Middle schoolers who protested trans athlete in girls shotput competition banned from next competition. lawsuit filed

having disproven your digression -- which i see as attempted distraction or some weird inaccurate flex -- what does it have to do with a middle school kid competing trans?

cause otherwise, paragraph 1 of the thing is saying we're not contesting identity or validity. it does say in passing some folks detransition, and gets into the complicated ethics of how to deal with the issues, but when one of its principles is, we don't question this, and its conclusions tend to "we don't know," how is this helping one way or the other?

best i can grasp, the argument here seems to go, some of the therapies are questioned, ergo i am going to question the whole thing, ergo if the whole thing is questionable this kid shouldn't get to shot put. which would fail logic class.

Well done, you just revealed you didn't read it. Instead you are parroting a lie that got trotted out on twitter by trans rights activists before the review was even published. Cass noted that only a handful of studies were high quality yet *nevertheless* was exceptionally clear that it included all of the studies (dozens) it ranked as 'moderate'. Have a read of the studies yourself if you don't believe they are not high quality, they are utter dog sh*t. Tiny follow up times and massive drop out rates (typically *40%* over 12 months when just 5% is enough to potentially bias a study).

This is BS that's been made up out of whole cloth and spread by parties who have form for telling lies about "youth gender medicine" - especially orgs like Stonewall, Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence in the UK and individuals like Erin Reed, Alejandra Caraballo and Jack Turban in the US.

If you had bothered to read theCass review and other information released by Cass, you'd know that the Cass review did not find "90+% of the studies they looked at not good enough" and so decided " to toss most of them" like you claim.

Cass has explained to numerous press outlets in well-publicized interviews that her team of researchers appraised every single relevant paper on so-called puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in the published literature. They based their final analysis and findings on the papers that were graded as either medium quality or high quality.

Whereas you allege that the Cass team only judged "like 4-6 out of around 100 studies" to be of high enough standard to use, Cass says her team found 60 out of 103 relevant papers were high enough in quality for them to use.

Seems to me Cass herself is a more trustworthy source than you with all your made-up baloney and bloviating bluster.

In an inteview with the Times (of London), Cass has this to say about the BS you are spreading:

"It is straight disinformation. It is completely inaccurate.It started the day before the report came out when an influencer posted a picture of a list of papers that were apparently rejected because they were not randomised control trials

“That list has absolutely nothing to do with either our report or any of the papers."

Cass had this to say about you and the other rumor-mongerers dead-set on spreading disinformation about the report that her team spent four years working on:

“If you deliberately try to undermine a report that has looked at the evidence of children’s healthcare, then that’s unforgivable. You are putting children at risk by doing that.”

BBC, 20 April 2024:

A total of 103 scientific papers [about so-called puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in or relevant to youth getting "gender care"] were analysed by her review, with 2% considered high quality, and 98% not.

"There were quite a number of studies that were considered to be moderate quality, and those were all included in the analysis," she [Cass] said.

"So nearly 60% of the studies were actually included in what's called the synthesis."

"Adults who deliberately spread misinformation about this topic are putting young people at risk, and in my view that is unforgivable.

Nope. Nice try.
This is categorically of the left. And I don’t hear many of you speaking up.

"Wales Online" article you cited above has this:

NHS England plans to have a trial into the use of puberty blockers up and running by December 2024.

All the articles also say the minors who are currently on puberty blockers can continue to take them. So only the new patients will have to be enrolled in the clinical trial. Based on the numbers cited on Scotland and Wales, that will be an extremely small number.

Since only people born with testes could have testicular cancer, this is entirely irrelevant for trans people who were assigned female at birth.

And trans people who were assigned male at birth want to get rid of their testes. So atrophy and calcification of testicular tissue are not a problem for them, either.

Binary categorization is idiotic. I don’t identify as left but do as transympathetic, probably one of the most so on this forum.

Middle schoolers are fvcking idiots

Yeahhhhh but cancer could be a huge problem for them, amiright?

Genius.

Yes, NHS England has said it's hoping to have a trial up and running by the end of the year. But I dunno how sincere that is. It could be just a sop to quell the angry, noisy activists. The NHS plays politics all the time and has form for covering its ass. Just as it has form for long delays and not delivering on many of the promises it makes.

