Bravo, FAIR! Gender-affirming care for minors is a barbaric practice that needed to be put a stop to. All the causes of gender dysphoria have yet to even be studied. It also causes irreversible permanent physical damage to the bodies of children and teens and the evidence suggests it does nothing to improve the mental health of those who undergo it. Giving kids puberty blockers and doing sex-change operations on them is reckless, cruel and not supported by science. It’s absolutely insane we ever allowed it and I’m glad the federal government will not be putting a dime towards funding or promoting it! It’s also great to see that detransitioners will have the opportunity to sue their healthcare providers who did these monstrous operations and gave them chemicals that castrated them and damaged them psychologically! One commentor asked asked how an organization that supports freedom could support an attack on a minority group. That’s not what this executive order is. It is not banning gender-affirming care across the board only for minors. Nor is it infringing on the civil rights of Transgender people. I as a liberal left-winger support this executive order 100% for that reason. The Democratic Party should be absolutely ashamed and embarrassed for ever supporting and defending genital mutilation of children! I’m so glad President Trump stepped in to protect children and teens and put their safety and scientific integrity first! 👏👏👏
"until a robust and rigorous review of all available scientific evidence confirms that such medical interventions are, in fact, medically necessary" - We already have The Cass Review that confirms the oppositie.
I believe its the American Pediatric Society that has been promising such a review for some time. Somehow it never gets started. The medical establishment's decision to ignore or undermine the Cass Review stands to its eternal shame. Let's see what the lawsuits can do to bring it to their senses.
It has been dismissed because the review did not perform any statistical analysis, there was no research performed, and therefore subject to human and gross errors.
I don’t think it was dismissed for that reason. It was a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed research that we *should* be able to trust. In fact, most European nations actually changed their guidance on “gender affirming care” based on the Cass Review. U.S. medical organizations and institutions have provided no meaningful basis for dismissing it, as far as I can tell. Just curious, do you have links/evidence to the contrary?
When a researcher reviews other research, one of the critical aspects of that review is to perform both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Take for example a company develops a new drug. The drug gets tested on 15 people for phase I, 35 people for phase II and 150 people for phase III by one research group. Other researchers look at both prospective (forward looking analysis to see how people react after taking the drug) and retrospective (looking back to see long-term outcomes on people who have already taken the drug), a review performs statistical analysis to discount issues such as age, lifestyle, gender, eating habits, activity level, to narrow down what factors contribute to the effects or lack thereof the drug. The review then says "this study performed double-blind placebo controlled" whereas this study "had serious risk of bias" thus, when aggregating all the studies instead of relying of a sample of 190 people, you can examine 2000+ patients and find the issues with the drugs or intervention. No intervention is ever without side effects, but a review that fails to perform this type of analysis is seriously biased and suspect. Here is a sample of what a proper review looks like. The review notes both the positive and negative outcomes of the research, doesn't shy away from criticizing suspect science, but acknowledged that give the benefits in suicide reduction, additional studies were needed. The CASS Review makes conclusory statements without any analysis. Scientist that say "this is bad, or this needs change" need to back up their statements with actual research, otherwise is just an opinion, no better or worse than that of a lay person.
I have already quoted the studies in my previous replies with links.
Furthermore here are the key findings of the Cass review since its being quoted so often, here is a Yale Law Review article on it:
Review: Puberty blockers for transgender and gender diverse youth-a critical review of the literature
Lynn Rew 1 , Cara C Young 1 , Maria Monge 2 , Roxanne Bogucka 3
Affiliations expand
PMID: 33320999 DOI: 10.1111/camh.12437
Abstract
Background: Increasingly, early adolescents who are transgender or gender diverse (TGD) are seeking gender-affirming healthcare services. Pediatric healthcare providers supported by professional guidelines are treating many of these children with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa), which reversibly block pubertal development, giving the child and their family more time in which to explore the possibility of medical transition.
Methods: We conducted a critical review of the literature to answer a series of questions about criteria for using puberty-blocking medications, the specific drugs used, the risks and adverse consequences and/or the positive outcomes associated with their use. We searched four databases: LGBT Life, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. From an initial sample of 211 articles, we systematically reviewed 9 research studies that met inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Results: Studies reviewed had samples ranging from 1 to 192 (N = 543). The majority (71%) of participants in these studies required a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to qualify for puberty suppression and were administered medication during Tanner stages 2 through 4. Positive outcomes were decreased suicidality in adulthood, improved affect and psychological functioning, and improved social life. Adverse factors associated with use were changes in body composition, slow growth, decreased height velocity, decreased bone turnover, cost of drugs, and lack of insurance coverage. One study met all quality criteria and was judged 'excellent', five studies met the majority of quality criteria resulting in 'good' ratings, whereas three studies were judged fair and had serious risks of bias.
Conclusion: Given the potentially life-saving benefits of these medications for TGD youth, it is critical that rigorous longitudinal and mixed methods research be conducted that includes stakeholders and members of the gender diverse community with representative samples.
Rew, L., Young, C. C., Monge, M., & Bogucka, R. (2021). Review: Puberty blockers for transgender and gender diverse youth-a critical review of the literature. Child and adolescent mental health, 26(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12437
I am aware of the McNamara et al’s Yale critique. Unfortunately, the paper appears to suffer from much of the self-interested groupthink that prompted the Cass Review.
My first red flag about the integrity of the Yale critique was the identity of the authors. Unlike Hilary Cass — who is a completely disinterested and objective professional with no stake in the outcome of her review — the Yale critique was authorized by Meredithe McNamara, and co-authored by some of the most prominent figures in gender medicine activism, including Johanna Olson-Kennedy and Jack Turban. Turban, especially, is infamous for dismissing and ignoring any practitioners who question “gender affirming care” (members of my organization, FAIR, have experienced this first hand). Olson-Kennedy, on the other hand, derives significant income from the practice of youth transitions. The financial conflicts of interest are significant.
The Yale critique was widely-hailed as the “debunking” of the Cass Review, but this is very misleading. To the contrary, the Yale Critique quickly unraveled under scrutiny from the BMJ:
Archives of Disease in Childhood (ADC) — an international pediatric journal from BMJ and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) — is a peer-reviewed analysis of the claims in the Yale paper. The BMJ’s analysis, co-authored by several of the U.K.'s leading clinicians including the past President of RCPCH, lays bare the naked self-interest in the Yale paper, concluding that the paper by McNamara et al. **is not a credible scientific effort, but rather, an attempt to influence U.S. litigation while masquerading as scientific critique.**
Here’s a sampling of the self-interest at play in the Yale paper: McNamara and several of the paper's co-authors serve as paid expert witnesses in over a dozen similar cases concerning youth gender medicine in the U.S., opposing state-imposed age restrictions on the practice. Its contributing authors have openly stated that their primary goal is to re-interpret the evidence for U.S. courts and judges, with the goal of overturning various laws imposing minimum age restrictions on youth transitions. In other words, this paper was intended to influence pending litigation.
The central premise of McNamara et al.'s paper is based on a fundamental confusion: they read the Review as if it is a clinical practice guideline, which it is not. *The Cass Review is an "independent review," a regulatory process specific to the U.K.; clinical practice guidelines are developed using a distinctly different process.*
The BMJ analysis also highlights several factual errors and misrepresentations found in the paper being examined, including its portrayal of the research conducted by the University of York. The authors conclude that it is time to move forward and focus on the implementation of the Cass Review's recommendations, in line with the NHS and the U.K.’s main medical societies.
Lastly, I frankly find it appalling that the Yale paper doesn’t address the most salient issue for parents of transgender children and addressed in the Cass Review: the unknown potential long-term adverse effects of “gender affirming care.”
Far from being a *bona fide* critique of the Cass Review, the Yale Critique is yet another example of why the medical and scientific establishment face such grave mistrust from a once-trusting citizenry. Like the media, the bias in these spaces has become so flagrant now that it may take decades to recover what has been lost.
It was a REVIEW of existing high quality research. Its conclusions based on that careful four-year analysis are very clear. America is an outlier in ignoring it. Our children and young people suffer as a result.
People are in their feelings that this is coming from Trump, but this unequivocally good and well in line with what other progressive nations in Europe have come to realize. We are just too riven by ideological commitments to puncture euphemisms like "affirming".
"potentially irreversible medical interventions that may have unknown lifelong consequences and efficacy"
The known consequences (sterility, destruction of functioning body parts, growing a beard, heart, bone, etc...associated harms) are already pretty bad. And the studies telling us how they are doing long term have either not been done and/or are not being released. There were over 17,000 minors started on these treatments in 2017-2021 according to Reuters, here in the US. Where are they now?
One thing might be to track the hormone prescriptions. People are expected to take these hormones for life. Having a national registry to keep track of who is getting them every 3 or whatever months would give us information about who is getting them, who is staying on them, for how long, and who is prescribing most of them. For 18 and up, given the executive order. Right now they are just being given out and then, as Dr. Metzger (I think it was him) said in those videos of WPATH conversations, it is expected they'll just live happily ever after.
Maybe we owe it to these people to tell them what the outcomes actually are. And the young people who were told that these drugs are medically necessary even though no one seems to be able to show this. Even though the original Dutch protocol group is now saying this:
That's an excellent question, Enrique. One of FAIR's core principles is, indeed, freedom -- which includes freedom of speech and expression. One of the challenges that medical and science professionals face now is a lack of open scientific debate and inquiry around a variety of issues, including gender.
As set forth in our statement this morning, FAIR's concern is that all available scientific evidence be considered and evaluated before allowing children to expose themselves to these medical interventions. For example, the Cass Review (commissioned by the UK's NHS) revealed many inconsistencies in WPATH's guidance, which has raised concern among health care professionals. We believe that a similar review should be conducted by the U.S. government.
Please know that FAIR does not support attacks on any group. Rather, FAIR advocates for transparency and access to unfiltered information and data in determining how members any group, whether they are in the minority or the majority, are treated.
This is a misleading statement. First, The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association guidelines do not advocate surgery before for minors wishing to explore their gender identity, in fact, it is medical malpractice to do so. FAIR's Statement and your statement imply that somehow physicians and medical professionals are not transparent when discussing with the parent of the children the appropriate medical and scientific evidence is downright dangerous. The CASS review is not a peer reviewed document, the AAP, Endocrine Society and American Psychology Association questioned the biases in the report and reaffirmed that the CASS study did not shine any new information on the subject matter. The concerns raised by professionals were similar to the reactions from professionals regarding the Wakefield MMR paper. If a review should be conducted, it should be a meta-analysis which is the gold standard in scientific research.
There are decades worth of research. Here are a few papers you can read if you believe that there is "lack" of research regarding this subject matter.
Abbott-Smith, S., Ring, N., Dougall, N., & Davey, J. (2023). Suicide prevention: What does the evidence show for the effectiveness of safety planning for children and young people? - A systematic scoping review. Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing, 30(5), 899–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12928
Jason Rafferty, COMMITTEE ON PSYCHOSOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHILD AND FAMILY HEALTH, COMMITTEE ON ADOLESCENCE, SECTION ON LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER HEALTH AND WELLNESS, Michael Yogman, Rebecca Baum, Thresia B. Gambon, Arthur Lavin, Gerri Mattson, Lawrence Sagin Wissow, Cora Breuner, Elizabeth M. Alderman, Laura K. Grubb, Makia E. Powers, Krishna Upadhya, Stephenie B. Wallace, Lynn Hunt, Anne Teresa Gearhart, Christopher Harris, Kathryn Melland Lowe, Chadwick Taylor Rodgers, Ilana Michelle Sherer; Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics October 2018; 142 (4): e20182162. 10.1542/peds.2018-2162
Virupaksha, H. G., Muralidhar, D., & Ramakrishna, J. (2016). Suicide and Suicidal Behavior among Transgender Persons. Indian journal of psychological medicine, 38(6), 505–509. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7176.194908
Haas, A. P., Eliason, M., Mays, V. M., Mathy, R. M., Cochran, S. D., D'Augelli, A. R., Silverman, M. M., Fisher, P. W., Hughes, T., Rosario, M., Russell, S. T., Malley, E., Reed, J., Litts, D. A., Haller, E., Sell, R. L., Remafedi, G., Bradford, J., Beautrais, A. L., Brown, G. K., … Clayton, P. J. (2011). Suicide and suicide risk in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations: review and recommendations. Journal of homosexuality, 58(1), 10–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.534038
Interesting that many of the medical proponents of these treatments are currently being sued by those who were subject to them. The pediatric gender clinic in Rhode Island run by Jason Rafferty has scrubbed its web presence. Rafferty is the sole author of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement on the 'gender-affirming care' method and is being sued along with the AAP by a detransitioner.
Cass is not "peer reviewed" because it IS a review. And a very careful and scrupulous one. American medicine ignores it at its peril, and shame.
Is there any more sinister euphemism than "gender affirming care?" This so-called care when it takes the form of medical intervention is nothing less than medical malpractice.
and an an an attack on children, especially on children who do not conform to sexist stereotypes in terms of their behavior and choices. the evidence on this is clear. read "Time to Think" by Hannah Barnes. Read the Cass Review.
It is medical care approved by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Endocrinology Society and the American Psychology Association?
The CASS paper did not provide statistics, it makes statements without analysis of the statistical significance of any outcome. It quotes papers selectively.
I have previously provided not one but 4 additional articles which outline the complex dynamics of transition for children and young adults. Where is your evidence to call care approved by medical academies “malpractice “?
As Sall Grover has written elsewhere: "I fear that anyone who has to actually be told not to sterilize children will never listen to any form of evidence against what they’re doing."
It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the dishonest marketing euphemism "care."
It is experimental elective cosmetic drugging and surgery. That's dangerous enough to practice on adults. To practice it on minors is, indeed, medical malpractice.
Please feel free to argue this with Riittakerttu Kaltiala:
Thank you, FAIR, for your thoughtful analysis and for your tireless advocacy for those harmed under the guise of 'gender affirming care'. I've watched too many heartbreaking interviews with young people who have made irreversible changes to their bodies, and are full of regret.
Bravo, FAIR! Gender-affirming care for minors is a barbaric practice that needed to be put a stop to. All the causes of gender dysphoria have yet to even be studied. It also causes irreversible permanent physical damage to the bodies of children and teens and the evidence suggests it does nothing to improve the mental health of those who undergo it. Giving kids puberty blockers and doing sex-change operations on them is reckless, cruel and not supported by science. It’s absolutely insane we ever allowed it and I’m glad the federal government will not be putting a dime towards funding or promoting it! It’s also great to see that detransitioners will have the opportunity to sue their healthcare providers who did these monstrous operations and gave them chemicals that castrated them and damaged them psychologically! One commentor asked asked how an organization that supports freedom could support an attack on a minority group. That’s not what this executive order is. It is not banning gender-affirming care across the board only for minors. Nor is it infringing on the civil rights of Transgender people. I as a liberal left-winger support this executive order 100% for that reason. The Democratic Party should be absolutely ashamed and embarrassed for ever supporting and defending genital mutilation of children! I’m so glad President Trump stepped in to protect children and teens and put their safety and scientific integrity first! 👏👏👏
Ur sick
How are sterilizing children and stunting their intellectual, physical and emotional growth ever justified?
"until a robust and rigorous review of all available scientific evidence confirms that such medical interventions are, in fact, medically necessary" - We already have The Cass Review that confirms the oppositie.
Unfortunately, the Cass Review has been dismissed in the U.S. A similar review, commissioned by the NIH, is appropriate and necessary.
I believe its the American Pediatric Society that has been promising such a review for some time. Somehow it never gets started. The medical establishment's decision to ignore or undermine the Cass Review stands to its eternal shame. Let's see what the lawsuits can do to bring it to their senses.
Or maybe even release the results of the $10M study that NIH funded on puberty blockers, but the author refuses to publish?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/science/puberty-blockers-olson-kennedy.html
Good ole Johanna Olson-Kennedy, the Cruella Deville of gender-enforcing medical conversion therapy for vulnerable minors.
It has been dismissed because the review did not perform any statistical analysis, there was no research performed, and therefore subject to human and gross errors.
I don’t think it was dismissed for that reason. It was a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed research that we *should* be able to trust. In fact, most European nations actually changed their guidance on “gender affirming care” based on the Cass Review. U.S. medical organizations and institutions have provided no meaningful basis for dismissing it, as far as I can tell. Just curious, do you have links/evidence to the contrary?
When a researcher reviews other research, one of the critical aspects of that review is to perform both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Take for example a company develops a new drug. The drug gets tested on 15 people for phase I, 35 people for phase II and 150 people for phase III by one research group. Other researchers look at both prospective (forward looking analysis to see how people react after taking the drug) and retrospective (looking back to see long-term outcomes on people who have already taken the drug), a review performs statistical analysis to discount issues such as age, lifestyle, gender, eating habits, activity level, to narrow down what factors contribute to the effects or lack thereof the drug. The review then says "this study performed double-blind placebo controlled" whereas this study "had serious risk of bias" thus, when aggregating all the studies instead of relying of a sample of 190 people, you can examine 2000+ patients and find the issues with the drugs or intervention. No intervention is ever without side effects, but a review that fails to perform this type of analysis is seriously biased and suspect. Here is a sample of what a proper review looks like. The review notes both the positive and negative outcomes of the research, doesn't shy away from criticizing suspect science, but acknowledged that give the benefits in suicide reduction, additional studies were needed. The CASS Review makes conclusory statements without any analysis. Scientist that say "this is bad, or this needs change" need to back up their statements with actual research, otherwise is just an opinion, no better or worse than that of a lay person.
I have already quoted the studies in my previous replies with links.
Furthermore here are the key findings of the Cass review since its being quoted so often, here is a Yale Law Review article on it:
https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf
Review: Puberty blockers for transgender and gender diverse youth-a critical review of the literature
Lynn Rew 1 , Cara C Young 1 , Maria Monge 2 , Roxanne Bogucka 3
Affiliations expand
PMID: 33320999 DOI: 10.1111/camh.12437
Abstract
Background: Increasingly, early adolescents who are transgender or gender diverse (TGD) are seeking gender-affirming healthcare services. Pediatric healthcare providers supported by professional guidelines are treating many of these children with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa), which reversibly block pubertal development, giving the child and their family more time in which to explore the possibility of medical transition.
Methods: We conducted a critical review of the literature to answer a series of questions about criteria for using puberty-blocking medications, the specific drugs used, the risks and adverse consequences and/or the positive outcomes associated with their use. We searched four databases: LGBT Life, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. From an initial sample of 211 articles, we systematically reviewed 9 research studies that met inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Results: Studies reviewed had samples ranging from 1 to 192 (N = 543). The majority (71%) of participants in these studies required a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to qualify for puberty suppression and were administered medication during Tanner stages 2 through 4. Positive outcomes were decreased suicidality in adulthood, improved affect and psychological functioning, and improved social life. Adverse factors associated with use were changes in body composition, slow growth, decreased height velocity, decreased bone turnover, cost of drugs, and lack of insurance coverage. One study met all quality criteria and was judged 'excellent', five studies met the majority of quality criteria resulting in 'good' ratings, whereas three studies were judged fair and had serious risks of bias.
Conclusion: Given the potentially life-saving benefits of these medications for TGD youth, it is critical that rigorous longitudinal and mixed methods research be conducted that includes stakeholders and members of the gender diverse community with representative samples.
Rew, L., Young, C. C., Monge, M., & Bogucka, R. (2021). Review: Puberty blockers for transgender and gender diverse youth-a critical review of the literature. Child and adolescent mental health, 26(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12437
Thank you, Enrique.
I am aware of the McNamara et al’s Yale critique. Unfortunately, the paper appears to suffer from much of the self-interested groupthink that prompted the Cass Review.
My first red flag about the integrity of the Yale critique was the identity of the authors. Unlike Hilary Cass — who is a completely disinterested and objective professional with no stake in the outcome of her review — the Yale critique was authorized by Meredithe McNamara, and co-authored by some of the most prominent figures in gender medicine activism, including Johanna Olson-Kennedy and Jack Turban. Turban, especially, is infamous for dismissing and ignoring any practitioners who question “gender affirming care” (members of my organization, FAIR, have experienced this first hand). Olson-Kennedy, on the other hand, derives significant income from the practice of youth transitions. The financial conflicts of interest are significant.
The Yale critique was widely-hailed as the “debunking” of the Cass Review, but this is very misleading. To the contrary, the Yale Critique quickly unraveled under scrutiny from the BMJ:
https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/10/15/archdischild-2024-327994
The BMJ’s analysis, published in
Archives of Disease in Childhood (ADC) — an international pediatric journal from BMJ and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) — is a peer-reviewed analysis of the claims in the Yale paper. The BMJ’s analysis, co-authored by several of the U.K.'s leading clinicians including the past President of RCPCH, lays bare the naked self-interest in the Yale paper, concluding that the paper by McNamara et al. **is not a credible scientific effort, but rather, an attempt to influence U.S. litigation while masquerading as scientific critique.**
Here’s a sampling of the self-interest at play in the Yale paper: McNamara and several of the paper's co-authors serve as paid expert witnesses in over a dozen similar cases concerning youth gender medicine in the U.S., opposing state-imposed age restrictions on the practice. Its contributing authors have openly stated that their primary goal is to re-interpret the evidence for U.S. courts and judges, with the goal of overturning various laws imposing minimum age restrictions on youth transitions. In other words, this paper was intended to influence pending litigation.
