The New Homophobic Bridge To Nowhere: Child Transition.

What if I told you there was a movement, nay, a civil rights movement, to castrate children? Children, that may, potentially, turn out gay. Homosexual. Fruity. Fabulous.

I know your reply already: “That’s unrealistic! Horseshit! Untrue! Conspiracy theories! No one could do that! You’re a big liar, Alex Jones-esque, and I’m going to close your article and complain on Twitter!”

You’ll get even more incredulous when I tell you that this civil rights movement is doing so with an off-label chemo drug that has been subject to multiple lawsuits!

For off-label marketing. Because, well, duh. Leopards, spots, tired expressions, etc.

Or that use of such a drug has been linked to osteoporosis in later life. Or dementia when used off-label in adult women. Or a host of other side effects. And apart from life-long sterility, no one has any idea on what the long-term effects of using the drug to castrate children is!

“Crazy! Nuts! You probably believe the water is turning the frogs gay!”

Okay, what if I told you that this civil rights movement to castrate children was the transgender rights movement?

Did I pique your interest enough to keep going? Yes? Good.

The drugs used to castrate children, 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: the castration of children.

Sorry. The use of puberty blockers in order to allow gender confused children to ‘decide’ on their gender identity. No more castration talk.

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. These doctors have no idea of the long-term side effects, they deny the existence of side effects to the media, and even insist that preventing a child from going through natural puberty doesn’t mean that they’re sterile.

How do I know this? Because I looked through the science. But it’s not only that — it’s the demonization of anyone who asks questions, such as the defamation case of Kenneth Zucker, who has made much of his earlier work taken out of context and misquoted, it’s the use of garbage statistics to scare people in compliance through emotional blackmail, and the sheer amount of money being funneled into this.

Oh, and of course, a class of drugs with a dodgy history primarily used in vulnerable populations. Because the story wouldn’t be complete without it.

LIVING THE LAWSUIT LIFE

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, 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.

Why did the DOJ charge TAP over Lupron? I’ll let them explain in their own words:

A federal grand jury returned an indictment unsealed today, charging one physician and six TAP managers with conspiracy to pay kickbacks to doctors and other customers, conspiracy to defraud the state Medicaid programs on TAP’s obligation to sell products to those programs at its best price, and conspiracy to violate the Prescription Drug Marketing Act by causing free samples to be illegally billed to the Medicare program. The indictment charges that the TAP defendants offered to give things of value, including free drugs, so-called educational grants, trips to resorts, free consulting services, medical equipment, and forgiveness of debt, to physicians and other customers to obtain their referrals of prescriptions for Lupron to Medicare program beneficiaries, in violation of the anti-kickback statute. The indictment also charges that the TAP defendants aided and abetted, and caused the billings to hundreds of elderly Medicare program beneficiaries and to the Medicare program directly, for thousands of free samples of Lupron, used in the treatment of prostate cancer, in violation of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act.”

Bribery, Medicare fraud, ripping off the elderly. You know, the usual pharmaceutical malfeasance. How did they do that Medicare fraud?

“As part of its civil allegations, the Government alleged that throughout the 1990s, TAP set and controlled the price at which the Medicare program reimbursed physicians for the prescription of Lupron by reporting its average wholesale price (“AWP”). The AWP reported by TAP was significantly higher than the average sales price TAP offered physicians and other customers for the drug. The Government alleged that TAP marketed the spread between its discounted prices paid by physicians and the significantly higher Medicare reimbursement based on AWP as an inducement to physicians to obtain their Lupron business. The Government further alleged that TAP concealed the true discounted prices paid by physicians from Medicare, and falsely advised physicians to report the higher AWP rather than their real discounted price for the drug. The Government further alleged that TAP set its AWPs of Lupron at levels far higher than the price for which wholesalers or distributors actually sold the drug, resulting in falsely inflated prices that were neither the physician’s actual cost nor the true wholesaler’s average price.”

The second settlement with the DOJ came on May 7th, 2012, six months after Abbot announced it was spinning off Lupron and other drugs into a new company, AbbVie. What was that second DOJ settlement over? Depakote, a drug prescribed to elderly dementia patients.

“Abbott Labs to Pay $1.5 Billion to Resolve Criminal & Civil Investigations of Off-label Promotion of Depakote.
Company Maintained Specialized Sales Force to Market Drug for Off Label Purposes; Targeted Elderly Dementia Patients in Nursing Homes”

Oh, come on, that’s almost comically evil. Targeting elderly dementia patients? That belongs on The Simpsons, not real life.

Dementia patients? Nursing homes? That’s a vulnerable population right there. There couldn’t possibly be a pattern of behavior with the way Lupron is marketed. So how did Abbot harm elderly dementia patients?

“Abbott has pleaded guilty to misbranding Depakote by promoting the drug to control agitation and aggression in elderly dementia patients and to treat schizophrenia when neither of these uses was FDA approved. In an agreed statement of facts filed in the criminal action, Abbott admits that from 1998 through 2006, the company maintained a specialized sales force trained to market Depakote in nursing homes for the control of agitation and aggression in elderly dementia patients, despite the absence of credible scientific evidence that Depakote was safe and effective for that use. In addition, from 2001 through 2006, the company marketed Depakote in combination with atypical antipsychotic drugs to treat schizophrenia, even after its clinical trials failed to demonstrate that adding Depakote was any more effective than an atypical antipsychotic alone for that use.”
“The FDA approved Depakote for only three uses: epileptic seizures, bipolar mania and the prevention of migraines. The FDA never approved the drug as safe and effective for the off-label use of controlling behavioral disturbances in dementia patients. In 1999, Abbott was forced to discontinue a clinical trial of Depakote in the treatment of dementia due to an increased incidence of adverse events, including somnolence, dehydration and anorexia experienced by the elderly study participants administered Depakote.”

Okay, that’s actually evil. Holy shit! Who on Earth thinks it’s okay to make money off giving elderly dementia patients anorexia? I mean, not even Mr. Burns would sink that low, and he blocked out the sun! So how did Abbot give elderly dementia patients in nursing homes anorexia?

“Abbott trained its sales force to promote Depakote to health care providers and employees of nursing homes as advantageous over antipsychotic drugs for controlling agitation and aggression in elderly dementia patients because Depakote was not subject to certain provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA) and its implementing regulations designed to prevent the use of unnecessary medications in nursing homes. Exploiting the fact that certain OBRA provisions did not yet apply to Depakote, Abbott sales representatives stated that by using Depakote, nursing homes could avoid the administrative burdens and costs of complying with OBRA.

Skirt the law! Give your patients anorexia? Wait a minute, that’s not right.

Abbott’s off-label promotion of Depakote was multifaceted. The company entered into contracts that provided long-term care pharmacy providers with payments of rebates based on increases in the use of Depakote in nursing homes serviced by the providers. In addition to using its sales force to promote the drug to health care providers and employees of nursing homes, Abbott created programs and materials to train the pharmacy providers’ consultant pharmacists about the off-label use of Depakote to encourage them to recommend the drug for this unapproved use. Under these contracts, Abbott paid millions of dollars in rebates to the pharmacy providers.
“Not only did Abbott engage in off-label promotion, but it targeted elderly dementia patients and downplayed the risks apparent from its own clinical studies,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Tony West. “As this criminal and civil resolution demonstrates, those who put profits ahead of patients will pay a hefty price.”

Off-label marketing of a drug targeting a vulnerable population? Where have I heard that before? Oh, in our previous article.

“In the agreed statement of facts, Abbott also admitted that from 2001 through 2006, the Company misbranded Depakote by marketing the drug to treat schizophrenia. Abbott funded two studies of the use of Depakote to treat schizophrenia, and both failed to meet the main goals established for the study. When the second study failed to show a statistically significant treatment difference between antipsychotic drugs used in combination with Depakote and antipsychotic drugs alone, Abbott waited nearly two years to notify its own sales force about the study results and another two years to publish those results. During this time, Abbott continued to promote Depakote off-label to treat schizophrenia.

Don’t forget the schizophrenics when we need to market a drug off-label (which is illegal), to a vulnerable population!

What does this have to do with the use of puberty blockers? Currently, Lupron is one of the most popular GnRHa drugs prescribed off-label to ‘treat’ gender dysphoria in adolescents by blocking puberty. But does this use of GnRHa drugs stand up to scientific scrutiny? Or will I be reporting on a DOJ settlement in ten years about how Lupron was illegally marketed to chemically castrate children?

Probably the latter. Let me tell you why.

LUPROBLEMS: SIDE EFFECTS AND MORE

It’s worth noting now, that the FDA has reported over 20,000 adverse reactions to Lupron in their FDA Adverse Event Reporting system. I’m unable to get the raw data, but I can access the dashboard. We can see over 3,000 adverse reactions to Lupron when used for blocking puberty in gender dysphoria, precocious puberty, and ‘delayed puberty’. These adverse reaction reports include cases that resulted in death. The FDA cautions us to remember that they are simply reports of adverse reactions and may not be linked to the drug in question, but many of the adverse event reports for Lupron are regarding osteopenia and other bone problems. That these adverse reports exist alongside the science is disturbing.

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?

Another 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.

“Intelligence The IQ levels for the whole group decreased significantly, from 100.2 (12.7) at T1 to 93.1 (10.5) at T2 (p = 0.002)”

The study’s authors declare this not ‘clinically relevant’, but I’d steadfastly like to disagree. Even if this resolves after treatment — transgender children will spend years taking these drugs. How will it affect academic performance?

Yet another study finds that use of GnRHas in transwomen to suppress androgen production are associated with effects on HDL-cholesterol and cardiovascular problems, noting:

“Preliminary results from this retrospective observational pilot study suggest that CPA and Leu in combination with TE are equally effective in the suppression of gonadotrophins and testosterone levels over 1 year. Whether the different effects on HDL‐cholesterol may lead to long‐term different cardiovascular safety profiles remains to be defined.”

Its one in a long line of studies that demonstrates that many doctors and scientists have no real idea of the long-term effects of GnRHa use for transgenderism.

Well-documented also is Lupron’s side effects 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.

So, 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 An Examination of the Effects of Leuprolide Acetate Used in the Treatment of Central Precocious Puberty on Bone Mineral Density and 25-Hydroxy Vitamin D.

“25-Hydroxy vitamin D levels in the study and control groups were 15.17 ± 7 mg/dL and 22.2 ± 6.1mg/dL, respectively (p < 0.05). In terms of bone mineral density, osteopenia was determined in 13 (56.5%) patients in the study group and osteoporosis in one (4.3%), while osteopenia was identified in seven patients in the control group, with no osteoporosis being identified (p > 0.05).

