Recent Article Criticizes the Quality of Jack Turban's Analysis

News

Several health professionals have criticized the work of affirmative model advocate Jack Turban, from the Stanford University School of Medicine, regarding his studies and analysis of childhood and adolescent gender dysphoria issues.

This post references a paper by Turban, Beckwith, Reisner, and Keuroghlian and is found below:

“Association Between Recalled Exposure to Gender Identity Conversion Efforts and Psychological Distress and Suicide Attempts Among Transgender Adults”

Archives of Sexual Behavior published an LTE in response to this study:

“One Size Does Not Fit All: In Support of Psychotherapy for Gender Dysphoria.”

They wrote a piece in Quillette for the general public:

“Jack Turban’s Dangerous Campaign to Smear Ethical Psychotherapy as Anti-Trans ‘Conversion Therapy’”

From the article:

We agree with Turban’s position that therapies using coercive tactics to force a change in gender identity have no place in healthcare. However, we take issue with the authors’ problematic analysis and flawed conclusions, which they use to justify the misguided notion that any practice that deviates from reflexively “affirmative” psychotherapy for gender dysphoria (GD) is harmful and should be banned. Their analysis is compromised by serious methodological flaws, including the use of a biased data sample, reliance on poorly constructed survey questions, and the omission of any control variable that tracks subjects’ baseline mental-health status.

References:

D’Angelo, R, Syrulnik, E., Ayad, S, Marchiano, L, Kenny, DT, & Clarke, P. (2020, November 1). Jack Turban’s Dangerous Campaign to Smear Ethical Psychotherapy as Anti-Trans ‘Conversion Therapy.’ Quillette. Retrieved from https://quillette.com/2020/11/01/jack-turbans-dangerous-campaign-to-smear-ethical-psychotherapy-as-anti-trans-conversion-therapy/

D’Angelo, R, Syrulnik, E., Ayad, S, Marchiano, L, Kenny, DT, & Clarke, P. (2020, October 21). One Size Does Not Fit All: In Support of Psychotherapy for Gender Dysphoria. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01844-2

Turban, J.L., Beckwith, N., Reisner, S.L., Keuroghlian, A.S. (2019). Association Between Recalled Exposure to Gender Identity Conversion Efforts and Psychological Distress and Suicide Attempts Among Transgender Adults. Journal of the American Medical Association 77(1), 1-9. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.2285

American Journal of Psychiatry Study Purported to Show Benefits of Transgender Medical Transition Made False Claims

The American Journal of Psychiatry published a study from Yale School of Public Health and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden touting the benefits of surgeries for gender dysphoria:

“Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total Population Study”

Gender identity surgeries include double mastectomy and phalloplasty for FtMs, and vaginoplasty and facial feminization for MtFs. They have now had to issue corrections indicating the study was flawed and shows no benefit.

The study, as others, indicates overall worse mental health and suicide risk for transgender people compared to the general population:

Results:

Compared with the general population, individuals with a gender incongruence diagnosis were about six times as likely to have had a mood and anxiety disorder health care visit, more than three times as likely to have received prescriptions for antidepressants and anxiolytics, and more than six times as likely to have been hospitalized after a suicide attempt. Years since initiating hormone treatment was not significantly related to likelihood of mental health treatment (adjusted odds ratio=1.01, 95% CI=0.98, 1.03). However, increased time since last gender-affirming surgery was associated with reduced mental health treatment (adjusted odds ratio=0.92, 95% CI=0.87, 0.98).

They found no evidence of benefits of hormones alone. They did report a “longitudinal association between gender-affirming surgery and reduced likelihood of mental health treatment.” The positive message about “gender-affirming surgeries” was widely cited by the media. Current media appears eager to promote pro-medical transition stories, even when it involves minors, as any critical commentary about these protocal is lacking in US media. Dr. Pachankis himself claimed in an interview:

No longer can we say that we lack high-quality evidence of the benefits of providing gender-affirming surgeries to transgender individuals who seek them.

However, the study is flawed and the data shows no benefits from these expensive surgeries that may have negative side-effects such as infection, loss of sexual function, and need for repeat vaginiplasty surgeries. After several letters to the editor criticized it, the journal redid the study’s statistical analysis and found the conclusions are wrong.

While the positive claims were reported in the media, some retractions have not been. Gender Health Query is sending out a request to media outlets who repeated the positive claims of this poorly done study whose authors may have been suffering from confirmation bias to correct the record. We are also asking the American Journal of Psychiatry why they continue to display this title prominently. It’s misleading. Notice the positive sounding title remains intact, but there is only a small link at the top mentioning that there are corrections to the article. Sometimes corrections are minor. That is not the case with this study. Does the AJP want to mislead the public? Because that will be the result based on this title. What are the reasons they did not retract the study altogether?

This study had a high quality, very large data set (2,600 transgender individuals diagnosed with gender incongruence between 2005 and 2015 versus all the rest of the Swedish population). It is one of the better data sets used in a study, with many studies on transgenderism being poor quality (ex- survey studies, convenience sampling, lost to follow-ups). It contricits the finding of the Cornell review And this analysis fails to show improvements in the mental health with hormone use and surgeries. That is significant given the huge increase in medicalized minors.

Most studies on outcomes for trans individuals are of poor quality in terms of research standards. Many studies indicate trans people have improved quality of life post-transition. Others indicate that long-term mental health outcomes are not good, calling into question the effectiveness in reducing suicide risk and improving mental health.

A list of “Letters to the Editor” and their response is listed under the published article:

35 Anckarsäter H, Gillberg C: Methodological shortcomings undercut statement in support of gender-affirming surgery. Am J Psychiatry 2020; 177:764–765Abstract, Google Scholar

36 Van Mol A, Laidlaw M, Grossman M, et al.: Gender affirmation surgery conclusion lacks evidence. Am J Psychiatry 2020; 177:765–766Abstract, Google Scholar

37 Curtis D: Study of transgender patients: conclusions are not supported by findings. Am J Psychiatry 2020; 177:766Abstract, Google Scholar

38 Malone W, Roman S: Calling into question whether gender affirming surgery relieves psychological distress. Am J Psychiatry2020; 177:766–767Abstract, Google Scholar

39 Landén M: The effect of gender-affirming treatment on psychiatric morbidity is still undecided. Am J Psychiatry 2020; 177:767–768Abstract, Google Scholar

40 Wold A: Gender corrective surgery promoting mental health in persons with gender dysphoria not supported by data presented in paper. Am J Psychiatry 2020; 177:768Abstract, Google Scholar

41 Ring A, Malone M: Confounding effects on mental health observations after sex reassignment surgery. Am J Psychiatry 2020; 177:768–769Abstract, Google Scholar

42 Bränström R, Pachankis JE: Toward rigorous methodologies for strengthening causal inference in the association between gender-affirming care and transgender individuals’ mental health. Am J Psychiatry 2020; 177:769–772Abstract, Google Scholar

Here is a list of URLs citing this study that now need correction:

https://www.bustle.com/p/affirming-peoples-gender-improves-trans-mental-health-a-study-says-19345160

https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/11/gender-affirming-interventions-reduce-mental-health-issues-study-suggests/

https://www.jwatch.org/na50059/2019/10/11/gender-affirming-surgery-durably-improves-mental-health

https://www.medpagetoday.com/psychiatry/generalpsychiatry/82642

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-transgender-gender-affirming-surgery-mental-health-study-20191004-bxvqkg4gj5budinawa3bogp5oa-story.html

Here is a list of journal articles that referenced this study and quotes used:

Sevelius J.M., Gutierrez-Mock L., Zamudio-Haas S., et al. (2020). Research with Marginalized Communities: Challenges to Continuity During the COVID‑19 Pandemic, AIDS and Behavior, Volume 24, 2009–2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-020-02920-3

> Among our transgender and gender diverse staff and participants, delays in gender-affirming treatment, such as hormone injections and surgeries, due to the shutdown of clinics and delays in "elective" surgeries, can cause serious mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, and suicidality [16].

