#TRA Lies

[nevereveraster]

TRA LIES: Nex Benedict

So user @ny4n4rchy chose to deliberately lie about the tragic suicide death of Nex Benedict, presumably because this user cannot use this child's death as a talking point if the truth comes out. Since this user has chosen to deliberately lie about this child's suicide, let's go with actual immutable facts in reality, as opposed to @ny4n4rchy's baseless accusation of falsehood due to upset feelings that a child's death cannot be weaponized. Nex Benedict was originally lionized and martyred by the trans community for being beaten to death for being trans. Even though the trans community did not have the facts, they nonetheless created a narrative about what caused Nex's death. You can find news reports on Nex's autopsy with a ten-second google search. Compiling the following data took less than 5 miniutes. Here are the facts: Nex Benedict died of an overdose. Here is the toxicology report.

Nex Benedict was sexually abused by an immediate family member. Here is the case summary.

A head wound did not cause this child's death. This child died of a medication-overdose suicide. This child had previous sexual abuse as recent trauma history.

Instead of performing any independent effort to ensure correct material facts, user @ny4n4rchy instead chose to lie about the suicide death of a sexual abuse victim because that lie was convenient in furthering the trans cause. This is reprehensible behavior on the part of @ny4n4rchy. My only commentary is along the lines of "my God, this child was raped by a parent. This child was in so much pain and confusion that suicide became an option to pursue. Have some fucking respect, this child is not your martyr for the cause. You don't even know this kid." (Notice also this user @ny4n4rchy's open use of a slur for gay men and a slur for trans-identified people. A slur is a slur. It does not speak highly of @ny4n4rchy's character.)

[p0pipos]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[ms-revived-frogs]

i never said she made the game, but she sure doesn't seem to have a problem with these men interpreting her works. i love all the excuses y'all keep making for her tho. you act like she's just this helpless little angel who's completely incapable of saying anything negative about the game or the people making it. or that she can't spend 30 seconds googling any of the major players on her game. why is it that the anti terf crowd is more aware of big name misogynists than the supposed "real feminists"? and while we're at it, why did ms rowling choose robert galbraith, a gay conversion therapist and advocate, as her pen name for other novels? are you gonna tell me she wasn't aware of that either? the lengths you'll go to defend this woman is insane.

Lmaooo this whole ask is such a reach

First off, thousands of people mention Rowling on twitter, literally nobody is gonna do background checks on every person that pops up in their notifications, especially someone she hasn't worked with / employed. Second, I literally have never heard of this guy before, so I doubt he's some "big name misogynist", because I think I'd have at least heard of him before like 20 minutes ago. Third, Robert Galbraith is the name that belongs to many people...

Might as well say she named herself after one of these too, eh? She's even explained why she chose that name before.

Also the Robert Galbraith (conversion therapists psychiatrist) you are thinking of is named Robert Galbraith Heath.

So it's not the lengths to which "we" go to defend her, I already said I'm not the biggest fan of JKR. It's the lengths you people go to discredit her and pick apart literally every detail. It's actually ridiculous how fucking dumb you people are.

[nevereveraster]

Do you know what I find interesting, @newandnonsense? I've never called a trans person a slur. I've never told a trans person to kill or harm themselves in any way. I've never advocated for violence towards trans people, because that would be abhorrent. I've never, ever claimed that any trans-identified person or ally is subhuman, I've never threatened a trans person or told them they deserve death. I understand how to be a basically decent human being; threatening people is wrong. Implying that someone should attempt or complete suicide is wrong. It's violent and unstable and reflects mental health issues and unresolved emotional trauma.

