#Erin Reed

[crazygnomenclature]

I try to put a silly spin on things, but this really is a preview of what's to come. Election Day is November 5th. Have plan to vote.

The article in panel 3 was written by Erin Reed and can be read on her website HERE.

More Tiff & Eve on Webtoon | Insta | Patreon

[the-cimmerians]

On Thursday, Governor Tim Walz sat down for an interview with author Glennon Doyle, her partner Abby Wambach, and her sister Amanda Doyle during a taping of the We Can Do Hard Things podcast. The conversation touched on key election issues such as abortion and gun violence. However, midway through the podcast, the discussion shifted to queer youth, specifically transgender kids. Rather than shying away from the topic, Walz delivered a passionate, several-minute-long defense of LGBTQ+ rights, including transgender healthcare. He outlined his vision for the administration’s role in protecting these rights.

The question came from Abby Wambach, who turned to the topic after discussing Walz’ founding of a Gay-Straight Alliance at his high school in the mid-90s. Wambach asked, “Well, thank you Governor Walz so much for protecting even in the late ’90s queer kids. And so I have to ask, what will a Harris-Walz administration do to protect our queer kids today?”

Walz discussed positive legislative actions, such as codifying hate crime laws and increasing education, while emphasizing the importance of using his platform to advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. He then addressed the role of judges in safeguarding medical care for queer youth: “I also think what Abby, your point is on this, and I was just mentioning, we need to appoint judges who uphold the right to marriage, uphold the right to be who you are, making sure that’s the case, uphold the right to get the medical care that you need. We should not be naive. Those appointments are really, really important. I think that’s what the vice president is committed to.”

He didn’t stop there. Instead, he directly pivoted to calling out national anti-transgender attack ads which have flooded the airwaves across the United States, often airing besides NFL football games and other major sporting events. The Trump administration has spent upwards of $20 million on such ads, with outside organizations spending $80 million on various races.

“We see it now; the hate has shifted to the trans community. They see that as an opportunity. If you’re watching any sporting events right now, you see that Donald Trump’s closing arguments are to demonize a group of people for being who they are,” Walz said. He continued, “We’re out there trying to make the case that access to healthcare, a clean environment, manufacturing jobs, and keeping your local hospital open are what people are really concerned about. They’re running millions of dollars of ads demonizing folks who are just trying to live their lives.”

He emphasized the importance of representation and the impact of coming out, particularly for parents who may not have been exposed to LGBTQ+ identities and therefore might lack understanding. Walz pointed out, “Look, you’re reaching a lot of folks in hearing this, and for some people it’s not even out of malice and it’s not a pejorative, it’s out of ignorance. They maybe have not been around people. You’ve all seen this, however it takes you to get there, but I know it’s a little frustrating when you see folks have an epiphany when their child comes out to them.”

The strong defense of queer and trans youth came just one day after Kamala Harris participated in a Fox News interview with Brett Baier. Baier, who maintained a hostile tone throughout, pressed Harris on transgender issues with his second question. Rather than adopting the Republican framing, as some Democrats have done recently, Harris emphasized that the law requires medically necessary care for transgender inmates and criticized Trump for spending $20 million on ads focused on an issue far removed from the priorities of most Americans. Her response prompted Baier to quickly shift to another topic.

In back-to-back days, the Harris-Walz ticket has made it clear they will not back down on queer and trans rights, despite the barrage of anti-trans attack ads. This stance is likely reinforced by the repeated failure of similar ads in recent races, including Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election, legislative races in Pennsylvania and Virginia, Georgia’s Herschel Walker vs. Raphael Warnock election, Andy Beshear’s reelection in Kentucky, and the 2023 losses of 70% of Moms for Liberty and Project 1776 school board candidates across the United States. For transgender people, these interviews are likely a welcome relief after some wavering responses from other Democratic candidates in swing states.

[thatheathen]

Erin in the Morning | Fact Check: Viral Picture Of "Trans Trump Shooter" Turns Out To Be Someone Else

[yourdailyqueer]

Erin Reed

Gender: Transgender woman

Sexuality: Queer

DOB: Born 1988

Ethnicity: White - American

Occupation: Journalist, activist

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Following publication of the final report there have been a number of questions and points for clarification about the findings and recommendations. We have collated those questions, along with our answers, on this page.

-

Did the Review set a higher bar for evidence than would normally be expected?

No, the approach to the assessment of study quality was the same as would be applied to other areas of clinical practice – the bar was not set higher for this Review.

Clarification:

The same level of rigour should be expected when looking at the best treatment approaches for this population as for any other population so as not to perpetuate the disadvantaged position this group have been placed in when looking for information on treatment options.

The systematic reviews undertaken by the University of York as part of the Review’s independent research programme are the largest and most comprehensive to date. They looked at 237 papers from 18 countries, providing information on a total of 113,269 children and adolescents.

All of the University of York’s systematic review research papers��were subject to peer review, a cornerstone of academic rigour and integrity to ensure that the methods, findings, and interpretation of the findings met the highest standards of quality, validity and impartiality.

-

Did the Review reject studies that were not double blind randomised control trials in its systematic review of evidence for puberty blockers and masculinising / feminising hormones?

No. There were no randomised control studies identified in the systematic reviews, but other types of studies were included if they were well designed and conducted.

Clarification:

The Review commissioned the University of York to undertake an independent research programme to ensure the work of the Review and its recommendations were informed by the most robust existing evidence. This included a series of systematic reviews which brought together, analysed and evaluated existing evidence on a range of issues relating to the care of gender-questioning children and young people, including epidemiology, treatment approaches and international models of current practice.

Randomised control trials are considered the gold standard in relation to research, but there are many other study designs that can give valuable information. Explanatory Box 1 (pages 49-51 of the final report) discusses in more detail the different kinds of studies that can be used, and how to decide if a study is poorly designed or biased.

Blinding is a separate issue. It means that either the patient or the researcher does not know if the patient is getting an active treatment or a ‘control’ (which might be another treatment or a placebo). Patients cannot be blinded as to whether or not they are receiving puberty blockers or masculinising / feminising hormones, because the effects would rapidly become obvious. Good RCTs can be conducted without blinding.

The University of York’s systematic review search did not identify any RCTs, blinded or otherwise, but many other studies were included. Most of the studies included were called ‘cohort studies’. Well-designed and executed high quality cohort studies are used in other areas of medicine, and the bar was not set higher for this review; even so the quality of the studies was mostly only assessed as moderate.

-

Did the Review reject 98% of papers demonstrating the benefits of affirmative care?

No. Studies were identified for inclusion in the synthesis (conclusions) of the systematic reviews on puberty blockers and masculinising/feminising hormones on the basis of their quality. This was assessed using a standard quality assessment tool appropriate to the types of study identified.  All high quality and moderate quality reviews were included in the synthesis of results. This totalled 58% of the 103 papers.

Clarification:

The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (a standard appraisal tool) was used to compare the studies. This scores items such as participant selection, comparability of groups (how alike they are), the outcomes of the studies and how these were assessed (data provided and whether it is representative of those studied). High quality studies (scoring >75%) would score well on most of these items; moderate quality studies (scoring >50% – 75%) would miss some elements (which could affect outcomes); and low-quality studies would score 50% or less on the items the scale looked at. A major weakness of the studies was that they did not have adequate follow-up – in many cases they did not follow young people for long enough for the long-term outcomes to be understood.

Because the ranking was based on how the studies were undertaken (their quality and execution), low quality research was removed before the results were analysed as the findings could not be completely trusted. Had an RCT been available it would also have been excluded from the systematic review if it was deemed to be of poor quality.

The puberty blocker systematic review included 50 studies. One was high quality, 25 were moderate quality and 24 were low quality. The systematic review of masculinising/feminising hormones included 53 studies. One was high quality, 33 were moderate quality and 19 were low quality.

All high quality and moderate quality reviews were included, however as only two of the studies across these two systematic reviews were identified as being of high quality, this has been misinterpreted by some to mean that only two studies were considered and the rest were discarded. In reality, conclusions were based on the high quality and moderate quality studies (i.e. 58% of the total studies based on the quality assessment). More information about this process in included in Box 2 (pages 54-56 of the final report)

-

Has the Review recommended that no one should transition before the age of 25 and that Gillick competence should be overturned.

No.  The Review has not commented on the use of masculinising/feminising hormones on people over the age of 18. This is outside of the scope of the Review. The Review has not stated that Gillick competence should be overturned.

The Review has recommended that:

“NHS England should ensure that each Regional Centre has a follow through service for 17-25-year-olds; either by extending the range of the regional children and young people’s service or through linked services, to ensure continuity of care and support at a potentially vulnerable stage in their journey. This will also allow clinical, and research follow-up data to be collected.”

This recommendation only relates to people referred into the children and young people’s service before the age of 17 to enable their care to be continued within the follow-through service up to the age of 25.

Clarification:

Currently, young people are discharged from the young people’s service at the age of 17, often to an adult gender clinic. Some of these young people have been receiving direct care from the NHS gender service (GIDS as was) and others have not yet reached the top of the waiting list and have “aged out” of the young people’s service before being seen.

The Review understands that this is a particularly vulnerable time for young people. A follow-through service continuing up to age 25, would remove the need for transition (that is, transfer) to adult services and support continuity of care and continued access to a broader multi-disciplinary team. This would be consistent with other service areas supporting young people that are selectively moving to a ‘0-25 years’ service to improve continuity of care.

The follow-through service would also benefit those seeking support from adult gender services, as these young people would not be added to the waiting list for adult services and, in the longer-term, as more gender services are established, capacity of adult provision across the country would be increased.

People aged 18 and over, who had not been referred to the NHS children and young people’s gender service, would still be referred directly to adult clinics.

-

Is the Review recommending that puberty blockers should be banned?

No. Puberty blocker medications are used to address a number of different conditions. The Review has considered the evidence in relation to safety and efficacy (clinical benefit) of the medications for use in young people with gender incongruence/gender dysphoria.

The Review found that not enough is known about the longer-term impacts of puberty blockers for children and young people with gender incongruence to know whether they are safe or not, nor which children might benefit from their use.

Ahead of publication of the final report NHS England took the decision to stop the routine use of puberty blockers for gender incongruence / gender dysphoria in children.  NHS England and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) are establishing a clinical trial to ensure the effects of puberty blockers can be safely monitored. Within this trial, puberty blockers will be available for children with gender incongruence/ dysphoria where there is clinical agreement that the individual may benefit from taking them.

Clarification:

Puberty blockers have been used to suppress puberty in children and young people who start puberty much too early (precocious puberty). They have undergone extensive testing for use in precocious puberty (a very different indication from use in gender dysphoria) and have met strict safety requirements to be approved for this condition. This is because the puberty blockers are suppressing hormone levels that are abnormally high for the age of the child.

This is different to stopping the normal surge of hormones that occur in puberty. Pubertal hormones are needed for psychological, psychosexual and brain development, and there is not yet enough information on the risks of stopping the influence of pubertal hormones at this critical life stage.

When deciding if certain treatments should be routinely available through the NHS it is not enough to demonstrate that a medication doesn’t cause harm, it needs to be demonstrated that it will deliver clinical benefit in a defined group of patients.

Over the past few years, the most common age that young people have been receiving puberty blockers in England has been 15 when most young people are already well advanced in their puberty. The new services will be looking at the best approaches to support young people through this period when they are still making decisions about longer-term options.

-

Has the Review recommended that social transition should only be undertaken under medical guidance?

The Review has advised that a more cautious approach around social transition needs to be taken for pre-pubertal children than for adolescents and has recommended that:

“When families/carers are making decisions about social transition of pre-pubertal children, services should ensure that they can be seen as early as possible by a clinical professional with relevant experience.”

Parents are encouraged to seek clinical help and advice in deciding how to support a child with gender incongruence and should be prioritised on the waiting list for early consultation on this issue. This should include discussion of the risks and benefits and the voice of the child should be heard. It will be important that flexibility is maintained, and options remain open.

Clarification:

Although the University of York’s systematic review found that there is no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has positive or negative mental health outcomes, there are studies demonstrating that for a majority of young children presenting with gender incongruence, this resolves through puberty. There is also evidence from studies of young people with differences of sex development (DSD) that sex of rearing seems to have some influence on eventual gender outcome, and it is possible that social transition in childhood may change the trajectory of gender identity development for children with early gender incongruence. Living in stealth from early childhood may also lead to stress, particularly as puberty approaches.

There is relatively weak evidence for any effect of social transition in adolescence. The Review recognises that for adolescents, exploration is a normal process, and rigid binary gender stereotypes can be unhelpful. Many adolescents will go through a period of gender non-conformity in terms of outward expressions (e.g. hairstyle, make-up, clothing and behaviours). They also have greater agency in how they present themselves and in their decision-making.

Young people and young adults have spoken positively about how social transition helped to reduce their gender dysphoria and feel more comfortable in themselves. They identified that space to talk about socially transitioning and how to handle conversations with parents/carers and others would be helpful. The Review has therefore advised that it is important to try and ensure that those already actively involved in the young person’s welfare provide support in decision making and that plans are in place to ensure that the young person is protected from bullying and has a trusted source of support.

Further detail can be found in Chapter 12 of the Final Report.

-

Did the Review speak to any gender-questioning and trans people when developing its recommendations?

Yes, the Review has been underpinned by an extensive programme of proactive engagement, which is described in Chapter 1 of the report. The Review has met with over 1000 individuals and organisations across the breadth of opinion on this subject but prioritised two categories of stakeholders:

People with relevant lived experience (direct or as a parent/carer) and organisations working with LGBTQ+ children and young people generally.

Clinicians and other relevant professionals with experience of and/ or responsibility for providing care and support to children and young people within specialist gender services and beyond.

A mixed-methods approach was taken, which included weekly listening sessions with people with lived experience, 6-weekly meetings with support and advocacy groups throughout the course of the Review, and focus groups with young people and young adults.

Reports from the focus groups with young people with lived experience are published on the Review’s website and the learning from these sessions and the listening sessions are represented in the final report.

The Review also commissioned qualitative research from the University of York, who conducted interviews with young people, young adults, parents and clinicians. A summary of the findings from this research is included as appendix 3 of the final report.

-

What is the Review’s position on conversion therapy?

Whilst the Review’s terms of reference do not include consideration of the proposed legislation to ban conversion practices, it believes that no LGBTQ+ group should be subjected to conversion practice. It also maintains the position that children and young people with gender dysphoria may have a range of complex psychosocial challenges and/or mental health problems impacting on their gender-related distress. Exploration of these issues is essential to provide diagnosis, clinical support and appropriate intervention.

The intent of psychological intervention is not to change the person’s perception of who they are but to work with them to explore their concerns and experiences and help alleviate their distress, regardless of whether they pursue a medical pathway or not. It is harmful to equate this approach to conversion therapy as it may prevent young people from getting the emotional support they deserve and make clinicians fearful of providing this group of children and young people the same care as is afforded to other children and young people.

No formal science-based training in psychotherapy, psychology or psychiatry teaches or advocates conversion therapy. If an individual were to carry out such practices they would be acting outside of professional guidance, and this would be a matter for the relevant regulator.

==

Like any religious fanatics, pathological liars like "Erin" Reed and "Alejandra" Carballo still won't stop lying, since it's all they have. But their disciples should really be noticing how they've been directly refuted.

[thatstormygeek]

"Attacks on transgender people are a major part of the 2024 campaign, with Trump spending more ads targeting trans people than on any other issue."

[begirlywithme]

If you are transgender, especially if you are out, and have concerns related to U.S. federal government-sanctioned persecution and legalized discrimination that is coming for us. I highly recommend that you watch this video. Because it provides steps on how to better protect yourself.

Erin Reed is a journalist and is also male-to-female transgender. Her advice is spot-on and I am following it myself.

And although I already legally changed my name in court nearly two decades ago, I never bothered changing the name or sex on my birth certificate.

But I am now (my birth state allows this but some others don't), as one of the proposed attack vectors is to force transgender people's government issued IDs to be changed back to reflect what is on their birth certificates. Regardless of a court ordered name change. And maybe even more. Such insanity!!

Following Erin's advice and also changing your birth certificate name & birth sex (if you can) will make you a harder target legally. And hopefully help prevent some of the federally legalized anti-trans persecution that is coming from potentially affecting you as severely.

Regarding government oppression at the state level, please see:

Erin Reed's website (linked below) is also the #1 place to go concerning transgender issues in the U.S.

Knowledge is power - arm yourself.

[apricotbuncakes]

Erin Reed has updated her transgender Risk Assessment map. My state (West Virginia) has been upgraded to a High risk state. If Trump is elected president (or even if he isn't) my state could get a whole lot worse for me and other trans people living here.

Although I am making plans to evacuate for worst case scenarios, there is no guarantee that it will be feasible for me. In the meantime I desperately need help to pay for top surgery in the event that my trans healthcare is taken away or made illegal.

Gofundme

This link takes you to my GoFundMe page for Top Surgery. I'm not even halfway to my goal. I can't schedule a surgery date until I have all the funds. Please help me get the funds I need.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Molly Sprayregen at LGBTQ Nation:

Democrats are speaking out for transgender rights in the wake of party infighting over whether support for the trans community lost Kamala Harris the presidency. Even though Harris barely talked about trans rights during her campaign – to the point where several trans activists were frustrated at her silence on trans issues – some Democrats still believe the party’s willingness to pander to progressive identity groups like trans people led it to be out of touch with voters’ actual concerns. But many elected officials refuse to throw trans people under the bus and have been voicing solidarity with the community.

“Leave trans kids alone,” wrote lesbian Congresswoman Becca Balint (D-VT) on Saturday.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) declared she will “always stand with trans people and the entire LGBTQ+ community.” “This Congresswoman sees you and loves you,” she said, reminding her followers that “this election cycle wasn’t the first time we saw the trans community scapegoated and dehumanized.”

Trans activist and journalist Erin Reed responded to Pressley, thanking her. “Democrats who think the right answer to a $215 million ad campaign demonizing transgender people is to jump to the Republican side are not leading with Democratic values, and it will weigh them down for years to come,” Reed warned. In another post responding to Pressley, Reed cautioned that Democrats who decide to stop supporting trans rights “will wear that decision like an albatross around their neck, just like the old anti-gay dems,” who she said had to “run from” their anti-marriage equality votes for decades.

Dear Democratic politicians and pundits, it is in your best interests to defend trans people and not throw them under the bus like that Reps. Seth Moulton and Tom Suozzi did. 🏳️‍⚧️

See Also:

Julia Serano on Medium: Should Democrats Throw Trans People Under the Bus?

The Present Age: The Anti-Trans Blame Game: Predictable, Wrong, and Fueling a Dangerous Agenda

[the-cimmerians]

Rep. Zooey Zephyr, the first transgender woman elected to Montana's legislature, attended a Montana House of Representatives session to oppose an anti-transgender bill that would remove references to transgender individuals from more than 40 sections of state code. The bill, which would define sex in a way that excludes trans people, was one of over a dozen heard this year. The previous day, her strong speech against the gender affirming care ban the state had passed led to the Montana Freedom Caucus calling for her censure while intentionally and repeatedly misgendering her. When she punched in, they refused to recognize her to speak, and instead moved forward to pass the bill.

Tensions flared on the House Floor when the entire Democratic Caucus rose to demand that she be permitted to speak. In a strikingly undemocratic move, Republican House Speaker Regier declined to allow it, asserting that he could refuse to allow anyone to speak at his discretion. When Minority Leader Abbott objected, they moved to a packed rules committee meeting, which upheld the ruling. Following that, the Speaker stated it was his intent to no longer allow Representative Zephyr to speak moving forward.

[stephobrien]

The political situation in the USA is grim, but there is hope.

Here are some of the strategies some Democrats are using - and additional strategies they can use - to protect their most vulnerable constituents from Republicans' hate-based legislation.

[thatheathen]

Erin in the Morning | Erin Reed Substack | Odessa, TX Agenda

[theatreofthelivingmind]

When I saw Zooey Zephyr proposed to her girlfriend Erin Reed...well, my week got a bit better.

Congrats to the couple 👭

[frameacloud]

Erin Reed (January 16, 2024). "Erin's Anti-Trans Risk Map: Early Legislative Session Edition." Erin in the Morning. https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/erins-anti-trans-risk-map-early-legislative

This post on Erin Reed's blog tells all about the current status of anti-transgender bills and laws throughout the United States.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Sammy Gecsoyler

Published: Apr 21, 2024

The doctor behind a landmark review of the NHS’s gender identity services for children and young people has said fears had been raised about her personal safety amid online abuse after the report’s release.

Dr Hilary Cass told the Times she wished to address the “disinformation” circulating about the findings and recommendations handed down by the Cass review when it was published on 10 April.

She said she had received online abuse in the wake of the report and had been advised to stop using public transport.

The report said the evidence base for gender medicine in young people had been thin and children had been let down by a “toxic” public discourse around gender.

Cass told the Times: “I have been really frustrated by the criticisms, because it is straight disinformation. It is completely inaccurate.

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

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

Referring to the online abuse she had received, she said: “There are some pretty vile emails coming in at the moment, most of which my team is protecting me from, so I’m not getting to see them.”

She added: “I’m not going on public transport at the moment, following security advice, which is inconvenient.”

The report said the now shuttered Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, the only NHS gender identity development service for children in England and Wales, used puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones despite “remarkably weak evidence” that they improved the wellbeing of young people and concern they may harm health.

The report recommended that young people struggling with their gender identity should be screened to detect neurodevelopmental conditions and there should be an assessment of their mental health, because some who seek help with their gender identity may also have anxiety or depression, for example.

When the report was released, Cass stressed that her findings were not intended to undermine the validity of trans identities or challenge people’s right to transition, but rather to improve the care of the fast-growing number of children and young people with gender-related distress.

NHS England has since announced a second Cass review-style appraisal of adult gender clinics. Cass confirmed to the Times that she would not take part in the adult report after the abuse she suffered in recent weeks.

She said: “You heard it right here: I am not going to do the adult gender clinic review.”

--

==

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" -- Sam Harris

These gender ideologues are cultists. There's no science, no evidence, no reasoning that would convince them of reality, because they don't believe based on science, evidence or reality. They believe entirely on ideology and faith. Nothing will convince them that, wait, perhaps we got this wrong? Is there something we missed? Could this have gotten out of hand? Is there information we don't know about?

They don't care.

They do not care.

They don't care about truth. They don't care about people. They don't care about kids; they just use them as a shield from criticism. They don't care about anyone. They only care about their ideology of gender revolution and "queering" the world, no matter the cost, no matter who gets hurt along the way.

Never ever forget and never ever forgive. Make sure these lunatics are as notorious in history as Mengele and Lysenko.