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: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66
It's what happens when you take puberty blocking drugs and more and more often, allowing your very young child to transition and affirm their new gender isn't just about letting them look and act the new role, but it's also about putting them on puberty blockers. Those drugs will tend to actually prevent them from developing normally rendering them sterile for life whether we're talking about a boy or a girl, and then, of course, the appropriate opposite sex hormones are artificially introduced.
But even if the child late on decides they aren't actually that gender and wants to go back, even if there has been no surgical alteration, the damage is already done, and they will be sterile for life. So, yes, chemical castration is appropriate no matter the true biological sex.
In regard to the topic at hand though, diagnosis and treatment are conducted by a team of medical and psychological professionals over a course of many years. The process is not whimsical nor under the parents' control as has been implied here.
Despite being relatively new, the treatment is becoming a standard in care for transgender adolescents. In 2009, the Endocrine Society published a best-practices guide for treating transgender teens that included the use of puberty suppressants. Last year, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a technical report on care for LGBTQ youth that gave its blessing to the Endocrine Society's best practices. And in September, the journal Pediatrics published a long-term study that found that gender-dysphoric teens who underwent puberty suppression, followed by hormone treatment and gender-reassignment surgery, could become well-functioning adults.
originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Raggedyman
I guess god better hurry up and smite these sinners!
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raggedyman
Eventually fringe groups become the populace, sadly
The minority become the majority? Dreadful.
Cro-magnon rules! Dude. Neanderthal drools.
Evolution in action.
So humanity is evolving into a bunch of chemically castrated beings that will more or less see themselves extinct within a few generations?
I guess we can call that progress. Progressives destroy whatever they touch.
Although if minorities become majorities, I'll be waiting for the day when albino animals rule the earth! It is, apparently, inevitable, no?
One of the more recent medical developments is the use of puberty blockers to treat children who are transgender or gender non-conforming. The medications, which suppress the body’s production of estrogen or testosterone, essentially pause the changes that would occur during puberty. “That’s really what these pubertal blockers do,” Dr. Rob Garofalo told FRONTLINE. Garofalo is the director of the Lurie Children’s Hospital’s Gender and Sex Development Program. “They allow these families the opportunity to hit a pause button, to prevent natal puberty … until we know that that’s either the right or the wrong direction for their particular child.”
Puberty blockers have been tested and used for children who start puberty very young — if their bodies start to change before the age of eight or nine. Dr. Courtney Finlayson, a pediatric endocrinologist at Lurie Children’s Hospital, said, “We have a lot of experience in pediatric endocrinology using pubertal blockers. And from all the evidence we have they are generally a very safe medication.”
“I wouldn’t use [puberty blockers] if I didn’t think that they were safe, or that the benefits didn’t outweigh the potential risks,” Finlayson said. “But we always have this conversation with families before we start.”
We identified genetic variants in 20 genes that may play a role in transgender identity. The most promising of these include variants of genes involved in neurologic development and sex hormone pathways. We will continue to enroll transgender patients and their families. We will also perform functional analysis to assess the extent that selected variants affect their respective pathways.
... Dee points put that the decision had nothing to do with gender roles...
Finally, the decision about implementing GnRH treatment is very difficult and cannot be made without ethical dilemmas. Both opponents and advocates of pubertal suppression are guided by the same ethical principles, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and autonomy, but have different views on where these principles lead. A unique and clear overview is necessary, and, to this day, it has not yet been elaborated. Considering that GnRH treatment is relatively new and controversial, additional qualitative research and empirical studies are necessary for appropriate bioethical definitions.
In both studies, the authors indicated that this cross-sex hormonal therapy is safe for transgender youth over a period of approximately two years. However, the strongest argument against cross-sex therapy lies in the lack of knowledge of its long-term effects, which means that more studies and follow-up information are necessary. One of the questions is a possibility for cross-sex hormonal therapy in individuals below 16 years of age. The authors of the latest guidelines of the Endocrine Society recognized this possibility but only on a “case by case” principle, meaning that age does not always accurately reflect one's readiness for medical interventions.
I am writing to you as a former clinician from the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in Leeds. I wish to outline the concerns I had at the time of working there and the concerns that have either grown or developed since I left...
I think it is a problem that GIDS clinicians are making decisions that will have a major impact on children and young people’s bodies and on their lives, potentially the rest of their lives, without a robust evidence base. GIDS clinicians tell children and families that puberty blockers/hormone blocks are “fully reversible” but the reality is no one knows what the impacts are on children’s brains so how is it possible to make this claim? It is also a problem that GIDS clinicians are afraid of raising their concerns for fear of being labelled transphobic by colleagues.
Sue Evans worked at the Tavistock clinic for years but grew so concerned that she became a whistleblower.
She was a mental health nurse and psychotherapist in the centre’s gender identity development service between 2003 and 2007 and found the pace at which children were assessed and referred for hormone blocking therapy was much faster than in other areas of children’s mental health.
Her husband, Marcus Evans, was a psychoanalyst in the Tavistock’s adult service and later became a governor of the trust but quit over its response to a complaint raised by another governor.
David Bell, who sat on the Tavistock’s board, wrote a report saying it was not fit for purpose and not taking into account other factors that may be behind a child’s wish to transition.
Another former employee, Kirsty Entwhistle, who worked as a psychologist at the centre’s service in Leeds, wrote an open letter in July saying that staff were too quick to assess a young person and that clinicians who disagreed were branded “transphobic”.
Evans resigned as a governor of the trust in February in protest at its response to criticism from a former member of its council of governors, David Bell, who had raised concerns from 10 members of staff. “They reported inadequate assessments, patients pushed through for early medical interventions and an inability to stand up to pressure from trans lobbies,” Evans said.
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.
We are very happy to publish that letter here. We are very grateful to the GIDS clinicians for writing such a powerful and honest testimony and for allowing us to publish it. The rest of this post is in their own words: