#trans lies

[itsawritblr]

J.K. Rowling has been proven right!

"The Cass Review is a damning indictment of what the NHS has been doing to children.

"Dr Hilary Cass has submitted her final report and recommendations to NHS England in her role as Chair of the Independent Review of gender identity services for children and young people.

"Hilary Cass’s report demolishes the entire basis for the current model of treating gender-distressed children. Its publication is a shameful day for NHS England, which for too long gave vulnerable children harmful treatments for which there was no evidence base. It’s now clear to all that this was quack medicine from the start. 

"Dr Cass delivers stinging criticisms of NHS gender clinics, both adult and child, and her description of the Gender Identity Development Service is absolutely damning. It is disgraceful that GIDS, alongside the adult clinics, did not cooperate with her attempt to survey its practice, or to carry out a high-quality, long-term follow-up study on the treatment of children as part of the review, which would have been a global first."

You can read the entire review here. (pdf)

"Glinner" is Graham Linehan, a writer, screenwriter, and comedian who's been fighting against transitioning minors for years, losing friends, his job, and his agent along the way. But he's kept on fighting.

,

;

.

.

The tide has turned in the UK and in Europe. When will American media finally begin reporting on the closing of "gender clinics" and the bans on puberty blockers for children? I figure nothing will happen here in the U.S. until the lawsuits start flooding in. It's already begun. And with proof like the Cass Review and the WPATH files, it's going to be very, very difficult for clinics, doctors, and therapists to continue lying about how transitioning does no permanent and irreversible physical and psychological harm.

[funfacts24-7]

A historic victory for Trump over the evils of Kamala. I hope we can get society back on track and squash all the DEI propaganda and rhetoric.

[nevereveraster]

FACT CHECK:

"Puberty blockers" like Lupron (which is now no longer in use due to the horror story side effects) were screamed as safe by doctors. If you disagreed or had misgivings, you were a medical denier and a bigot. The Dangers of Lupron

Nightmare Lupron Medical Damage

Lifelong Effects Remember that doctors screamed for years that Lupron was safe. If you disagreed that this puberty blocker was unsafe prior to 2017, you were a "bigot" who "didn't want kids to express who they were" and "wanted trans children to kill themselves." The Cass report has now confirmed that NO RESEARCH WHATSOEVER has proven that puberty blockers are safe, not even for the original use of "blocking" precocious puberty.

THIS IS YET ANOTHER DELIBERATE TRANS ACTIVIST LIE.

[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.

[funfacts24-7]

It’s interesting how important and powerful the words “real” , “normal” and “actual” have become. Those that have fallen down the trans ideology hole loathe and despise those words for they shine a bright light on the lies, hypocrisy and predatory nature of their beliefs.

We see an attack on these words by trying to invent flowery and flawed fake new words so they don’t have to hear people say them. Using positive sounding excuses doesn’t justify the lies.

There are real men and women, and there are the fakers.

There are normal people in this world, and they don’t need a new label.

There are actually talented people of every color, both man and woman and they deserve to be heard more than the fake messages being pushed by media stars.

It’s interesting how the left has moved away from my views. I used to vote blue, I always considered myself on the left but i absolutely loathe the slur “CIS”. Every normal person does, real men and women don’t need to be referred to as a slur just so delusional “trans” cultists can claim “trans women ArE rEaL WoMeN”.

They are not, no trans identifying man or woman has ever been anything more than that. They can dress and act as they please, people may be polite but no one owes you any respect or dignity if you behave like that. You have to earn it.

[ponikopuffy]

DON'T SKIP THIS POST AND READ THIS

THEY PUT THE KOSA BILL IN THE FAA

THIS IS TERRIBLE NEWS, AND THE REASON WHY THIS IS HAPPENING IT'S BECUESE SOME OF YOU YALL STAY SILENT BECUESE YOU GUYS GIVE UP

IF YALL DON'T WANNA LET THE KOSA BILL PASS THEN DONT STAY IN LISENT AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

https://www.stopkosa.com/

https://www.woodhullfoundation.org/get-involved/stop-kosa/

https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-kosa

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/dont-fall-latest-changes-dangerous-kids-online-safety-act

AND REMENBER, DONT LET THEM WIN, BECUESE WE NEED TO STILL FIGHT.

[lavendeerlesbian]

127 thousand notes and you know that the vast majority of them do not have this addition that completely debunks the TRA point that "TERFs" are in cahoots with nazis. You should be fucking ashamed of yourselves.

[animentality]

[itsawritblr]

I can't wait until celebrities who wanted to cancel J.K. Rowling try to deny the reality of the Cass Review and the WPATH files.

These include Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Stephen King, Neil Gaiman, and David Tennant, with so many more.

What will they say? That the review is biased? It was independent. That the science lies? Tran "science" is the lie. That the Cass Review and WPATH are all wrong? If so, then there's no such thing as scientific reviews. Eat reality, assholes.

The Cass Review.

PDF of the full review.

Yes! @beautifulmorningstar, I meant Watson! Thanks for pointing that out! I changed it!

I love Emma Thompson!

[funfacts24-7]

No minor needs to be put on hormones.

No minor needs to be put through “gender affirming care”.

No minor needs to be put through surgeries under the lies of potential suicide.

If you believe children should transition than you are a child predator and evil, plain and simple.

[lavendeerlesbian]

I love how this comic blames victims, lies about informed consent, and downplays/lies about the side effects.

"Making a big mistake, you will always be a freak" Are not side effects listed, you are omitting all of the permanent physical health issues associated with dosing yourself with wrong sex hormones. Either you refuse to talk about them to appeal to the trans cult, or you don't understand what they are either meaning you weren't able to give informed consent.

Check out my #transition doesn't help or #trans rights activism harms trans people tags if you want information on why people actually detransition as well as actual health risks to trans people.

[zeloznog]

[manny-jacinto]

"I get a lot of kids don't have a choice. But you do. You could be a boy forever if you want." - GEN V (2023-)

[itsawritblr]

Sanity is returning to the UK.

With the release of the independent Cass Review, the UK media is highlighting the lies about puberty blockers and transitioning.

.

.

.

.

[funfacts24-7]

It’s not transphobic to call out boys playing in girls sports.

It’s not transphobic to stop the predatory actions of the lgbt community against autistic children.

It’s not transphobic to support free speech.

It’s not transphobic to follow biology not ideology.

It’s not transphobic to call a trans-identifying person as their biological sex.

It’s not transphobic to doubt the claims of the lgbt community.

It’s not transphobic to acknowledge that using puberty blockers is chemical castration.

It’s not transphobic to speak the truth.

No one is scared of the trans movement in the lgbt community because it is a community of lies, narcissism and gaslighting.

[skyekurisu]

Untitled idea

For the first time in my life I have a girlfriend.

She's beautiful, tall, has an amazing body and a smile that will melt your heart. She's a little boyish, but I love her for it.

And then there's me, an average boy you could find anywhere, with nothing remarkable to speak of. That's why I never expected her to confess her feelings to me.

Of course, I accepted her invitation right away, and I've been the happiest ever since. But there is a problem.

Because of the way she presents herself, people often think I'm gay, and I'm sick and tired of that.

So I've come up with the ultimate idea to stop people thinking about me that way: