It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
My hard line is when I’m expected to believe their fantasies.
41% is probably the lowest I've seen this figure. It's medically irresponsible and against the Hippocratic Oath to give children puberty blockers in light of these statistics alone.
Never was an issue for most people.
Until the usual suspects started making which bathroom to use a GD national emergency.
originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: Boadicea
It crosses my personal line when their rights over rule mine. When people in some places can be criminally charged for expressing opposing views on the subject- which has actually started to happen- you have trampled all over the Constitution!
Dress, act, live as you like. Heck, even raise your own kids how you want. But I get to say whatever the heck I want about it!
originally posted by: ketsuko
I draw the line when we get told repeatedly in their defense that gender and sex are different ... but then they turn around and compete on the basis of sex as though their mental gender overrides biology... [snip]... I'm sorry, but there is a reason why we have men's and women's sports. It's because men's and women's biological realities are different...
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea
Puberty hormones are hard enough to deal with without adding to the hormone soup with stuff not intended to be there.
Off-Label Use for Gender Dysphoria
In the off-label use of Lupron for ‘pausing puberty’ in the transgender population, it should be understood that Lupron is rarely identified as “Lupron”, but is called a “puberty-blocker”, “hormone blocker”, or “a puberty-suppressing drug”. No doubt this language shift is an attempt to prevent an association with the ‘dreaded Lupron’. It should also be noted that a reproductive biologist has stated ‘puberty suppressing treatment’ “impairs the children’s reproductive capacity” and:
“[s]ome trans boys (i.e. girls) receive puberty-suppressing treatment and never produce mature ovarian follicles … the problem is accentuated with trans girls (i.e. boys) because their spermatozoa are still developing.”
Additional alarming acknowledgments within the transgender population’s off-label use of Lupron are that:
“[p]otential long-term effects can include other abnormalities of hormones, vascular complications and even potential cancer.”
According to UnitedHealthcare policy, “pubertal suppression therapy is considered unsafe in managing children and adolescents with gender identity dysphoria and is, therefore, not covered.” Other insurers do cover treatment of gender dysphoria with Lupron. One Canadian consent form for Lupron treatment of natal females with gender dysphoria identifies a number of risks, and twice repeats the warning that “there may be long-term side effects we do not yet know about”.
In 2015, the NIH awarded $5.7 million for a 5-year multi-center study which
“will be the first in the U.S. to evaluate the long-term outcomes of medical treatment for transgender youth“, seeking data on the “physiological and psychosocial impact, as well as safety, of hormone blockers.”
While sparse data exist regarding the impact of puberty suppression and gender-affirming hormones administered during adolescence, there have been promising results from the Netherlands indicating that this approach in adolescents results in improved quality of life and diminished gender dysphoria.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently published a policy statement entitled, Ensuring comprehensive care and support for transgender and gender-diverse children and adolescents (Rafferty, 2018). It was quite a remarkable document: Although almost all clinics and professional associations in the world use what’s called the watchful waiting approach to helping GD children, the AAP statement rejected that consensus, endorsing only gender affirmation.
The AAP statement was also remarkable in what it left out—namely, the outcomes research on GD children. There have been eleven follow-up studies of GD children, of which AAP cited one [Wallien & Cohen Kettenis (2008)], doing so without actually mentioning the outcome data it contained. The literature on outcomes was neither reviewed, summarized, nor subjected to meta-analysis to be considered in the aggregate—It was merely disappeared. (I have presented the complete list of the outcome studies on this blog before; they appear again at the bottom of this page together with their results, for reference.) As they make clear, every follow-up study of GD children, without exception, found the same thing: By puberty, the majority of GD children ceased to want to transition. AAP is, of course, free to establish whatever policy it likes on whatever basis it likes. But any assertion that their policy is based on evidence is demonstrably false, as detailed below.
AAP is advocating for something far in excess of mainstream practice and medical consensus. In the presence of compelling evidence, that would be exactly called for. The problems in Rafferty (2018), however, do not constitute merely a misquote, a misinterpretation of an ambiguous statement, or missing a reference or two. Rather, AAP’s statement is a systematic exclusion and misrepresentation of entire literatures. Not only did AAP fail to provide extraordinary evidence, it failed to provide the evidence at all. Indeed, AAP’s recommendations are despite the existing evidence.