Oh, look. It's as if the Interim Cass Report never happened.
Here's what the NHS says on its gender dysphoria page. "Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria." Also: "It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones."
That's a big 'not known'. Here's what Dr Michael Biggs has to say on the subject:
In other words, there's plenty 'not known' but what we do know, or can surmise, is bad, bad, bad.
And I don't believe that figure about the regret rate. Yes, it IS low. It's very low. Unbelievably low. So unbelievably low that I don't actually believe it. The reliable long-term study into the regret rate of people who've had these interventions doesn't exist yet. These people blasted apart that dodgy Bustos study:
Expósito-Campos, Pablo MA*; D’Angelo, Roberto PsyD†,‡. Letter to the Editor: Regret after Gender-affirmation Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prevalence. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open 9(11):p e3951, November 2021. | DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003951
For example, "lack of controlled studies, incomplete follow-up and lack of valid assessment measures."
Here's an enlightening article by Roisin Michaux about how things are going in that model of supposedly successful self-ID in Belgium:
'Heathcare' in the trans context is a weasel word. Youngsters who identify as trans are often bullied, abused, gay, autistic, in care or suffering from trauma. (See Julie Bindel's piece for Unherd about how shit-poor and nonce-ridden Blackpool has become the ROGD capital of England.)
One would wish them to receive better care and appropriate psychological support.
But 'healthcare' that includes physical interventions means non-reversible puberty blockers and horrific amputations and operations. Measures that alter the superficial appearance of genitals have poor outcomes and lead to sterility and lifelong incontinence. Hormones attack bone density and lead to premature menopause in young women.
This isn't 'healthcare' -- it's a crime against humanity. People who profit from this deserve jail time.
Hi Liz! Thanks for engaging, I just wanted to highlight a few points:
Being, as you say, bullied, abused, gay, autistic, in care, or suffering from trauma is not a reason to remove someone's right to bodily autonomy or the ability to at least discuss their issues in a safe context, such as what these referrals and appointments are supposed to allow. The whole point of GICs are to, as you note that trans people need, provide better care and appropriate psychological support.
When it comes to 'physical' medical treatments (i.e. more than speaking therapies or simple social transition), children will only be given puberty blockers, not hormones like testosterone or oestrogen. You incorrectly assert that puberty blockers are non-reversible - they are, and are often used to delay puberty for non-transgender children too (in a range of conditions where puberty is either very early or actively causing a problem for the child). Hormones such as testosterone and oestrogen are only given to adults (or 16 and 17-year-olds, when they've been on hormone blockers for at least 12 months) - these are more likely to lead to non-reversible changes, but are only given with informed consent and appropriate support. Operations are only performed on adults.
When you refer to 'poor' outcomes - this is twofold in your comment. Firstly: anyone who undergoes any form of medical treatment, be that hormones or gender reassignment surgery, is well-informed about the risks and outcomes involved (informed consent being at the heart of medical care) and have accepted the likelihood of their future infertility (which is why many choose to freeze their eggs or sperm before taking hormones or undergoing surgery, in case they wish to have biological children in future). Secondly: 'poor' is relative, as what you clearly see as harmful is what many trans people see as affirming. As per this overview of 27 medical studies (https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/2021/03000/regret_after_gender_affirmation_surgery__a.22.aspx), the regret rate for gender affirmation surgeries is as low as 1%, described as "an extremely low prevalence of regret". Compare this to an 18% regret rate for knee surgery, for example.
In short - yes, transgender affirming healthcare is healthcare. As with any medical interventions, there are risks, but patients are given informed consent, reasonable treatment decisions are made in line with their age and consent, and the better care and appropriate psychological support you rightly say that trans people need is being offered at GICs - when they are able to get an appointment. As this article highlights, the issue is not in the care being provided, but that it is not currently being provided, or at least not anywhere near swiftly enough.
Good luck with your further research into this topic, and have a lovely day.
(To anyone else reading this - I hope you have a delightful day, and remember to treat everyone with respect and kindness!)
Oh, look. It's as if the Interim Cass Report never happened.
Here's what the NHS says on its gender dysphoria page. "Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria." Also: "It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones."