And yet, whenever I go about my simple acts of dissent, whenever I exercise my right as a human being to say "no" and to continue saying "no" even when someone else wants to force and coerce that "no" into a "yes" through any means possible... I get threats like this. And isn't it interesting! Isn't it so interesting that I have never in my three years of former staunch TRA and trans ally 2006-2021 turned GC "TERF" 2021-2024 even heard of a "TERF" GC woman threatening a trans person, or a TRA, or an ally, never even heard of a trans person being told to "put a gun to your head and pull the trigger you pathetic piece of garbage" ... and yet, I've seen hundreds of posts of TRA receipts where TRAS, allies, and trans people scream at, abuse, threaten, and wish death upon GC "TERF" women (specifically women -- men who are GC aren't called "TERFs", threatened, stalked, and harassed) go out of their way to stalk GC women, attempt to doxx GC women, attempt to and sometimes succeed in ruining GC women's social lives and careers. Even if I hadn't fallen away from believing in trans religion due to 4 separate trans women trying to actively harm me, speak over me, and shut me up and silence me IRL in a 6 month period because "she's more of a woman than [I] am", and "her experience [of believing that women talking about sexual assault in the workplace are attention-seeking liars because she's not been assaulted at work] means I'm a lying attentionwhore bitch for saying it happened to [me]" the violent, aggressive, threatening, coercive, domineering, tyrannical way that trans persons, TRAs, and allies act online would have clued me in that something was fucking screwy. See, actual marginalized groups don't go around threatening others. Actual marginalized groups afraid of harm don't loudly and aggressively try to harm anyone who won't fall in line and get down on their knees to pay fealty.

The way TRAs, allies, and trans people act reminds me of nothing so much as a conquesting, colonializing oppressor class. The methods are the same: "submit or harm and threats of harm will be heaped upon you. Life will become hard for you. Submit, get on your knees, and swear fealty to this new religion or we will threaten to rape you with our girlcocks and encourage you to attempt and complete suicide for daring to have the audacity to challenge our authority by saying no."

It's frightening on a meta, cultural level. It feels like an odd, warped version of emergent new McCarthyism -- except that instead of "communist scum" deserving death and being subhuman and deserving of scorn, threats, violence, surveillance, etc. it is instead women who dare to stand up for our own agency and right to refuse and say "No" who are now the evil boogeyman and convenient scapegoat.

[itsawritblr]

Breaking Down Cass Review Myths and Misconceptions: What You Need to Know.

An answer when some tranny or handmaiden disputes the review. (long post with lots of facts!)

Via The Quakometer:

It has now been just little under a week since the publication of the long anticipated NHS independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, the Cass Review.

The review recommends sweeping changes to child services in the NHS, not least the abandonment of what is known as the “affirmation model” and the associated use of puberty blockers and, later, cross-sex hormones. The evidence base could not support the use of such drastic treatments, and this approach was failing to address the complexities of health problems in such children.

Many trans advocacy groups appear to be cautiously welcoming these recommendations. However, there are many who are not and have quickly tried to condemn the review. Within almost hours, “press releases“, tweets and commentaries tried to rubbish the report and included statements that were simply not true. An angry letter from many “academics”, including Andrew Wakefield, has been published. These myths have been subsequently spreading like wildfire.

Here I wish to tackle some of those myths and misrepresentations.

Myth 1: 98% of all studies in this area were ignored.

Fact

A comprehensive search was performed for all studies addressing the clinical questions under investigation, and over 100 were discovered. All these studies were evaluated for their quality and risk of bias. Only 2% of the studies met the criteria for the highest quality rating, but all high and medium quality (50%+) studies were further analysed to synthesise overall conclusions.

Explanation.

The Cass Review aimed to base its recommendations on the comprehensive body of evidence available. While individual studies may demonstrate positive outcomes for the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children, the quality of these studies may vary. Therefore, the review sought to assess not only the findings of each study but also the reliability of those findings.

Studies exhibit variability in quality. Quality impacts the reliability of any conclusions that can be drawn. Some may have small sample sizes, while others may involve cohorts that differ from the target patient population. For instance, if a study primarily involves men in their 30s, their experiences may differ significantly from those of teenage girls, who constitute the a primary patient group of interest. Numerous factors can contribute to poor study quality.

Bias is also a big factor. Many people view claims of a biased study as meaning the researchers had ideological or predetermined goals and so might misrepresent their work. That may be true. But that is not what bias means when we evaluate medical trials.

In this case we are interested in statistical bias. This is where the numbers can mislead us in some way. For example, if your study started with lots of patients but many dropped out then statistical bias may creep in as your drop-outs might be the ones with the worst experiences. Your study patients are not on average like all the possible patients.

If then we want to look at a lot papers to find out if a treatment works, we want to be sure that we pay much more attention to those papers that look like they may have less risk of bias or quality issues. The poor quality papers may have positive results that are due to poor study design or execution and not because the treatment works.

The Cass Review team commissioned researchers at York University to search for all relevant papers on childhood use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for treating “gender dysphoria”. The researchers then graded each paper by established methods to determine quality, and then disregarded all low quality papers to help ensure they did not mislead.