The central premise of McNamara et al.'s paper is based on a fundamental confusion: they read the Review as if it is a clinical practice guideline, which it is not. *The Cass Review is an "independent review," a regulatory process specific to the U.K.; clinical practice guidelines are developed using a distinctly different process.*
The BMJ analysis also highlights several factual errors and misrepresentations found in the paper being examined, including its portrayal of the research conducted by the University of York. The authors conclude that it is time to move forward and focus on the implementation of the Cass Review's recommendations, in line with the NHS and the U.K.’s main medical societies.
Lastly, I frankly find it appalling that the Yale paper doesn’t address the most salient issue for parents of transgender children and addressed in the Cass Review: the unknown potential long-term adverse effects of “gender affirming care.”
Far from being a *bona fide* critique of the Cass Review, the Yale Critique is yet another example of why the medical and scientific establishment face such grave mistrust from a once-trusting citizenry. Like the media, the bias in these spaces has become so flagrant now that it may take decades to recover what has been lost.
Very sad, and very shameful.
Standing ovation, Monica.
It was a REVIEW of existing high quality research. Its conclusions based on that careful four-year analysis are very clear. America is an outlier in ignoring it. Our children and young people suffer as a result.
Not to mention the WPATH Files and countless global systematic evidence reviews. The lefty media ignored almost all of it.
People are in their feelings that this is coming from Trump, but this unequivocally good and well in line with what other progressive nations in Europe have come to realize. We are just too riven by ideological commitments to puncture euphemisms like "affirming".
"potentially irreversible medical interventions that may have unknown lifelong consequences and efficacy"
The known consequences (sterility, destruction of functioning body parts, growing a beard, heart, bone, etc...associated harms) are already pretty bad. And the studies telling us how they are doing long term have either not been done and/or are not being released. There were over 17,000 minors started on these treatments in 2017-2021 according to Reuters, here in the US. Where are they now?
One thing might be to track the hormone prescriptions. People are expected to take these hormones for life. Having a national registry to keep track of who is getting them every 3 or whatever months would give us information about who is getting them, who is staying on them, for how long, and who is prescribing most of them. For 18 and up, given the executive order. Right now they are just being given out and then, as Dr. Metzger (I think it was him) said in those videos of WPATH conversations, it is expected they'll just live happily ever after.
Maybe we owe it to these people to tell them what the outcomes actually are. And the young people who were told that these drugs are medically necessary even though no one seems to be able to show this. Even though the original Dutch protocol group is now saying this:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39716168/ .
Bravo!
'Gender Affirming Care" is Elephantoplasty:
https://youtu.be/SnDm3HaCQeg
How can an organization that supports freedom tolerate this fragrant attack on a minority group??? Wow
That's an excellent question, Enrique. One of FAIR's core principles is, indeed, freedom -- which includes freedom of speech and expression. One of the challenges that medical and science professionals face now is a lack of open scientific debate and inquiry around a variety of issues, including gender.
As set forth in our statement this morning, FAIR's concern is that all available scientific evidence be considered and evaluated before allowing children to expose themselves to these medical interventions. For example, the Cass Review (commissioned by the UK's NHS) revealed many inconsistencies in WPATH's guidance, which has raised concern among health care professionals. We believe that a similar review should be conducted by the U.S. government.
Please know that FAIR does not support attacks on any group. Rather, FAIR advocates for transparency and access to unfiltered information and data in determining how members any group, whether they are in the minority or the majority, are treated.
Monica,
This is a misleading statement. First, The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association guidelines do not advocate surgery before for minors wishing to explore their gender identity, in fact, it is medical malpractice to do so. FAIR's Statement and your statement imply that somehow physicians and medical professionals are not transparent when discussing with the parent of the children the appropriate medical and scientific evidence is downright dangerous. The CASS review is not a peer reviewed document, the AAP, Endocrine Society and American Psychology Association questioned the biases in the report and reaffirmed that the CASS study did not shine any new information on the subject matter. The concerns raised by professionals were similar to the reactions from professionals regarding the Wakefield MMR paper. If a review should be conducted, it should be a meta-analysis which is the gold standard in scientific research.
