The New Conversion Therapy: How Homophobic Quackery Is Targeting Children.

What if I told you that conversion therapy still existed? A new type of conversion therapy that targets children, that may, potentially, turn out gay or lesbian. Homosexual. Fruity. Fabulous. Butch. Femme.

This conversion therapy isn’t really that different from the old conversion therapy. It involves torture, medical experiments, and outright quackery. Same shit, different day. It involves the off-label use of powerful cancer drugs, and no one knows the potential long term effects.

This new conversion therapy has a name. It’s supported by the left, criticized by the right. You’ve probably been told that unless these children receive the new conversion therapy, they might kill themselves.

That name of the new conversion therapy is ‘child transition’. ‘Transgender children’.

No one knows the side effects for sure, beyond one: no ‘transgender child’ will be fertile after a complete treatment.

In some cases, they might be dead.

Do not turn off your system. Do not tune out.

Sit your ass down, and pay attention, because as it turns out, homophobia is definitely alive and well in the American medical establishment.


The drugs used for the new conversion therapy, are known as Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonists/Agonists, known more conveniently as ‘GnRHa’. These drugs bind to the gonadotropin receptors, effectively causing a suppression of sex hormones. In adolescents this stops the progression of puberty. GnRHa drugs were originally intended to treat terminal prostate cancer patients, but their use has proliferated into a huge variety of off-label uses, including the one we’re focusing on today: as the new conversion therapy.

Supposedly, the use of these drugs allows a transgender young person ‘time’ to decide on their ‘gender identity’.

The issue with this whole ‘allows extra time’ business? Studies show that the ‘decision’ is effectively made by the time these children are put on puberty blockers — their use hugely increases rates of persisting gender dysphoria, and the inevitable outcome is cross-sex hormone therapy. One study on puberty blocker use found that no adolescent withdrew from puberty suppression. Unable to go through an actual, natural, puberty, these children are sterile for life. Almost all are funneled into sex reassignment surgery, a physical castration that complements the prior chemical one.

Neither GnRHa drugs, nor their manufacturers, are new to controversy. Abbot Labs, the parent company to spin-off AbbVie, which currently manufactures Lupron, settled multiple suits over the past decade relating to Medicare fraud and off-label marketing, concerning two drugs — Lupron, and Depakote. The first suit, over the off-label marketing of Lupron, settled with the Department of Justice in 2001, was a $875 million dollar settlement between the DOJ and TAP Pharmaceuticals, a joint venture between Abbot Laboratories and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. The venture was dissolved in 2008, with Abbot keeping the rights to Lupron. The DOJ indicted multiple TAP employees for Medicare fraud in 2001, mostly for ripping off the elderly, ripping off Medicare and bribing physicians. Abbot also later settled a suit for off-label marketing Depakote (not a GnRHa) to nursing homes for elderly dementia patients, despite the fact a prior clinical trial had shown it could cause anorexia in those patients. They don’t really have a moral compass. Promoting the new conversion therapy certainly isn’t beyond them. Companies such as Ferring have funded puberty blocker studies.

It’s a big business, after all. Pubertal Suppression in Transgender Youth, a book edited by Courtney Finlayson, an endocrinologist at Lurie Children’s Hospital (whose gender clinic is funded by transgender Republican ideologue Jennifer Pritzker), reveals in its second chapter the business that the new conversion therapy could bring. Pediatric versions of Lupron are far more expensive than the adult versions, often running at twice the price. Lupron Depot is $4800 for a three-month dose, while it’s pediatric version, Lupron Depot-Ped is $9700 for the same dose. A subcutaneous histrelin implant for children is $35,000, compared to an adult implant, which costs $4400. And the costs of using those drugs runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, as the book also discusses using the drugs for ‘upwards of seven years’.

Think of the money — $9700 every three months, for up to seven years — that’s $271,600, from one patient. If you had even a hundred children taking these drugs for seven years, that’s $27 million in drug sales.


The new conversion therapy is not ‘radical queer praxis’. It’s not radical at all. It’s nothing but the establishment adapting to the fact one can no longer be quite so obvious when attempting to ‘cure’ the homosexual.

To support the new conversion therapy, it’s proponents have created a cult-like atmosphere. The proponents of the new conversion therapy make use of garbage statistics to scare people into compliance through emotional blackmail.

And children are the victims.

How? Well, have you seen the side effects of these drugs?

LUPROBLEMS: SIDE EFFECTS AND MORE

Well-documented is the effect GnRHa drugs have on bone density. While there was a well-publicized article in Kaiser Health News on young women who were prescribed the drug for precocious puberty suffering various bone health problems in their late teens and early twenties, the trans movement ignored this. The Pediatric Endocrine Society, which had arch gender priest (and paid AbbVie consultant) Stephen Rosenthal as president at the time, made a media release regarding the FDA investigation following the Kaiser Health News report, declaring that the Pediatric Endocrine Society did not foresee any changes to its prescribing practices.

“On 2/9/17, we issued the following statement: “At this time, we are not aware of any new documented safety concerns with this class of drugs that should change prescribing practices or warrant discontinuation of these medications.””
[…]
Since that time, members of our committee, with the assistance of other PES members, have investigated these safety issues further. We have conducted a literature search and contacted the manufacturers of GnRH agonists in the U.S. and pediatric endocrinology colleagues in the US, UK, EU and South America to inquire about any new safety issues. These queries have identified no safety concerns that are not currently reflected in the product labels.
After further review of available information, we do not feel that there is any new safety concern with GnRH agonists that should change our prescribing practices at this time. As always, for any of the medications prescribed by pediatric endocrinologists, we encourage our colleagues to report to the FDA any unexpected adverse events that may be related to use of these medications. In aggregate, these reports serve as a key source of information for FDA inquiries and are critical to identify post-marketing safety issues.

Notably, a past president of the PES, and its current treasurer, Peter A. Lee, ran a 2014 study with AbbVie on Lupron’s use in girls with precocious puberty.

The study tracked girls who used Lupron for six months to treat precocious puberty found it had an ‘acceptable safety profile’. The study did not measure anything to do with the bones of its participants. Notably, it was also funded by AbbVie.