When the NHS's history of not making good on its word is added to the all the dificulties involved in designing and pulling off a drug trial of "puberty blockers" on children in a way that can pass muster with ethics panels, watchdogs and the courts, I think it's unilkely that there will be a study up and running by December. In fact, I think it's unlikely there will ever be one - as the rules for drug trials on children are so strict, especially kids who are in perfect health physically. I honestly can't see how anyone can justify putting kids who don't have a physical health problem that puts their lives at risk on powerful GnRHa drugs that will leave them stunted and sterilized when there's no good reason to do so beyond helping them look a certain way. But who knows?

As for the kids currently on "puberty blockers" for gender identity reasons, the NHS has already said there are fewer than 100 in England right now. They will all be able to continue on the drugs for the time being, just like the kids in Scotland and Wales.

I think that's the right call. It would be unconscionably cruel to force kids who are on these drugs suddenly to go off them. The change in policy must be very distressing for the children and families already on the medical path. They deserve care and consideration...

Then again, this can't have come as a surprise to the parents. The reason the number of kids currenly on these drugs for gender reasons in England, Wales and Scotland is already so small is because in the UK as in the rest of Europe, there's been a sea change in public attitude towards "youth gender medicine" in the past few years. So clinicians have been scaling back or putting on the brakes altogether.

I've been on the boards long enough to know that you're completely captured by this movement, but I had no idea you were this cruel. I mean, just reread what you've written. You've also accidentally said the quiet part out loud by saying that kids on puberty blockers (remember that pesky high desistence rate) 'want to get rid of their testes'. What happened to 'press the pause button and decide in your own time?'. Now it's 'quick, lop them off before they go cancerous'. Also, do you not think that if they've found issues with testes in early human studies that they won't find them with ovaries/other organs that rely on puberty occurring? I can't believe I'm actually having to write this stuff, it's baffling that you're still 100% behind this ideology when we literally know the harm it is causing.

This seems like an apt time for this video from several years ago.

When this video was made, activists were still claiming that putting kids on "puberty blockers" would give them a "pause" in the growing-up process that would allow them "time to think" about whether they really wanted to "medically transition."

But activists stopped using the "time to think" and "just a pause" justifications when clinicians revealed that 98% of kids put on "puberty blockers" for gender identity reasons proceed to cross-sex hormones - and most of the kids who go that far end up getting surgeries to remove or rearrange body parts, and/or add prosthetics.

So instead of giving kids with gender identity issues more time to figure out who they are and consider their options, "puberty blockers" seem to be the gateway drug that closes out options, locks kids into a trans identity, and puts them on a sure path to further medical interventions. Putting kids on "puberty blockers" inssures that they will spend the entire rest ofo their lives as medical patients dependent on Big Pharma products.

Practically all medicine has a yin and yang to it. Nothing new to see here. People pick a treatment because the benefits outweigh the risks as they see them.

Not as you see them. Coz you are irrelevant.

We see this in nearly every aspect of society where wokeism (and it is wokeism) is being crammed down everyone’s throats

you think punishing these girls is breeding the next generation of “do what we want or else” woke that the left wants to see?

it’s only gonna piss these kids off more

see unc frat boys

Yin- block a natural process that cures gender dysphoria in the vast majority of youth.

Yang- testicular cancer and sterility.

What a choice.

Or they may be folding the new patients into "clinical researches" in order to deflect political pressures from anti-trans activists. They say more research is needed, and they cannot do any research if they stop the program completely.

This means that the initial diagnosis that led to the use of puberty blockers are overwhelmingly accurate, and giving them puberty blockers was the right decision for at least 98% of the cases. The remaining 2% do not necessarily regret that they were given the option of further exploring their identity.

Now I have to wonder which elective medical procedures have higher than 2% regret rates, and whether all of them need to be banned for minors. What I find interesting is that we hear so many times how the interests of the many should override the interests of the few. But in this case, the interests of the few (2% who stop the transition) must override the interests of the many (98% who are satisfied with their treatment).

And what about the ~40% of participants who typically drop out of these extremely low quality studies and therefore aren't included in your ridiculous "2%". You reckon they're 'satisfied'?