to consider here:

1 - Interpersonal, one on one communications.
2 - Public policies, and cancel culture.

Do you think that misgendering or deadnaming a person should go on your permanent police record? Do you think such an act ought to cost a person their job?

For example, it is my honest opinion that a trans woman is not a woman. Should my opinion be put into a permanent police record? (And fwiw, opinions similar to what I just said, have resulted in over 200,000 such additions to police records in he UK.)

Why would there be a police record of misgendering someone?

Losing or keeping one's job is dependent upon the agreed terms of employment.

 

[Ignatius A]

So, you meet a person that you perceive to be a woman. They say, "My name is Bruce. Please call me Bruce."
And you say .... what? "No, I will not call you Bruce. You are a woman."
And you perceive the other person to be the rude "animal" in this exchange??

And you're telling me, that that's too much for you to call the person Bruce? Because your feelings tell you that it's a woman? What if it turns out the person is just a masculine woman? How do you know it's a woman for sure without analyzing the persons genitalia and DNA? Is it possible you could be mistaken?

First, of all I'll call you kumquat if you want but I will use the pronouns she, her. A woman isnt a man because she calls herself Bruce.

Oh goodness gracious aren't you people tired of the examine the genitalia nonsense? I guess you have nothing else. But here we are back to "feelings". I forget that some people think feelings can make a man a woman.