Wang Y., Pan B., Liu Y., et al. (2020). Health care and mental health challenges for transgender individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic, Lancet Diabetes Endocrinology, Volume 8, Issue 7, 565-565. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30182-0

> Besides access to health care, it is also important to highlight mental health issues of transgender individuals. Previous studies showed that gender-affirming surgery was associated with reduced mental health problems.4

Roque R.A. (2020). Transgender pediatric surgical patients—Important perioperative considerations, Pediatric Anesthesia, Volume 30, Issue 5, 520-528. https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.13845

> "Importantly, surgeries for transgender individuals are medically necessary procedures, proven to improve dysphoria, mental health, and quality of life,26, [29]-33 and should not be viewed as elective.14, 15"

Konrad, M., & Kostev, K. (2020). Increased prevalence of depression, anxiety, and adjustment and somatoform disorders in transsexual individuals, Journal of Affective Disorders, Volume 274, 482-485, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.05.074

Aldridge Z., Patel S., Guo B., et al. (2020). Long term effect of gender affirming hormone treatment on depression and anxiety symptoms in transgender people: A prospective cohort study, Andrology, published online 10 August. https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.12884

> "In contrast, Bränström and Pachankis [40] using the Swedish population register showed no significantassociation between the likelihood of accessing mental health treatment and time since initiation of GAHT.

"Flaherty, A.J., Sharma, A., Crosby, D. (2020). Should Gender-Affirming Surgery Be Prioritized During the COVID-19 Pandemic?,  Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Published June 30, https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599820939072

> A recent study found significantly reduced risk of mental health treatment in TGNC patients after receiving GAS but not HRT alone.13

Schvey, N.A., Klein, D.A., Pearlman, A.T., Riggs, D.S. (2020), A Descriptive Study of Transgender Active Duty Service Members in the U.S. Military, Transgender Health, first published 19 May 2020, https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2019.0044

> The finding that transmales, who were significantly more likely to have taken steps toward gender affirmation, presented with better mental health may provide further evidence supporting the effectiveness of gender-affirming treatments in ameliorating distress and improving quality of life.69,[70]

Surmaitis, R.M., Greenberg, M.R., Ebeling-Koning N.E., et al. (2020). Characteristics of Transgender Patient Cases Managed by a Toxicologist: an Analysis of the Toxicology Investigator's Consortium (ToxIC) Registry: January 2017–June 2019, J Med Tox, Published: 17 June 2020 

> It would be helpful for further study to gather more information on whether patients have undergone surgical procedures or hormonal therapy because it has been shown that rates of suicidality and utilization of mental health services may differ based on transition-related medical interventions [20, 21].

Giraldi A. (2020). Mental health and gender dysphoria – why does it matter? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, Volume 141, Issue 6, 483-485, https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13182

> Though, some studies indicate that some of the increased risk of mental health problems persist, which may in part be related to internal and external factors (17-19).

References

Bränström, R., Pachankis, J. (2019). Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total Population Study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 77(8):727-734. doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080

Cornell University. (2018, March 26). What does the scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being? Retrieved from https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

Teen Vogue and Heron Greensmith Deny There Are Any Consequences to Minors with Gender Dysphoria who Medically Transition. There Are.

Editorial

Teen Vogue and Heron Greensmith, a female who doesn’t appear to have medically transitioned but goes by they/them pronouns, have published an article mentioning Gender Health Query and several other organizations skeptical about the safety of pediatric medical transition for gender dysphoria. One of the organizations listed is the American College of Pediatricians. It is an anti-same-sex marriage and adoption activism organization, and Gender Health Query does not endorse organizations that do not align with our interests.

All of the other organizations listed are not religiously motivated, anti-LGBT organizations. They include some trans people as ours does. They have evidence to support the claims on their sites and have the same concerns we do for the same evidence-based reasons.

Greensmith states there are no medical reasons for minors not to transition underage:

Among them are the Gender Care Consumer Advocacy Network, ReThink Identity Medicine and Ethics, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, Gender Health Query, and the Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Dysphoria Working Group. Looking at these names, one could easily assume there was a strong medical argument against trans-affirming care for youth, or even potentially a discussion worth having. But let me repeat:

There is no valid medical argument against trans-affirming care for youth

Greendsmith fails to include another pro-homosexual/bisexual rights organization site, Transgendertrend, where one can find evidence-based reasons for concern, with some material written by scientists.

While Greensmith mentions our website, there is no mention of our section laying out significant medical consequences to underage transition. We will list them below to counter this irresponsible article allowed by Teen Vogue editors Lindsay Peoples Wagner, Samhita Mukhopadhyay, and Emily Shippee. There is also debate about the quality of the studies Greensmith cites, such as those done by Jack Turban that appear to suffer from confirmation bias and methodological issues (see here, here, and here), a common problem in social science research. All citations can be found in the hyperlinked section.

Significant Consequences Pro-Child-Transition Media Often Avoid Mentioning

1) Permanently destroyed sex organs resulting in a lack of ability to ever have an orgasm-

If a male who wants to be a girl takes hormone blockers as a tween, the youth will always have the penis of a prepubescent child if the child later takes estrogen. This, in of itself, may destroy the youth’s ability to have a fully functioning, adult sex life. If the youth wants a vaginoplasty surgery (they are doing them on minors), they will have to undergo a rectosigmoid vaginoplasty using the colon or one using the peritoneal lining around the stomach. This can create significant order problems later. They also must take skin flaps from the inner thigh leaving considerable scarring. There isn’t enough tissue to do what is called the “gold standard” vaginoplasty, which inverts the penis and scrotum. These other techniques are experimental surgeries.

There are already examples of the vaginoplasty falling apart and needing repair. A trans child reality TV star, has undergone at least four surgeries, describes this ordeal as extremely painful, and will likely go through life not experiencing orgasm even once. In one of the cohorts from a study Heron Greensmith sites (the de Vries/ Steensma cohort from the Netherlands), one of the youths died from the vaginoplasty surgery. Some of these minors making these decisions as tweens will never have sexual feelings in their lives. Many adults decide never to get bottom surgery. It is perfectly rational to question the ethics of destroying such a major choice when doctors transition a tween. And it is shoddy journalism to avoid mentioning this in an article discussing medical risks to under-age youth.

While we understand a dysphoric minor may have a very strong desire to live as the opposite sex and pass better, we believe it is a very sex-negative approach to destroy all ability to fully experience an adult romantic relationship and sexual fulfillment based on a decision the child made before ever having a relationship or even just a crush or sexual desire. The significance of these things is not understood by children. And while it is uncomfortable, this topic must be discussed honestly:

2) Sterility-

The hormone blocker to cross-sex hormone protocol causes sterility. There is a plethora of news articles about trans people who have children or say they want them. There is also a study that shows many trans people want biological children. There was a lawsuit in Sweden regarding trans adults suing because they were sterilized as a requirement for transition, so fertility is important to trans people. A tween or teen will not know how they will feel about children later.

3) A reduction in cognitive function-

A few studies indicate hormone blockers significantly lower IQ test scores. IQ is strongly correlated with career choice and earned income:

Schneider et al.(2017): “Brain Maturation, Cognition and Voice Pattern in a Gender Dysphoria Case under Pubertal Suppression”

4) A reduction in bone health-

Blockers appear to give a young person the bones of a much older person. Weakening bone density of a young person is worth mentioning:

Micheal Biggs bone density review paper

5) Gay, Bisexual, and Lesbian Eugenics-

All prior research shows that a very significant number of children with even acute gender dysphoria outgrow it and are very likely to grow up gay or lesbian. This graph is a review of the four most recent and best studies tracking desistance from gender dysphoria. Dr. Ken Zucker created this graphic. The percent of desistance is 67%, a majority:

Zucker, Power Point presentation USPATH 2017

Greensmith mentions Dr. Ken Zucker derisively in this piece but fails to mention that Dr. Zucker believes that children who would grow up gay or lesbian are at risk of having their bodies permanently medically altered prematurely. Any risk of permanently altering physical appearance with cross-sex hormones of potentially LGB youth is a serious ethical concern, especially for people who care about the health and diversity of expression of LGB populations. This is why Zucker took a more cautious approach, the protection of likely gay, bisexual, and lesbian youth from harm. Other gender dysphoria experts like Dr. Korte, Dr. Steensma, and Tavistock clinicians have mentioned this as a concern. Heron mentions conversion therapy laws. We are starting to see that transitioning minors is conversion therapy for some youth, particularly lesbian youth struggling with puberty. This is LGB eugenics. It’s already happening:

The London Times

And eugenics is the correct word as these protocols have the potential to sterilize, destroy sexuality, and permanently change the youth's features and voice. There are now too many stories of mostly young lesbian and bisexual women who transitioned as minors and have regrets. There are so many, the days of plausible deniability one doesn't know are over. It is callous of Heron Greensmith to fail to even mention them considering these are mostly lesbian and bisexual young women. Greensmith may want to consider if cheerleading tomboy teenagers (likely to be same-sex attracted) in their body dysmorphia and female inferiority complex is healthy for them in the long-term because it isn't. It's harming some of them.  Lesbian and bisexual youth who struggle with gender dysphoria but are better served by being allowed to just grow up without medical damages matter too. Some heterosexuals males and females also may have regrets.