The Review states,

As can be seen, the conclusions that were based on the synthesis of studies only rejected 24 out of 50 studies – less than half. The myth has arisen that the synthesis only included the one high quality study. That is simply untrue.

There were two such literature reviews: the other was for cross-sex hormones. This study found 19 out of 53 studies were low quality and so were not used in synthesis. Only one study was classed as high quality – the rest medium quality and so were used in the analysis.

Again, it is myth that 98% of studies were discarded. The truth is that over a hundred studies were read and appraised. About half of them were graded to be of too poor quality to reliably include in a synthesis of all the evidence. if you include low quality evidence, your over-all conclusions can be at risk from results that are very unreliable. As they say – GIGO – Garbage In Garbage Out.

Nonetheless, despite analysing the higher quality studies, there was no clear evidence that emerged that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones were safe and effective. The BMJ editorial summed this up perfectly,

Myth 2: Cass recommended no Trans Healthcare for Under 25s.

Fact

The Cass Review does not contain any recommendation or suggestion advocating for the withholding of transgender healthcare until the age of 25, nor does it propose a prohibition on individuals transitioning.

Explanation

This myth appears to be a misreading of one of the recommendations.

The Cass Review expressed concerns regarding the necessity for children to transition to adult service provision at the age of 18, a critical phase in their development and potential treatment. Children were deemed particularly vulnerable during this period, facing potential discontinuity of care as they transitioned to other clinics and care providers. Furthermore, the transition made follow-up of patients more challenging.

Cass then says,

Cass want to set up continuity of service provision by ensure they remain within the same clinical setting and with the same care providers until they are 25. This says nothing about withdrawing any form of treatment that may be appropriate in the adult care pathway. Cass is explicit in saying her report is making no recommendations as to what that care should look like for over 18s.

It looks the myth has arisen from a bizarre misreading of the phrase “remove the need for transition”. Activists appear to think this means that there should be no “gender transition” whereas it is obvious this is referring to “care transition”.

Myth 3: Cass is demanding only Double Blind Randomised Controlled Trials be used as evidence in “Trans Healthcare”.

Fact

While it is acknowledged that conducting double-blind randomized controlled trials (DBRCT) for puberty blockers in children would present significant ethical and practical challenges, the Cass Review does not advocate solely for the use of DBRCT trials in making treatment recommendations, nor does it mandate that future trials adhere strictly to such protocols. Rather, the review extensively discusses the necessity for appropriate trial designs that are both ethical and practical, emphasizing the importance of maintaining high methodological quality.

Explanation

Cass goes into great detail explaining the nature of clinical evidence and how that can vary in quality depending on the trial design and how it is implemented and analysed. She sets out why Double Blind Randomised Controlled Trials are the ‘gold standard’ as they minimise the risks of confounding factors misleading you and helping to understand cause and effect, for example. (See Explanatory Box 1 in the Report).

Doctors rely on evidence to guide treatment decisions, which can be discussed with patients to facilitate informed choices considering the known benefits and risks of proposed treatments.

Evidence can range from a doctor’s personal experience to more formal sources. For instance, a doctor may draw on their own extensive experience treating patients, known as ‘Expert Opinion.’ While valuable, this method isn’t foolproof, as historical inaccuracies in medical beliefs have shown.

Consulting other doctors’ experiences, especially if documented in published case reports, can offer additional insight. However, these reports have limitations, such as their inability to establish causality between treatment and outcome. For example, if a patient with a bad back improves after swimming, it’s uncertain whether swimming directly caused the improvement or if the back would have healed naturally.

Further up the hierarchy of clinical evidence are papers that examine cohorts of patients, typically involving multiple case studies with statistical analysis. While offering better evidence, they still have potential biases and limitations.

This illustrates the ‘pyramid of clinical evidence,’ which categorises different types of evidence based on their quality and reliability in informing treatment decisions

The above diagram is published in the Cass Review as part of Explanatory Box 1.

We can see from the report and papers that Cass did not insist that only randomised controlled trials were used to assess the evidence. The York team that conducted the analyses chose a method to asses the quality of studies called the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. This is a method best suited for non RCT trials. Cass has selected an assessment method best suited for the nature of the available evidence rather than taken a dogmatic approach on the need for DBRCTs. The results of this method were discussed about countering Myth 1. Explainer on the Newcastle Ottawa Scale

As for future studies, Cass makes no demand only DBRCTs are conducted. What is highlighted is at the very least that service providers build a research capacity to fill in the evidence gaps.