AbbVie Inc participated in the study design, research, data collection, analysis and interpretation, and writing, reviewing, and approval of this publication. All authors had access to the data and participated in the development, review, and approval, and in the decision to submit this for publication.
Disclosure Summary: P.A.L. is on the board of the Pediatric Endocrine Society, is a consultant for and has received payment for the development of educational materials by AbbVie, and consults for and has received clinical research support from NovoNordisk. K.K. is a consultant for Endo Pharmaceuticals and AbbVie, has received grants from Pfizer and AbbVie, has been paid for participating in speaker’s bureaus and educational presentations for AbbVie, and has had travel/accommodations paid for by AbbVie and Endo Pharmaceuticals. N.M. has been a consultant for Ipsen and ViroPharma, and has received grants from AbbVie. T.L.-V. and P.B. are employed by and own stock or options in AbbVie.

How unbiased is that media release, PES? Because I do smell a rat.

Worse: the science disagrees with that study and that press release. Numerous studies have reported bone density problems after the use of Lupron, like this one which found that 56.5% of it’s patients had osteopenia and had significantly lower Vitamin D levels than a control group.

It’s not the only study reporting young women having bone density issues after using it to block puberty. Other studies, like Spontaneous reversibility of bone loss induced by gonadotropin releasing hormone analog treatment have found similar side effects, examining a group of young women using the drug to treat endometriosis, and who used the drug for six months, which found that after six months of GnRHa treatment, lumbar bone mineral density decreased significantly after using the drug for more than six months. This study however reported that many of the women recovered after use. However, the drug was only used for six months — what about the years that the drug is used to block puberty for transgender children? The study concludes disturbingly with this:

This study does not exclude the possibility that treatment of women who have not yet achieved peak bone mass may compromise bone mineral density.”

Adolescents have not achieved peak bone mass, which on average isn’t attained until one’s early twenties. The authors of this study concede they have no idea on the effects that use of the drug may have on the bone density of children.

There are also the potential effects on cognitive performance. One study on women taking GnRHa’s to treat endometriosis found that many of them suffered memory disruption while taking the drug, which was taken over twenty-four weeks. Nearly half of the women reported moderate to marked impairment compared to ‘community norms’ while taking the drug. The memory problems resolved after discontinuing use of the drug. That was when used for six months — what happens if you use the drug for years on end as an adolescent? After all, at least one study found that use of GnRHas in children going through early puberty (i.e used to block puberty) suffered an average seven to eight point drop in IQ while using the drug.

None of this is specifically about transgender youth. Thankfully, Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a paid AbbVie advisory board member, has also recently completed a study, ‘Physiologic Response to Gender-Affirming Hormones Among Transgender Youth’. This study had 101 initial participants, of whom 59 had follow-up physiologic data collected between 21 and 31 months after initiating hormones. Nearly half the study’s participants dropped out. The study, in it’s abstract states that ‘extensive and frequent laboratory examination in transgender adolescents may be unnecessary’, based on its conclusions.

Of course, there’s a caveat to that — the study admits it only can say that use of cross-sex hormones in transgender youth is safe over a ‘treatment course of approximately two years’.

But what about after three years of treatment? Four? Fifty? No one prescribing these drugs to children has any idea of what the long-term effects are. I’ll quote from the study here, to illustrate the sheer level of quackery we’re dealing with here:

“Over the past seven years, there has been a significant increase in the number of youth presenting for care related to gender dysphoria in gender-specific clinics, and in primary care settings [1, 2, 3]. Gender dysphoria is widely understood as the persistent distress that arises as the result of an incongruence between one’s assigned sex at birth (male or female) and one’s experienced gender (male, female, both, or neither).

The study uses the risk of suicide to convince the reader that this is a needed treatment. Emotional abuse in a scientific article.

Interestingly enough, Olson-Kennedy also says that polycystic ovary syndrome is associated with female-to-male transsexualism. We decided to hunt down the study Olson cited on that factoid.

That study, “Association between polycystic ovary syndrome and female-to-male transsexuality” was done in Japan and examined 69 participants who presented themselves to a Japanese gender clinic. None of them had received any hormone treatment. Most of the patients they saw had a ‘polycystic ovarian morphology’. How many in this study were diagnosed with it?

“On the basis of the Rotterdam 2003 criteria, 40 of the 69 FTM transsexual patients (58.0%) participating in this study were diagnosed as having PCOS.

58%. Fifty-eight per cent.

Want to know the normal incidence rate of polycystic ovary syndrome? Of course, you do. It’s 4–12%.

How does that not establish a causal link between FTM transsexualism and polycystic ovary syndrome? Why not treat the PCOS first, rather than making it worse with a hormone therapy that increases insulin resistance? Could gender dysphoria in these patients simply be a psychological result from PCOS? Why treat the GD instead of the PCOS? If you treated the PCOS, would the GD resolve? Who knows?

Many FTM patients in the clinic, even without PCOS, had showed high insulin resistance. The study also comments that hormone therapy eventually makes ovaries polycystic regardless of whether the patient initially presented with PCOS or not.

In adult humans, hypersecretion of androgens causes the ovary to have a polycystic appearance; moreover, it is known that ovaries removed from FTM transsexual patients after long-term androgen therapy are histopathologically polycystic. These findings thus suggest that FTM transsexualism is frequently associated with PCOS.

And while Olson-Kennedy cited this study and said that FTM hormone therapy is ‘safe’, these scientists disagree:

“Administration of exogenous androgen, the treatment of choice for FTM transsexual patients, causes insulin resistance. Given that insulin resistance is closely related to type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidacmia and cardiovascular disease, complications associated with PCOS would be expected to represent a significant health risk for FTM transsexual cases.”

The study concludes thus:

“Our findings show that many cases of FTM transsexuality are associated with PCOS and hyperandrogenaemia, which suggests that they are important factors in the pathogenesis of FTM transsexualism. In addition, our findings also suggest that when administering androgen therapy to FTM transsexual patients, it is important that practitioners keep in mind that this treatment worsens insulin resistance.

That doesn’t sound safe.