6) Evidence of serious negative long-term side-effects from using Lupron, a hormone blocker-

Many women are suing due to side-effects from Lupron, a common gender clinic hormone blocker, that doctors gave them for precocious puberty or endometriosis:

As with many drugs, side effects have long been a problem. More than 20,000 adverse-event reports have been filed with the FDA in the last decade. Women have reported to the FDA hundreds of cases of insomnia, depression, joint pain and more than 100 cases of blurred vision. About 900 reports cite side effects that children below age 13 have suffered, mostly within months of taking Lupron. Those reports frequently note injection-site pain but also include dozens of cases of bone problems, such as pain or disorders, and the inability to walk.

And from Righting Injustice:

Last month, the FDA required the safety labels of GnRH agonists to be updated to include new psychiatric side effects causing emotional lability such as crying, irritability, impatient, anger and aggression. The labels were also updated with a warning that use of the drugs were linked to convulsions, particularly in patients with a history of seizures, epilepsy, cerebrovascular disorders, central nervous system anomalies or tumors, and in patients taking drugs that can increase the risk of convulsions, such as bupropion and SSRIs.

Other side effects are deteriorating jaw joints, degenerative disks, growth of preexisting tumors, deteriorating vision, exacerbation of asthma, osteopenia, memory loss, hair loss, and fibromyalgia. In adult men, some of the labeled risks of Lupron are heart attacks, strokes, and sudden death.

7) The large increase in trans-identified females looks like other body dysmorphia social contagions of which there are many in history-

Please see this section and view the graphs showing soaring numbers of female teens identifying as trans. It is not responsible to fail to question this. We would appreciate it if Teen Vogue would write a story on the massive increases of female teens identifying as trans with what appears to be a spike in transition regret by female young people:

8) A list of just a few of medical the consequences trans youth will have to deal with as adults-

• Vaginal atrophy in FtMs that causes severe pain during sex

• Increase risk of heart attack and stroke

• Liver problems

• Need for repeat vaginoplasty surgeries if they collapse

• Unknown cancer risks from underage transition 

9) The validity of the argument about the benefits of hormone blockers is debatable-

The hormone blocker study done by the Tavistock clinic in Britain has shown blockers may worsen mental health.

We believe that this was a very irresponsible article designed to hide the risk of this to the health of all gender dysphoric children regardless of how stable their trans-identity is. We support the promotion of coping skills, and the importance of brain development and physical health to support these youths for the long-term, not extreme medical fixes youth are led to believe will be a panacea. This article is especially insensitive to the concerns of the growing numbers of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who are upset about what appears to be substantial increases in stories of transition regret among youth in their early twenties who are mostly lesbian or bisexual women. Transition regret among young females would be a good topic for a Teen Vogue article. The stories of regret are very easy to find at a time of massive increases in trans-identified youth.

Heron Greensmith needs to make the morally and intellectually honest argument. That argument is that false positives, resulting in permanently altered bodies of cognitively immature tweens/teens, resulting in sterilization and other health issues, are worth trans-positive healthcare in hopes more good than harm will be done. That argument is that it is a good thing for an 11-year-old, with no concept of sexuality or desire for children, to permanently destroy their sex organs in order to have a more feminine face, because looks and access to extreme plastic surgery to relieve distress are more important than coping skills and long-term physical health. Instead, Greensmith engages in ideological, black and white, biased, and cherry-picking discourse. This is bad journalism. And as an opinion piece be clear, Greensmith doesn’t represent the opinions of all LGBT people. We recommend that Teen Vogue find someone willing to engage with all of the facts around permanently altering minors. While we are a medical watchdog organization, and harm is our emphasis, we lay out a more unbiased picture, including arguments Greensmith makes, about the ethics of pediatric transition in “17) MORAL DILEMMAS.”

-Justine Kreher

References can be found in links at the end of these sections:

1) DO CHILDREN & TEENS WITH SERIOUS GENDER DYSPHORIA EVER DESIST FROM THE DYSPHORIA?

2) CONSEQUENCES & PERMANENT SIDE-EFFECTS THAT RESULT FROM THE USE OF HORMONE BLOCKERS

11) WHY ARE SO MANY FEMALES COMING OUT AS TRANS/NON-BINARY?

Here is a list of references for our Topics section.

Conflicts in the Debate about Gender Dysphoria And Gender Ideology

New Links

Trans-Identified Males In Services for Females

New research is proving medical transition does not erase the advantages biological males have over females. Placing them in female sports disadvantages girls.

1) Some states are seeking to ban males on female sports teams, as Title 9 is designed to protect girls based on biological sex.

"Tennessee bill would require students to play sports based on gender identified at birth:"

The bill's sponsor, state Rep. Bruce Griffey, called it a "proactive measure," meant to "maintain fairness" specifically for female athletes, he told CNN. Griffey said genetic males have "larger hearts" and more upper body strength that gives them an advantage in sports.

"It's not intended to demean, degrade, or diminish anyone," Griffey said. "It's just trying to maintain fairness."

2) Due to complaints about boundaries and privacy, schools in Australia are reversing decisions to make almost all toilets unisex.

PLANS for secondary school students to share gender neutral toilets at Brisbane's newest secondary school have been scrapped following severe public backlash.

Controversies around the affirmative model

1) Dr. Ken Zucker was libeled and fired from his job in the public Canadian healthcare system for being more cautious in medically treating gender dysphoria than those who support full validation under the “affirmative model.” Trans activists attempted to censor his talk at McGill University, but the talk proceeded anyway.

2) There has been a lack in transparency around an inquiry into the rising numbers of minors being put on puberty blockers in the UK:

In her fundraiser statement Sue Evans says: ‘The alarm bells began ringing for me when a colleague at the weekly team clinical meeting said that they had seen a young person four times and they were now recommending them for a referral to the endocrinology department to commence hormone therapy.’ Evans then quotes concerns about hormone treatment for teenagers cited in the British Medical Journal: ‘1) Young people are left in a state of ‘developmental limbo’ without secondary sexual characteristics that might consolidate gender identity; 2) use is likely to threaten the maturation of the adolescent mind, and 3) puberty blockers are being used in the context of profound scientific ignorance’.

Controversies Around Postmodern Gender Ideology

1) Not everyone appreciates the use of cultures who had concepts of a third gender, or who accepted effeminate males, to make what they see as invalid arguments to support postmodern queer theory influenced gender ideology.

“Toward an End to Appropriation of Indigenous “Two Spirit” People in Trans Politics: the Relationship Between Third Gender Roles and Patriarchy:”

What’s instead true is that American Indian nations that had more rigid gender roles and assigned women less power historically felt the need to strip male/female identities from non-conformers, while more egalitarian societies with less gender socialization lack two-spirit people because of, rather than in spite of, their lack of emphasis on sex-assigned gender roles.

2) A US court has found there is no legal right to demand to be called certain pronouns.

"‘Xemself,’ ‘Eirself,’ and ‘Verself’: U.S. Appeals Court Nixes Gender Neutral Pronouns"

3) Due to the influence of LGBT rights organizations, the census in Scotland originally was going to contain twentyone different sexualities.”

“Controversial list of sexualities could be dropped from Scottish Census”

4) Below is an article opposing an agenda to introduce postmodern genderqueer theory into school.

“Why children are being indoctrinated with gender ideology in kindergarten”

5) The Wall Street Journal has published an article laying out the conflicts gender activism has with women’s rights and the interests of the homosexual rights movement.

“The Dangerous Denial of Sex-Transgender ideology harms women, gays—and especially feminine boys and masculine girls”

6) This article reviews some data around who is funding LGBT organizations and their ties to the medical industry:

As the example of the Arcus Foundation shows, the LGB civil rights movement of yore has morphed into a relentless behemoth, one that has strong ties to the medical industrial complex and global corporatists. The pharmaceutical lobby is the largest lobbying entity in Congress. Although activists present the LGBT movement as a weak, powerless group suffering oppression and discrimination, in truth it wields enormous power and influence—power it increasingly uses to remake our laws, schools, and society.

Legal Conflicts

1) A BC Court in Canada ordered a father to refer to his child’s preferred pronouns, and that decision has been overturned:

The Justice Centre obtained intervenor status to make submissions to the Court of Appeal, which heard the case in September 2019. The Justice Centre argued that children have a legal right to the protection of those who love them the most and know them the best: their own parents. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the liberty and security interests of parents in the raising of and caring for their own children, including a right to make decisions for them in fundamental matters such as participating in elective irreversible medical interventions.