Myth 4: There were less than 10 detransitioners out of 3499 patients in the Cass study.

Fact

Cass was unable to determine the detransition rate. Although the GIDS audit study recorded fewer than 10 detransitioners, clinics declined to provide information to the review that would have enabled linking a child’s treatment to their adult outcome. The low recorded rates must be due in part to insufficient data availability.

Explanation

Cass says, “The percentage of people treated with hormones who subsequently detransition remains unknown due to the lack of long-term follow-up studies, although there is suggestion that numbers are increasing.��

The reported number are going to be low for a number of reasons, as Cass describes:

Damningly, Cass describes the attempt by the review to establish “data linkage’ between records at the childhood gender clinics and adult services to look at longer term detransition and the clinics refused to cooperate with the Independent Review. The report notes the “…attempts to improve the evidence base have been thwarted by a lack of cooperation from the adult gender services”.

We know from other analyses of the data on detransitioning that the quality of data is exceptionally poor and the actual rates of detransition and regret are unknown. This is especially worrying when older data, such as reported in WPATH 7, suggest natural rates of decrease in dysphoria without treatment are very high.

This suggests that active affirmative treatment may be locking in a trans identity into the majority of children who would otherwise desist with trans ideation and live unmedicated lives.

I shall add more myths as they become spread.

[ms-revived-frogs]

This is how you know these people never read a word she wrote, and base their judgement of her off of what other people say. She's written that she supports trans people but that she also recognizes the biological aspect of being a woman (being female). This is not "advocating their total annihilation".

As for "some mean words", those included death and rape threats, as well as people in real life gathering outside of her house, which does count as some level of harassment. She also had porn tweeted at her non-consensually in threads with children, in order to intimidate her into silence. Such is often a misogynistic tactic by using sexually-charged harassment / pornography to scare women into submission. Not to mention the fact that these were tweeted at children she was replying to concerning the novels said children enjoyed. You must be heartless to say that these are "some mean words", in response to what she wrote which was, on paper, nothing really radical. Most if not the majority of people know that women are female; it's common and basic knowledge. And yet stating it on Twitter is enough to garner accusations of wanting "total annihilation" of a marginalised group. The victim complex necessary to twist those words is ludicrous to say the least.

The Onion’s journalism is the only journalism that matters. Holy fuck.

[linkvcr]

good evenin skysword nation

[nevereveraster]

Wow, what a predictable deliberate mischaracterization of detransition and detransitioners. Let's let the public postings from confused detransitioning kids and young adults speaks for themselves (credit @redditreceipts) since @assignedmale wants to deliberately lie about this population so badly:

Does that look like informed consent, @assignedmale? Do these questions look like they come from detransitioners who were adequately prepared for their surgical procedures to affirm them? No? Then why did you deliberately misconstrue this?

[evadingreallife]

AAA CERCASI che libro faccio leggere a mia nonna di 92 anni che non credo abbia mai letto nulla in vita sua se non le riviste helppp

[omarfor-orchestra]

No allora perché se li fa sposare e gli sposi in questione sono Simone e Mimmo io penso ci metteranno una settimana per scegliere i vestiti

[lilium-in-blue]

La pasticceria più buona di Cagliari ha fatto un trailer per il Maritozzo Day. Un trailer. Per il Maritozzo Day.

[ms-revived-frogs]

"worst active anti-trans laws" and it's just bills that don't allow males on female teams and don't let minors get cosmetic gender surgeries / stop their natural puberty

This map is the most up to date version as of 3-4-2023 and takes into account all recent movement on anti-trans legislation

[nodistar]

probabilmente qualcuno avrà già sottolineato questa somiglianza ma non è un caso che io sia ossessionata sia con i mimmone che con i gallavich

[totheecore]

il banner sul sito: hey siamo in ferie da X a X gli ordini verrano evasi a partire da Y!!

le mail: SoNo PassAtI 1o GiOrnI XKéÉ iL MIo OrdInE Nn È anKoRa Stt EvaSo!!1!1!

[malachia-il-bibliotecario]

if sneaking pirated pdfs away from a public library is wrong then I don't want to be right

[affogonellamarmellata]

Pensati libero  👉