[…]

“Significant bone losses have been shown to take place in adult women after three to six months of GnRH agonist therapy. Additionally, this loss did not improve after cessation of treatment. The effect of these analogues, which are frequently used in the treatment of genuine precocious puberty, on bone health in children is the subject of debate”
[…]
Vitamin D levels were significantly lower in the patients using leuprolide acetate compared to the control group. Looked at from this perspective, bone mineralization that is likely to be impaired in association with vitamin D deficiency may be a risk factor for osteoporosis in later years, even if GnRH agonist therapy is stopped.

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.

At the onset of the study, lumbar bone mineral density did not differ in women with endometriosis and control women. Lumbar bone mineral density values significantly decreased after 6 months of GnRH-a treatment. This reduction was still evident 6 months after GnRH-a interruption. However, 24 months after treatment withdrawal, bone mineral density reduction disappeared and bone mineral density values were completely superimposable (+/- O.4 percent) to those observed before treatment. In contrast, control women lumbar bone mineral density values did not change during the entire period of observation.
These data suggest that GnRH-a treatment for 6 months is not associated with long-term effects on lumbar bone density.

GnRHa use is associated with bone density loss in women — 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 possibility that hypoestrogenism induced by GnRH-a treatment is followed by an increased risk of osteoporosis has been assumed from data demonstrating that reduced spinal bone mineral density values were measured after several months of treatment and also after several months after treatment cessation (11, 13, 14, 16–18). Further, a recent study found a persistent reduction in spinal bone mineral density 18 months after cessation of a 6-month treatment period with Nafarelin(18). The same authors (18) showed that, at the 6th month of observation, there was a reduction of approximately 2.5% to 4% in women treated with Nafarelin for 3 to 6 months, respectively, and that this decrease was constant and stable in the following year. Thereafter, a slight increase was observed, but the spinal bone mineral density measurements were always significantly lower than the initial ones (18).”

Nafarelin, another type of GnRHa, was also associated with spinal bone mineral density loss, which was persistent after use.

And of course, the money shot:

“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.

One literature review, Experience with the once-yearly histrelin (GnRHa) subcutaneous implant in the treatment of central precocious puberty which found no association with GnRHas and effects on bone density, was authored by Erica. A Eugster and Katherine A. Lewis. A disclosure of interest at the bottom reveals that Erica A Eugster is on an Indevus Pharmaceuticals advisory board and participates clinical trials for Indevus. Indevus produces histrelin, which is another GnRHa-type drug. Indevus also produces testosterone hormone-replacement therapy drugs.

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 Lupron can bring, discussing the costs of the drug, and even recommends redirecting patients to mail order/online pharmacies if they need to get the drug cheaper. 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’.

“In conclusion, within the historical context of GnRHa use in the pediatric population, the employment of this class of medications in gender-variant children, and adolescents represents a new frontier. While initial knowledge is reassuring, many important questions remain pertaining to both physical and psychological consequences normally timed puberty, sometimes for upwards of 7 years, in these vulnerable patients. Long-term, carefully conducted prospective studies are needed to further delineate the risks and benefits of GnRHas in transgender youth’

They have no idea what this usage might do — they haven’t even started researching, but they prescribe the drug anyway. That’s just horrendous. And, of course, 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.

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.

“Of the initial 101 participants, 59 youth had follow-up physiologic data collected between 21 and 31 months after initiation of hormones available for analysis. Metabolic parameters changes were not clinically significant, with the exception of sex steroid levels, intended to be the target of intervention.”

Nearly half the study dropped out? Interesting.

“Although the impact of hormones on some historically concerning physiologic parameters, including lipids, potassium, hemoglobin, and prolactin, were statistically significant, clinical significance was not observed. Hormone levels physiologically concordant with gender of identity were achieved with feminizing and masculinizing medication regimens. Extensive and frequent laboratory examination in transgender adolescents may be unnecessary. The use of hormones in transgender youth appears to be safe over a treatment course of approximately two years.”

But what about after three years of treatment? Again: no one prescribing this stuff to children has any idea of what the long-term effects are.

“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).

What on earth is ‘experienced gender’? How can you, say, have a male sex, but experience a ‘female gender’? Is it because gender is sex stereotypes?

“Many youth with gender dysphoria seek medical intervention (pharmacological and/or surgical) to bring their phenotypic presentation into closer alignment with their gender of identity. Because there is a paucity of data related to the impact of gender-affirming hormones in youth, providers, caretakers, and community members experience trepidation about the safety and efficacy of their use in transgender adolescents. This article describes the physiologic impact of gender-affirming hormones among adolescents seeking phenotypic gender transition after approximately two years of gender-affirming hormone treatment.”

And again: nobody knows the long-term effects of this ‘treatment’! There are no control groups in these studies. And what on earth is ‘gender of identity’?

“Although the presence of primary sex characteristics is often described as a source of distress for transgender youth, the development of “incorrect” secondary sex characteristics during endogenous puberty is the cause of great suffering for many. Some youth describe feeling confused by sexually incongruent development, some feel betrayed by their bodies, and many experience heightened levels of anxiety, depression, and sometimes suicidal thoughts and attempts [3]. The past decade has improved access to care for many youth, but the scarcity of skilled and knowledgeable medical providers has continued to make access to care challenging for transgender youth throughout the country. The dearth of available data regarding medical protocols and outcomes contributes to a lack of continuity about hormone administration, timing, doses, and expected response. Dutch investigation indicates that hormone treatment in adolescence followed by gender confirmation surgery is effective in mitigating gender dysphoria [4]. Despite these findings, there remains on ongoing concern among providers and parents about the safety of hormone use among youth with gender dysphoria.”

Translation: We have no idea what this will do in the long-term, but these children might kill themselves if we don’t sterilize them even though most clinical literature published before 2005 agreed that gender dysphoric children desist on their own.

I count multiple admissions of admitting that Olson-Kennedy has no idea what this will do to children in the long-term. Of course, the long-term data she does have doesn’t look good:

“The use of gender-affirming hormones in transgender adults for the purpose of phenotypic gender transition is well documented, and demonstrates both efficacy and safety [7, 8]. Weinand and Safer reviewed published longitudinal data examining the impact of hormones in transgender adults. Among transfeminine adults (those assigned male at birth who identify somewhere along the feminine spectrum) who were administered feminizing hormones for phenotypic changes, a small risk of venous thrombolytic events ranging between 1% [8] and 8% [9] was reported depending on the type of estrogen used in the treatment protocol and other existing risk factors (smoking, proximity to surgery, hypercoagulable states). Other cardiovascular events reported were also rare. Among these studies, findings consistently describe no increased cancer risk for transfeminine individuals undergoing hormone therapy.
[…]
Changes in physiologic measures for transfeminine individuals include mixed results about changes in lipid profile [10]. Liver function tests and hematocrit did not change with feminizing hormone use [10, 11]. An increase in prolactin levels, enlarged pituitary glands, and prolactinomas (six cases) has been reported with feminizing hormone therapy [7, 12]. Increased mortality among the transfeminine population is a result of AIDS-related complications, suicide, substance abuse, and cardiovascular disease [13].”

Those ‘assigned male at birth who identify somewhere along the feminine spectrum’ — what does that even mean?

“Among adult transmasculine individuals (those assigned female at birth who identify somewhere along the masculine spectrum of gender) who underwent hormone therapy with testosterone, there was no reported increase in cardiovascular disease, cancer, or reproductive tract sequelae. Hemoglobin and hematocrit increased in those taking testosterone, but remained within normal male range. Increased insulin resistance and fasting glucose were both noted as sequelae for transmasculine individuals taking hormones. A higher rate of polycystic ovary syndrome diagnoses among pre-hormone transmasculine individuals may contribute to some of these findings in that cohort [14]. Finally, there has been no increase in mortality noted for transmasculine individuals taking testosterone. Overall, the authors concluded that gender-affirming hormone therapy is safe, with careful monitoring for potential complicating factors [7].

‘Masculine spectrum of gender’, because that’s a verifiable and scientific concept and not a meaningless postmodern cliche. And a higher rate of polycystic ovary syndrome? And that testestorone therapy increases insulin resistance (and thereby, making the problem worse). ‘Safe’ as long as you monitor for complications. That’s not safe.

I decided to hunt down the study Olson cited on polycystic ovary syndrome. ‘A higher rate of polycystic ovary syndrome in transmasculine individuals’ sounded like something worth tracking down.

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.

“Gender identity disorder (GID) is a disagreement between biological sexual differentiation and self-declared gender identity. It is characterized by (i) a strong and persistent cross-gender identification and (ii) persistent discomfort with the biological sexual or gender role behaviours associated with one’s sex. The aetiology of GID remains unclear, although endocrinological, neuroanatomical and psychosocial factors are all thought to be causally involved. For example, Collaer and Hines (1995) showed that gonadal hormones affect sexual differentiation. In addition, examination of females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency, which results in excessive prenatal androgen exposure, revealed that early androgen exposure has a modest effect on gender identification (Berenbaum and Bailey, 2003). We established a GID clinic in 2003, and since then, more than 90 female-to-male (FTM) transsexuals have been seen there. Prior to treatment, most of these individuals exhibited polycystic ovarian morphology on ultrasonography as well as symptoms of hyperandrogenism (e.g. hyperandrogenaemia and hirsutism).”
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is characterized by chronic anovulation, polycystic ovarian morphology, and biochemical and/or biological signs of hyperandrogenism (The Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-sponsored PCOS Consensus Workshop Group, 2004). Most women with PCOS also exhibit insulin resistance and hyperinsulinaemia, which is independent of obesity (Dunaif et al., 1989). Insulin resistance is defined as a diminished ability of cells to respond to the action of insulin and predisposes one to type 2 diabetes mellitus. In addition, insulin resistance is associated with hypertension, dyslipidaemia, obesity and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (DeFronzo and Ferrannini, 1991).

Most of the patients they saw had a ‘polycystic ovarian morphology’.:

“Despite reports of an association between PCOS and adiponectin (Sieminska et al., 2004; Ardawi and Rouzi, 2005; Carmina et al., 2005), there have been no studies examining adiponectin levels in, or the prevalence of PCOS and insulin resistance, among FTM transsexuals. The aim of the present study, therefore, is to investigate the possible association between PCOS, insulin resistance and FTM transsexuality.”
“The study population consisted of 69 Japanese FTM transsexual patients, 17–47 years of age, who were seen in the GID clinic of Sapporo Medical University Hospital between December 2003 and May 2006. None of these women had ever received hormone treatment or sex re-assignment surgery. Psychological diagnoses were made by a specialized psychiatrist at the clinic according to the guidelines of our institution, the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology, ICD-10 and DSM-IV (World Health Organization, 1992; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Patients who were found to have other psychiatric abnormalities such as schizophrenia or virilizing endocrine disorders were excluded. All patients were chromosomal and phenotypic females”

What’s the association between FTM transsexuality and PCOS? 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 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?

Many FTM patients in the clinic, even without PCOS, had showed high insulin resistance.