There are very few studies on possible long-term effects. We found a 2015 study, Bone Mass in Young Adulthood Following Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Analog Treatment and Cross-Sex Hormone Treatment in Adolescents With Gender Dysphoria”, which followed 34 subjects, both transmen, and transwomen, in a longitudinal study. This study used triptorelin, rather than Lupron, like the original Dutch Protocol study. The subjects were also followed up on after they had a gonadectomy (i.e castration).

The study found this:

Between the start of GnRHa and age 22 years the lumbar areal BMD z score (for natal sex) in transwomen decreased significantly from −0.8 to −1.4 and in transmen there was a trend for decrease from 0.2 to −0.3. This suggests that the BMD was below their pretreatment potential and either attainment of peak bone mass has been delayed or peak bone mass itself is attenuated.”

There are long-term side effects — trans youth possibly don’t attain their actual peak bone mass due to the treatment, meaning they are vulnerable to bone issues later in life, or even during their youth. In this study, GnRHa therapy on its subjects had a duration ranging from half a year to nearly four years, and most of them had been on cross sex hormones for five years or more. How bad was that decrease in bone mineral density?

According to the World Health Organization classification, both groups had individuals that would classify as osteopenic according to their T-score (6).

That’s not great. Actually, that’s really bad.

The researchers also have no real idea of the long-term effects:

“The relevance of these findings with respect to fracture risk is not clear. At present, as for transgender populations who had sex reassignment as adults (16), in adolescents with GD it is unknown whether medical intervention leads to an increased risk of fractures later in life.”

We have no idea what this means for their future.

We don’t know what the long-term effects are in adults, either. There is this review of hormone therapy in transgender adults “Hormone therapy in transgender adults is safe with provider supervision; A review of hormone therapy sequelae for transgender individuals”.

Of course, it uses the words ‘we don’t know the long-term effects’.

“The primary concern among MTF individuals on estrogen therapy is the possibility of developing thrombogenic complications 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Therefore, educating MTF individuals and their providers for preventative ways to minimize risk of thromboembolic events might be the most important long-term assessment of transgender women in order to minimize the risk of adverse effects of HT. Suggested risk modifications from groups studying VTE among MTF individuals include addressing any hypercholesterolemia, hypertension or smoking use that a patient might have. Hypercoaguable risk factors, including the use of a thrombogenic estrogen, ethinyl estradiol, have been associated with many of the cases of reported VTE, and as such the risk of these adverse events may continue to decline as the usage of this drug diminishes [3]. Other health outcomes for transgender women may include increased triglycerides [48] and decreased sexual desire [65].”
“There are multiple case reports of conditions associated with MTF HT, including the incidence of meningiomas, benign pituitary tumors and prolactinomasalong with the occurrence of autoimmune conditions with a female predominance, such as systemic lupus erythematosus. However, the data are too limited to make any type of conclusion or recommendation.

What about in female-to-male hormone therapy?

Transgender men did not experience the increase in thrombogenic complications that some transgender women reported
Both transgender men and women experienced an increase in insulin resistance, fasting glucose and changes in body fat redistribution Adipocyte-derived hormone levels may reflect changes in insulin sensitivity on hormone therapy, as transgender men had decreased adiponectin levels while transgender women had decreased leptin, both associated with insulin resistance

Eventually, the scientists give up and admit: ‘we don’t know the long-term effects’.

“With the exception of a few large-cohort and long-term studies, much of the existing knowledge about the health impact of transgender HT is based on case reports. While these provide clues to effects of transgender HT, there is a strong need for future research of greater cohort size to be undertaken in order to address this critical gap.

I really hope we do address this critical gap, before it’s too late for some people. Because it’s pretty clear that no one has any idea on the long-term effects of the new conversion therapy.

THE DUTCH PROTOCOL

The Dutch Protocol studies are the origins of the new conversion therapy. To examine it’s origins, we took a look at Clinical management of gender identity disorder in adolescents: a protocol on psychological and paediatric endocrinology aspects”, where the Dutch Protocol originated. The Dutch Protocol is used to refer to the ‘protocol’ of giving gender dysphoric children puberty blockers, a course of cross-sex hormones, and then a gonadectomy, or to be blunt, castration.

It’s worth pointing out that this study (and others)was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

“The authors are very grateful to Ferring Pharmaceuticals for the financial support of studies on the treatment of adolescents with gender identity disorders”

Ferring is a Swiss pharmaceutical company that makes triptorelin, another GnRHa, and the GnRHa used in the Dutch Protocol studies. I am sure that this created no incentives for the study and the prospect of putting adolescents on courses of triptorelin for years at great cost, had nothing to do with the study which was done for the benign reason of saving these vulnerable youth.

Let’s get into the meat of the study now. This is from the introduction.

“Transsexuals are applying for sex reassignment (SR) surgery at increasingly younger ages. Yet clinicians are usually reluctant to start the SR procedure before adulthood. They assume that adolescents are not able to make a sensible decision about something as drastic as SR. They fear that the risk of postoperative regrets will be high and the treatment will have unfavourable physical, psychological or social consequences. Postoperative regret or any other unfavourable result of SR naturally is of serious concern to clinicians. However, the decision of what age to start SR should be a balanced one. There are two main reasons to consider early treatment as appropriate.”

What are these two reasons? Why is it evil to tell adolescents that they shouldn’t irreversibly damage their bodies? Good god.

“One reason for early treatment is that an eventual delay or arrest in emotional, social or intellectual development can be warded off more successfully when the ultimate cause of this arrest has been taken care of. Suffering from gender dysphoria without being able to present socially in the desired social role, and/or to stop the development of secondary sex characteristics usually leads to problems in these areas. Adolescents find it hard to live with a secret. Often have difficulties in connecting socially and romantically with peers while still in the undesired gender role, or the physical developments create an anxiety that limits their capacities to concentrate on other issues.”

Wait a damn minute. All of this, for these scientists, is about the inability to ‘present socially in the desired social role’ and difficulties ‘connecting socially and romantically with peers while still in the undesired gender role’.

That’s not homophobic. Right. Riiight.

“A second reason to start SR early is that the physical treatment outcome following interventions in adulthood is far less satisfactory than when treatment is started at an age at which secondary sex characteristics have not yet been (fully) developed. Looking like a man (woman) when living as a woman (man) creates barriers that are not easy to overcome. This is obviously an enormous and lifelong disadvantage.”

Translation: ‘It makes them look less weird’.

“Furthermore, follow-up studies show that unfavourable postoperative outcome seems to be related to a late rather than an early start of the SR procedure (for a review, see (2)). Age at the time of assessment also emerged as a factor differentiating two groups of male-to-female transsexuals (MFs), one with and one without post-operative regrets (3)”

Translation: ‘Children we indoctrinate don’t detransition’.

What does that even mean? We know that gender dysphoria often desists during puberty. Where did this come from?

It is conceivable that lowering the age limit increases the incidence of ‘false positives’. However, it most certainly results in high percentages of individuals who more easily pass into the opposite gender role than when treatment commenced well after the development of secondary characteristics. This implies an improvement in the quality of life in these individuals, but may also result in a lower incidence of transsexuals with postoperative regrets or poor postoperative functioning. Clinically, it is known that some patients who were treated in adulthood regret SR because they have never been able to function inconspicuously in the opposite gender role. This holds especially for MFs, because beard growth and voice breaking give so many of them a never disappearing masculine appearance. But, since the number of ‘false positives’ should be kept as small as possible, the diagnostic procedure should be carried out with great care. Until now, no patients who started treatment before 18 years have regretted their choice for SR.”

I love how cavalier the dismissal of ‘false positives’ is. Are you sure that no patients who started transition under 18 have never regretted their choice for sex reassignment?

“Before this is done, significant persons in the adolescents’ life have to be informed about the impending changes. The underlying idea of these requirements is that applicants should have had ample opportunity to appreciate in vivo the familial, interpersonal, educational, and legal consequences of the gender role change. In adolescents, who are referred at very young ages (around 12 years), the RLE usually starts when they are on GnRHa treatment only. However, at this stage the RLE is not a requirement. When, after the age of 16 years, the cross-sex hormone treatment is started, the RLE is required for obvious reasons.”

What does it mean to ‘live in the role of the desired sex’? What’s the ‘role’ of each sex? Why does the paper constantly switch between the words ‘desired sex’ and ‘desire role’. Here it’s not even about sex — it’s about changing gender role. You know, social constructs about the roles of the sexes that are rooted in patriarchal ways of thinking. Those ‘gender roles’ that serve to enforce sexism and homophobia.

The paper goes onto describe the effects of the puberty blockers:

“In both girls and boys, after a short activation of the gonadal axes, GnRHa will bring the patients into a hypogonadotrophic state. In girls, withdrawal of oestrogens may induce a withdrawal bleeding. Cycling is disrupted. In early pubertal boys, the hypogonadotrophic state will block the development of fertility. In olderstaged boys, fertility will regress. Therefore, in older boys, cryopreservation of semen should be discussed prior to the start of the treatment. As a result of the hypogonadal state, MFs can have complaints of fatigue and a decrease of body strength. With respect to growth, the growth spurt will be hampered and fusion of the growth plates delayed. This phenomenon may give the opportunity to manipulate growth. Since females are about 12 cm shorter than males, we may intervene with growth stimulating treatment in order to adjust the female height to an acceptable male height. In contrast, the blocking of the pubertal growth spurt in males is not a problem. During the treatment with oestrogens, the epiphyses will close progressively resulting in what would be a compromised final height for a nontranssexual male, but a quite acceptable height for MF.”

Oh, there we go. That ‘infertility’ word.

The question arises whether patients participating in this protocol may achieve a normal development of bone density, or will end with a decreased bone density, which is associated with a high risk of osteoporosis. During physiologic puberty, carbohydrate and fat metabolisms change. Temporary insulin resistance occurs and an increase in fat mass is seen in pubertal girls. We do not know what the effects of GnRHa treatment alone, or in combination with cross-sex hormones, are on these metabolic aspects.”

Again: yet another group of scientists with no idea of the long-term effects of what they are doing. What they are doing to children. Not that that stops them. Especially once they pass the age of 18, then it’s time for surgery:

“Surgery is not carried out prior to adulthood (18 years of age). The Standards of Care emphasize that the ‘threshold of 18 should be seen as an eligibility criterion and not an indication in itself for active intervention’. If the RLE supported by the cross-sex hormones has not resulted in a satisfactory social role change, if the patient is not satisfied with, or is ambivalent about, the hormonal effects or surgery, the applicant is not referred for surgery. In MFs, female-looking external genitals are created by means of vaginoplasty, clitoroplasty and labiaplasty. In cases of insufficient responsiveness of breast tissue to oestrogen therapy administered for long enough, breast enlargement may also be performed. After surgery, intercourse is possible. Arousal and orgasm are also reported postsurgically, though the percentages differ between studies (13, 14).”
“In FMs, a mastectomy is often performed as the first surgery to successfully pass into the desired role. When skin needs to be removed, this will result in fairly visible scar tissue. Considering the still continuing improvements in the field of phalloplasty, some FMs do not want to undergo genital surgery until they have a clear reason for it. They may then choose to have a neoscrotum with a testis prosthesis with or without a metaidoioplasty (this technique transforms the hypertrophic clitoris into a microphallus) or a phalloplasty. Other genital procedures include the removal of the uterus and ovaries. Whether FMs can have sexual intercourse using their neopenis depends on the technique and quality of the phalloplasty. Although some patients, who had a metaidoioplasty, report that they are able to have intercourse, the hypertrophic clitoris usually is too small for coitus. In most cases, the capacity of sexual arousal and orgasm remains intact. When the gonads of the patient are surgically removed, the patient can discontinue the GnRHa treatment, but will continue the cross-sex hormone treatment.”

It talks about castrating young people — many of whom would otherwise be homosexual without this ‘treatment’, in such a cavalier way. I’d be disturbed if I hadn’t waded through sheer oceans of this kind of thing by now.

The paper then describes the first experiences with the ‘protocol’.

