Do you have a problem with Tennessee's "curbs [for] trans treatment and drag for children"?

[lennypartiv]

Other than California and New York, does anyone want Ru Paul in their state?

 

[HeyNorm]

Chloe’s story: puberty blockers at 13, a double mastectomy at 15 | MercatorNet

Chloe Cole, has testified before legislators about her sex-transition experience at the hands of gender-affirming doctors.

mercatornet.com

The California State Assembly has been studying a bill, SB 107, to declare the state a sanctuary for minors who have been denied transgender -affirming medicine and surgery elsewhere.

SB 107 would permit insurance companies, physicians, and contractors to disregard subpoenas about child custody if the child is being medically treated for gender dysphoria. It would also ban health care providers from providing medical information requested from another state if that state has a policy allowing civil action to be taken against individuals who perform “gender-affirming health care” on children.

A young California woman, Chloe Cole, has testified before legislators in her own state, in Louisiana, and in Florida about her experience at the hands of gender-affirming doctors. She began to transition to a male at 13; she had a double mastectomy at 15; and she detransitioned at 17. Her brief speech lays bare the iniquity of doctors and psychologists who exploit the confusion of children and adolescents.

My name is Chloe Cole, and I am from the Central Valley of California and a former transgender child patient. I am currently 17 years old and was medically transitioning from ages 13-16.

After I came out to my parents as a transgender boy at 12, I consulted a pediatric therapist in July of 2017 and was diagnosed with dysphoria by a ‘gender specialist’ the following month. The healthcare workers are trained to strictly follow the affirmative care system, even for child patients, in part because of California’s ‘conversion therapy’ ban. There was very little gatekeeping or other treatments suggested for my dysphoria.

When my parents asked about the efficacy of hormonal, surgical, and otherwise ‘affirming’ treatments in dysphoric children, their concerns were very quickly brushed aside by medical professionals. I didn’t even know detransitioners existed until I was one.

The only person who didn’t affirm me was the first endocrinologist I met. He refused to put me on blockers and expressed concerns for my cognitive development. However, it was easy to see another endocrinologist to get a prescription for blockers and testosterone, just like getting a getting a second opinion for any other medical concern. After only two or three appointments with the second endocrinologist, I was given paperwork and consent forms for puberty blockers (Lupron) and androgens (Depo-Testosterone), respectively. I began blockers in February of 2018, and one month later, I received my first testosterone shot. I received Lupron shots for about a year.

After two years on testosterone, I expressed to my therapist that I was seeking top surgery, or the removal of my breasts. I was recommended to another gender specialist, who then sent me to a gender-affirming surgeon. After my first consultation with the surgeon, my parents and I were encouraged to attend a ‘top surgery’ class, which had about 12 Female-to-Male (FTM) kids. I was immediately struck by how early some of them seemed in their transition and how some were much younger than I was; I was 15 at the time and had been transitioning for 3 years.

In retrospect, the class inadvertently helped to affirm my decision because of the sense of community provided by seeing girls like me going through the same thing. Despite all these consultations and classes, I don’t feel like I understood all the ramifications that came with any of the medical decisions I was making. I didn’t realize how traumatic the recovery would be, and it wasn’t until I was almost a year post-op, that I realized I may want to breastfeed my future children; I will never be able to do that as a mother.

The worst part about my transition would be the long-term health effects that I didn’t knowingly consent to at the time. I developed urinary tract issues during my transition that seem to have gotten worse since stopping testosterone. I have been getting blood clots in my urine and have an inability to fully empty my bladder. Because my reproductive system was still developing while I was on testosterone, the overall function of it is completely unknown. I have irreversible changes, and I may face complications for the rest of my life.

I was failed by modern medicine.”

This is the problem. Once a child is turned over the the child transgenderization industry, all they see are "gender specialists" and other kids that are part of the movement. It is a cult-like operation, complete with the child sexual exploitation that nearly all cults practice.

That was so well done.

On another thread our friend JoeB131 is attacking this innocent child in the same manner other disgusting excuses for human beings blame rape victims for the rape.

This story must be told over and over and over.

 

[Curried Goats]

You really should learn to read all of what you post. From your own link:

RE: Pubertal Suppression for Transgender Youth and Risk of Suicidal Ideation​

January 2 2021
Patrick H Clarke
UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE
I am writing to express my concern that Pediatrics has named “Pubertal Suppression and Risk of Suicidal Ideation in Transgender Youth” by Turban et al. its Paper of the Year for 2020. The study’s conclusion that puberty blockers are beneficial is severely compromised by methodologic flaws. 1 To the best of my knowledge, Turban et al. failed to respond to the posted comments of their paper.
Turban et al.’s conclusions also contradict the recent extensive review of evidence by the UK High Court, which found puberty blockers to be an experimental treatment with significant risks.2 Contrary to Turban et al.’s recommendations to provide puberty blockers to any child or adolescent who wants it, the UK High Court ruled that young people can rarely consent to these treatments, requiring a case-by-case judicial review for any patients 16 and younger.
The following is a brief summary of the flaws in the Turban et al.’s study, which render their conclusions misleading:
1. The source study, the United States Transgender Survey 2015 (USTS), employed a non representative, biased convenience sample. The results from this survey are unreliable.3
2. Over 70% of the USTS respondents demonstrably did not know what puberty blockers were, claiming to have commenced treatment after age 18. Although Turban et al. attempted to control for this, a proper adjustment was not possible.
3. There was no control for underlying mental health. Since more stable individuals are more likely to be eligible for puberty suppression, one cannot discern mental health benefits or harms of puberty suppression without controlling for pre-treatment mental health.
4. Turban et al. ignored their own finding that a history of puberty suppression was associated with an increase in recent serious suicide attempts.

. . .

RE: Pubertal Suppression for Transgender Youth and Risk of Suicidal Ideation​

May 4 2020
I Cheng
TAITUNG CHRISTIAN HOSPITAL, TAIWAN
Dear editors and authors,
In response to the article “Pubertal Suppression for Transgender Youth and Risk of Suicidal Ideation”, I would like to thank the authors for exploring this topic. But I still have two questions about this article.
First, I have great concerns about the method of self reports which was used in this questionnaire. The answers might reflect the desire of the transgender social group rather than true psychological or physiological benefits. In this article, they asked “Have you ever wanted any of the health care listed below (including puberty blockers) for your gender identity or gender transition? Participants might be led to think “I would be happier and would not have the suicide ideation if I ever had the puberty blockers in my adolescence.” Therefore, the socially desirable option could be overreported (1). In addition, none of similar studies listed in this article has used the method of self reports, either.
We also noticed “Suicidality (past 12 mo): Attempt resulting in inpatient care” in Table 3 indicated 45.5% in the participants who had puberty blockers, while 22.8% in those who didn’t have such therapy. A higher odds ratio is noted; however, without significant difference (table 2). This might be attributed to the small sample size of the puberty blocker users (2, 3). Nevertheless, suicide attempts resulting in inpatient care would be an important indicator to know the true outcomes of puberty blockers. We would suggest a further investigation on this issue to clarify the outcome of puberty blockers rather than concluding based on “no significance”.

. . .

RE: Pubertal Suppression for Transgender Youth and Risk of Suicidal Ideation​

March 3 2020
Scott S. Field, MD
UAB SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, ADJUNCT FACULTY, DEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICS
Given the controversy surrounding the practice of puberty suppression for gender dysphoric adolescents, the article by Turban et al.1 creates more confusion than clarity. The authors imply causal evidence for a reduction in suicidal ideation with transgender adolescents who received puberty suppression (PS), yet they fail to acknowledge the exceedingly high rates in both groups of suicide ideation (75% and 90%) and suicide attempts (42% and 51%). The cross-sectional design using online survey data is insufficient to validate the efficacy of such a life-altering therapy. Because the data was collected by survey, there is no way of knowing how many would-be participants in either group actually succumbed to suicide. The so-called “lifetime suicidal ideation” is misleading, since at the time of the survey, the PS treatment group was significantly (p=001) younger (mean age 21.7 years) than the “ever wanted” PS control group (mean age 23.4 years), and the total age range of survey participants was 18 to 36 years. With mean age of hormone treatment initiation being 15.7 years in the PS group and 22.5 in the control group (p<0.001), it is obvious that the follow-up time for both groups was far too brief to assess “lifetime suicidal ideation.” The control group was not appropriately matched to the treatment group by age at time of survey or by age when hormone therapy was begun. Since there were over 30 controls for each PS case, they could have been selectively trimmed to be better matched.
What is more disturbing is that the PS treated group actually had double (45.5% versus 22.8%) the rates of the control group for serious (resulting in inpatient care) suicide attempts in the year preceding the data collection (Table 3).1 Adolescents who identify as transgender along with other “sexual minorities” (including lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth) are increasing at extraordinary rates (doubled between 2009 and 2017), and these adolescents are almost four times more likely than their heterosexual peers to commit suicide.2 The same study found that over 35% of adolescent suicide attempts in 2017 came from sexual minorities, who comprised only 14% of the adolescent population. Gender dysphoric youth and their families need to know the truth about therapies offered – that real long-term safety and efficacy studies do not exist. Research surrounding PS, cross-sex hormones, and “gender-confirming surgery” that potentially render recipients sterile, physically altered, and sexually dysfunctional must adhere to the same high standards applied to less controversial conditions, and these therapies should be considered experimental until such studies have been done. The prevailing narrative that these interventions are necessary to prevent suicide is without reasonable evidence.

I did. I also read Turbans response to these criticisms which is the very first thing you see in the comments section. How did you miss it?

RE: Pubertal Suppression for Transgender Youth and Risk of Suicidal Ideation​

January 11 2021
Jack L Turban
STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
We thank Dr. Clarke for his interest in our article. We appreciate the opportunity to address his comments and correct the inaccurate information contained in them.
Dr. Clarke incorrectly states that this manuscript found an increase in recent serious suicide attempts among those who accessed pubertal suppression during adolescence. Though the raw values were higher for some of these outcomes, this was not a statistically significant finding, and thus the appropriate conclusion is that the study found no statistically significant association between access to pubertal suppression and greater odds of any measure of adverse mental health outcomes.
Dr. Clarke claims that the study participants responses were “biased,” based on the nature of the USTS sampling methodology. Though he does not clarify this comment, it appears he is referencing the fact that this is a non-probability sample. Non-probability samples are frequently used when studying minority populations, as they allow investigators to recruit large sample sizes and ask in-depth questions specific to the minority population being studied, which is generally not possible with probability samples. One major strength of this study is that it was able to recruit the largest sample of transgender people to date (over 27,000 participants) and ask in-depth questions, which allowed us to adjust for a wide range of potential confounders. This would not have been possible with a probability sample (e.g., the TransPOP sample, which uses random digit dialing for recruitment but was unable to recruit as many participants as USTS, or the CDC YRBSS, which is unable to ask as many in-depth questions about gender-related experiences because it must cover a wide range of other health topics).
Dr. Clarke expresses concern that “USTS respondents demonstrably did not know what puberty blockers were.” While it is not clear what this assertion was based upon, we would like to reiterate that our analyses excluded respondents who reported accessing pubertal suppression later than current guidelines advise. This intervention, when used at the recommended time, is done after counseling and education.
The most concerning claim in Dr. Clarke’s comment is his assertion that there is controversy regarding whether pubertal suppression should be made available for transgender youth who meet criteria under existing medical guidelines. Though there is controversy in the media and the political realm, there is clear consensus across the relevant major medical societies. The American Psychiatric Association, The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, The Endocrine Society, and The Pediatric Endocrine Society are some of the key organizations that oppose attempts to restrict access to pubertal suppression for transgender youth.

 

[Robz]

Norway's UKOM has completed a review of gender affirming care in their national health system. They are now recommending joining finland, sweden and England in making changes to treatment of dysphoric kids, noting the experimental nature of the treatment and that it requires evidence currently lacking, the large increase in kids identifying as trans (up to 70 / year through 2010 and up to 600 per year after 2010) and the irreversible nature of blockers, hormones and surgeries.

They are now defining the care as experimental and putting up more safeguards and restrictions. Care will only be available in the context of research settings.

Sammendrag

Vi undersøker alvorlige hendelser og andre alvorlige forhold for å bedre pasientsikkerheten i helse- og omsorgstjenesten.

ukom.no

 

[Robz]

Dr. Clarke claims that the study participants responses were “biased,” based on the nature of the USTS sampling methodology. Though he does not clarify this comment

Multiple problems with Jack's response, but let's take the above. Dr Clarke had a citation in his comment that clarifies exactly what Jack claims was not clarified. Jack is relying on people not actually looking at thr details. Dr Clarke's cite is below:

One Size Does Not Fit All: In Support of Psychotherapy for Gender Dysphoria - Archives of Sexual Behavior

link.springer.com

Turban et al.’s (2020) analysis used data from the 2015 USTS survey of transgender-identifying individuals (James et al., 2016). This survey used convenience sampling, a methodology which generates low-quality data (Bornstein, Jager, & Putnick, 2013). Specifically, the participants were recruited through transgender advocacy organizations and subjects were asked to “pledge” to promote the survey among friends and family. This recruiting method yielded a large but highly skewed sample. While Turban et al. acknowledged that the USTS may not be representative of the U.S. transgender population, they treat it as a valid source of data for major policy

We can also look at this other claim:

Dr. Clarke expresses concern that “USTS respondents demonstrably did not know what puberty blockers were.” While it is not clear what this assertion was based upon,

The full context of Dr. Clarke's commen t, that Turban cut off:

Although Turban et al. attempted to control for this, a proper adjustment was not possible.

Again, Dr Turban is relying on his side to not actually read the information provided.

 

[Curried Goats]

Multiple problems with Jack's response, but let's take the above. Dr Clarke had a citation in his comment that clarifies exactly what Jack claims was not clarified. Jack is relying on people not actually looking at thr details. Dr Clarke's cite is below:

One Size Does Not Fit All: In Support of Psychotherapy for Gender Dysphoria - Archives of Sexual Behavior

link.springer.com

We can also look at this other claim:


The full context of Dr. Clarke's commen t, that Turban cut off:


Again, Dr Turban is relying on his side to not actually read the information provided.

I read his opinion, I'm not sure why I'm not supposed to take it as anything more than his opinion. What does he mean proper adjustment was not possible or why he assumed they didn't know what puberty blockers were.

 

[Robz]

I read his opinion, I'm not sure why I'm not supposed to take it as anything more than his opinion.

Not sure, but turban didn't address that the more mentally stable will get blockers and those with more mental health problems won't, which can clearly impact suicide rates or that suicide attempt and ideation was extremely high in both groups. Odd.

Turban also claims that the controversy is only political... yet more and more countries (that are far more liberal than the US) are restricting care to kids after completing systematic reviews. Odd too.

 

[Curried Goats]

Not sure, but turban didn't address that the more mentally stable will get blockers and those with more mental health problems won't, which can clearly impact suicide rates or that suicide attempt and ideation was extremely high in both groups. Odd.

Turban also claims that the controversy is only political... yet more and more countries (that are far more liberal than the US) are restricting care to kids after completing systematic reviews. Odd too.

Not odd at all, just regular back and forth from professionals who disagree about sampling and methodology. I don't really have any issue with that and I enjoyed reading Dr. Clarke criticisms. No where does he side with the bigots on the right who think gender dysphoria is a delusion being pushed by groomers.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I did. I also read Turbans response to these criticisms which is the very first thing you see in the comments section. How did you miss it?

RE: Pubertal Suppression for Transgender Youth and Risk of Suicidal Ideation​

January 11 2021
Jack L Turban
STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
We thank Dr. Clarke for his interest in our article. We appreciate the opportunity to address his comments and correct the inaccurate information contained in them.
Dr. Clarke incorrectly states that this manuscript found an increase in recent serious suicide attempts among those who accessed pubertal suppression during adolescence. Though the raw values were higher for some of these outcomes, this was not a statistically significant finding, and thus the appropriate conclusion is that the study found no statistically significant association between access to pubertal suppression and greater odds of any measure of adverse mental health outcomes.
Dr. Clarke claims that the study participants responses were “biased,” based on the nature of the USTS sampling methodology. Though he does not clarify this comment, it appears he is referencing the fact that this is a non-probability sample. Non-probability samples are frequently used when studying minority populations, as they allow investigators to recruit large sample sizes and ask in-depth questions specific to the minority population being studied, which is generally not possible with probability samples. One major strength of this study is that it was able to recruit the largest sample of transgender people to date (over 27,000 participants) and ask in-depth questions, which allowed us to adjust for a wide range of potential confounders. This would not have been possible with a probability sample (e.g., the TransPOP sample, which uses random digit dialing for recruitment but was unable to recruit as many participants as USTS, or the CDC YRBSS, which is unable to ask as many in-depth questions about gender-related experiences because it must cover a wide range of other health topics).
Dr. Clarke expresses concern that “USTS respondents demonstrably did not know what puberty blockers were.” While it is not clear what this assertion was based upon, we would like to reiterate that our analyses excluded respondents who reported accessing pubertal suppression later than current guidelines advise. This intervention, when used at the recommended time, is done after counseling and education.
The most concerning claim in Dr. Clarke’s comment is his assertion that there is controversy regarding whether pubertal suppression should be made available for transgender youth who meet criteria under existing medical guidelines. Though there is controversy in the media and the political realm, there is clear consensus across the relevant major medical societies. The American Psychiatric Association, The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, The Endocrine Society, and The Pediatric Endocrine Society are some of the key organizations that oppose attempts to restrict access to pubertal suppression for transgender youth.

That’s a lot of word salad, but I guess when Pfizer money is on the table, you put the work in.

Anyway, all that can be summarized and paraphrased in the only two claims he makes in that defense:

1). Yes, this study was flawed, but so are most other studies of minority populations.

Probably true. All the more reason not to put much confidence in any study, unless its methodology is sound. Especially since studies of minority populations are so often designed to further a political goal.

2). There is controversy among parent, but all of the gender specialists in the medical and psychology fields agree that the transgenderization of children movement is a good thing, so there is not any valid controversy.

In other words, only those who make money from the transgender industry should have a say. Parents need to but out, according to that logic.

 

[Robz]

Not odd at all, just regular back and forth from professionals who disagree about sampling and methodology. I don't really have any issue with that and I enjoyed reading Dr. Clarke criticisms. No where does he side with the bigots on the right who think gender dysphoria is a delusion being pushed by groomers.

Turbans "back and forth" was rather disengenous as outlined above on just two of the points. Then you can tell a lot by what turban chose not to respond to. Anyway, my 2 cents. I'm sure you disagree.

 

[Curried Goats]

That’s a lot of word salad, but I guess when Pfizer money is on the table, you put the work in.

Anyway, all that can be summarized and paraphrased in the only two claims he makes in that defense:

1). Yes, this study was flawed, but so are most other studies of minority populations.

Probably true. All the more reason not to put much confidence in any study, unless its methodology is sound. Especially since studies of minority populations are so often designed to further a political goal.

2). There is controversy among parent, but all of the gender specialists in the medical and psychology fields agree that the transgenderization of children movement is a good thing, so there is not any valid controversy.

In other words, only those who make money from the transgender industry should have a say. Parents need to but out, according to that logic.

