Thread by @gwennelsonuk

More nonsense about trans healthcare:

Blockers are apparently bad because they're also used for cancer, or for chemical castration of sex offenders.

They're specifically used for androgen sensitive prostate cancer.

Basically, blockers block hormones (duh). For prostate cancer, lowering testosterone can help shrink the prostate and any cancerous tissue.

They are NOT some kind of chemotherapy drug and don't have the same side effects.

They are sometimes used to chemically castrate sex offenders for the same reason: lowering testosterone reduces libido and thus sexual urges.

How this makes them inherently bad when used in other conditions I don't know, though it's clever to subtly associate.

By saying sex offenders in the same discussion as puberty blockers transphobes can subtly imply even on a subconscious level that puberty blockers are bad too, or equivalent to a criminal punishment.

Another big distinction is that puberty blockers are only used temporarily - kids either stop them and go on to "natural" puberty, or they go onto HRT and have puberty induced through that.

Which is why another myth is nonsense: puberty blockers do not permanently stop puberty - they have to keep being taken every 3-6 months depending on the drug used.

They cause no permanent changes, they only delay them.

Without puberty blockers, trans kids will grow up into trans adults that require invasive surgery to have a hope of ever passing fully, suffer elevated dysphoria and related mental health consequences and be at greater risk of suicide.

Then there's the idea that they put kids on a "pathway", based on the fact that most who take blockers end up taking HRT too.

All that means in reality is that the doctors are doing their job and diagnosing correctly in the vast majority of cases.

Yes, it's never perfectly accurate and some do end up regretting, but let's look at what the symptoms detransitioners suffer from.

They're basically suffering dysphoria!

Detrans women often talk about mourning how they'll never look like women again.

Considering that the majority ARE happy, with the highest detransition/regret rate being at 5%, if we were to deny anyone the treatment in case of regret, what we'd basically be doing is forcing 95 trans people suffer dysphoria to prevent 5 cis people from suffering.

Option A: 95 trans people suffer dysphoria, 5 cis people don't
Option B: 5 cis people suffer dysphoria, 95 trans people don't

Those 5 cis people are NOT more important than those 95 trans people.

On top of that, we have treatments for adult gender dysphoria.

So in practice, it's 5 cis people suffer dysphoria and need medical intervention and emotional/psychological support

Vs

95 trans people suffer dysphoria and need but DO NOT GET medical intervention and emotional/psychological support

There's no ethical way to square this - those who say "even one is one too many" are simply expressing open transphobia.

Cis people are NOT more important.

Full stop

Then of course there's the general myths about transition in general.

Yes, trans people have higher suicide rates.

No, preventing transition won't magically turn someone cis and "save" them.

It'll actually make suicide more likely.

The actual scientific evidence shows that the most beneficial thing for mental health in trans youth is support and acceptance and we've recently had yet another study finding that puberty blockers reduce depression.

This should be common sense.

And of course there's the autism issue.

If you think autistics don't deserve bodily autonomy or treatment for gender dysphoria, or think we don't understand our own gender identity, well I can say nothing beyond this:

Fuck off

And the sexuality issue.

First of all, transition is NOT gay conversion therapy. Trans people vary in sexuality, we're not all straight.

In fact the majority of trans people are gay or bi AFTER transition.

And if you ask any trans person about this, they'll confirm...

..that a big question always asked when coming out is "why can't you just be gay?"

Psychiatrists spend a lot of time (too much I'd say) probing trans patients on sexuality

I've personally had psychiatrists repeatedly ask multiple questions that boil down to "are you a gay man?"

The idea that anyone is going around telling gay and lesbian kids they're actually trans, especially doctors telling kids this is just simply not true.

On top of that, the myth that trans women are actually gay men is extremely harmful.

For me personally it cost me over a decade of my life.

How homophobic is it to say "you can't be a girl because you like girls"?

Let's talk about "experimental":

Central precocious puberty is still the most common indication for GNrH agonists in paediatric medicine.

In this indication, they've been used on cis children as young as 6.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

For use in central precious puberty, these drugs have been in clinical usage since the mid 80s with plenty of scientific research and clinical data.