“First experiences with the protocol
At present, 54 patients are being treated according to this protocol, 30 of whom are FMs. The GnRHa triptorelin (TRP) is administered in a dose of 3.75 mg every 4 weeks intramuscularly or subcutaneously. At the introduction of the treatment, an extra dose is given at 2 weeks. Preliminary results of the first 21 patients (11 FMs, 10 MFs), treated for 2 years or longer, are as follows”
“With respect to bone density During GnRHa treatment, bone density remained in the same range. There were no significant changes in bone densities at three locations: lumbar spine, non-dominant hip and total body, during TRP treatment. However, when calculated as a Z-score, there appears to be a significant decrease during this period. During cross-sex hormone treatment, bone density increased significantly in both MFs and FMs, which is associated with an increase in the bone density Z-score. Figure 4 shows the data of bone density in an MF patient during 2 years of TRP treatment, followed by 2 years of combination therapy with cross-sex hormones.”

The use of GnRHas causes decreases in bone density — this we’ve already seen. What happens next?

“The present protocol, developed to ameliorate treatment outcome in adolescent patients with an early onset of GID, appears to be a suitable way to treat such patients. It seems possible to select patients who will profit from early interventions, starting at 12 years with GnRHa and followed at 16 years by cross-sex hormone treatment, provided that the diagnostic procedure is carried out with great care and by an experienced team. Careful diagnosis should focus on the assessment of the GID as well as potential risk factors (e.g. severe co-morbidity). If any risk factors are present, these should be addressed first, before any medical intervention takes place. Since the diagnostic procedure is lengthy, there is ample time for patient, the family and the psychologist or psychiatrist to make the final decision. Making a balanced decision on SR is far more difficult for adolescents, who are denied medical treatment (GnRHa included), because much of their energy will be absorbed by obtaining treatment rather than exploring in an open way whether SR actually is the treatment of choice for their gender problem. By starting with GnRHa their motivation for such exploration enhances and no irreversible changes have taken place if, as a result of the psychotherapeutic interventions, they would decide that SR is not what they need. However, until now, none of the patients who were selected for pubertal suppression has decided to stop taking GnRHa. On the contrary, they are usually very satisfied with the fact that the secondary sex characteristics of their biological sex did not develop further”

Unfortunately, there is no decisions. We already know that once a course of puberty blockers starts, the persistence rates increase dramatically.

“The first clinical data suggest that bone mineral density remains at the same level during treatment, which indicates a decrease in Z-score when compared with reference values. However, when, at the age of 16 years, suppression of puberty is combined with cross-sex hormone treatment, a catch-up for bone accretion is observed, resulting in a decrease and normalization of the bone mineral density Z-score. This medical intervention, therefore, does not seem to harm bone development in the short term, but long term data on peak bone mass should be assessed before a final conclusion can be drawn.”

We don’t know if this has long-term effects. Does anyone have any idea if this causes long-term effects? Anyone? Anywhere? Hello? Is there anyone here? I’m lonely.

They don’t know if this protocol has long-term side effects on the brain.

“During puberty, developmental processes also take place in the brain. In the adult brain, a number of sex differences have been reported. For example, the amount of grey matter is higher in adult females than males in the gyrus cingulatus, the median frontal area and the lobus paracentralis in particular. It is not clear yet how pubertal suppression will influence brain development. From our experience with adolescents, who have been taking GnRHa and are now adults, no gross effects on their functioning are detectable. However, a study on brain development of adolescent transsexuals, who have used GnRHa, will be carried out to detect eventual subtle functional and structural effects.”

This study had no control group. No study using the Dutch Protocol has. We have no idea whether it’s more effective than other treatments for GID.

The Dutch studies don’t have any control group that doesn’t receive intervention — how do we know that their intervention is the most effective treatment? We don’t know the answer to that question, yet these scientists are forging ahead with the puberty blocker path anyway, and casting any form of therapy to help these young people accept their bodies as is, without medical interventions as ‘conversion therapy’ that prevents them being their ‘authentic selves’. There are no control groups. No one has any idea of the long-term effects, bar the fact that one hundred per cent of children that go through this ‘treatment’ will be completely sterile.

You know, castrated.

Oh, and one of the side effects of that castration can be death. A 2014 study, done by same people who designed this ‘treatment’ for trans children, had a participant die from a necrotic vaginoplasty.

“ Nonparticipation (n = 15, 11 transwomen and 4 transmen) was attributable to not being 1 year postsurgical yet (n = 6), refusal (n = 2), failure to return questionnaires (n = 2), being medically not eligible (eg, uncontrolled diabetes, morbid obesity) for surgery (n = 3), dropping out of care (n = 1), and 1 transfemale died after her vaginoplasty owing to a postsurgical necrotizing fasciitis.”

Death is one hell of a side effect, no?

Why is it, that the preferable outcome for these people is a child that faces a lifetime of medicalization, a denial of sexual maturity, and unknown long-term effects on their bones, their brains, their psychology, and possibly even death rather than potentially growing up to be homosexual?

Why is the latter such a bad outcome?

Why?

I’m serious: growing up to be homosexual, not transsexual is the most likely outcome in children and adolescents with GID. This study “A follow-up study of girls with gender identity disorder.” found:

““This study provided information on the natural histories of 25 girls with gender identity disorder (GID). Standardized assessment data in childhood (mean age, 8.88 years; range, 3–12 years) and at follow-up (mean age, 23.24 years; range, 15–36 years) were used to evaluate gender identity and sexual orientation. At the assessment in childhood, 60% of the girls met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for GID, and 40% were subthreshold for the diagnosis. At follow-up, 3 participants (12%) were judged to have GID or gender dysphoria. Regarding sexual orientation, 8 participants (32%) were classified as bisexual/homosexual in fantasy, and 6 (24%) were classified as bisexual/homosexual in behavior. The remaining participants were classified as either heterosexual or asexual. The rates of GID persistence and bisexual/homosexual sexual orientation were substantially higher than base rates in the general female population derived from epidemiological or survey studies. There was some evidence of a “dosage” effect, with girls who were more cross-sex typed in their childhood behavior more likely to be gender dysphoric at follow-up and more likely to have been classified as bisexual/homosexual in behavior (but not in fantasy).

Nearly half of the girls who presented with GID turned out to be homosexual.

Here is some more information on how many of them turned out gay, which included two of the still gender dysphoric patients:

39 participants (60%) were classified as exclusively heterosexual, 8 (32%) were classified as bisexual/homosexual, and the remaining 2 (8%) were classified as having no sexual fantasies. Of the 3 participants classified as gender dysphoric, 2 were exclusively homosexual in fantasy (i.e., sexually attracted to members of their own birth sex). The other gender dysphoric participant reported no sexual fantasies and described herself as being “dead sexually.” (Of the 4 participants with a DSD, 3 were classified as exclusively heterosexual in fantasy, and 1 reported no sexual fantasies; 2 were classified as exclusively heterosexual in behavior, and 2 reported no sexual behavior.)”

I mean, how likely is it that all these young women who had GID would turn out gay?

“ Odds ratios were calculated for bisexual/homosexual sexual orientation in fantasy and behavior using prevalence estimates from several major survey studies of sexual orientation in adolescent girls and young women (Dickson, Paul, & Herbison, 2003; Fergusson, Horwood, Ridder, & Beautrais, 2005; McCabe, Hughes, Bostwick, & Boyd, 2005; Narring, Stronski, & Michaud, 2003; Remafedi, Resnick, Blum, & Harris, 1992; Russell & Seif, 2002). From these studies, base rates for bisexual/homosexual sexual orientation in fantasy and behavior were estimated to range from 2.0% to 5.0% in the female general population. The odds of reporting bisexual/homosexual sexual orientation in fantasy in the present sample was 8.9–23.1 times higher, and the odds of reporting bisexual/homosexual sexual orientation in behavior in the present sample was 6.0–15.5 times higher than it is in women in the general population.”

Well, that’s indicative of a link between childhood gender dysphoria and homosexuality. And the study agrees with me:

To our knowledge, the results of the present study represent the first prospective data set that shows that girlhood cross-gender identification is associated with a relatively high rate of bisexual/ homosexual sexual orientation in adolescence and adulthood. Using survey data on sexual orientation in young women as a comparative metric, we estimated that the odds of reporting a bisexual/ homosexual sexual orientation in fantasy was 8.9–23.1 times higher in the present sample and that the odds of reporting a bisexual/homosexual sexual orientation in behavior was 6.7–15.5 times higher.”

Childhood gender non-conformity is also often predictive of a homosexual or bisexual sexual orientation in adulthood. That’s not just me saying that — that’s decades of science. The 1995 Zucker and Bailey studied mentioned in this paper, Childhood Sex-Typed Behavior and Sexual Orientation: A Conceptual Analysis and Quantitative Review” ,reviewed forty-one studies on both homosexual and heterosexual recollections of gender-non conforming behavior in childhood. While data on women was somewhat lacking, it found an overwhelming amount of evidence that homosexuals recall substantially more childhood cross-sex typed behavior — gender non-conformity in childhood or even GID isn’t predictive of transsexualism in adulthood, it’s predictive of homosexuality in adulthood — and that doesn’t require a lifelong medication regiment.

“This article reviewed research examining the association between childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation. Prospective studies suggest that childhood cross-sex-typed behavior is strongly predictive of adult homosexual orientation for men; analogous studies for women have not been performed. Though methodologically more problematic, retrospective studies are useful in determining how many homosexual individuals displayed cross-sex behavior in childhood. The relatively large body of retrospective studies comparing childhood sex-typed behavior in homosexual and heterosexual men and women was reviewed quantitatively. Effect sizes were large for both men and women, with men’s significantly larger. Future research should elaborate the causes of the association between childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation and identify correlates of within-orientation differences in childhood sex-typed behavior.”

The evidence all agrees: ‘cross-gender behavior’ is strongly predicative of being a flaming homosexual of either sex. Not transsexualism. Unlike retrospective studies, which rely on adult recall of childhood, prospective studies linking childhood gender non-conformity often used children who met the diagnostic criteria of gender dysphoria — and many of those children grew up to be gay or lesbian. They were ‘truly trans’ — and then they grew out of it and instead became homosexuals.

It even says this in the conclusion:

Homosexual individuals recall substantially more childhood cross-sex-typed behavior than do heterosexuals of the same sex. Prospective studies have supported these retrospective findings for men; analogous studies for women remain to be done. Future research should focus on the causes of this association, as well as the causes and consequence of within-orientation variation in sex-typed behavior”

Welcome to the new conversion therapy.


Lies, Damned Lies, And Statistics

One thing we’ve seen, even in the ‘scientific studies’, is the threat that without treatment, trans youth will attempt suicide. Supposedly, 41% of trans youth will attempt suicide. Sometimes it’s 41% of all trans people. That ‘41%’ is bandied around a lot. It’s often used as an emotionally abusive tool to shut down debate.

Like any statistic that gets thrown around, no one actually seems to know where it comes from. Is it like the murder epidemic we debunked in our previous article?

The prospect of debunking bad statistics got us excited, in a journalistic way.

We decided to find out where ‘41%’ comes from.

That 41% suicide statistic comes from a report done in 2014, based on data from 2008 in the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, from the Williams Institute, part of UCLA School of Law. Here is a link to the William’s Institute report. Of course, they debunk their own statistic on the third page of the report. How convenient for me. I mean, it’s disappointing, because I didn’t get to debunk it myself, but here, in their own words, is an admission that ‘41%’ is a Bad Statistic:

“While the NTDS provides a wealth of information about the experiences of transgender and gender non-conforming people, the survey instrument and methodology posed some limitations for this study. First, the NTDS questionnaire included only a single item about suicidal behavior that asked, “Have you ever attempted suicide?” with dichotomized responses of Yes/No. Researchers have found that using this question alone in surveys can inflate the percentage of affirmative responses, since some respondents may use it to communicate self-harm behavior that is not a “suicide attempt,” such as seriously considering suicide, planning for suicide, or engaging in self-harm behavior without the intent to die (Bongiovi-Garcia et al., 2009). The National Comorbity Survey, a nationally representative survey, found that probing for intent to die through in-person interviews reduced the prevalence of lifetime suicide attempts from 4.6 percent to 2.7 percent of the adult sample (Kessler et al., 1999; Nock & Kessler, 2006). Without such probes, we were unable to determine the extent to which the 41 percent of NTDS participants who reported ever attempting suicide may overestimate the actual prevalence of attempts in the sample. In addition, the analysis was limited due to a lack of follow-up questions asked of respondents who reported having attempted suicide about such things as age and transgender/gender non-conforming status at the time of the attempt.”