“Of the 49 patients for whom HOMA-IRs were calculated, 15 (30.6%) showed insulin resistance. These insulin resistant cases were 10 out of 32 (31.3%) patients in the PCOS group and 5 out of 17 (29.4%) patients in the non-PCOS group. Within the various groups, the percentages of patients exhibiting abnormal HOMA-IR were 72.7% (obese), 17.1% (lean), 62.5% (obese PCOS), 100% (obese non-PCOS), 19.0% (lean PCOS) and 14.3% (lean non-PCOS). A statistically significant difference was seen only between the obese and lean groups (P < 0.005, OR = 12.89, 95% CI: 2.62–63.31) (Figure 1).”

The study also comments that hormone therapy eventually makes ovaries polycystic regardless of whether the patient initially presented with PCOS or not.

Notably, PCOS often accompanies hyperandrogenism, insulin resistance and obesity, which suggests that FTM transsexual patients are likely to show excessive androgen levels. 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 (Futterweit and Deligdisch, 1986; Pache et al., 1993”

PCOS is also associated with lesbianism:

“In human studies, genetic females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia are more likely to show gender-atypical play behaviour and gynephilic sexual orientation (Meyer-Bahlburg, 1979; Dittmann et al., 1992). In that regard, the prevalence of PCOS is significantly higher among lesbian women than among heterosexual women, and lesbian women with PCOS have more pronounced hyperandrogenism than heterosexual women 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.”

You know, just risks for type two diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. If you monitor for those complications, it’s safe! Safe, I tell you! Just a significant health risk, is all.

The study concludes thus:

It thus seems highly unlikely to us that it is by chance that most cases of FTM transsexuality are complicated by PCOS and extremely high androgen levels.
“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.

Olson neglects to mention any of this in a study she cites, and barrels along:

“Little has been reported about transgender adolescents and their response to hormone therapy. A recent retrospective article by Jarin et al. reported the minimal impact of hormone treatment on 116 adolescents aged 14–25 years with gender dysphoria who were treated over time. Jarin et al. demonstrated that among adolescents treated for a period of 1–6+ months, the only findings were an increase in hemoglobin, hematocrit, and body mass index, and a lowering of high-density lipoprotein levels in those using testosterone for masculinization. Among those using estrogen for feminization, lower testosterone and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) were reported [15]. These findings are consistent with data from adults undergoing phenotypic gender transition with exogenous hormones, and indicate short-term safety of hormone use. The results from this retrospective study are useful for helping to allay some of the concerns that providers and parents have about safety. This study is limited by its retrospective design, and the challenges faced by many trying to collect data from adolescents — sporadic follow-up, frequent relocation, and inconsistent medication adherence.”

‘Short term safety’ — what about the long-term effects? No one seems willing actually investigate long term effects here. At all. This study she cites, took place over 1–6 months — so there is no information on the long-term effects!

“Transfeminine youth showed statistically significant changes in high-density lipoprotein (HDL), aspartate aminotransferase, potassium, prolactin, and hemoglobin at follow-up. Although these metabolic parameters were statistically significant, they were not clinically significant, and did not present a safety concern. A decrease in hemoglobin is an expected physiologic response to the lowering of testosterone, which stimulates the production of erythropoietin and subsequently hemoglobin. Only one participant dropped into borderline anemia, all others were within the normal range for cisgender females.

But they aren’t female. It also increases their HDL cholesterol to a ‘cisgender female range’, but they aren’t biologically female. You can’t just dismiss that!

“To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study examining the physiologic changes that occur among minors and young adults undergoing treatment with gender-affirming hormones for the purpose of phenotypic gender transition.

Olson-Kennedy has been telling the media, repeatedly, that ‘gender-affirming care is safe’, and then admits in her own study that this is the first study tracking the health outcomes for these kids.

And we still don’t know the long-term effects.

“Current guidelines recommend monitoring physiologic parameters during induction of puberty at baseline and as often as every three months during the first year of hormone use [17, 18]. Given the findings of this study, Weinand [7], and Jarin et al. [15], extensive and frequent laboratory examination in transgender adolescents may be unnecessary simply in response to the induction of puberty with gender-affirming hormones. Specifically, monitoring complete blood counts and chemistries including LFTs are unnecessary except perhaps in transwomen who plan to go on spironolactone in which case baseline potassium and creatinine levels would be reasonable. In transwomen, monitoring prolactin is unnecessary unless galactorrhea, or other clinically concerning symptoms occur. Increases in blood pressure seen in transmasculine individuals warrant ongoing monitoring and standard treatment for those who develop hypertension. In other cases where further medical investigation is warranted, it should be undertaken according to clinical necessity.”

FTM hormone therapy can cause hypertension. But safe! SAFE! SAFE!

“Frequent concerns about the safety of hormone use in individuals younger than 18 years can create barriers for youth to access medically necessary interventions that have been demonstrated to improve the lives of transgender adolescents. Concerns about the impact of cross-sex hormones on metabolic parameters are starting to be assuaged with clinical experience, retrospective analysis, and more recently, the undertaking of prospective, longitudinal investigations. Among this cohort of youth reported here, there were several statistically significant changes in mean values of physiologic parameters over time, but these did not translate to clinical safety concerns. Hormone levels were impacted as anticipated, and reflect the therapeutic goals of the care. These data indicate that gender-affirming hormone therapy is safe over a time period of approximately two years. Future studies and follow-up information that includes longitudinal results are necessary.”

It’s linked to PCOS, hypertension, one of your subjects was anemic, but sure, it’s totally safe. Right.

That’s not safe. And you must be monitored while taking it. And you have no idea of the long-term effects. Insightful.


Some research has been done on the effects of using GnRH analogs and cross-sex hormones on adolescents with gender dysphoria though. The 2015 study, “Bone Mass in Young Adulthood Following Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Analog Treatment and Cross-Sex Hormone Treatment in Adolescents With Gender Dysphoria”, followed 34 subjects both transmen and transwomen in a longitudinal study.

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 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.

Adolescents with gender dysphoria (GD) can be treated with gonadotropin releasing hormone analog (GnRHa). Pubertal suspension enables them to reflect on their GD without the distress caused by the development of unwanted secondary sexual characteristics of their natal sex. In our center, children with GD can be treated with GnRHa from the age of 12 years (1). If the desire for sex reassignment (SR) persists, at the age of 16 years cross-sex hormones (CSH) are added. The psychological benefits of this treatment protocol have been clearly demonstrated (2). Previously, concerns regarding the long-term effects of GnRHa therapy on bone mass development have been expressed. Children with central precocious puberty treated with GnRHa have normal bone mass at final height attainment at age 16–17 years (3–5). In contrast, adolescents with GD remain hypogonadal until at least the age of 16 years, when CSH are added. Long-term effects on bone mineral density (BMD) of GnRHa and CSH have not been reported. We assessed peak bone mass (PBM) in young adults with GD that had been treated with GnRHa and CSH during their pubertal years

The study explains that there is a difference between using GnRHa in children with precocious puberty and children with gender dysphoria — the children who are being treated for gender dysphoria often use the drugs for years on end, and then do not have a puberty, supplementing instead with cross-sex hormones.

“(See also Supplemental Data.) Patients were treated as previously described (1). Briefly, triptorelin (Decapeptyl-CR, Ferring) 3.75 mg every 4 weeks sc was started in patients diagnosed with gender identity disorder (DMS IV-TR) in the age range from 11.4–18.3 years. In the age range from 15.6–19 years transwomen were prescribed incremental dosing of 17-βestradiol orally and transmen were given im mixed T esters (Sustanon 250 mg/ml, MSD) every 2–4 weeks in incremental dosages. At a minimum age of 18 years, after gonadectomy, GnRHa treatment was terminated and CSH therapy continued. During the entire treatment patients were advised on calcium intake and weight-bearing physical exercise.

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).

“Clinical characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Median duration of GnRHa monotherapy in transwomen and transmen was 1.3 years (range, 0.5–3.8) and 1.5 years (range, 0.25–5.2), respectively. The median duration of CSH therapy was 5.8 years (range, 3.0–8.0) and 5.4 years (range, 2.8–7.8), respectively. The median duration of combined GnRHa and CSH therapies was 3.1 years (range, 2.1–4.5) and 2.2 years (range, 1.4–3.1), respectively.

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.

“In transwomen absolute aBMD and BMAD did not change during GnRHa monotherapy and the respective z scores decreased but not significantly. During CSH absolute LS aBMD increased but the z score at age 22 years was lower than at start of treatment.
In transmen both absolute LS and FN aBMD and the respective z scores decreased during GnRHa monotherapy and subsequently increased between start of CSH therapy and age 22 years. At age 22 years, LS aBMD z scores were lower compared with start GnRHa but this was not significant.
The duration of GnRHa monotherapy in both transwomen and transmen was not correlated with BMD, BMAD, and the respective z scores at the age of 22 years.
At age 22 years, six transwomen (40%) had an LS aBMD z score <−2. In addition, five transwomen (33%) had a T-score <−1 and >−2.5 and three subjects (20%) a T-score < 2.5. In transmen these numbers were 1 (5%), 5 (26%), and 0, respectively.

(In the study, Z- and T-scores were calculated to natal sex.)

What does all that mean? The relevant number we want to look at is the ‘T’ score. I’ll let the National Institute of Health explain:

“Most commonly, your BMD test results are compared to the ideal or peak bone mineral density of a healthy 30-year-old adult, and you are given a T-score. A score of 0 means your BMD is equal to the norm for a healthy young adult. Differences between your BMD and that of the healthy young adult norm are measured in units called standard deviations (SDs). The more standard deviations below 0, indicated as negative numbers, the lower your BMD and the higher your risk of fracture.
As shown in the table below, a T-score between +1 and −1 is considered normal or healthy. A T-score between −1 and −2.5 indicates that you have low bone mass, although not low enough to be diagnosed with osteoporosis. A T-score of −2.5 or lower indicates that you have osteoporosis. The greater the negative number, the more severe the osteoporosis.”

Essentially — bone mineral density decreased. How bad?