The overall consensus is that they are indeed temporary, with regular puberty resuming within 12 months of cessation.

Side effects include some lower bone density WHILE IN USE, this quickly recovers once there are sufficient high levels of sex steroids again.

Remember, the body doesn't "know" why these drugs are being administered.

It is not possible for the same drug to have different side effects when being used for central precious puberty Vs being used for gender dysphoria.

But on top of that, these drugs have been in use for gender dysphoria since the 90s.

There is no shortage of evidence about the effects of these drugs and the positive effect upon wellbeing.

Many cite the recent court ruling in the Keira Bell case as somehow evidence of lack of evidence.

We do not do science in court rooms.

That the legal case was insufficiently defended by the tavistock does not prove the entire medical consensus wrong.

For a great overview of the scientific evidence, see here:

growinguptransgender.com/2017/11/27/pub…

The main drug of choice here (Lupron) was first patented in 1973 and approved for clinical usage in 1985.

These are not new experimental drugs, they are well studied with a large evidence base backing their usage.

Finally, the idea of "fast tracking" is just downright laughable.

It can take up to 3-4 years just to get a first appointment with a GIC.

Then multiple more appointments, months apart, to actually get approved for treatment.

A large portion of minors age out while waiting.

Another large portion have already started puberty and are well into it before being approved for any treatment.

So let's address the "80% desist" myth next.

The 80% myth says that 80% of trans kids if left to undergo puberty will desist. The argument then goes that we should therefore not offer any treatment at all until puberty.

First of all, if true this would actually be a reason for better diagnosis, not denial of treatment.

But anyway, let's see where the myth came from.

Put simply, older studies lumped together all forms of GNC behaviour with actual gender dysphoria.

Boys who presented as effeminate but didn't actually have a female gender identity was lumped in with trans girls.

The majority of boys who are effeminate in youth but don't actually present a female gender identity or any indications of gender dysphoria very often will grow up to be a gay man, or end up becoming more masculine during puberty.

This is also perhaps where the "gay conversion therapy" myth comes from.

It's why newer diagnostic criteria requires "consistent, persistent and insistent".

A young boy just playing with dolls or a girl playing with toy cars is not enough.

When people speak of 80% desistance, remember that the original studies finding this made no distinction between a child being GNC and a child expressing actual distress and openly identifying as a different gender.

Nearly all children have a GNC phase: boys playing with dolls, girls being a tomboy etc.

Where it is in fact just a phase, that is not actually gender dysphoria and it is highly unlikely they'd get through the medical gatekeeping to the point where they can get blockers.

Put simply: if a child is merely GNC, they are not likely to be able to obtain blockers, so the idea we should wait for them to experience puberty does not make sense and is cruel.

Additionally, standard protocol is to begin blockers after puberty begins, right at the earliest stage - where elevated distress is observed.

If a child desists at this point, they will not get blockers.

The overall summary is this:

If a trans child is suffering dysphoria and anxious about puberty and they've had a professional diagnosis, there is no rational reason not to give blockers.

They will almost certainly end up transitioning in adulthood anyway.

Denying blockers doesn't turn trans kids cis, it just guarantees more dysphoria that'll require invasive surgery to fix (if they can get that surgery).

Early transition is associated with similar mental health to peers.

Why deny that to any child?

By allowing your trans child to transition early, you're giving them a wonderful gift: vastly reduced dysphoria and better mental health.

Denying blockers won't stop them transitioning later.

"lifelong medication and surgery" is not actually such a big issue, and until medical technology gets much more advanced is pretty much inevitable as the only really effective treatment for gender dysphoria.

Blockers are associated with greater wellbeing and functioning, lower rates of depression and suicidal ideation and overall exactly what any loving parent should want for their child.

This can't be said enough: you can't stop your trans child from being trans, or your gay kid being gay, or your autistic kid being autistic.

If you try, you'll only hurt them and risk lasting trauma, and possibly their very life.

https://twitter.com/gwennelsonuk/status/1357852343149219840?s=19

More about one particular blocker (Lupron)