Because it was a binary question and may include all self-harm attempts, the 41% statistic is almost certainly inflated. ‘41%’ is false.

Worse is yet to come though.

“ Second, the survey did not directly explore mental health status and history, which have been identified as important risk factors for both attempted and completed suicide in the general population. Further, research has shown that the impact of adverse life events, such as being attacked or raped, is most severe among people with co-existing mood, anxiety and other mental disorders. The lack of systematic mental health information in the NTDS data significantly limited our ability to identify the pathways to suicidal behavior among the respondents”

They don’t know why their inflated statistic is so high — so you can’t say 41% of transgender people attempt suicide because of ‘lack of acceptance’ or ‘bathroom bills’ or ‘Donald Trump’. The study didn’t ask those questions. To use that 41% statistic to say that trans youth will kill themselves without experimental castration therapy is basically garbage.

That would be the case even if the study didn’t have major methodological problems anyway:

Third, since the NTDS utilized convenience sampling, it is unclear how representative the respondents are of the overall U.S. transgender/gender non-conforming adult population. Further, the survey’s focus on discrimination may have resulted in wider participation by persons who had suffered negative life experiences due to antitransgender bias.1 As the relationship between minority stress and mental health would suggest (Meyer, 2003), this may have contributed to a higher prevalence of negative outcomes, including lifetime suicide attempts, in the sample. These limitations should be kept in mind in interpreting the findings of our analyses.

What’s a convenience sample? How is that a methodological flaw? Simply put: the results of a survey of a convenience sample are only relevant to that particular sample.

Say I asked ten friends about whether they liked purple hats. As it turns out, all those friends like purple hats. I cannot then go and say ‘one-hundred per cent of people like purple hats’. I only asked my friends — maybe we all belong to the Purple Hat Club. Or maybe I want to find out how people feel about Donald Trump. I invite a group of friends to my condo, and ask them all how they feel about Donald Trump. It turns out, they all think Donald Trump is the most orange man in existence. I cannot say that ‘100% of California thinks Donald Trump is the most orange man in existence’ based on my convenience sample. I can only say ‘100% of my friends in my condo think Donald Trump is the most orange man in existence.

That 41% stat is bogus. As is everything else in the 2008 National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Because it’s a convenience sample — everything in that survey is only applicable to sample that took it. I can’t even say I debunked it: the Williams Institute did that for me.

The most disturbing thing about all of this? You can find the description of the study’s methodology on page three. It literally takes some basic curiosity and five minutes, to find out that 41% statistic is statistical noise and not representative of the transgender community. To find that out, I Googled the statistic, and the report was the first result. I then read the PDF. Total time taken to find out the statistic was no good? Five minutes.

Instead of say, using Google, the media takes the use of ‘41%’ from the trans movement, with no investigation into their claims, and regurgitates in the mainstream media.

41% is a false number used to deceive and scare people.

Yet another scare stat — like the fake murder epidemic.

CONVERSION THERAPY, RE-BRANDED.

The concept of homosexuality as due to an unfathomable force in nature, compelling one to fruitless acts for which nature is responsible and not man, is a creation of the homosexual mind It IS a parataxis of defense which enables the homosexual to hang onto his homosexuality and feel perfectly satisfied with his condition, and thus be spared the painful effort involved in a complete transformation of his whole life From the empirical scientific point of view, as we shall see. the major factors m the occurrence of homosexuality are psychic in their nature rather than organic From the philosophical and biological point of view any displacement of the sexual drive which renders impossible the attainments of the essential end of the sexual function must by its very nature be abnormal Homosexuality and its fruitless acts must therefore be a pathological condition, whether the underlying pathology is of a psychic or an organic character.

[…]

In a large majority of the cases the tendencies to homosexuality as shown by attitude and behavior can be observed in early childhood. Much of this may be constitutional but there are many other determinants. For instance, the attitude of parents toward the sex of an expected child may be an indication of the influence which they will exert on that child. If a girl is wanted and a boy arrives the child may be treated as though he were a girl. The child senses the wishes of the parents even though nothing is His habitual conduct is likely to be that which elicits greatest praise or distinction. To the extent that his interests, attitude and behavior are out of harmony with his actual sex he is likely to meet with circumstances which will accentuate his deviation

“MOORE, T. V. (1945). THE PATHOGENESIS AND TREATMENT OF HOMOSEXUAL DISORDERS: A DIGEST OF SOME PERTINENT EVIDENCE. Journal of Personality, 14(1), 47–83”

The abnormality in homosexuality consists of the exclusiveness, the fear, the fetishistic fixation, or the obsessive-compulsiveness which is so often its concomitant. The aim of psychotherapy, therefore, should be to remove these elements: to free the confirmed homosexual of his underlying fear of or antagonism toward heterosexual relations, and to enable him to have satisfying sex-love involvements with members of the other sex

— “The Effectiveness of Psychotherapy with Individuals Who Have Severe Homosexual Problems, Albert Ellis, New York, 1956, Journal Of Consulting Psychology,”

“There ‘has been a recent increase of interest in the possibility of treating several types of abnormal behaviour by procedures derived from the experimental psychology of learning(2, 12). Sexual aberrations represent one such type, and several re- ports, reviewed by Rachman( 10), have appeared of attempts to treat them by behavior therapy, as it is usually termed. In the case of homosexuality the method has been to induce an aversion to previously attractive males; usually a complementary attempt to increase the attraction to females is also made. Only one large series (67 cases in all) has been reported(4). He attempted to associate the vomiting induced by apomorphine with photographs of males; in addition his patients were given injections of testosterone propionate, and several hours later shown photographs of females.”