“The main finding of this study is that young adult transwomen treated with GnRHa during adolescence have decreased LS aBMD z scores compared with the pretreatment level. In transmen, this loss of z score is also observed as a trend. In addition, in both groups absolute bone mass of the LS and FN decreases during GnRHa monotherapy, followed by an increase after the start of CSH.
According to the World Health Organization classification, both groups had individuals that would classify as osteopenic according to their T-score (6). However, T-scores are mainly relevant for middle-age patients and in this study it is more appropriate to use z scores that normalize for age, ethnicity, and sex. We used natal sex as a reference for aBMD z scores because the size and quality of cortex of the bone is determined during puberty and adolescence (9, 10), in line with recent studies on bone mass in transgender adults (11, 12). In adults, comparison of absolute values for BMD over time may be preferred, but in our subjects, the comparison of absolute values is less meaningful because BMD normally advances over time and therefore comparison of z scores is more appropriate. When using z scores of natal sex it should be taken into consideration that androgens and estrogens affect bone differently (13) and it was shown that bone properties in transgender population differ from their age- and natal sex — matched controls (11, 12, 14).
“In the transmen, absolute LS aBMD and z score were normal at the start of treatment but decreased during GnRHa monotherapy. This may reflect the advanced pubertal state and increased dependence on sex steroids for bone mass maintenance at the start of treatment. In contrast with transwomen, in transmen the LS aBMD z scores improved under CSH, which may be due to the CSH scheme that allowed rapid dose increments. However pretreatment z scores were not reached at age 22 years. This is consistent with previous studies in adult transgender population, which reported loss of bone mass after 2–3 years on T maintenance therapy “

That’s clear — this treatment is linked to decreased bone mass. 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.”

[…]

“In conclusion, this is the first study on the effects of early medical intervention of adolescents with GD regarding bone mass and demonstrates a loss of LS BMD z score at age 22 years. This decrease may reflect either a delay in PBM attainment or loss of PBM potential and may be attributed to the GnRHa-induced hypogonadal state, the relative low hormone dosage during the initial period of CSH therapy, or the pharmacodynamics characteristics of CSH.”

In short form: we have no idea what this means for their future. And they also have no idea which part of the treatment causes it.

We don’t know what the long-term effects are in adulst, 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”. (Sequelae means side effects).

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

“Compiled evidence from this literature review suggests that HT for transgender individuals is safe without a large risk of adverse events when followed carefully for a few well-documented medical concerns as follows. 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 43, 44, 45, benign pituitary tumors and prolactinomas 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 along with the occurrence of autoimmune conditions with a female predominance, such as systemic lupus erythematosus 69, 70. 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 2, 4, 5, 6.
Both transgender men and women experienced an increase in insulin resistance, fasting glucose and changes in body fat redistribution 4, 5, 47, 53, 54. 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 52, 53.

This is worrying, given the association of polycystic ovary syndrome with FTM transsexuality.

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. Though for some, it’s already too late. A 2014 Dutch study, done by the same people, 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.”

Maybe we should address this, before more children die.

THE NEW CONVERSION THERAPY: ORIGINS.

Of course, no lengthy Medium piece on castrating children, sorry, transitioning adolescents with gender dysphoria would be complete without examining research from the original Dutch clinic that started it all. 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 in the vernacular, castration.

I’ll point it out to you now — this study 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 produces Testim, a testosterone replacement therapy, and Degarelix (degarelix acetate, sold under the brand name Firmagon), which is another GnRHa antagonist similar to Lupron, and like Lupron, used to treat prostate cancer. Degarelix is also used to castrate sex offenders in Switzerland. Ferring also makes triptorelin, another GnRHa, and the one used in the study. 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, I’m sure had nothing to do with the study.

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’.

“Since the experience of a full biological puberty may seriously interfere with healthy psychological functioning and well being, we have changed our protocol after the first follow-up studies on the 16–18-year olds (4, 5). Adolescents are now allowed to start puberty suppressing treatment with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) if they were older than 12 years of age and fulfil the same criteria as were used for the 16–18- year olds. They should also have reached Tanner stage 2 or 3 in combination with pubertal levels of sex hormones. The suppression of puberty using GnRHa is a reversible phase of treatment. This treatment is a very helpful diagnostic aid, as it allows the psychologist and the patient to discuss problems that possibly underlie the crossgender identity or clarify potential gender confusion under less time pressure.”

What in the fuck? ‘Since the experience of a full biological puberty may seriously interfere with healthy psychological functioning”

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?

“The recommended procedure in the Standards of Care of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA; now called World Professional Association of Transgender Health or WPATH) — a professional organization in the field — is to come to the SR decision in various steps (9). In the first phase, it is investigated whether an applicant fulfils Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders-IV-RT criteria for gender identity disorder (GID). The next phase has three elements: a real-life experience (RLE) in the desired role, hormonal interventions (in order to suppress puberty and cross-sex hormone treatment) and finally, surgery to correct the genitals.”

It’s all ‘role’ this and ‘role’ that. What are the roles? Why is there no examination that the roles may be fundamentally sexist or social constructs? ‘Correct’ the genitals? Whoa!

“In the first diagnostic phase, information must be obtained from both the adolescent and the parents on various aspects of general and psychosexual development of the adolescent, the adolescent’s current functioning and functioning of the family. Standardized psychological assessment is a part of the procedure. The patient is always seen by two members of the gender team. If a child and adolescent psychologist makes the diagnosis, the child is also seen by a child and adolescent psychiatrist and vice versa. In order to prevent unrealistically high expectations with regard to their future lives, the adolescent has to be clearly informed about the possibilities and limitations of SR and other kinds of treatment. The way a patient responds to the reality of SR can be diagnostically informative. The decision to start medical intervention is always taken by the whole team (for a more detailed description of the diagnostic procedure, see (10)).”

In 2018 people aren’t even following this part of the protocol, because the current mantra is ‘trans women are not different from cis women in any way’. Its slightly less evil that what followed in it’s footsteps. That doesn’t redeem it in any way.

“During the RLE phase, applicants have to live permanently in the role of the desired sex, if they were not already doing so. 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? This paper doesn’t tell me that. I have to assume what that means, and given the study refers to desired roles as ‘gender roles’, which are fundamentally sexist, I can easily say that this kind of science is just reinforcing misogyny and homophobia.

But at least it says one shouldn’t socially transition young children. Sensible. Right. 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.

“During puberty, bone density shows a progressive accretion of bone, which is related to the exposure to sex hormones (12). Peak bone mass will be achieved at the age of 25–30 years. 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.”

Goodbye gonads! Hello castration! 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.

“Side effects of pubertal suppression result from the physiological developments occurring during this period. The normal pubertal growth spurt will not continue, resulting in a delay of growth. In girls, we should therefore try to overcome the 12 cm difference that exists between non-patient boys and girls. In the period of suppression, growth-stimulating medication can be offered in order to increase the height velocity. Androgens, which will be introduced in increasing doses from the age of 16 years, may elicit a ‘puberty growth spurt’ when skeletal maturation is retarded. Boys, who are taller than girls, will also experience growth retardation during GnRHa treatment”

Oh, it causes growth retardation. Oh dear.

“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?

“With respect to metabolic parameters, the only significant changes are an increase in fat mass accompanied by a decrease of lean body mass. These changes occurred only during the first year of suppression of puberty. Thereafter, body composition remained at the same level. During treatment with cross-sex hormones, the percentages return to the pretreatment values. The ultimate effect of this manipulation on pubertal development should be investigated in a longterm follow-up.’

They don’t know if this has long-term side effects either. I’m getting very sick of writing ‘we don’t know if this has long-term side effects’. It’s wearing out all those letters on my keyboard.

Oh. I have to type it again. 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 (16). 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.”

That’s just not good enough when you’re castrating children to serve gender roles and homophobia.

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. It might well be. Most adolescents with GID have a homosexual sexual orientation. The Dutch studies don’t have any group that receives supportive therapy or doesn’t receive intervention — how do we know that therapy isn’t the answer in adolescents? We don’t know the answer, and transgender scientists are forging ahead with the puberty blocker path 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.

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, 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. The study goes onto discuss the history of the literature on the subject:

“In one study, Green (1987) assessed the gender identity and sexual orientation of 44 behaviorally feminine boys and 30 control boys who were at a follow-up mean age of 18.9 years (range, 14–24 years) and who had initially been evaluated at a mean age of 7.1 years (range, 4–12 years). Of the 44 behaviorally feminine boys, only 1 youth, at the age of 18 years, was gender dysphoric to the extent of considering sex-reassignment surgery”
“Sexual orientation in fantasy and behavior was assessed by means of a semistructured, face-to-face interview. Kinsey ratings were made on a 7-point continuum, ranging from exclusive heterosexuality (a Kinsey “0”) to exclusive homosexuality (a Kinsey “6”; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948). Depending on the measure (fantasy or behavior), 75%–80% of the previously behaviorally feminine boys were either bisexual or homosexual (Kinsey ratings between 2 and 6) at follow-up versus 0%–4% of the control boys”
“Data from seven other follow-up reports on a total of 82 behaviorally feminine boys have been summarized in detail elsewhere (Zucker, 2005b; Zucker & Bradley, 1995, pp. 285–286, 290–297). Similar to Green’s (1987) case-control study, these studies also identified an elevated rate of either a bisexual or homosexual sexual orientation (52.4%). In contrast to Green’s (1987) study, however, the other studies found the rate of GID persistence was higher, with rates ranging from 12% to 20%”

(The study mentions Zucker and Bradley’s 1995 study that examined 41 studies of this nature, which I have discussed below).

Were these girls ‘truly trans’ though? Yes. They did qualify for a GID diagnosis:

“The demographic characteristics of the participants in childhood and at follow-up are shown in Table 1. The GID diagnosis in childhood was based on the DSM (3rd ed. [DSM–III]; 3rd ed., rev. [DSM–III–R]; or 4th ed. [DSM–IV]; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1980, 1987, and 1994, respectively) criteria applicable at the time of assessment. Fifteen girls (60%) met complete DSM criteria for GID in childhood. The remaining 40% were subthreshold for a DSM diagnosis of GID, but all had some indicators of GID, and some would have met the complete DSM criteria at some point in their lives prior to their assessment in childhood”

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.”

In this study, we have 88% of girls desisting with their GID. The study mentions some of the literature on boys:

“How do the results of the present study compare with those of follow-up studies of boys with GID? In Zucker (2005b), a follow-up on 40 boys with GID from the same clinic, using the same methods as in the present study, showed a persistence rate of 20%, only modestly higher than the rate of 12% for the girls in the present study. In Zucker (2005b), 42.5% of the boys were classified as bisexual/homosexual in fantasy, which is again only modestly higher than the rate of 32% for the girls in the present study; however, the rate of a bisexual/homosexual sexual orientation in fantasy was considerably lower than the 75% found by Green (1987) in his study of feminine boys. In comparison with the boys followed up by Green (1987) and by Zucker (2005b), it is important to note that the girls in the present study were, on average, several years older at follow-up, which, if anything, would suggest that the likelihood of underreporting a minority sexual orientation would be lower for this sample than for the samples of boys.”

Oh, they grow up gay too. Surprise!

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”

Lies, Damned Lies, And Coverage Of Transgender Children In The Media

The Daily Beast, in an article syndicated from Kaiser Health News covers puberty blockers glowingly. On loading, it tells me to disable my adblocker to ‘help enable fearless journalism’. Ironic, really.

Puberty is no picnic, even in the best of circumstances. Once the sex hormones estrogen or testosterone kick in, there’s no turning back: Here come breasts and periods, Adam’s apples and acne. It’s a tough passage for many kids, but for some — transgender youth whose bodies don’t match their gender identity — puberty can be unbearable.
One mother in St. Louis, Mo. has an 11-year-old, born as one of a set of twin girls. “As soon as he got breast buds, it was like the panic button was hit,” she said.
“He was quickly and very intensely uncomfortable and afraid. He would cry, knowing that this was the beginning of something that he didn’t want, that he knew wasn’t right for him,” said the mother, who asked that the family’s names be withheld to protect their son’s privacy.

The article uses a well-known practice of using scary statistics to ensure that its central thesis — supporting the castrating of children — is unquestioned:

Her child was experiencing what’s known as gender dysphoria, a DSM-5 diagnosis of significant ongoing distress, with the feeling of being assigned the wrong gender at birth. Researchers at Harvard recently found that transgender youth are at a much higher risk for mental disorders, including depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts and self-harm. They are more than twice as likely as non-trans youth to be diagnosed with depression (50.6 percent vs. 20.6 percent) or suffer from anxiety (26.7 percent vs. 10 percent).
“These kids are saying to the world, ‘I was born in the wrong body, and there’s something just not right about living this way,’” said Scott Leibowitz, head child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Gender & Sex Development program for the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.”

Again: Lurie Children’s hospital gender department receives money, including it’s original seed money, from ideologically motivated transgender Republican, Jennifer Natalya Pritzker.

There is also the lies about puberty blockers being safe and effective, when these scientists admit they have no idea of the long-term effects from their use.

Blockers “Safe and Effective”
Full-blown puberty is irreversible, but for transgender children, it’s no longer inevitable. By taking a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist, secretion of the sex hormones can be stopped and the onset of puberty suppressed, so that the body does not develop secondary sex characteristics. This has been done safely for decades to suppress sex hormones in children who develop too early, a condition known as precocious puberty. Suppressors have also been used to treat endometriosis, uterine fibroids and prostate cancer.
It was only in 2008 that The Endocrine Society approved puberty suppressors as a treatment for transgender adolescents as young as 12 years old. The Society, with members in more than 100 countries, has since declared that the intervention appears to be safe and effective. In 2011 the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), also issued Standards of Care for the treatment of patients with gender dysphoria, which include puberty suppression.
There are few reported side effects to this off-label use of sex hormone suppressors. Despite early concerns that blocking sex hormones might harm bone development, a recent study from the Netherlands found no evidence of long-term effects on bone mineral density. If the suppressors are halted, puberty resumes as if there had been no treatment.”

Every single study, even the pro-castration ones says ‘we don’t know the long-term effects’, and at least one follow-up study shows these kids could be diagnosed with osteopenia. Who’s right? This reads like a press release. Not exactly ‘fearless journalism’. I’m disappointed, Daily Beast. I’m thinking of writing to my Congressman to complain about false advertising. Do these things have side effects or not, because I scrolled further down the article and found this:

“Data on the use of puberty blockers is scarce, but in the past decade or so, it’s believed thousands of transgender youth and their families have chosen to suppress puberty to give adolescents a time-out while they figure out the next step in their development.”

But the number of off-label prescriptions of Lupron isn’t that high.

And think of the money here — if one thousand children are taking Lupron-Ped for a year, at a cost of $9700 a shot, that’s $38.8 million in drug sales for GnRHas. Why is no one questioning that? That’s a lot of money.

Treatment with puberty blockers gives transgender children a breather so they can continue to mature and decide whether they will pursue treatment with cross-sex hormones or gender reassignment surgery. For many families, the question is not whether to intervene with blockers, but how early to start.

But this is false! We know from studies that puberty blockers increase the persistence rate a huge amount — sometimes to 100%! And even this piece of glowing coverage discusses desistance rates:

Castro said families of some transgender youth refuse the intervention because they believe their children are “just going through a phase.” A study in 2008 found that 43 percent of very young children who experienced gender dysphoria no longer felt that way after adolescence. The 27 percent who remained dysphoric were the ones who had felt that way most strongly when they were young.

And of course, nothing is complete without ignoring the scientific research by a man who is paid by AbbVie, the company that produces Lupron, as a consultant. Stephen Rosenthal:

“Young children may indeed change their minds, but gender identity seems to be fixed by the time kids have reached puberty. The Endocrine Society finds that transgender adolescents grow up to be transgender adults “100 percent of the time.” Stephen Rosenthal, M.D., medical director of the Child and Adolescent Gender Center at UCSF, agrees: “Children who meet the mental health criteria for gender dysphoria in adolescence are likely to be transgender for life.” In a recent study of 70 participants all the adolescents who had been given puberty blockers went through with sex reassignment.”

I find it curious that a site that boasts of its ‘fearless journalism’, wouldn’t even bring that fact up. Rosenthal’s statement that ‘children who meet the mental health criteria for gender dysphoria in adolescence are likely to be transgender for life’ also doesn’t agree with any of the data!

The article also doesn’t forget to scare the reader with suicide statistics:

“The California mother described her daughter as a social, outgoing and well-adjusted teenager. She knows the grim mental health statistics for transgender people — 41 percent have attempted suicide, nearly nine times the national average — and she doesn’t want to imagine a world where her daughter would be without puberty blockers, a medical intervention that she called a “lifesaver.”
“The thought of her having had to go through male puberty, I think it would have destroyed her mental health and well-being,” said the mother.”

I began wondering. Where does that 41% suicide statistic come from, anyway? Is it like the murder epidemic we debunked in our previous article?

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.

“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.”

Oh. It’s inflated. Because it was a binary question and may include all self-harm attempts. Studies done on those binary questions have shown that it can completely inflate your results.

Oh.

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 (Lasage, Boyer, Grunberg, Vanier, Morissett et al., 1994; Suominen, Henrikssen, Suokas, Isometsa, Ostamo, et al., 1996; Harris & Barraclough, 1997; Bertolote & Fleischmann, 2002; Nock, Hwang, Sampson, & Kessler, 2010). 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 (Breslau, Davis, Andreski, & Peterson, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 4 Methods — continued 1991; Kendler, Kardowski, & Presco, 1999). 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 the rate 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’. Because the study didn’t ask those questions. 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. How?

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. Convenience sampling introduces too much bias for results to be meaningful outside of the sample itself.

In fact let’s have this paper in Developmental Review explain it better than I can, because you can’t use a convenience sample like that:

“Regarding its disadvantages, results that derive from convenience sampling have known generalizability only to the sample studied. Thus, any research question addressed by this strategy is limited to the sample itself. The same limitation holds true for estimates of differences between sociodemographic subgroups. As another disadvantage, convenience samples typically include small numbers of underrepresented sociodemographic subgroups (e.g., ethnic minorities) resulting in insufficient power to detect subgroup differences within a sociodemographic factor or factors. Moreover, although small in number, these underrepresented sociodemographic subgroups introduce modest amounts of variation into the sample, enough variation to produce statistical noise in the analyses but not enough variation to harness or control statistically. Indeed, the widespread use of convenience sampling may be partly responsible for the host of small and inconsistent effects that pervade developmental science, why sizes of effects often vary depending on the variables considered, and why research shows links between particular setting conditions and outcomes for some, but not other, groups”

That 41% stat is bogus. As is everything else in the 2008 National Transgender Discrimination Survey. I’ve officially debunked it. Well done me. Unfortunately, that will not stop the effects of citing its statistics for a decade even though it used a convenience sample and you can’t generalize those statistics to the broader transgender population.

Sigh.

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.

Instead, the media uses it frequently, with no investigation, blindly citing it. It’s been cited to policymakers — and its horseshit.

That is all the effort it took to point out that this statistic is a load of crap. It didn’t stop the media citing it, or activists citing it to policymakers though.

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

Yet another scare stat — like the fake murder epidemic.


But have you seen how they react to living proof that maybe transition doesn’t work?

The Daily Mirror in the UK recently reported, in traditional tabloid fashion, on a desister, Debbie, who transitioned to male at forty-seven and now regrets it, saying that her childhood sexual abuse history (which resulted in an objectum sexuality), was overlooked in a push towards transition. A common thread in detransition stories that get media coverage is a belief that they were ‘pushed into transition’, such as this article on a male-to-female detransitioner in The Guardian

““I started to realise that I could have dealt with my own issues so much better without changing my body because that has brought so many more difficulties. Detransitioning isn’t as unusual as you might expect, but it is underground, for a number of reasons, and the trans community isn’t happy discussing this.”
He now thinks he was rushed into transitioning by well-intentioned but ultimately misguided people.

[…]

“I told the psychologist I wanted to be female but nothing about the other issues involved, such as being bullied. I wasn’t aware that bullying had anything to do with my gender issues, but he didn’t ask any deeper questions. So, I was just like, ‘This is who I am and this who I want to be’, and they were like, ‘That’s great!’, and after just two sessions I was given hormones, which was actually not good practice.
“I was young and there were very few young transitioners then, but it wasn’t that hard to become seen as a woman and I started to get a lot of positive attention. But I was put on really high doses of hormones, which were crazy. We don’t do stuff like this any more but I was on the equivalent of 17 birth control pills a day at one point so it felt like my brain wasn’t working right and it didn’t help my dysphoria. I had really big hands and a big jaw and so I still had the same problem of hating parts of my body.”

Mainstream coverage on destransition, such as a Katie Herzog piece in The Stranger is often derided as transphobic. Herzog herself wrote about the reception her piece on detransition received:

“… on the second day, the shit storm began, and since then I have been inundated by vitriol, hate mail, and threats — and not all of it, by the way, from strangers.”

Coverage of detransition is often harshly criticized even in mainstream liberal outlets such as Vox, which called coverage of detransitioning transphobic and accused it of harming trans children in an interview with Julia Serano. Other examples include flat out denial of the phenomenon or that detransitioners were ever truly trans, like in this Jezebel piece, which insists on it:

“The detransition narratives, while real and valid, will be familiar to anyone who’s read any of the bigger features on detransitioning published over the past few years like The Stranger’s “The Detransitioners” or The Outline’s “A Story About Discovery.” The interview subjects are female-assigned at birth. They thought they were men or non-binary but now see themselves as women. They often attribute their transition to one of five things:
*overly accommodating medical practitioners who didn’t think twice about approving hormones or surgery
*the unprocessed trauma of sexual assault
*a lack of adherence to traditional gender roles and stereotypes
*a deep, existential crisis over being a woman under patriarchy, often triggered at the onset of puberty
*seeing a trans man on YouTube or on TV
…or a combination of all of these things. Again, these stories warrant reporting — but, by their own admission, these women in The Atlantic piece are not trans. So why are they the focus of a story about adolescent transition? Why has The Atlantic decided to publish as its cover story a cis writer’s article about trans people who aren’t trans — during Pride month, no less?”

How are they not trans? Are they not true Scotsmen as well?

Or like in this piece by Riki Wilchins over denying interview requests about detransition in The Advocate:

“So don’t tell me about de-transitioning transsexuals. Not everyone who de-transitions was ever a transsexual. It’s damn hard thing to do. Write your piece without me, and leave the rest of us in peace.’

More interesting in Wilchins piece is the below:

And then there’s Ken Zucker, founder of the Toronto-based Center for Addiction and Mental Health, who has “treated” 500 pre-adolescent gender-variant children — essentially uncomplaining “patients” forcibly submitted by their parents to his care. This is “reparative therapy” for trans children by diagnosing them with an infant version of gender identity disorder.
The center was closed and Zucker stopped from harming another defenseless trans child only in 2015, when an internal audit challenged his work.
But he had been doing this since the 1970s. So again, four-five decades passed before his terrible work could be stopped.

And this is important. Kenneth Zucker, a leading research on childhood gender dysphoria, has faced a systemic campaign of defamation and harassment from the trans movement over the past few years. Indeed, in only 2008 was The Advocate willing to quote Zucker on the subject:

Some transgender minors delay puberty until adulthood; others begin cross-sex hormones soon after starting hormone blockers while minors. Though the treatment is reversible, prescribing minors hormone blockers is clearly an
incendiary issue. Psychologist Kenneth Zucker believes that forcing transsexualism is dangerous for children who simply don’t fit normative gender roles. Other practitioners advocate a different kind of intervention: forcing normative gender roles on gender-nonconforming children, e.g., making a little
girl, even if she identifies as a boy, wear dresses and play house.”

So in 2008, The Advocate was willing to quote notorious transphobe Kenneth Zucker, yet in 2017 is quite willing to publish defamatory pieces. What changed? Let me tell you about the way the trans movement has treated Kenneth Zucker, author of much research that disturbs their narrative, all in an attempt to paint him as a homophobe and discredit him.

The Defamation Of Someone Who Didn’t Agree

And where should we start on the topic of Kenneth Zucker, but with Brynn Tannehill’s ‘The End Of The Desistance Myth’? Tannehill, who in their byline is described as a board member of Trans United Fund, an AstroTurf political lobby group, writes in the article. about how anyone saying trans children desist is promoting ‘junk science’.

Now a demolishing of the study Tannehill references was done well in an article by The Cut by Jesse Singal. So why focus on this article? Because it defames and misrepresents Kenneth Zucker, and is the source of many things about him which are flatly untrue:

“For the past decade, the biggest promoter of the desistance myth was Dr. Kenneth Zucker at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto. He never missed an opportunity to speak to anti-LGBT organizations and news outlets, or to tout himself as the world’s top expert in transgender children. He denied practicing reparative therapy, despite a 2003 report in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry which called his techniques “something disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals.”

The ‘2003 report’ that Tannehill links to, which I have quoted below, is a poorly-written article on Queerty, published in 2009. It discusses how Lynn Conway, a transgender woman and computer chip pioneer, was sent a letter by Zucker’s lawyer accusing her of libel:

“On Jan. 30th, she received a letter from Peter M. Jacobson, a lawyer for Dr. Kenneth Zucker, who is leading the revisions to the DSM-V, the standard text used by clinicians and psychologists to determine mental disorders. Zucker is accusing her of using libelous language in one of her web posts. The only problem? There’s nothing libelous on the site. Why is Dr. Kenneth Zucker trying to silence Lynn? And more importantly, why is he determined to make sure the psychiatric code book keeps saying that gender identity is a mental disease?”
“[Zucker] was last year appointed to the DSM-V working group to help craft its sections on gender identity.”
The head of the child and adolescent gender identity clinic at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Dr. Kenneth Zucker, has made a career promising the parents of intersexed and transgender children that he can make them “normal”. His method, called reparative therapy, in which children are pushed into assigned gender roles and discouraged from behaving or dressing in a way that’s counter to their ‘assigned’ sex, was once standard practice, but in recent years, has been increasingly scrutinized. A 2003 report in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry called his techniques “something disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals,” and author Phyllis Burke has questioned the idea that transgendered children should be treated as mentally ill, saying, “The diagnosis of GID in children, as supported by Zucker and [his colleague J. Michael Bailey] Bradley, is simply child abuse.””
“And yet Zucker is not some fringe lunatic. In fact, he was last year appointed to the DSM-V working group to help craft its sections on gender identity, where he intends to use his position to further the idea that trans children can be shoe-horned into gender identities. The APA, responding to criticisms by LGBT activists, point out that Zucker does not advocate reparative therapy for teens and adults, not for gays and lesbians at any age, but only for the trans community. He is Public Enemy Number One to trangenders, who maintain that Zucker’s views that trans people are mentally ill are not just based on bad science, but harmful.
In January, Conway posted a link to a story on the website of the Organisation Intersex International (OII) which stated that the organization had been told by an individual that Zucker had sexually abused a child and that it had passed along that information to authorities. Days later, Conway received a letter from Zucker’s lawyer:”

This ‘2003 report’ in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’ isn’t sourced in the article. So, I went hunting for it. As you do.

The 2003 ‘report’ is actually a letter to the editor, written by Simon D. Pickstone-Taylor, MD, of the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, at University of California San Francisco. This is the context of Tannehill’s ‘Zucker advocates for reparative therapy’ quote:

“A small section of the 10-year review deals with treatment. What Bradley and Zucker (1997) suggest for treatment is something disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals. Parents are encouraged to discourage cross-gender behavior and stimulate same-sex identification (be this getting fathers to throw footballs at their effeminate sons, or mothers to arrange playdates with girls in frilly dresses for their tomboy daughters). At best, all these forms of therapy are done with the underlying paternalistic hope that these children need to be saved from hurt that will result from their displaying cross-gender behavior in a prejudiced society”

It’s also not mentioned that Pickstone-Taylor argues against Tannehill’s insistence that desistance is a ‘myth’. That might undermine Tannehill, which is why I suspect the letter, which unlike a lot of letters to the editor in academic journals, is freely available, was linked third hand through the article in Queerty.

“Six North American follow-up studies of 99 boys with GID being treated with traditional therapies showed 6% had a transsexual outcome (Zucker and Bradley, 1995). Not only do the traditional therapies do a poor job of treating comorbid psychopathology and not decrease the proportion of children becoming homosexual, but also they seem to do nothing to decrease, and in fact might encourage, a 6% transsexual outcome.”

I thought desistance was a myth? Why would Brynn Tannehill pick and choose their quotes, and not link to an actual copy of the report?

“That Rosenberg’s patients lost their wish to be the opposite sex also makes Smith and colleagues’ (2001) suggestion that sexual reassignment be done earlier (in adolescence) seem a disturbing and inappropriate treatment. These adolescents might lose their comorbid psychopathology and wish to be the opposite sex, if treated by the sort of therapy Rosenberg practices”

Perhaps that’s why Tannehill links to a poorly written Queerty article, instead of the easily accessible citation link on ScienceDirect? You know, that proposal not to castrate children? Well, it might also be because Zucker and Bradley wrote a reply to Pickstone-Taylor.

“Dr. Pickstone-Taylor expresses delight in the putatively “progressive” approaches of both Rosenberg and Menvielle and Tuerk to the treatment of children with gender identity disorder (GID). In contrast, he characterizes us and unnamed others who have published in this Journal, in an ad hominem manner as “homophobic” in our approach to children with GID. We were surprised that he did not accuse us of being “transphobic” as well. For clinicians and researchers in the field of psychosexual differentiation and its disorders, there is always one constant: things are never dull”

In fact, they respond most emphatically to the allegations of homophobia:

“Since the mid-1970s, we have conducted empirical research in the areas of assessment and diagnosis, associated psychopathology, and etiology (e.g., Cohen-Kettenis et al., in press; Zucker et al., 2002). In our 10-year review that Dr. Pickstone-Taylor critiques so harshly, we intentionally did not say much about treatment because systematic research on it is sorely lacking; however, we have summarized our interpretation of the extant literature in more detail elsewhere (e.g., Zucker, 2001) and we encourage the interested reader to consult these sources and then to read the original articles on which the reviews were based (see also Meyer-Bahlburg, 2002). In none of our publications have we ever endorsed prevention of homosexuality as a therapeutic goal in the treatment of children with GID, although we note that this might have been a goal of some therapists and also of some parents. We have simply pointed out that there is no empirical evidence at present that the extant treatment approaches are related to whether or not a child with GID later on differentiates a homosexual or heterosexual sexual orientation”

Zucker and Bradley then go on to outline their disagreement with Pickstone-Taylor:

“Our primary disagreement with the position that Dr. Pickstone-Taylor articulates, as well as that of Rosenberg and Menvielle and Tuerk, is that it is both conceptually and clinically simplistic. Dr. Pickstone-Taylor, for example, intimates that the sole cause of GID is “instinctual” and that the pervasive crossgender behavior of children with GID simply reflects their “true predilections or interests.” Along similar lines, Rosenberg makes reference to the GID child’s “essential nature.” In our view, this is nothing more than simple-minded biological reductionism. Curiously, Dr. Pickstone-Taylor fails to identify any empirical studies that support his instinctual hypothesis. We find this deeply ironic because some of our own research has attempted to identify possible biological correlates of GID (e.g., Zucker et al., 1997, 2001). Where we depart company from Dr. Pickstone-Taylor is that we conceptualize GID as multifactorial in its origin, which necessitates that one must go beyond biology in identifying additional factors that are part of the causal pathway. Apart from Dr. Pickstone-Taylor’s naive endorsement of biological essentialism, the reader hears little about other factors that might be useful in thinking about predisposing and perpetuating factors that might inform a clinical formulation and the development of a therapeutic plan: the role of temperament, parental reinforcement of cross-gender behavior during the sensitive period of gender identity formation, family dynamics, parental psychopathology, peer relationships, and the multiple meanings that might underlie the child’s fantasy of becoming a member of the opposite sex. All of this requires an appreciation of the complexity of development”

Zucker and Bradley even note that most children with childhood gender identity disorder grow up homosexual:

“At the present time, the empirical returns about natural history suggest the following: (1) The majority of children with GID desist in the desire to change sex as they move into adolescence and young adulthood, but a small minority persist (e.g., Cohen-Kettenis, 2001), and the factors that account for this variability remain poorly understood. (2) Among adolescents, GID appears to be more stable and, contra Pickstone-Taylor, hormonal and surgical sex-reassignment may well provide the best therapeutic approach to relieve suffering in carefully selected patients, better than any known psychological intervention. In this regard, then, the important empirical studies by Cohen-Kettenis and colleagues (e.g., Cohen-Kettenis and van Goozen, 1997; Smith et al., 2001, 2002) deserve close scrutiny. (3) The majority of children with GID develop a later homosexual sexual orientation and a minority develop a heterosexual sexual orientation, both without co-occurring gender dysphoria, but the factors that account for this variability remain poorly understood. (4) Finally, little has been published that documents the long-term psychological functioning of these children in general.”