2) “Oregon Appeals Case Could Set New Precedent for Nonbinary Rights:”

A case currently working its way through the Oregon legal system could set a new precedent for transgender and nonbinary rights in the state.

Jones David Hollister is a nonbinary person who lives in Lane County, Oregon. Earlier this year, they attempted to have their legal gender designation changed from female to nonbinary—meaning they would be seen as a nonbinary person in the eyes of the law—but their request was denied by Lane County Circuit Court Judge Charles D. Carlson.

3) “Former Nike contractor sues company for not using the right pronouns:”

Jazz Lyles, who uses the pronouns “they/them/their,” worked for the company out their Beaverton, Oregon headquarters. Lyles’ lawsuit, which was filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court, claims that Nike and Mainz Brady, California-based IT staffing firm, put her through discrimination, harassment, and retaliation for dismissing her request to use her they/them pronouns.

Personal Historical Observations from a Trans Person on Social Media

From Social Media

Older transgender individuals have interesting observations about the evolution of trans activism and the trans community itself. Much has changed in the last ten years. We provide a link to this thread from “Radically Trans” who can be found on Twitter @Transradically:

Transgender As A Form Of Social Contagion.

I'm going to cover five different periods of time, and what I believe are four different changes within society. The backstory is needed to set up the first change, and I'll cover the ways in which that change increased exposure.

1). Before mid-to-late 90's.
2). Rise of Transgender and adding "T" to LGB.
3). Butch Lesbian out-migration
4). Rise of social media and self-identification.
5). Development of ROGD as a phenomenon.

Australian News Station Reports on Childhood Gender Dysphoria like a Liberal Tabloid Version of a Fox News Show

Opinion

by Justine Kreher

In tabloid-style, a national Australian news station (ABC) commented on the child/teen social and medical transition movement. More minors are being socially and medically transitioned to treat gender dysphoria in all western countries. The tone of the “media watch” segment is one of moral superiority. The content could be considered news-ish, rather than straight news. It is reminiscent of a Fox News O’Reilly Factor episode, only a left-wing version.

The show starts off quoting a native of the country who hates The Australian, a conservative paper. The Australian has recently published commentary from doctors and scientists who are alarmed by some aspects of pediatric medical transition. This is done to set the stage in everyone’s mind that everything the paper printed about safety and ethical issues should be discounted.

They proceeded to quote Benjamin Law, a gay man, and writer, who is part of ABC staff. Benjamin Law is dismissive of any points that raise red flags about pediatric transition. These include the possibility that early transition may prevent desistance, side-effects of hormone blockers, and large increases of female teenagers coming out as trans. He has been on social media calling for boycotts of The Australian and painting anyone with concerns as “transphobes.”

Benjamin Law, Australian LGBT rights activist

I have sent him numerous examples of liberal-minded, pro-LGBT health professionals, raising all of the same concerns raised by The Australian. I pointed out that false positives resulting from transitioning children, teens, and young adults will fall disproportionately on gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth, as GD happens in those populations, but transition may not be the best option. Despite presenting him with cited quotes from gender dysphoria professionals and research data showing an association with childhood GD and adult homosexuality, he had no interest in addressing these points. Instead, he prompted me to read his document that brushes aside any desire to consider negative outcomes as “moral panic.” One has to pay for it to read it.

The comments he refers to by saying “not sure your comments really cut it” were from the most experienced gender clinicians in the world who support transiting youth. They just acknowledge there are risks to grey-area young people, as gender dysphoria exists more as a spectrum than an either-or situation. There is no attempt to engage honestly with this topic with people of a certain mindset. There is plenty of evidence that there are grey area, dysphoric youth who may resolve GD with less drastic measures. Diane Ehrensaft, the most enthusiastic promoter of early social and medical transition, admits there are “fruit salad” children.

Benjamin Law does not know the effects of the push to socially transition small children on them.

Benjamin Law does not know the effects of giving children hormone blockers at the crack of puberty on them.

No one knows these answers, not Law, not pediatric transition enthusiasts like Johanna Olson-Kennedy, Dianne Ehrensaft, or Norman Spack. And not the Gender Health Query organization. One would have to have studies with control groups.

Benjamin Law doesn’t address the ethics of sterilizing and destroying the sexual function of minors while many trans adults make the choice to have children or don’t get bottom surgery. Benjamin Law does not engage with information sent to him about young, detransitioned people, physically altered with regrets. ABC in Australia has no interest in any of this either even though accessing this information is very easy.

These individuals are interested in exclusively protecting one group of youth, youth who are certain to identify as trans as children and adults. People with professional backgrounds, parents with desisted children, or detransitioners who say other vulnerable youth (LGB, autism spectrum, youth with trauma) may be hurt are irrelevant. And if anyone is concerned about those youth they will paint them as an evil cartoon villain tying children to railroad tracks. The irony is a gay man is doing this. Instead of promoting this baseless outrage towards safety skeptics Law and others who engage in this behavior should just promote what their argument really is:

• Trans youth are at risk for suicide ideation and mental health problems so we support the full affirmation of trans youth who will have stable identities.

• Whatever damage that may result from this is morally acceptable.

• We will attack you if you attempt to discuss that potential damage or damage that has already happened.

That is the honest argument and that is exactly what has been happening elsewhere.

Someone is going to have to be around to care about collateral damage. This collateral damage will likely be ignored by WPATH. Youth who have been harmed by this will be treated horribly by the contemporary “queer” community, as they will be viewed as the enemy of trans people. That is already happening.

The news presenter went on quoting a doctor (“They are castrating children”) in a mocking tone because the news station believes this man should be viewed by all as ridiculous:

While surgery doesn’t happen until age 18 in Australia, gender clinics are castrating children. Hormone blockers are a form of chemical castration. They are given to sex offenders to eliminate their sexuality. The blockers stop the normal adolescent process of puberty. There is information that these drugs have dangerous side effects. If a male youth goes on hormone blockers, and then onto cross-sex hormones, the cognitively immature minor may have permanently ruined their sexual function. Both sexes will be sterilized if they do this. Many trans adults say they want biological children. No one knows the cognitive effects of blockers that may influence gender identity by shutting down a youth’s physical maturation and burgeoning sexual identity. None of this is of any interest to ABC.

Another comment from Benjamin Law:

It is dishonest to paint people worried about pediatric transition as “fringe extremists.” They include some of the most experienced gender experts. Dr. Wren, Dr. Charmicheal, Dr. Steensma, Dr. Zucker, Dr. Susan Bradley and others have all stated there is a possibility that early social and medical transitions may lead to inappropriate transition of cognitively immature minors.

But the Australian’s coverage is shamelessly one-eyed.

The newscaster went on an ad hominem attack against John Whitehall while failing to discount Whitehall’s statements. And then goes on to promote WPATH’s statements. This is a trans advocacy organization and not an unbiased source.

Then there was the one-sided appeal to emotion argument in a parent’s response. It’s not that parents’ responses are invalid. They are valid. It’s choosing a statement that says questioning the safety of drastic body modifications is “demonizing trans children” that is the problem. It is an appeal to emotion argument, hyperbole, an ad hominem attack on people raising legitimate concerns, and a red herring that does nothing to prove that giving 11 year olds hormone blockers is safe. It may not be. There are also increasing numbers of parents who could make statements that their children have been harmed by the culture’s current focus on gender and medical transition.

This is the current and likely future reality:

• A culture that is very supportive of extreme medical body modification on cognitively immature youth will dominate due to fears of suicide risk. This risk is often exaggerated but is real, and transition may help these youths.

• The fact that these treatments are profitable to those offering them is also likely a factor in why they are promoted.

• A desire to protect trans youth will create a situation where any youth who may be harmed or already have been will be treated as inconvenient collateral damage that should essentially shut up and be pushed under the rug.

• Any individuals who do express concerns for youth who may be harmed or already have been will be painted as cartoon villains by large swaths of society (mostly on the left).

• The collateral damage will fall disproportionately on LGB youth, autism spectrum youth, and youth with trauma and other mental health problems. This collateral damage will be considered worth trans-positive health care.
  

Stating The Australian biased skepticism and not the positive data in its reporting is a fair criticism. The Australian has not been centering affirmative model arguments in their recent stories but have been focusing on some concerns, rare in current western media. But this almost clownish ABC segment pretended there is nothing to worry about here rather than present the honest viewpoint that they believe the youth who may be hurt aren’t worth worrying about enough to due even the most rudimentary level of research and reporting.

Academic Psychiatrist Fired for Expressing Skepticism About Safety of Pediatric Transition

News Commentary

GHQ covers the highly politicized subject matter of the child/teen medical transition movement. It shows a pattern of activist censorship, silencing, and even threats of violence towards anyone who expresses any opinion outside of the affirmation only model. Psychiatrist Dr. Allan Josephson, who taught at the University of Louisville School of Medicine, was fired from his position there for appearing at a Heritage Foundation event questioning pediatric transition. The Heritage Foundation is known for opposing all LGBT activism, including opposition to same-sex marriage.

His story appeared in the Daily Signal:

Academia today “is not for the faint-hearted,” says a veteran professor who was head of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Louisville School of Medicine until he was demoted and then let go for making public comments on gender identity.

“You know, I really was an academic physician, not a politician. I wasn’t there with an agenda or an activist position,” Dr. Allan Josephson, who also was a professor of psychiatry, told The Daily Signal in a recent phone interview.

Some details on his firing:

After hearing about his remarks, four or five fellow University of Louisville faculty members who worked with Josephson asked the university to discipline or punish him. 

Seven weeks after his appearance at Heritage, university officials demoted Josephson from division chief to faculty member in the division he had headed for nearly 15 years.

Ultimately, the public university in Kentucky let him go as of June 30, after announcing in February that it would not renew his contract.

He is also bringing a lawsuit against the university.

The new norm in academia in the United States will be that health professionals that question the affirmative model will be socially ostracized and punished career-wise. Another example of university staff shutting down access to research or commentary that doesn’t support immediate validation and transition happened when Brown University removed a link to a study, Littman (2018), trans activists didn’t like. The study supports the idea social contagion may be a factor in a minor’s trans-identification.

While these discussions are relevant, and liberal platforms refuse to allow them, many LGBT supportive people will be hostile to a message of skepticism about safety if it is done at an appearance at the Heritage Foundation.

References:

del Guidice, Rachel. (2019, August 19). Academia Today ‘Not for Faint-Hearted,’ Says Professor Who Lost His Job for Talking About Gender. The Daily Signal. Retrieved from https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/08/27/academia-today-not-for-faint-hearted-says-professor-who-lost-his-job-for-talking-about-gender/

Heritage Foundation. (2019, April 4). What Doctors Aren't Telling The Parents of Gender Dysphoric Children [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VovGbtShGvk

Littman, L. (2018). Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports. PLOS ONE, 13(8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202330

We do not have open comments on the Gender Health Query website. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t interested in what you have to say. If you have a comment, blog post idea, or any other feedback, we would be interested if the information can be supported by science research, an informed opinion, real-world observations, or personal experiences. Please contact us.

Letter Sent to Australian Pediatrician Who Acquiesces to Pressure from the Trans Lobby to Disregard Risks of Pediatric Transition For Gender Dysphoria

OPINION

by Justine Kreher

In another incidence reflecting a pattern of intimidation and censorship to any discussion about minors who could be hurt by the pediatric medical gender reassignment movement, a doctor in Australia has recanted comments expressing concern about medically altering minors.

Dr Suzanne Packer, Australian Senior of the Year, has offered an apology for the distress a submission regarding transgender children, that carried her endorsement, has caused for young people experiencing gender dysphoria and their families.

Her apology:

As a paediatrician and child advocate, I care deeply for the wellbeing of all children and their families.

I am extremely sorry for any distress that I have caused to families through my support of Dr Holloway’s article on Gender Transitioning and Responsible Responses.

When I endorsed the article, I wanted to shine a light on the issue to promote additional research and support for children and their families.

I deeply regret that I did not foresee just how devastating it would be for families already dealing with these complex situations. I apologise unreservedly for the distress I have caused.

Supporting all children has been the central tenet of my life’s work in paediatrics and with the other organisations I have been involved with.

My hope is that experts can work together for the best outcomes for these children and their families, however, I will exit from public comment on this complex and sensitive topic.

Through this experience I have come to understand just how hurtful and damaging negative media can be for vulnerable children and their families. I call for the media to consider the wellbeing and vulnerabilities of the children and families when reporting on this issue.

I sent a response to her apology, along with a general announcement about the formation of GHQ, to her university and organization where she serves on the board

“Hello Dr. Packer,

I am writing this to you and the other members of ANU in response to this article about you apologizing to the trans lobby for questioning the safety of the affirmative model in treating gender dysphoric minors. I am a board member of an LGBT organization that functions as a medical and censorship watchdog organization. The site is heavily cited and well researched. There is plenty of evidence these practices will inappropriately transition some cognitively immature minors, especially LGB ones who have their own vulnerabilities as minority populations.

The pressure put on you and the subsequent apology is understandable as trans youth are an at-risk population. But this is part of a highly disturbing pattern of activist extremism intimidating the health professions. Your acquiesces to it is part of an alarming new reality on the part of scientists, who are supposed to support objective research, to fail to discuss the very real and serious risks here in order to protect one viewpoint at the expense of others that are valid.

Please see the thread below which points to many facts that support concern about false positives here is warranted. Part of the reason we created our organization is that we do not trust mental health and medical professionals are doing their job without being controlled by trans activism. The side effects of pediatric transition are severe.

Thank you for your time,

Justine Kreher
GHQ Board Member”

REFERENCES:

Watson, G. (2019, August 14). Dr Suzanne Packer apologises for upset caused by trans debate. Out in Perth. Retrieved from https://www.outinperth.com/dr-suzanne-packer-apologies-for-upset-cause-by-transgender-debate/

We do not have open comments on the Gender Health Query website. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t interested in what you have to say. If you have a comment, blog post idea, or any other feedback, we would be interested if the information can be supported by science research, an informed opinion, real-world observations, or personal experiences. Please contact us.

Health Professionals Taking a More Critical View of Youth Gender Dysphoria Treatment

News

Recent blog posts on the GD Working Group website (a site generally taking a more skeptical view of immediate affirmation and medical transition) indicate some doctors are concerned enough about current gender dysphoria protocols (often recommended by official health entities) to write some of their own information.

Professor Dianna Kenny, PhD (”KEY ISSUES IN DECISION-MAKING FOR GENDER TRANSITION TREATMENT: Questions and answers”):

In this article, I address key issues in the transgender debate as they pertain to children and young people. These include: Are “gender transition treatments” safe, “curative” and in the child’s best interest? In considering these questions, I explore the known negative consequences of puberty suppression and cross-sex hormones, including infertility and other medical conditions and the purported increase in suicidality without treatment. Can children and young people give truly informed consent to these interventions? What role should parents play in decision-making? On what basis are decisions made to proceed to gender transition? Are the foundations of such decisions logical and scientific? and What social forces are at play in this decision-making process? 

Safety: Does the current scientific evidence support a conclusion that the administration of Gender Transition Treatment (social transition, puberty blocking agents and cross-sex hormones) can be safe for children and adolescents?

Answer:  No. 

She goes on to list many of the associated health problems with medical transition also covered on our site. These include circulatory health risks, risks to bone health and cognition, sexual problems, and other issues.

She also addresses the data on suicide risk:

…though the suicide risk in this population is high, as the table below attests, there is scant research evidence that gender transition treatment results in lower risk for suicide. There is also a problem in studies on gender dysphoria and suicidality related to how suicidality is measured. Different rates will be obtained in different studies because of the use of different forms of measurement. For example, being asked if you have suicidal ideation will produce higher rates than counting the number of potentially lethal suicide attempts (Aitken, VanderLaan, Wasserman, Stojanovski, & Zucker, K. (2016).

She makes a more definitive statement:

Transgender treatment does not prevent suicide, and may have other adverse effects on mental health post transition.

This assertion may be debatable. Suicide risk post transition remains high. Many studies show improved mental health and suicide risk post transition. A few show that transition does not resolves many problems dysphoric people face. GHQ has a review of most of the pertinent studies surrounding the issue of suicide with a motivation to present the issue as honestly as possible.

Most associated with GHQ would agree with her concern about the affirmative model and lack of mental health support in favor of transition offered as a solution to all problems:

The vexed question is one of causality. Does gender dysphoria cause suicidality or is it the discriminatory treatment and social exclusion suffered by the transgender community that is causative, or are suicidality and gender dysphoria caused by a third factor, such as mental illness, family dysfunction, parental or social factors? In my work with transgender adolescents, I have noted with great concern the serious underlying emotional disturbance in these young people who need intensive psychotherapy and parental and family therapy to resolve these disturbances. I wonder about those who go straight to gender clinics and gender affirming professionals who skate over these cracks in their personalities and social adjustment and proceed to gender transition in the naïve belief that this will resolve all of their presenting difficulties

She goes on to address issues of age of consent, the politcized climate shutting down debate, and the importance of the inclusion of parental feedback.

Dr, William Malone, critical of the medical establishment’s embrace of the affirmative mode (which includes medical treatment on minors) has written up some of his own guideline suggestions (“Gender Dysphoria Resource for Providers”).

References:

GD Working Group. (2019, August 9). Key Issues in Decision-making for Gender Transition Treatment: Questions and answers. Retrieved from http://gdworkinggroup.org/2019/08/09/key-issues-in-decision-making-for-gender-transition-treatment-questions-and-answers/

GD Working Group. (2019, August 2nd). Gender Dysphoria Resource for Providers. Retrieved from http://gdworkinggroup.org/2019/08/02/gender-dysphoria-resource-for-providers/

We do not have open comments on the Gender Health Query website. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t interested in what you have to say. If you have a comment, blog post idea, or any other feedback, we would be interested if the information can be supported by science research, an informed opinion, real-world observations, or personal experiences. Please contact us.

Mario Lopez Expresses Concern For Supporting Solidifying a Child’s Gender Identity & Gets Attacked by Media & LGBT Organizations as "Transphobic"

News Commentary

Mario Lopez has come under fire for making a comment that he worries that reinforcing a child’s gender identity may have later negative ramifications. This was in relation to how Charlize Theron is raising her 7-year-old child as trans. The comment is below:

I just think it’s dangerous as a parent to make that determination then OK, well then you’re going to be a boy or girl, whatever the case may. It’s sort of alarming. And my gosh just think about the repercussions later on.

Lopez received accusations ranging from “transphobia” to being “in need of education.” There are multiple studies that show early social and medical support for trans youth benefits their mental health [de Vries (2014) and Russel (2018) and Olson (2016)]. However, even gender dysphoria experts share his concerns. Several of those comments can be found on our website.

LGBT media and organizations have come out against the comment despite the fact that many gender experts’ opinions, desistance research, and that regretters appear to be increasing, all point to the real risks to pre-LGB children or confused teens. More heterosexual youth may be affected as well with changing demographics. Part of the reasons for this lack of concern is the way that very positive transition studies and articles have been promoted [(de Vries (2014) and Olson (2016)] in the US media but negative ones have not [Littman, 2018 and Professor Bigg’s blocker review]. LGBT organizations, trans activists, and affirmative model advocates also promote the concept anything other than total affirmation of a child’s gender identity is akin to murder (“Do you want a live daughter or a dead son”).

The media and LGBT organizations also fail to mention the harsh realities of medical transition. Transitioned children will be sterilized, castrated, have weaker bones, may have lowered IQ, and will later have increased circulatory health risks.

Promoting unquestioned affirmation is a current trans activist priority but isn’t in the interests of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual population if this creates significant amounts of “false positives.” No LGBT organization is presenting this issue with any balance. Affirmative model advocates have done an excellent job in painting this as safe to the public by ignoring or downplaying desistance and other risks to facilitate the blanket social transition and hormone blocker protocol on all children who say they are trans.

No concern about any of these issues is likely to be raised from any LGBT organization. They will continue to promote unquestioned child/teen medical transition and accusations of transphobia if any one does question it.

Lopez had to recant his concerns as people likely would have tried to completely destroy his career. Candace Owens decried “leftists” forcing an apology under these blackmail-like conditions.

To review the main points around this issue:

1) There is in fact data that shows improved mental health with social and medical support in trans youth that should not be discounted.

2) PFLAG, the HRC, the Advocate, Charlize Theron, or anyone attempting to educate Mario Lopez actually has no idea if an early social transition prevents a child from aligning with their body. Several top gender dysphoria experts believe it will. There is a fair amount of evidence environmental and parental factors may influence gender dysphoria, so it is reasonable to believe the current environment will solidify a trans identity in a child or young teen.

3) Early social transitions will likely lead to the use of hormone blockers. More and more people are viewing hormone blockers as dangerous. Few children desist once put on blockers so it is very possible they affect gender identity development. They are giving tweens hormone blockers before they experience any puberty at all, the puberty that used to aid children in desisting from GD.

4) Young regretters are coming forward as well, so false positives regarding young people are already shown to be inevitable.

5) Most media outlets and all LGBT organizations refuse to acknowledge any risks to grey area children who may need time and proper mental health support to get through puberty and align with their natal sex.

6) The failure to present the nuances of these issues, to downplay desistance, and avoid discussions about regret on the part of affirmative model advocates is likely responsible for this overall lack of interest on the effects of these protocols on LGB (and heterosexual) gender nonconforming youth.

7) Mario Lopez had to apologize or people would have tried to destroy his career, as happens to many people who express any doubts about affirmation of children and teens. People who challenge the affirmative model in anyway will be attacked in liberal circles such as LGBT organizations, leftist media, and academia.

References:

Arciga, J. (2019, April 14). Charlize Theron Reveals 7-Year-Old Daughter Is Transgender: Daily Mail. Daily Beast. Retrieved from https://www.thedailybeast.com/actress-charlize-theron-reveals-7-year-old-is-transgender-daily-mail

Biggs, M. (2019, July 29). The Tavistock’s Experiment with Puberty Blockers. Department of Sociology and St Cross College, University of Oxford. Retrieved from http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0060/Biggs_ExperimentPubertyBlockers.pdf

De Vries, A., McGuire, J., & Steensma, T. (2014). Young Adult Psychological Outcome After Puberty Suppression and Gender Reassignment. Pediatrics,134(4). doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2958d

Littman, L. (2018). Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports. PLOS ONE, 13(8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202330

Olson, K. R., Durwood, L., DeMeules, M., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2016). Mental health of transgender children who are supported in their identities. Pediatrics, 137(3), e20153223. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-3223

Russel, S., Pollitt, A., Gu, L., Grossman, A. (2018) Chosen Name Use Is Linked to Reduced Depressive Symptoms, Suicidal Ideation, and Suicidal Behavior Among Transgender Youth. Journal of Adolescent Health 63(4), 505-505. doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.02.003

Stockler, A. (2019, July 31). Candace Owens Says 'Sick' People Bullied Mario Lopez Into Apologizing For Anti-Trans Comments. Daily Beast. Retrieved from Daily Beast. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/candace-owens-mario-lopez-bullied-transgender-apology-1451997

We do not have open comments on the Gender Health Query website. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t interested in what you have to say. If you have a comment, blog post idea, or any other feedback, we would be interested if the information can be supported by science research, an informed opinion, real-world observations, or personal experiences. Please contact us.

A Damning Review of the Justifications for Puberty Blocker Use in the U.K.

News

Oxford professor Micheal Biggs has been vocal in criticizing the protocols for treating gender dysphoric minors at the Gender Identity Development Service in the United Kingdom. He has completed a review of the decisions that have been made by the Tavistock clinic around the use of puberty blockers and a move towards an affirmative model titled “The Tavistock’s Experiment with Puberty Blockers.”

The first quote provides the history of the use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria:

In 1994 a 16-year-old girl who wished to be a boy, known to us as B, entered the Amsterdam Gender Clinic. She was unique for having her sexual development halted at the age of 13, after an adventurous paediatric endocrinologist gave her a Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone agonist (GnRHa). Originally developed to treat prostate cancer, these drugs are also used to delay puberty when it develops abnormally early: in girls younger than 8, and boys younger than 9. The endocrinologist’s innovation was to use the drug to stop normal puberty altogether, in order to prevent the development of unwanted secondary sexual characteristics—with the aim of administering cross-sex hormones in later adolescence. Dutch clinicians used B’s case to create a new protocol for transgendering children, which enabled physical intervention at an age far below the normal age of consent (Cohen-Kettenis and Goozen 1998).

His review is not positive:

This paper describes the origins and conduct of this study and scrutinizes the evidence on its outcomes. It draws on information obtained by requests under the Freedom of Information Act to the Tavistock, to the NHS Health Research Authority, and to University College London (UCL). I will argue that the experimental study did not properly inform children and their parents of the risks of triptorelin. I will also demonstrate that the study’s preliminary results were more negative than positive, and that the single published scientific article using data from the study is fatally flawed by a statistical fallacy. My conclusion is that GIDS and their collaborators at UCL have either ignored or suppressed negative evidence. Therefore the NHS had no justification for introducing the Dutch protocol as general policy in 2014

The paper addresses the fact that the hormone blocker protocol has been called reversible and that this has not actually been proven and is very likely not true. GHQ covers the many statements by affirmative model advocates that blockers are “fully reversible” and the actual serious consequences of blockers here.

The paper also describes the reality that the blocker to cross-sex hormone protocol stunts genital growth:

One further absence deserves emphasis. The 2005 Symposium had noted the paradox that blocking a boy’s puberty left him with stunted genitalia, which were then not sufficient to transform into a pseudo-vagina. 

This necessitates a more drastic vaginoplasty surgery. We cover the ramifications of this protocol.

Biggs goes on to criticize the Tavistock professionals:

Three years after the experiment began, Carmichael announced success to the tabloid press. “Now we’ve done the study and the results thus far have been positive we’ve decided to continue with it” (Mail on Sunday, 17 May 2014). Her statement was at best misleading.

Biggs on bone density, something the GHQ website covers here:

The authors state reassuringly that bone density did not decline in absolute terms. This is misleading, because growing children need density to increase (Laidlaw 2018). The abstract acknowledges that the children experienced a decline relative to the norm for their age group, and this decline was especially marked for girls. By year three, the average girl on GnRHa had lower bone density than 97.7% of the population in her age group. Surely this raises serious concerns?

A graph:

He describes on the psychological outcomes (particularly in females who are coming out as trans in unprecedented numbers) and what appears to be an intention to spin them in the most positive way possible, despite some negative findings:

Diligent searching has uncovered unpublished results on the psychological effects. Most revealing is an appendix to Carmichael’s report to the Tavistock’s Board of Directors (GIDS 2015).4 It tracks 30 of the children on triptorelin, measuring changes after one year of the drug regime; presumably the remaining 14 subjects had not completed their first year on the drug.5The text is sometimes internally inconsistent and occasionally contradicts the tabulated figures, suggesting that the appendix was prepared in haste. But we can summarize those changes that were reported as statistically significant (p-value < .05). Only one change was positive: “according to their parents, the young people experience less internalizing behavioural problems” (as measured by the Child Behavior Checklist). There were three negative changes. “Natal girls showed a significant increase in behavioural and emotional problems”, according to their parents (also from the Child Behavior Checklist, contradicting the only positive result). One dimension of the Health Related Quality of Life scale, completed by parents, “showed a significant decrease in Physical well-being of their child”. What is most disturbing is that “a significant increase was found in the first item ‘I deliberately try to hurt or kill self’” (in the Youth Self Report questionnaire). Astonishingly, the increased risk of self-harm attracted no comment in Carmichael’s report. Given that puberty blockers are prescribed to treat gender dysphoria, it is paradoxical that “the suppression of puberty does not impact positively on the experience of gender dysphoria” (measured by the Body Image Scale). When differentiated by sex, the impact was positive for boys on one aspect of body image, but negative for girls on two aspects.

Another problematic example:

The abstract proclaims that “adolescents receiving also puberty suppression had significantly better psychosocial functioning after 12 months of GnRHa ... compared with when they had received only psychological support” (Costa et al. 2015: 2206). The literature treats this article as providing evidence in favour of puberty blockers (e.g. Butler et al. 2018; Heneghan and Jefferson 2019). But the abstract is misleading: the analysis actually failed to detect any difference between children who were given GnRHa and those who were not

The paper ends with a suggested ban on hormone blockers and more extensive research:

What, then, is to be done? Richard Byng (2019) recently demanded a moratorium on the use of GnRHa for children suffering from gender dysphoria until there is robust evidence that this drug regime is safe and effective. A team of independent researchers must be given access to all the data from the 2011 experiment. They will need expertise in statistics, psychiatry, and endocrinology; most importantly, they must have no vested interests in the promotion of GnRHa. Given that this experiment has been used since 2014 to justify the provision of these drugs to children under the NHS, the outcomes of this experiment—on all the physical and psychological measures that were collected—must be published urgently.

Update 08/18/19: Adding information on late puberty and lack of bone density “Teenagers who identify as transgender taking powerful ‘puberty blocker’ drugs ‘may suffer from weaker bones in the future’”

Update 10/22/19: The study has been cleared of ethics concerns by the Health Research Authority but criticisms continue.

References:

Adams, S. (2019, August 17). Teenagers who identify as transgender taking powerful ‘puberty blocker’ drugs ‘may suffer from weaker bones in the future.’ Daily Mail. Retrieved from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7368017/Teenagers-identify-transgender-taking-puberty-blocker-drugs-suffer-weaker-bones.html

Biggs, M. (2019, July 29). The Tavistock’s Experiment with Puberty Blockers. Department of Sociology and St Cross College, University of Oxford. Retrieved from http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0060/Biggs_ExperimentPubertyBlockers.pdf

We do not have open comments on the Gender Health Query website. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t interested in what you have to say. If you have a comment, blog post idea, or any other feedback, we would be interested if the information can be supported by science research, an informed opinion, real-world observations, or personal experiences. Please contact us.

Interview by 4thWaveNow, A Site Run By Parents Questioning the Current Enthusiasm To Transition Minors & Young Adults

Opinion

Early social transition and medical transition skeptics site, 4thWaveNow, run by parents, has interviewed GHQ board member Justine Kreher. Thank you for the opportunity for a GHQ member to air concerns many people who are part of GHQ, or otherwise watching this issue, have.

“Gender Health Query: New LGBT organization will address the “child/teen medical transition movement”

We do not have open comments on the Gender Health Query website. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t interested in what you have to say. If you have a comment, blog post idea, or any other feedback, we would be interested if the information can be supported by science research, an informed opinion, real-world observations, or personal experiences. Please contact us.

Sociologist Investigates the Use of Hormone Blockers in Children in the U.K.

News

Micheal Biggs is a sociologist at Oxford who has been investigating the Nation Health Service (U.K.) and their policy to give children hormone blockers for the treatment of gender dysphoria due to questions about safety. His recent commentary can be found on Transgendertrend.

Calling this “an experiment,” Dr. Biggs says that in reviewing the data about these practices he:

…discovered unpublished evidence that initial results, after the drugs had been administered for one year, were predominantly negative.

He has asked the clinicians why they haven’t published the results yet of this experiment:

Following my original investigation, I wrote to Professor Russell Viner at University College London (UCL), the experiment’s principal investigator, and Dr Polly Carmichael, Director of the Tavistock’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), asking why they failed to publish results. I also contacted the Research Ethics Committee which originally granted permission, pointing out that the researchers consistently failed to provide annual progress reports.

He mentions a controversial trans support group, Mermaids, helped the push for administering blockers at younger ages (under 16):

First, in the years before 2011, families and transgendering organizations like Mermaids lobbied vigorously to lower the age at which GnRHa drugs were administered to children, and the Tavistock could not resist this pressure. Second, the researchers could not employ the standard randomized trial to assess the effects of blocking puberty.

With a randomized trial, one can’t know the true effects of social transitions or hormone blockers.

Some of the commentary from Tavistock staff appears contradictory:

Five years ago, in 2014, Carmichael told the Mail on Sunday that the study demonstrated favourable outcomes: ‘Now we’ve done the study and the results thus far have been positive we’ve decided to continue with it’ (italics added). She even appeared in a BBC television programme – ‘I Am Leo’, aimed at audiences aged 6 to 12 – to promote the benefits of GnRHa drugs…

The Tavistock’s statement says remarkably little about the experiment’s outcomes. It cites Carmichael and Viner’s presentation to the 2014 World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) conference showing ‘there was no overall improvement in mood or psychological wellbeing using standardized psychological measures’ (italics added). This finding was presented in February 2014, but just four months later Carmichael claimed ‘the results thus far have been positive’. I cannot find slides from this 2014 presentation, but Carmichael’s presentation to the 2016 WPATH conference apparently recycles the same finding. It also acknowledges that ‘Natal girls showed an increase in internalising problems from t0 to t1 [after 12 months on GnRHa] as reported by their parents’ (italics added). This negative outcome is omitted from the Tavistock’s statement.

There is allegedly some negative data Tavistock has not communicated:

I cannot find slides from this 2014 presentation, but Carmichael’s presentation to the 2016 WPATH conference apparently recycles the same finding. It also acknowledges that ‘Natal girls showed an increase in internalising problems from t0 to t1 [after 12 months on GnRHa] as reported by their parents’ (italics added). This negative outcome is omitted from the Tavistock’s statement.

On the GHQ site, there are many examples of how the identity politics of this complicated subject may be affecting researchers behavior and willingness to admit there may be dangers in child/teen transition protocols.

Other inconsistencies and issues he believes are problems are listed in the article.

Update 07/30/19: TransgenderTrend published another post regarding the Guardian’s total lack of interest in reporting on concerns of clinicians in the GIDS.