[…]

A photograph of a male, attractive to the patient, is presented to him and the patient is able to continue to look at this, or remove it as he wishes. If he has not removed it within 8 seconds he receives an electric shock at an intensity previously determined as very unpleasant for him, until he does remove the photograph. The moment he does so the shock ceases. Almost always the patient eventually learns to anticipate the coming shock by removing the photograph before the 8 seconds is up. Hence, he is rewarded for doing so by not being shocked. The male stimulus is a signal that something unpleasant is about to happen. Anxiety is evoked by this, and is reduced by removing the picture and hence avoiding the shock. It is hoped that the behaviour which reduced the anxiety will be ‘stamped in,’ and that a habit of not gazing at, or thinking about, male partners, both essential preludes of homosexual activity, will be set up. It is important to note that the patient is an active participant in the situation, and is not the passive recipient of stimuli, as in the classical conditioning situation.”

— “A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO THE TREATMENT OF HOMOSEXUALITY BY CONDITIONED AVERSION: PRELIMINARY REPORT M. P. FELDMAN, PH.D., M. J. MAcCULLOCH, M.B., American Journal of Psychiatry, 1964”

“Phase I
The client was put into a relaxed state and instructed to recall and visualize a recent, very pleasurable sexual experience with another male and to narrate this encounter to the therapist. At various points in the narration, phials of dilute ammonium sulfide (odor of rotten eggs) and butyric acid (dirty athletic socks or underwear) and conventional “smelling salts” (aromatic ammonia) were held a few inches beneath the patient’s nose and he was instructed to sniff, at the same time continuing his visualizing and narration. The noxious substance was then removed after an average exposure of 12 sec, and the client was instructed to “think of nothing” or to visualize the therapist’s words of relaxation for 30–40 sec. He was then told to resume his narration, and the procedure was repeated.”
“After this conditioning session, which lasted less than 15 min, and during which the noxious aromas were introduced a total of seven times, the patient reported that he was surprised to realize that for the five days immediately following he did not experience any urge to look for a male sexual partner. The first time he did look at a male with sexual interest (sixth day following treatment) he began to re-experience some of the choking sensations he had felt as a result of the ammonia vapours and subsequently he lost his incipient desire.”

— “OLFACTORY AVERSION THERAPY FOR HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR CHARLES E. COLSON* Illinois State University, J. Behav Ther & Exp. Psychlat. Vol 3, pp. 185–187. Pergamon Pless, 1972. Printed in Great Britain”

It is argued that both social learning research findings and results from retrospective studies suggest that homosexuality may best be linked to the early qualitative learning and development of one’s gender identity and gender role. Both psychoanalytic therapy and behavior therapy are found to have minimal successes and many failures. Most therapeutic successes seem to be with bisexuals rather than with exclusive homosexuals. The combined use of psychotherapy and specific behavioral techniques is seen to offer some promise for heterosexual adaptation with certain kinds of patients. However, it is argued that better prospects for intervention in homosexuality lie in its prevention through the early identification and treatment of the potential homosexual child.”

[…]

Clearly, more refined and representative longitudinal studies which identify childhood factors of homosexuality and trace the development of target children through adolescence and adulthood need to be conducted. This is a challenge that must be met before any definitive understanding of the homosexual’s development and possible treatment can be achieved.

— Acosta, F. X. (1975). Etiology and treatment of homosexuality: A review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 4(1), 9–29

“ One reason for early treatment is that an eventual delay or arrest in emotional, social or intellectual development can be warded off more successfully when the ultimate cause of this arrest has been taken care of. Suffering from gender dysphoria without being able to present socially in the desired social role, and/or to stop the development of secondary sex characteristics usually leads to problems in these areas. Adolescents find it hard to live with a secret. Often have difficulties in connecting socially and romantically with peers while still in the undesired gender role, or the physical developments create an anxiety that limits their capacities to concentrate on other issues.””

— “Clinical management of gender identity disorder in adolescents: a protocol on psychological and paediatric endocrinology aspects”, European Journal of Endocrinology ,Henriette A Delemarre-van de Waal 1 and Peggy T Cohen-Kettenis 1


In the United States of America, over 40,000 people were lobotomized. Forty percent of the victims of lobotomies were homosexuals. Lobotomies were a way to ‘cure’ homosexuality. Lobotomies left people severely disabled, and today we regard it as medical barbarism. It was a mutilation looking to be a cure, preying on societies most marginalized.

Today, in the United States of America, we prefer to sexually lobotomize the homosexual in childhood. To take children who don’t behave according to sex stereotypes, to chemically sterilize them, and then physically castrate them once they reach adulthood. These children, who may have grown up to be healthy homosexuals, are never allowed to go through their true puberty. They are turned into approximations of the opposite sex; they are denied a sexuality, they are denied any form of sexual maturity. Through becoming approximations of the opposite sex, any potential homosexual desire is heterosexualized.

The Dutch Protocol, child transition, call it what you want. It will not change the fact that is a conversion therapy so brutal, so homophobic, that seeks the destruction of even a child showing the potential to be homosexual in adulthood.

The new conversion therapy is truly dreadful. It requires the obliteration of even acknowledging the potential homosexual self — through legal sex changes on birth certificates, through the choosing of a new name and describing the old name as ‘dead’. The potential for a homosexual self, retroactively changed so that the potential homosexual child was always, at least, legally, a potential heterosexual. It snuffs out the potential homosexual self before it can even exist. It snuffs out the very history, the very fact, that there was a potential homosexual self at all.They say that these children can now be their ‘authentic selves’.

To the transgender movement, the only ‘authentic self’ is the heterosexual self.

LGBTQ+ organizations, awash with money from trans-supporting philanthropists, support this monstrous homophobia. Out of all the groups supporting The New Conversion Therapy, this is the greatest betrayal, and it is a betrayal of children, many of whom would have grown up happy and healthy homosexuals if not for this ‘treatment’.

Because in ten years, I won’t be writing how I’m wrong.

I’ll be writing on the endless medical malpractice lawsuits that this ‘treatment’ will have spawned. The damaged children. The heartbroken parents convinced they were doing the right thing.

It’s time to pull our heads out of the sand and call this for what it is.

Conversion therapy.


Sue Donym is a concerned citizen from Northern California.

This is an abridged version of the original article ‘The New Homophobic Bridge to Nowhere: Child Transition’. That article is a long read (around 95 minutes), for the reader who wants to know more on the subject.