#TRAS

[michellezagenda]

one of my biggest pet peeves about white activists, TRA be gay do crimes queers is how they try to dismiss people of color who oppose their views. They try to make us feel like we’re just trying to be picked by white people despite being white suburban upper class wannabe oppressed victims themselves. They don’t realize that their views are all based around whiteness. if they actually talked to POC especially WOC they would know that most of us find their opinions to be regressive, racist and privileged. I need them to stop speaking on us like their entire movement isn’t just low effort white nonsense.

[radykalny-feminizm]

Someone probably made a poll like this at some point but I'll do it anyway idgaf

[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.

[erebusvincent]

It’s funny to me to see posts on here in which someone will call a woman a “terf” and then attempt to insult her by calling her “ugly,” or a “bitch,” or the extraordinarily clever “ugly bitch.” It’s clear that the person writing that has no idea what radical feminism even is.

No radfem is going to be moved by ugly or bitch. A meaningless adjective and a lazy slur are not the zingers misogynists imagine they are. How can you seriously call someone a radfem and then come up with the neural misfire that she would care about being perceived as beautiful? What value does beauty have? In what way is the concept anything but an albatross around the necks of every woman on earth whether she participates in its subjugating rituals or not? “Ugly” isn’t an insult, it’s a cause for reflection. Anyone who uses it as an insult is only revealing her own bizarre revelry in the patriarchal stripping of her humanity.

Perhaps learn something about radical feminism before you let a demented sexual predator mutilation cult tell you it’s evil.

[autistic-and-radical]

I'm wondering, for what trans rights American TRAs are fighting for? I just don't get it. Transitioning children? Self-identification? Abolishing gendered spaces? I'm from Poland. Over here, trans people have it awfully hard, both medical and social transition are very troublesome and even dangerous. Gay people can't get married here, can't adopt kids. Conversion therapy is alive and well despite being illegal. Hell, a girl at the pride parade got SHOT for nothing a few weeks back. In 2020 a bunch of men went around after the pride parade beating people up just for having something rainbow on them. Those "anti-trans" bills y'all are talking about are bills that protect women and children. You have it really good in the US compared to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South America, etc.

[ruger35mm]

since you like to lie about being raped, i hope you actually get raped

☠️😂😂

[niiwa-angel]

TRAs to Radfems: telling young women who are concerned about doing risky sex acts like anal or oral is grooming. Talking to 15 year olds who asked how to properly enforce boundaries when it comes to sex or even just relationships in general is the exact same as being a pedophile. Telling Lesbians that they don't have to date trans women is dangerous. You're basically Hitler.

Also TRAs: posts shit like this

[paperlunamoth]

The fully sane to fully insane TRA progression:

"I'm a man, but I don't feel comfortable actively conforming to traditionally masculine gender roles."

Nothing wrong with that! Gender is bullshit anyways.

"I'm a man, but I feel more comfortable actively conforming to traditionally feminine gender roles."

Cool. You do you.

"I'm a man, but I have a mental disorder that makes me deeply uncomfortable with being male. In addition to presenting and acting in a traditionally feminine manner, I would like to be recognized socially as a woman and addressed as 'she/her' in order to more easily manage the distress that results from my condition."

Okay. That's fine I guess.

"I'm a woman who was incorrectly identified as male at birth. I am not meaningfully distinct from biological women and therefore am entitled to exist in single sex, female only spaces, and to speak on behalf of women as a group. Women as a class should change the language they use to discuss their bodies and their oppression in order to make me more comfortable even though many of such discussions necessarily do not involve me. Women are to blame if I am the victim of male violence, especially women who are concerned about the issue of male violence. If I don't have access to a lifetime supply of medically unnecessary hormones and receive multiple invasive cosmetic surgeries in order to make my body appear more female, I will become suicidal, but also I am not mentally ill. Calling my condition, which causes me daily psychological distress, a mental illness is hate speech."

Um...

"What even is a woman, anyways? I know I'm a woman, because I identify as a woman, and that's what it means to be female. Gender isn't real and doesn't exist. But also transgender identities are real and valid and trans women are discriminated against because their gender is female. Sex is an arbitrary nonbinary social construct just like gender, also sex has nothing to do with gender. But also I would like my penis to become a vagina in order to alleviate my gender dysphoria. Sex based oppression isn't real, only gender based oppression is, and it is a totally random coincidence that the concept of gender happens to benefit the penis people at the expense of the vagina people 99% of the time. The existence of intersex birth defects demonstrates that humans are not a gonochoric species. No one is born male or female. A clitoris is just a very tiny penis, and a penis is just the outie version of a vagina, and sex organs don't determine whether someone is male or female. I still really want a vagina specifically though because I am female and females have vaginas. Homosexuality has nothing to do with sex and being exclusively same sex attracted is morally wrong. I think minors should be allowed to take cross sex hormones and receive cosmetic surgery but also no one is saying that shut up stop lying. I don't have a mental illness, that would be bad and gross, I'm perfectly normal and dysphoria is perfectly healthy, and you must literally want me to die if you think otherwise, how dare you be so hateful towards mentally ill people. Not giving in to my every demand and actively catering to my desires is literally partipating in genocide. Choke on my cock and die you misogynist!"

...

[michellezagenda]

tras are some of the most privileged & coddled individuals i’ve ever come across. They want ‘terfs’ to be blocked & never want to hear anyone’s opinion that’s different from theirs. They all act like they’ve never been told no

I see them on my feed sometimes sending anons & harassing people like ‘um op you just reblogged a terf’ & so what if they did? Literally no one outside of your delusion bubble cares why can’t they understand that 😭

[ryukisgod]

Man who doesn’t think women deserve female only spaces takes off clothes and gets into bath with son’s nanny

[itsawritblr]

[radfemsouthy]

South African TRAs bullied a black woman, Ntsiki Mazwai, into deleting her tweet about trans women being men.

They’ll do anything to silence women.

[leregirenga]

Dime dónde estas, que mis sueños e ilusiones insistieron en irse tras de ti, me abandonaron al no sentir más tue besos que me daban ese subidón de adrenalina, esas caricias que provocaban fascinación y deseo, esos abrazos que conquistaban el territorio de mi espalda, esas sonrisas que me enamoraban como tonta...

Dime a dónde te has ido o devuélveme lo que es mío, no quiero morir sin nada de todo aquello que pensé que era tuyo, pero no es así. Me pertenece y quiero que cada uno de ellos vuelvan conmigo. Merezco volver a enamorar y amar.

Leregi Renga

[vampiremiffy]

dudes be like: THERES NO RADFEMS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH😠😠😠 —while saying it to a radfem born, raised and still living, in the global south

[newrww]

honoring Mexican victims in England is interesting. was that always the intention? pretty sure there's not enough transgender people being murdered in England to justify anything like this.

[paperlunamoth]