That's a big 'not known'. Here's what Dr Michael Biggs has to say on the subject:
https://www.transgendertrend.com/puberty-blockers/
In other words, there's plenty 'not known' but what we do know, or can surmise, is bad, bad, bad.
And I don't believe that figure about the regret rate. Yes, it IS low. It's very low. Unbelievably low. So unbelievably low that I don't actually believe it. The reliable long-term study into the regret rate of people who've had these interventions doesn't exist yet. These people blasted apart that dodgy Bustos study:
Expósito-Campos, Pablo MA*; D’Angelo, Roberto PsyD†,‡. Letter to the Editor: Regret after Gender-affirmation Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prevalence. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open 9(11):p e3951, November 2021. | DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003951
For example, "lack of controlled studies, incomplete follow-up and lack of valid assessment measures."
Here's an enlightening article by Roisin Michaux about how things are going in that model of supposedly successful self-ID in Belgium:
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/self-id-in-belgium-no-news-is-good
It isn't about detransitioners per se. But it makes a powerful point that the wall of silence means no-one's actually keeping tabs on any of this.
Have a nice day.
'Heathcare' in the trans context is a weasel word. Youngsters who identify as trans are often bullied, abused, gay, autistic, in care or suffering from trauma. (See Julie Bindel's piece for Unherd about how shit-poor and nonce-ridden Blackpool has become the ROGD capital of England.)
One would wish them to receive better care and appropriate psychological support.
But 'healthcare' that includes physical interventions means non-reversible puberty blockers and horrific amputations and operations. Measures that alter the superficial appearance of genitals have poor outcomes and lead to sterility and lifelong incontinence. Hormones attack bone density and lead to premature menopause in young women.
This isn't 'healthcare' -- it's a crime against humanity. People who profit from this deserve jail time.
Hi Liz! Thanks for engaging, I just wanted to highlight a few points:
Being, as you say, bullied, abused, gay, autistic, in care, or suffering from trauma is not a reason to remove someone's right to bodily autonomy or the ability to at least discuss their issues in a safe context, such as what these referrals and appointments are supposed to allow. The whole point of GICs are to, as you note that trans people need, provide better care and appropriate psychological support.
When it comes to 'physical' medical treatments (i.e. more than speaking therapies or simple social transition), children will only be given puberty blockers, not hormones like testosterone or oestrogen. You incorrectly assert that puberty blockers are non-reversible - they are, and are often used to delay puberty for non-transgender children too (in a range of conditions where puberty is either very early or actively causing a problem for the child). Hormones such as testosterone and oestrogen are only given to adults (or 16 and 17-year-olds, when they've been on hormone blockers for at least 12 months) - these are more likely to lead to non-reversible changes, but are only given with informed consent and appropriate support. Operations are only performed on adults.
When you refer to 'poor' outcomes - this is twofold in your comment. Firstly: anyone who undergoes any form of medical treatment, be that hormones or gender reassignment surgery, is well-informed about the risks and outcomes involved (informed consent being at the heart of medical care) and have accepted the likelihood of their future infertility (which is why many choose to freeze their eggs or sperm before taking hormones or undergoing surgery, in case they wish to have biological children in future). Secondly: 'poor' is relative, as what you clearly see as harmful is what many trans people see as affirming. As per this overview of 27 medical studies (https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/2021/03000/regret_after_gender_affirmation_surgery__a.22.aspx), the regret rate for gender affirmation surgeries is as low as 1%, described as "an extremely low prevalence of regret". Compare this to an 18% regret rate for knee surgery, for example.
In short - yes, transgender affirming healthcare is healthcare. As with any medical interventions, there are risks, but patients are given informed consent, reasonable treatment decisions are made in line with their age and consent, and the better care and appropriate psychological support you rightly say that trans people need is being offered at GICs - when they are able to get an appointment. As this article highlights, the issue is not in the care being provided, but that it is not currently being provided, or at least not anywhere near swiftly enough.
Good luck with your further research into this topic, and have a lovely day.
(To anyone else reading this - I hope you have a delightful day, and remember to treat everyone with respect and kindness!)