There are decades worth of research. Here are a few papers you can read if you believe that there is "lack" of research regarding this subject matter.
Abbott-Smith, S., Ring, N., Dougall, N., & Davey, J. (2023). Suicide prevention: What does the evidence show for the effectiveness of safety planning for children and young people? - A systematic scoping review. Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing, 30(5), 899–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12928
Jason Rafferty, COMMITTEE ON PSYCHOSOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHILD AND FAMILY HEALTH, COMMITTEE ON ADOLESCENCE, SECTION ON LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER HEALTH AND WELLNESS, Michael Yogman, Rebecca Baum, Thresia B. Gambon, Arthur Lavin, Gerri Mattson, Lawrence Sagin Wissow, Cora Breuner, Elizabeth M. Alderman, Laura K. Grubb, Makia E. Powers, Krishna Upadhya, Stephenie B. Wallace, Lynn Hunt, Anne Teresa Gearhart, Christopher Harris, Kathryn Melland Lowe, Chadwick Taylor Rodgers, Ilana Michelle Sherer; Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics October 2018; 142 (4): e20182162. 10.1542/peds.2018-2162
Virupaksha, H. G., Muralidhar, D., & Ramakrishna, J. (2016). Suicide and Suicidal Behavior among Transgender Persons. Indian journal of psychological medicine, 38(6), 505–509. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7176.194908
Haas, A. P., Eliason, M., Mays, V. M., Mathy, R. M., Cochran, S. D., D'Augelli, A. R., Silverman, M. M., Fisher, P. W., Hughes, T., Rosario, M., Russell, S. T., Malley, E., Reed, J., Litts, D. A., Haller, E., Sell, R. L., Remafedi, G., Bradford, J., Beautrais, A. L., Brown, G. K., … Clayton, P. J. (2011). Suicide and suicide risk in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations: review and recommendations. Journal of homosexuality, 58(1), 10–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.534038
Interesting that many of the medical proponents of these treatments are currently being sued by those who were subject to them. The pediatric gender clinic in Rhode Island run by Jason Rafferty has scrubbed its web presence. Rafferty is the sole author of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement on the 'gender-affirming care' method and is being sued along with the AAP by a detransitioner.
Cass is not "peer reviewed" because it IS a review. And a very careful and scrupulous one. American medicine ignores it at its peril, and shame.
Whether they support it (medicalization of 'gender' distressed minors) or not, that medicalization has been happening.
Why are they not opposing it?
Where is the ethical compass of the Hippocratic Oath?
Is there any more sinister euphemism than "gender affirming care?" This so-called care when it takes the form of medical intervention is nothing less than medical malpractice.
and an an an attack on children, especially on children who do not conform to sexist stereotypes in terms of their behavior and choices. the evidence on this is clear. read "Time to Think" by Hannah Barnes. Read the Cass Review.
It is medical care approved by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Endocrinology Society and the American Psychology Association?
The CASS paper did not provide statistics, it makes statements without analysis of the statistical significance of any outcome. It quotes papers selectively.
I have previously provided not one but 4 additional articles which outline the complex dynamics of transition for children and young adults. Where is your evidence to call care approved by medical academies “malpractice “?
As Sall Grover has written elsewhere: "I fear that anyone who has to actually be told not to sterilize children will never listen to any form of evidence against what they’re doing."
It is gender-enforcing medical intervention.
It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the dishonest marketing euphemism "care."
It is experimental elective cosmetic drugging and surgery. That's dangerous enough to practice on adults. To practice it on minors is, indeed, medical malpractice.
Please feel free to argue this with Riittakerttu Kaltiala:
https://www.thefp.com/p/gender-affirming-care-dangerous-finland-doctor
Lol
Indeed.
What’s so funny?
There is no such thing as a trans kid. What minority group are you talking about?
He’s talking about the poor marginalized and oppressed minority of. . .[checks notes]. . .white men.
Are you suggesting that gender dysmorphia doesn’t exist?
Are you suggesting that humans can change sex?
No. I'm saying it doesn't define you or make you a new class of person.
I'm also saying surgery and the mutilation of healthy genitals is wrong. It's malpractice. The govt should not support it.
Thank you, FAIR, for your thoughtful analysis and for your tireless advocacy for those harmed under the guise of 'gender affirming care'. I've watched too many heartbreaking interviews with young people who have made irreversible changes to their bodies, and are full of regret.