I find it unsurprising that no one seems very willing to actually link to the 2003 report, given Zucker’s reply. Instead, Tannehill is quite happy to misrepresent him and the contents of the ‘2003 report’ he cites.

As for the source of this quote?

“Twenty years ago, though, Zucker was also pushing hard for reparative therapy of potentially gay children who were too effeminate, in order to prevent them from growing up to be gay. In 1990, Zucker wrote:
“Two short term goals have been discussed in the literature: the reduction or elimination of social ostracism and conflict, and the alleviation of underlying or associated psychopathology. Longer term goals have focused on the prevention of transsexualism and/or homosexuality.”

Now, to me, this clearly looks to be completely out of context. Of course, instead of just saying that, and feeling smug about it, I went hunting for the context. It’s sourced from a 1990 academic article in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.

Here is the full context:

“In part, this issue will be conceptualized within the therapist’s own theoretical framework, but will also be a function of parental concerns and, to some extent, the concerns of the child. Two short term goals have been discussed in the literature: the reduction or elimination of social ostracism and conflict and the alleviation of underlying or associated psychopathology. Longer term goals have focused on the prevention of transsexualism and/or homosexuality. In the clinical literature, there has been little disagreement about the advisability of preventing gender dysphoria in adolescence or adulthood. Contemporary and secular-minded clinicians are, however, much more sensitive to the importance of helping people integrate a homosexual orientation into their sense of identity (3,4). Not surprisingly, however, the development of a heterosexual orientation is probably preferred by most parents of children with GIOe. It is important, therefore, that clinicians point out that, as of yet, there is no strong evidence either way as to the effectiveness of treatment on later sexual orientation. Both authors, as well as other experienced clinicians in the field, have preferred to emphasize the merit of reducing childhood gender identity conflict per se and to orient the parents to the short term goals of intervention.”

This is in the introduction: the paper is a literature review. That’s not ‘pushing hard for reparative therapy’. The paper itself is quite interesting, commenting on the fact that many patients that Zucker and Bradley had dealt with saw transsexualism as a cure for homosexuality:

“About 25 % of our adolescent sample presented with a request for sex reassignment or with severe gender identity confusion. As with some adult transsexuals, the wish for sex August, reassignment seems to serve as a way of “normalizing” unacceptable homosexual feelings. With supportive therapy, some of these individuals will accept themselves as homosexual and relinquish the cross-sex wish. Others will decide that no matter why they feel the way that they do (that is, no matter how much “insight” they may have), being able to “be” who they feel they are internally is the only way that they can live comfortably. Most adolescents who present with the request for sex reassignment have had a history of early cross-gender behaviour and the majority would have met DSM-III-R (1) criteria for GIDC. As noted earlier, these youngsters have rarely been seen for therapy in childhood and their parents have hardly ever attempted to limit their cross-gender behaviour. These youngsters often are psychosocially impaired and suicidal ideation and/or attempts are common (24). Supportive therapy can help reduce psychosocial impairment and help the patient develop a more realistic understanding of what hormonal and surgical sex reassignment can achieve. Referral to adult gender identity clinics is usually appropriate between the ages of 16 and 18.”

In fact, there is probably a reason Tannehill quoted Zucker and Bradley completed out of context and didn’t actually cite what Zucker wrote in 1990, because here is their ‘treatment recommendation’ for homosexuals:

“ About 25 % of the adolescent patients in our sample were referred because they experienced their sexual orientation as ego-alien or because significant others were distressed by it. As has been found in retrospective studies of adults, the majority of our adolescent homosexual sample has a significant clinical history of cross-gender behaviour (24). Some male adolescents who experience homosexual attractions have, however, had little earlier cross-gender behaviour except for avoidance of rough-and-tumble activities and involvement in competitive sports. Nevertheless, they feel somewhat estranged and different from their adolescent samesex peers. If involved in homosexual experiences, some of these youngsters become quite confused and distressed about their sexual orientation. Anxious and obsessive adolescents may be particularly prone to overinterpret the significance of these experiences. Assessment of this subgroup involves exploration of the extent of their earlier cross-gender history and their present and past erotic experiences in both fantasy and behaviour. As has been found with adults, it is highly unlikely that an adolescent who presents with a primary homosexual erotic orientation will show a substantive shift in a heterosexual direction, even if the individual is motivated to do so. Accordingly, therapy should be primarily supportive in helping the youngster develop a gay-positive identity and to help the family accept their adolescent’s sexual orientation. For adolescents who are uncomfortable with homoerotic feelings or who have had extensive bisexual experiences or fantasies, therapy can prove useful in helping the youngster understand the meaning of his or her feelings of attraction to same-sex individuals, some of which may be motivated more by the desire for closeness than for pure erotic purposes. For some adolescents, supportive therapy can help them explore their most comfortable sexual orientation. The approach described by Masters and Johnson (71) with homosexual adults may be used with adolescents wishing to explore the possibility of a heterosexual adaptation.”

That’s not exactly ‘pushing for reparative therapy’. It’s literally ‘reparative therapy doesn’t work, even with a motivated patient’. This misquote is repeated on both Zucker and Bradley’s Wikipedia pages, and in other media, such as this article in LGBTQNation.com.

It was also written in 1990: when conversion therapy was perfectly legal, lesbians and gays had no civil rights protections (and still do not have full civil rights protections), and during some of the darkest depths of the AIDS crisis — a very different, and much darker time for homosexuals, with little wide-spread societal acceptance.

Tannehill then goes on to quote Zucker again,

“ He felt that this was for the best, because, “a homosexual lifestyle in a basically unaccepting culture simply creates unnecessary social difficulties.””

But this isn’t in the 1990 literature review. It’s in a book Zucker wrote with Bradley in 1995. Or Tannehill says it is: a Guardian article on Zucker’s appearance in an article on transgender children says that he wrote that comment in 1990. It’s been repeated in more than a few outlets. So, I went back to the 1990 literature review, and that phrase wasn’t there. I decided to look at Zucker’s 1995 book that he wrote with Bradley, Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents.

In the book this is what is said on ‘treating’ the homosexual adolescent:

“Treatment should focus on development of a positive gay identity; support with respect to acculturating into the gay community; and help for parents, who may be quite distressed at the loss of their dreams for their children and the hazards they believe the adolescents will confront as gay or lesbian persons”

In fact, I hunted high and low for Tannehill’s quote in the book. It turns out his citation is wrong — it isn’t in the 1995 book. It was rather frustrating. I couldn’t even find a result in the book for ‘unaccepting’. This is using Google Books — which did display sections of the book outside the preview in ‘snippet view’. If this quote is real: it is almost certain taken completely out of context, as it isn’t in line with Zucker’s work. I still tried looking though — surely Tannehill wouldn’t make something up. I eventually found another copy of the quote in a book called Sissies and Tomboys, which cited another paper by Zucker written in 1990, a paper which was cited in the book Tannehill linked. That paper is entitled “Treatment of gender identity disorders in children.” It is also out of print and unavailable online. That only evidence of it is those citations. I do sincerely believe that sentence is taken completely out of context — if only because Tannehill has done that with Zucker’s work already in ‘The End Of The Desistance Myth’. If you’d like to prove me wrong and can provide me with a copy of the article, go ahead.

That Tannehill doesn’t link to a citation, but an Amazon link of the book doesn’t help. As it stands, the quote isn’t unreasonable — being homosexual in an unaccepting culture does create unnecessary social difficulties, but Tannehill fails to quote the section where Zucker believes ‘this is for the best’ — in fact the book they link says quite the opposite.

Tannehill goes on to celebrate Zucker being fired over the December 2015 report into his clinic. This report contained numerous inaccuracies, and Zucker has recently won a settlement against his former employer for defamation and wrongful dismissal, the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, due to the false allegations:

“The Toronto-based centre said the report wrongly stated that Zucker referred to a patient as “hairy little vermin,” among other errors. It noted the report was made public without Zucker’s review or comment.
“CAMH apologizes without reservation to Dr. Zucker for the flaws in the process that led to errors in the report not being discovered and has entered into a settlement with Dr. Zucker that includes a financial payment to him,” the statement said.”
According to the settlement documents, the centre will pay him $586,000 in damages, legal fees and interest.
The review, which was completed in 2015, was sparked by criticism that the clinic was practising conversion therapy on transgender young people.
The independent reviewers said in their report that they were unable to ascertain whether the clinic was in fact practising reparative therapy, but that the clinic focused on intensive assessment and treatment, while current practice favours watchful waiting, and educating and supporting parents to accept a child’s gender expression.

Tannehill then launches into actual defamation:

“But, the most outrageous piece of information coming out of CAMH was Dr. Zucker’s claims that gender dysphoria desisted in 80 percent of cases. However, when investigators reviewed the files of children admitted to CAHM, 42 percent of them never met the clinical criteria for juvenile gender dysphoria in the first place.
In short, half of the kids Dr. Zucker claimed to “cure” were never transgender in the first place. He built his reputation convincing homophobic and transphobic parents that he could fix their kids. When someone actually got around to listening to the transgender community and pulled back the curtain, they found that the 80 percent desistance narrative was a fabrication of an attention seeking, creepy, reparative therapy promoting, snake-oil salesman.”

Having read quite a bit of Zucker’s work at this point (or at least his journal articles), I do believe this is a fundamental mischaracterization. Tannehill then outright lies: transgender children do show health effects, and I do think ‘sterility’ is a negative health outcome, no?

“Dr. Keo-Meier is supported by a wave of new research showing that affirming therapy does not result in the parade of horribles alleged by the concern trolls. Gender variant youth know who they are just as much as the general population. Transgender youth who are receive affirming care have better health outcomes. Transgender youth on puberty delaying medication showed no health effects, and mental health outcomes as good as their cisgender peers.”

Tannehill is full of shit, folks:

“The desistance myth was promoted by reparative therapists, concern trolls and charlatans, while being no better than a percentage pulled out of a hat to begin with. It’s time for the 80 percent desistance figure to be relegated to the same junk science bin as the utterly discredited link between vaccines and autism.
And maybe people should start listening to the transgender community when we say something is going horribly, horribly wrong inside medical institutions with power over us“

After I finished debunking everything this article, I went and got myself a nice glass of wine, and then kept going. Because Tannehill’s ‘desistance myth’ article and the quote from Zucker was used repeatedly — in the aforementioned Guardian article, Tannehill’s book Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Trans (But Were Afraid To Ask) and in multiple other outlets.

Tannehill’s histrionic coverage of the issue includes warning about the ‘Fifth Column’ in trans healthcare. No, really. It again accuses Zucker, falsely, of supporting reparative therapy for homosexuals, when even in the earliest works of his he cautions against it and mischaracterizes him completely. Supposedly, Zucker is the ‘fifth column’ in transgender healthcare.

You may not agree with Zucker — I certainly don’t agree with him on everything. But this fundamental mischaracterization of his work is pervasive in trans activist media, and it often crosses a line into defamatory territory. It is utterly appalling. Tackle the man’s science on its own merits — don’t quote him out of context, misquote him, and then slander him. Because doing that shows me, and everyone else only one thing: that you can’t tackle his science on its own merits. Maybe that ‘desistance myth’ isn’t a myth, and you, Brynn Tannehill, are projecting — because transitioning ‘transgender children’ is conversion therapy on potentially homosexual young people.

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”

In seeing these individuals with severe homosexual problems, an active form of psychoanalytically-oriented psychotherapy was employed, and one of the main therapeutic goals was to help the patient overcome his fear of heterosexual relations and, through improved sex-love relations with members of the other sex, to minimize his homosexual interests and activities. The therapeutic goal was not that of inducing the patient to forego all homosexual interests because, as the writer has pointed out previously (5, 6), that would be unrealistic. The neurotic element in homosexuality is not the homosexual activity or desire itself, since man is biologically a bisexual or plurisexual animal who, to some degree, may be considered rare or abnormal if he has absolutely no homoerotic desires or participations during his entire lifetime. 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.”

[…]

Classical conditioning is not the only procedure for inducing the response of avoiding previously attractive stimuli. A survey of the literature by Solomon and Brush( 11) showed that a technique known as anticipatory avoidance learning was the most satisfactory of the 8 techniques on which experimental evidence was available; particularly with respect to resistance to relapse.
It is this last point which is, of course, of great importance clinically. In view of the evidence it was decided to design a technique which would enable the clinical application of anticipatory avoidance learning to the treatment of homosexual patients. We intend to carry out a large scale trial based on at least 30 to 40 patients, the patients to be described and the results evaluated as objectively as possible. Should the results appear reasonably satisfactory, we shall utilise the knowledge gained in treating the initial series in carrying out a fully controlled trial. To date, one dozen homosexual patients have received treatment. We present below an outline of the technique, and clinical data on the first patient on whom it was tried, and for whom a 9- month follow-up is available.”
“THE LEARNING SITUATION
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.”

[…]

“The number of sessions required before a change of sexual interest either occurs or fails to occur, varies between patients, but averages about 20 sessions. Each session lasts about 20 minutes with about 30 stimulus presentations per session. As we learn more about the technique we expect the number of sessions required will fall.”

— “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.”
“After six sessions of marital counseling, the marriage had improved substantially but the patient’s homosexual behavior remained about the same. The olfactory aversion therapy procedure was then resumed. (The reason for the delaying its resumption was that the patient was not willing to give up his homosexual activities irrevocably until he was certain he would still have a wife to turn to.) A baseline record of all homosexually-oriented behavior was taken for a period of 2 weeks. In spite of the fact that the patient was trying diligently to “be good”, he reported 11 occasions during the first week on which he had caught himself looking at males with sexual interest, thinking about going out looking, or becoming excited about the thought of looking for a male partner. During the second baseline week there were 16 such occurrences, including two instances of actually finding a partner and engaging in homosexual activities”
“The following week, the patient reported that on one occasion he had the car at his disposal and nothing to do while his wife was out of town. He had become quite excited about the prospect of being able to look for males, whereupon he inhaled from an ammonia capsule he had with him. The excitement dissipated immediately, and he drove directly home and had a very productive day of studying.”

— “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”

“The major causal theories of and treatment approaches to male and female homosexuality are critically reviewed. Neither biological, psychoanalytic, nor learning and social-learning theories are found to provide convincing evidence for the etiology of homosexuality. All of these accounts, however, are viewed as providing mixed empirical support for their predictions, with social-learning research presenting the most consistent evidence. 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.”

[…]

“From the implications of both retrospective findings (e.go, Bieber et aL, 1962; Evans, 1969; Bene, 1965a,b) and social-learning experimental findings (Bandura and Waiters, 1963; Mischel, 1970), it would seem that the best intervention in homosexuality would be at level of the potentially homosexual child. As discussed earlier, disturbed parental relationships and parental-child relationships, together with inadequate or inappropriate patterns of social reinforcement, seem to contribute greatly to the childhood development of inappropriate or inferior sex-typed behaviors and attitudes and to later adult homosexuality”
[…]
“Green and his colleagues (Green, 1969b; Green and Money, 1966; Stoller, 1969) have initiated some promising longitudinal studies in their psychological treatment of boys who manifest cross-gender identifications in their childhood years. These investigators have thus far found that the boys’ marked effeminate behaviors are like those which adult male transsexuals state they had as children. Interestingly, these effeminate behaviors include those identified by Zuger (1966) in his prehomosexual group of boys. Stoller (1969) has further argued that unique patterns of parental-child relationships and disturbed parental relationships appear to be specific for the development of transsexualism. As Green (1969b) and Stoller (1969) have both maintained, long-term follow-up studies are needed to determine exactly what childhood cross-gender behaviors are precursors of what adult behaviors and attitudes, e.g., transsexual, homosexual, or heterosexual. In addition, long-term studies which include both treatment and nontreatment control groups of boys would help to indicate if early treatment can lead to long-lasting changes in boys with marked effeminate behaviors and cross-gender identifications”
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

“ ne 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 scientists and doctors who push or even design this treatment are backed by the funding of pharmaceutical companies, who can sell expensive GnRHa drugs, such as Lupron and triptorelin. No one knows the long-term effects of this sexual lobotomy. The limited data we do have shows that this ‘treatment’ may be setting up children for nothing but failure. It is a treatment that seeks the destruction of the potential homosexual self — snuffs it out before it can even exist.

Because in service to the treatment: you obliterate your entire identity. You legally cut yourself off from it. You retroactively change the events of your birth, so that you were born the opposite sex.

The body is permanently altered in this treatment: your body must conform to your gender role, your gender identity, to sex stereotypes. The treatment hacks away at healthy body parts and leaves only facsimiles, gender symbolism, in its wake. The facsimiles can be an open wound, a wound you must keep open, so you wound yourself again and again, in order to keep up the pretense.

Everyone’s heard of Scientology. Scientology has a predetermined path to spiritual enlightenment, called ‘The Bridge to Total Freedom’. It outlines the exact courses one must take in Scientology, and the results one will achieve from taking them. As you move up ‘The Bridge’, (and of course, pay vast sums to do so), you will supposedly be able to ‘speak with anyone on any subject’, eliminate your ‘reactive mind’, and achieve the state of ‘Clear’ — wherein one has cleaned away all of one’s ‘engrams’, or negative memories clinging to the soul, and thus is a full capable human being capable of perfect recall. Then, the Bridge moves onto the stage of ‘Operating Thetan’, where one learns that one’s soul is covered in ‘body thetans’, alien souls haunting the Earth because the intergalactic overlord Xenu dealt with an overpopulation crisis by shipping people, en masse, to Earth, where they were blown up inside volcanoes, and then had their psychology implanted with the symbols that mankind values today, like Christ. This is referred to as ‘TRUTH REVEALED’ in Scientology. Supposedly, achieving the state of Operating Thetan, and removing one’s ‘body thetans’, will give the Scientologist powers over Matter, Energy, Space, and Time, or MEST. This means they can levitate things, display psychic power, and so on.

Scientology’s Bridge supposedly should reach Operating Thetan Level 16. But the highest L Ron Hubbard ever wrote was Operating Thetan Level 8.

Operating Thetan Level 8, or OT8, explains to the Scientologist that you have achieved the ultimate understanding — you know what you are not, therefore, you can find out what you really are. You never really left where you started, to the sensible person reading this without having investing $400,000 and a lot of cognitive dissonance, to get there. Supposedly, you’d go up to OT16 to learn who you truly are. But at least you know the truth behind man’s problems — an intergalactic, evil overlord, gave us all space alien soul cooties.

Scientology has never even produced a verified Clear. That human capable of perfect recall does not exist.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? Why bring up Scientology, then? How does it relate to the sexual lobotomy?

In transgenderism, one has a predetermined path to spiritual enlightenment, called ‘transition’. It outlines the exact course one must take to become transgender, and the results one will achieve from following that path. As you move on further in your transition (and, of course, pay vast sums for you to do so), you will change your name to one that aligns with your ‘gender’, you will call your old name your ‘deadname’, symbolically killing the old identity, and you will take medication to induce the development of secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex — this will have you reach the state wherein you can say you ‘pass’.

From there, one moves further down the Bridge, where one is prescribed surgeries, referred to euphemistically as ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ surgery, to create a facsimile of the opposite sex. One learns, and will espouse, that humanity has a multitude of possible genders, and because your body and gender do not match, you have decided to etch this onto your body with medication and surgeries. You say that this is because biological sex is a social construct — yet you know exactly what you want to look like as you move further down the path of transition. Gender is merely symbols, and performative. Supposedly, doing this will change your sex — your body and your gender will mesh. Medicine will create your ‘authentic self’.

Transgenderism has never produced anyone who truly changed themselves into the opposite sex. In fact, that possibility may never exist.

At the furthest point of transition, a trans woman may have breast implants. They may have had their throat shaved down, their hair removed, their face ‘feminized’. They may have had their penis removed, turned inside out, and an open wound carved in the urogenital area, to create a ‘neovagina’.

They are still not a woman. They still have not changed sex.

At the furthest point of transition, a trans man may have had their breasts removed, and a facsimile of a flat chest created. They will have more hair, more prominent brow ridges. They may have had their womb removed (and will always need it removed after a certain period on testosterone), and possibly with skin taken from their arm, a penis created out of skin. It will never function.

They are still not a man. They still have not changed sex.

They are only approximations. Transgenderism is a yet another ‘Bridge to Total Freedom, or as I prefer to call it, a Bridge To Nowhere.

Is perhaps, the cure worse than the ‘illness’?

I believe it is. The Dutch Protocol, the transition of children with gender dysphoria: why not call it for what it is? It is conversion therapy with extra steps. It is designed to snuff out the homosexual before the homosexual can ever mature and express desire. It is nothing but the medicalization of homophobia and misogyny, a medicalization that could make drug companies hundreds of millions of dollars over the next decade. No one cares for the potential long-term effects on children — not the scientists, not the politicians, not the activists, not the media. They admit to having no idea of what those long-term effects are: they ‘treat’ them anyway. The complicit media happily cites scary statistics with no basis in reality and reports lies that this treatment isn’t harmful. It is.

LGBTQ+ organizations, flush with money from trans-supporting philanthropists, support this monstrosity. 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’.

This is not a ‘treatment’. It is the new lobotomy. 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.

Stop, before it’s too late.

Sue Donym is a concerned citizen from Northern California.