GnRHas does not operate on your paperwork, your registered sex is not relevant in the slightest. By using the term "assigned sex at birth", the author manages to introduce a falsehood in their text which did not need to be there at all.
https://twitter.com/elizamondegreen/status/1392584947240669186
Maybe I should do a write-up of this whole article. Okay, so "stop transgender kids from experiencing the effects of puberty that may not align with their gender identities" is an odd choice of words, they stop any kid from experiencing the effects of puberty, full stop.
"and implants can run up to approximately $45,000 per implant out of pocket, while shots cost can cost thousands of dollars per dose"
It's rare for these articles to bring up the incredible amounts of money involved, I think that is something the author should be commended for.
It's rare for these articles to bring up the incredible amounts of money involved, I think that is something the author should be commended for.
"In people assigned female at birth, these hormones prompt the ovaries to make estrogen"... That's the "just use female and male and stop introducing factual errors" from my first tweet.
"[Dr. Rosenthal] said families should also undergo a thorough process of informed consent, during which they are educated about the potential effects of blocking puberty - including adverse ones."
The article will go on to say "we don't know what these are"...
The article will go on to say "we don't know what these are"...
"Treatment with puberty blockers may improve the mental health of transgender adolescents, who are at high risk for suicide."
The citation says suicidal ideation, not suicide. These are very different things. This needs to be corrected.
The citation says suicidal ideation, not suicide. These are very different things. This needs to be corrected.
"A 2020 study found lower odds of lifetime suicidal ideation in transgender adults who wanted to take puberty blockers and were able to access this treatment."
Oh, that's sneaky. See, the paper itself says it can't establish causality (hinting that perhaps people with more...
Oh, that's sneaky. See, the paper itself says it can't establish causality (hinting that perhaps people with more...
...issues are less likely to receive medical treatment which was heavily gatekept at the time). The representation is not technically incorrect, but hiding that is very weasely.
"Another recent study showed similarly positive effects: transgender adolescents receiving puberty blockers had less "emotional and behavioral problems" than transgender adolescents recently referred to care..."
The exact same reasoning applies to this study as the former as...
The exact same reasoning applies to this study as the former as...
...they are both incapable of establishing any sort of causal relationship, and the likelihood of reverse causation is explicitly very high. Using the word "effects" here is completely misleading. Something the author would know if they had read it:
"The present study can, therefore, not provide evidence about the direct benefits of puberty suppression over time and long-term mental health outcomes."
This gives us three alternatives: did not read, did not understand, or is actively trying to deceive.
This gives us three alternatives: did not read, did not understand, or is actively trying to deceive.
"A 2020 study of 50 transgender adolescents indicated that puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormone treatments, or both, could positively impact quality of life and decrease depression and suicidal ideation."
Almost all the findings were not statistically significant and...
Almost all the findings were not statistically significant and...
...this does not take into account that the kids also received years of counseling and often psychiatric medication, in this small, uncontrolled study. And 95 started - where did the other 45 go?
"A 2014 study found that 55 young transgender adults who used puberty blockers, took gender-affirming hormones and had gender confirmation surgeries were able to resolve their gender dysphoria and showed overall well-being in many respects comparable to peers.", perhaps worth...
...mentioning is that this started as a sample of 70, and the treatment killed one of the kids. Their anxiety at their early death was not included in the study, obviously, so perhaps the 5% reduction in mean anxiety scores should be put in its full context, dear "journalist".
"Puberty blockers are largely considered safe for short-term use in transgender adolescents [...] But doctors do not yet know how the drugs could affect factors like bone mineral density, brain development and fertility in transgender patients."
That's a pretty big but!
That's a pretty big but!
By whom are they considered safe? Based on what? A little more digging would not go amiss here.
"A handful of studies have underscored low bone mineral density as a potential issue, though a 2020 study posited that low bone mineral density may instead be a pre-existing condition in transgender youth."
No, that's not at all what the 2020 study says.
No, that's not at all what the 2020 study says.
It argued that it could be because "underlying factors contributing to low BMD may potentially have more time to exert negative effects."
This is not "instead", not at all. Again we have the three options, did not read, did not understand, does not care.
This is not "instead", not at all. Again we have the three options, did not read, did not understand, does not care.
One of the things that makes me hopeful that this author is not a pure activist is sentences like "Treatment with gender-affirming hormones may theoretically reverse this effect, according to Endocrine Society guidelines."
An activist would simply not mention this, because pointing out that there is no evidence for it at all is usually unacceptable.
Another is "The effects of puberty blockers are often referred to as “fully reversible,” [...] because of evidence showing that girls treated for precocious puberty were still able to undergo normal puberty and have children later in life."
It is extremely rare for these articles to be explicit and say that "fully reversible" does not mean "fully reversible". Good for you, journalist. I'll take those air quotes back.
"A recent study showed that transgender women who began puberty blockers at the start of puberty were 84 times more likely to require abdominal surgery if they wanted to pursue gender-affirming surgery."
The genital stunting is one of the seemingly irreversible effects, and...
The genital stunting is one of the seemingly irreversible effects, and...
...is thus usually ignored and hoped people are unaware of. Bringing this up is another solid piece of journalistic work, this consequence has very wide implications.
"Knowing what we do know, these medications have enormous benefits for the population that we care for, [Dr. Kremen] added."
I guess that's a good way to end it - with the activist doctor simply making something up.
I guess that's a good way to end it - with the activist doctor simply making something up.
Overall that was a very confusing read as someone already familiar with the topic. The article started and ended with nonsensical emotional appeals. In the middle it bounced between misrepresenting the scientific literature and bringing up very troubling aspects of the treatment.
My initial read was of a weasely reporter presenting the usual misinformation, but that really does not seem to be the case. They brought up things that are normally completely verboten, must not be talked about type things.
It seems perfectly plausible that it was simply a rushed article which hasn't quite figured out that things are not at all what they appear on the surface here, including in scientific studies.
Overall, please fix the factual errors, @lenalwilson, but after the last few years of complete madness in the press, this is probably a step in the right direction.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