No, those are your words, they aren't the reflection of the medical professional who found issues with Dr. Turbans methodology. Nor does that medical professional agree with your bigoted feelings towards the trans community in general. No medical professionals do. What they might disagree with is access to treatment. Sweden and the UK aren't barring access to puberty blockers or hormones treatments they are just reserving them for the most severe cases and administering them in a clinical trial setting.

 

[Curried Goats]

Turbans "back and forth" was rather disengenous as outlined above on just two of the points. Then you can tell a lot by what turban chose not to respond to. Anyway, my 2 cents. I'm sure you disagree.

He did respond. He responded why he chose to use a non probability sample in the response I quoted. It's okay to disagree and to call for more rigorous study, I'm not sure anyone is arguing we need less, that's still a far cry from the bigoted position of the GOP.

 

[HeyNorm]

What we hate is the groomers & enablers radicalizing & exploiting vulnerable youngsters in the hopes of f**king them up worse with mutilations & chemical castrations.

Why can't the proggies leave the kids alone to be kids?
Why do they push perversions on children?

You have to understand that this is the tip of the iceberg. If we allow this in school then next it will be Nudist story hour, BDSM story hour, swingers story time and water sports story hour.

They want each and every one of their bizarre fetishes normalized. And they want it normalized at as early an age as possible.

 

[Robz]

It's okay to disagree and to call for more rigorous study, I'm not sure anyone is arguing we need less,

one side is claiming the science ia settled, and to disagree is transphobic. So... not sure you are entirley correct either.

that's still a far cry from the bigoted position of the GOP.

I wouldn't say I agree with all of the bills being passed, but isn't that just due the differences in health care in the (now 5) countries that are curtailing access for kids? In countries like France, the uk, etc, they have a more "authoritarian" health care system, which makes it easier for them to make changes. In the US, it really has to go through the legislature.

 

[Curried Goats]

one side is claiming the science ia settled, and to disagree is transphobic. So... not sure you are entirley correct either.

Which side? I found Dr. Clarke's criticisms interesting and valid and I don't find any issue with the medical community debating findings and treatments and Dr. Clarke started his paper by agreeing in general with Dr. Turban that coercive medical practices were detrimental to care.

I wouldn't say I agree with all of the bills being passed, but isn't that just due the differences in health care in the (now 5) countries that are curtailing access for kids? In countries like France, the uk, etc, they have a more "authoritarian" health care system, which makes it easier for them to make changes. In the US, it really has to go through the legislature.

The countries pulling back care and administering them in a clinical trial setting are still infinitely more progressive than GOP pushed legislation looking to stigmatize patients as delusional and their care providers as groomers.

 

[HeyNorm]

Which side? I found Dr. Clarke's criticisms interesting and valid and I don't find any issue with the medical community debating findings and treatments and Dr. Clarke started his paper by agreeing in general with Dr. Turban that coercive medical practices were detrimental to care.

The countries pulling back care and administering them in a clinical trial setting are still infinitely more progressive than GOP pushed legislation looking to stigmatize patients as delusional and their care providers as groomers.

No, dude, there is no argument that allowing a surgical procedure on a child that (which by the way is mostly cosmetic but destroys key elements of their reproductive systems) once done can never be undone, is anything but unethical.

 

[Curried Goats]

No, dude, there is no argument that allowing a surgical procedure on a child that (which by the way is mostly cosmetic but destroys key elements of their reproductive systems) once done can never be undone, is anything but unethical.

I'm not really impressed with your "Hey dude" argument.

 

[HeyNorm]

I'm not really impressed with your "Hey dude" argument.

So unimpressed that you can’t rebut it.

 

[Curried Goats]

So unimpressed that you can’t rebut it.

It's not my job to disprove your ridiculous claim.

 

[HeyNorm]

It's not my job to disprove your ridiculous claim.

No, it’s your job to disprove it, which we’ve all seen, is where you constantly fail kid.