It has been a great disappointment to many on the Left that the Guardian has been largely silent on this issue. But two former GIDS clinicians sent a letter to the Guardian back in 2017 to alert them to serious concerns about what was going on within GIDS. One of the authors of the submission to the Guardian commented to us “we really really tried.” However, rather than jumping to publish such a devastating testimony – the kind of exclusive most journalists would give their right arm for – the Guardian chose to ignore it.

The post goes on with the letter the clinicians sent the Guardian in 2017 who had to remain anonymous for fear of their jobs:

At the end of our tethers, in the summer of 2017, we wrote this letter and sent it to the ‘Do you know what I’m really thinking?’ column at the Guardian. Although only a couple of years ago, this was a different time. Gender critical therapists did not yet exist, publicly at least. We thought we would lose our careers if anyone traced it back to us. In fact, we were so paranoid that we posted the letter so it would never be traced. One of us then called the Guardian news desk.

The letter titled “Do you REALLY want to know ‘WHAT I AM REALLY THINKING’?” reflects all of the concerns raised on the GHQ website::

What I am really thinking is that mostly you are caught in a terrible moment of social contagion. You and your children are swirling in a toxic storm of psychological and emotional distress meeting homophobia, sexism, misogyny against the back drop of the most appalling ‘bad science’. There is no such thing as a male or female brain and you cannot be ‘born into the wrong body’. The sloppiness of the language of both the internet and the politicians does you no favours with their conflation of sex and gender. This chimes so well in the era of post Truth anti expert hatred.

The fact these clinicians were afraid to speak out using their names fits a pattern that can be found on our website covering a long history of abusive activist tactics.

References:

Biggs, M. (2019, July 22). Tavistock’s Experiment with Puberty Blockers: an Update. Transgendertrend. Retrieved from https://www.transgendertrend.com/tavistock-experiment-puberty-blockers-update/

TransgenderTrend. (2019, July 28). “We Really Really Tried.” A 2017 Letter from GIDS Clinicians Ignored by The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.transgendertrend.com/2017-letter-gids-clinicians-ignored-guardian/?fbclid=IwAR3g8_Z4fEISWtP9oWqLP8uzYIh5wJ-gjWljzbmM1BhWrE_EK7lKeb12KHA

We do not have open comments on the Gender Health Query website. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t interested in what you have to say. If you have a comment, blog post idea, or any other feedback, we would be interested if the information can be supported by science research, an informed opinion, real-world observations, or personal experiences. Please contact us.

Mental Health Professionals Write a Letter in Support of Lisa Littman's Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria Research

News

Several clinicians have stated in a letter to editor to Archives of Sexual Behavior they are observing rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD). This is a term used by Lisa Littman, a physician and researcher who published a ROGD study (Littman, 2018).

Lisa Littman’s study was removed by Brown University because trans actvists didn’t like some of the implications of the study. These were that there were large increases of females identifying as trans, that social contagion may be a factor, and they were coming out in statistically unheard of clusters. PlosOne, who published the study, also re-reviewed the paper due to activist pressure.

The letter to the editor is called “In Support of Research Into Rapid‑Onset Gender Dysphoria”:

As clinicians used to working in the field of child and adolescent gender identity development, dealing directly with the very significant distress caused by gender dysphoria, and considering deeply its multifactorial and heterogeneous etiology, we note the current debate arising from Littman’s (2018) description of a phenomenon she described as Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria. Littman’s paper on the subject was methodologically critiqued in this journal recently (Restar, 2019). While some of us have informally tended toward describing the phenomenon we witness as “adolescent-onset” gender dysphoria, that is, without any notable symptom history prior to or during the early stages of puberty (certainly nothing of clinical significance), Littman’s description resonates with our clinical experiences from within the consulting room.

Reference:

Hutchinson, A., Midgen, M., Spiliadis, A. (2019, June 12). In Support ofResearch Into Rapid‑Onset Gender Dysphoria. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01517-9

Klinghoffer, D. (2018, September 5). Suppressing Science at Brown University. Evolution News. Retrieved from https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/suppressing-science-at-brown-university/

Littman, L. (2018). Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports. PLOS ONE, 13(8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202330

We do not have open comments on the Gender Health Query website. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t interested in what you have to say. If you have a comment, blog post idea, or any other feedback, we would be interested if the information can be supported by science research, an informed opinion, real-world observations, or personal experiences. Please contact us.

Professionals from Various Backgrounds Described as "Whistleblowers" are Releasing a Book Challenging the Affirmative Model Used in Britain.

News

The Daily Mail has published an article about a book being released by an array of health professionals and academics challenging the ethics of the affirmative model used in Britain and rapidly being adopted (see here and here) everywhere in the West.

Their opinions will be highlighted in an upcoming book called Inventing Transgender Children And Young People:

The book warns:

-Doctors are failing to tell young people they are 'sacrificing' their chance to have children by taking powerful sex-change drugs;

-Psychologists are scared to question transgender ideology;

-Clinicians who resist diagnosing children as transgender face accusations of transphobia;

-Britain's only NHS child gender service is failing to acknowledge other reasons for youngsters wanting to change sex, such as autism;

-Teenagers who have 'normal feelings' of discomfort with their bodies are being classified as transgender.

Many worries and negative opinions are expressed by social science, mental health, and medical professionals:

A whistleblower from Britain's only NHS gender clinic for children said: 'I'm really angry at what's happening to these children. What I've witnessed feels incredibly distressing and disturbing and like something that should be stopped.'

The psychiatrist, who last year produced a critical internal report on GIDS which branded the service 'not fit for purpose', further warned: 'Many services have championed the use of medical and surgical intervention with nowhere near sufficient attention to the serious, irreversible damage this can cause and with very disturbingly superficial attitudes to the issue of consent in young children.'

One of the NHS gender specialists said: 'I keep thinking about all of the children, adolescents and families who are being harmed by the one-dimensional discussion and the attack on truth and on thinking and on what we know about adolescent well-being.'

Another added: 'I'm angry with all the grown-ups, all the clever people, all the thoughtful people, who are letting this happen.' One of the issues causing 'turmoil' at the clinic is the prospect that children are being rendered infertile by the medication prescribed for them.

Some of the other comments reflect issues raised by GHQ about medical consequences, the increasing numbers of females coming out as trans, trans activist pressure influencing professionals, and homophobia fueling trans identification.

The Gender Identity Services in Britain denies that they are behaving unethically and that they aren’t properly informing youth about the risks:

Last night a spokesman for GIDS insisted the service took a 'thoughtful and safe approach'. He said an internal review in response to concerns about the clinic's practices had made recommendations to address certain issues.

'However, we strongly refute the blanket and generalised criticisms of the service,' he said.

References:

Manning, S. (2019, July 13). The book that dares to take on transgender myths told to children: Experts reveal psychologists are scared to question transgender ideology, GPs are afraid of being branded transphobic and teens are being wrongly diagnosed. Daily Mail. Retrieved from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7244783/Academics-medical-experts-fears-children-number-seeking-sex-change-operations-sky-rockets.html

We do not have open comments on the Gender Health Query website. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t interested in what you have to say. If you have a comment, blog post idea, or any other feedback, we would be interested if the information can be supported by science research, an informed opinion, real-world observations, or personal experiences. Please contact us.

Mermaids Trans Youth Charity Breaches Privacy Safeguarding & Receives Internal Criticism

News

The London Times has published a story about a privacy breach committed by Mermaids, a trans support group, who receives public funds from the UK government. Mermaids promotes the gender dysphoria affirmative model for children and parents.

The article is titled “Parents’ anger as child sex change charity Mermaids puts private emails online.”

Many emails were put online where they could be seen by the public:

More than 1,000 pages of Mermaids’ confidential emails, including anguished messages from parents about their children’s suffering, were uploaded for anyone to view.

The charity has received some criticism in the released private emails:

Alongside the client emails were hundreds of revealing internal ones showing trustees’ concerns about Green’s leadership, accusations from parents that Mermaids felt like a “cult” and alcohol problems at residential weekends putting children “at risk”.

The charity has received some criticism from a Tavistock (from a trans youth clinic) clinician in the UK:

A Tavistock clinician said: “Mermaids push simplistic views, emotional blackmail and conscious misinformation at parents. They do so much harm.”

Susie Green is cooperating but also blaming some criticism on transphobia.

We do not have open comments on the Gender Health Query website. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t interested in what you have to say. If you have a comment, blog post idea, or any other feedback, we would be interested if the information can be supported by science research, an informed opinion, real-world observations, or personal experiences. Please contact us.