• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cass Report

Pixel42 said:
I don't think there's much more to say until the results of the trials are peer reviewed and published.

If you're bored, you might be interested in the comments of the most vocal of the trans folk on the other forum I belong to, all prompted by the BBC article I linked above:
Click to expand...
Why would they think the trial is being conducted by SEGM?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Without studies, we can't know if taking insulin as a means to control diabetes is the same as taking insulin when you have a pancreas with normal function.
Click to expand...
This might be a good analogy if insulin was intended as a temporary measure.
 
d4m10n said:
AFAICT the answer is "No."

I'd've guessed this would be the general consensus on a forum for science enjoyers, but once again politics is the mindkiller.

I don't find this claim particularly persuasive; Tavistock did not have any control group nor any randomization process. We could in theory generate matched controls from the set of GNC kids who sought treatment at the Tavi but who never received either blockers or hormones, but the reasons for their non-treatment will likely be confounded with psychological desistance.
Click to expand...

If this was going to be a well-designed trial you might have a ghost of a point. But the study design is terrible.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I have qualms about the entire proposed trials. But this is appalling. Egg harvesting is painful and risky to begin with, and that's assuming a post-menarche female! Stimulating ovaries to mature eggs while simultaneously blocking the hormones that prompt egg maturation seems insanely reckless and negligent.
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure that they intend to do this. I was following the inference. All I have actually read has been about boys. That article said that boys in that position either couldn't ejaculate at all, or were unwilling to try, instead opting to have a piece of a testicle surgically removed and frozen in the hope that it could later be stimulated to produce sperm in vitro. Doesn't sound much better.
 
Rolfe said:
I don't know for sure that they intend to do this. I was following the inference. All I have actually read has been about boys. That article said that boys in that position either couldn't ejaculate at all, or were unwilling to try, instead opting to have a piece of a testicle surgically removed and frozen in the hope that it could later be stimulated to produce sperm in vitro. Doesn't sound much better.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't sound any better. Does that even work? Can a frozen chunk of testicle be induced to function properly at all, or is this just some wishful thinking on the assumption that future science will perform miracles?
 
Gender-affirming medical treatment for adolescents: a critical reflection on “effective” treatment outcomes

Gender-affirming medical treatment for adolescents: a critical reflection on “effective” treatment outcomes - PMC

The scrutiny surrounding gender-affirming medical treatment (GAMT) for youth has increased, particularly concerning the limited evidence on long-term treatment outcomes. The Standards of Care 8 by the World Professional Association for Transgender ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Once again, the Dutch are leading the way in gender-affirming medical treatment (GAMT) by encouraging “critical reflection on the normative assumption that GAMT must inevitably lead to 'positive' outcomes to justify its provision.”
 
d4m10n said:
Once again, the Dutch are leading the way in gender-affirming medical treatment (GAMT) by encouraging “critical reflection on the normative assumption that GAMT must inevitably lead to 'positive' outcomes to justify its provision.”
Click to expand...
"Allowing space for these complex experiences, rather than trying to avoid or mask them, could offer relief for both healthcare providers and TGD adolescents and foster a more honest care environment."​

The irony of this sentence is just stunning. It's a perfect description of why we SHOULD NOT jump to gender transition to treat people with gender dysphoria. Because that's what transition does: it avoids or masks the complex dysphoric feelings that they are experiencing. And if you want honest care, then let's start with being honest that medical transition doesn't actually change your sex, that you probably won't pass no matter what you do (especially when it comes to sexual partners), and if you transition before puberty you will be perpetually and irreversibly stunted in your development as a human.

ETA: and talk about motivated reasoning.

"if GAMT does not necessarily require demonstrating improvement to justify its provision, what should its objectives be?"​

They're explicitly trying to work out a new rationalization for what they already want to do, rather than start with an objective and work out the best course of action to achieve that. But they've got their heads so far up their own asses that they don't even realize that they're telling on themselves.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom