A Response: Meredithe McNamara et al on GAC
A Response: Meredithe McNamara et al on GAC
Tools for the General Public to Fight Activist Docs and Researchers
I was doing a scholarly literature search on pediatric gender dysphoria + pubertal suppression yesterday and came across this gemstone. It defines Gender Affirming Care (GAC) as a biopsychosocial model of care and it proceeds to outline 9 misconceptions about GAC and then correct them. Naturally it’s horsesh1t dressed up in euphemistic language to look like a compassionate + progressive commentary on patient-centred care in the 21st century.
Increasingly the general public need their own tools to fight the distortion of truth and manipulation of facts and suppression of valid and reliable evidence because the fourth estate in Canada has failed to do their job in this respect on this particular issue. Fortunately,
has committed to providing a platform that centres writers and lets them control their connection to their readers and has committed to not engaging in ideological censorship that plagues many other writing sites. Also fortunately a few courageous academics and doctors have begun to speak out, at great professional and social risk. I am grateful for these individuals. Also fortunately, expert reports for liability suits have been posted online by Lupron Victim Hub — for the devotion and dedication of patient survivors of iatrogenic harm, I am immensely grateful.Not everyone in my position can take all of this material and make it make sense, mostly people have relied on journalists to do that, and a few are. However the world could always use more accessible and open and rigourous discourse and writing on the topic of Gender Politics. The Canadian people never had a chance to discuss this stuff, they were jollied along by the Laurentian Elite and they are told to take their Buckley’s Mixture and STFU. Well we aren’t going to do that. Do you know that it has been many years since I felt the western alienation so acutely as I do now? I thought the progressing time was supposed to bring social and political progress and not regress. How naïve!
Scientific Misinformation and Gender Affirming Care: Tools for Providers on the Front Lines.
So there is no confusion over the claims made by the paper, I have provided them below. The wording of my Misconceptions might be slightly different because I have inverted them for my stylistic purpose, however they do address each of the points made. This essay provides the tools anyone can use to intelligently challenge Pediatric Gender Affirmationists.
My recommendation to all is to make an effort to consider you word choices, the language you choose couches your message, people respond more to the emotion you convey to them than the actual verbal content you share—remember that when you are trying to convey a point. The need to be right often gets in the way. This is, at its core, about you and your ability to manage your emotions in the context of debate and intellectual differences.
What is Gender Affirming Care?
Rukhsana Sukhan’s definition of Gender Affirming Care :: Gender Affirming Care includes social, psychological, medical and surgical interventions in support of the way a person feels about their reproductive class. It includes pronouns and name change and people affirming those, it includes hormone therapy and it also includes body modification surgery. Gender Affirming Care involves a complete submission to the patient’s will and whim and it involves dispensing with the medical assessment model of differential diagnoses. Gender Affirming Care demands clinicians dispense with all they know about trauma care, DBT + suicidal threats, personality disorders, as well as dissociative disorders and follow the patient’s desire to modify themselves to become the opposite sex.
My gratitude for the thorough work done by this Wordpress blog. Please go read the full blog post on a man who pioneered transsexual medicine and founded the precursor to WPATH! I have taken the image below from that post. It’s important and relevant information because it demonstrates the foundational bias of the Gender Affirming Care model of primary care for gender discordant children.
McNamara et al’s definition of Gender Affirming Care :: Gender Affirming Care is a biopsychosocial model of care for those who experience gender dysphoria.
Notes:
WPATH, formerly the Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, named after its founder—Endocrinologist and Sexologist Harry Benjamin. Benjamin had some whack ideas, from the time he graduated from medical school in 1912, he glommed onto oddball and charlatan medical claims, one of which involved his work with Eugene Steinach, who convinced Benjamin that vasectomies could invigorate men. He also enjoyed Steinach’s experimental sex changes in guinea pigs. Steinach sought to discover a biological basis for homosexuality so he could cure it, and published a paper in 1917 claiming to have done so based on experimentation with rat testes.
Benjamin had a conversation with Freud, and in an exchange confessed to him his impotence. Freud asked Benjamin could you be latent homosexual? Benjamin cringed at the thought and hated psychoanalysis ever after. In his work with transsexuals, Benjamin’s bias against psychoanalysis led him to affirm the entrance complaint of those patients who reported feeling like the opposite sex. This is the origin of Gender Affirming Care’s bias against a proven primary care model, psychoanalysis — certainly founded in sociopolitical atmosphere of sexual inversion and medical homophobia.
The Endocrine Society is also activist society, which publishes biased guidelines and statements. The new president of the Endocrine Society, Dr. Stephen Hammes, works in a Pediatric Gender Affirming Care clinic in Rochester, NY. Despite calls to do so, the new Endocrine Society president refuses to adopt new guidelines for pediatric gender dysphoria.
Misconception 1:: Gender dysphoria is not a psychiatric problem that psychoanalysis can remedy
McNamara et al decided to play semantics and call that clearing up scientific misinformation :: Gender Dysphoria is not longer classified as a psychiatric disorder by the WHO + APA, who describe it as the distress of living with physical characteristics that do no align with one’s gender identity, worsened by non affirming social factors. Body dissatisfaction … is the root cause of gender dysphoria.
The phrase body dissatisfaction describes a state in which the individual feels dissociated from their Self and their body. Dissociative disorders are psychiatric disorders — disconnect from one’s own body is indeed a medical psychiatric condition and not the result of living in a hostile society. Psychotherapy is inadequate alone in a hostile and transphobic environment, McNamara et al write. They contend that Gender Affirming Care helps kids overcome transphobia.
Thus, puberty blockers ands gender affirming hormones have an independent and positive impact on mental health.
Jack Turban’s name shows up in the footnote as proof that puberty suppression and cross hormones reduce suicidality. 🚨. Jack Turban, recent Harvard graduate, not a board certified specialist, knowingly obstinately biased toward the GAC model of medicine. Jack Turban — gender affirmation activist first, upholder of the hippocratic oath second. You really have to be kidding me if you are “correcting misconceptions about GAC” with any of Jack Turban’s work. The very same citation about which 7 of the 10 comments expressed grave concern about the methodology + conclusions, of the remaining 3 comments, two were positive and from the same institution, and one was Jack Turban addressing a critic. Turban dismissed the scholarly concern during a Twitter exchange with James Cantor because it is not published only a comment. The primary flaw in Turban’s work is his use of the data from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Various writers and researchers have previously explained the problem with using this survey, and in addition cross-sectional analysis does not allow for the inference of causality.
Notes:
Below are some excerpts of the critical comments in the Pediatrics Journal.
This conclusion is not warranted from the article. While the authors acknowledge that, as a cross-sectional study, their data cannot establish causal relationship between pubertal blockade and suicidality, they fail to emphasize that those who received puberty blockade, AND those that did not, both had alarmingly high rates of suicidal ideation (50% or higher) within the last year, rates strikingly similar to those previously reported for transgender adults3. There was no difference between the study groups when comparing a more robust measure of suicidal risk: ideation with a plan. Furthermore, those receiving GnRH agonists had higher rates of hospitalization for suicide attempts when compared to those not receiving this medication. The argument that there was a lack of statistical power is an assumed explanation for these effects, and is often used by scientists when their hypothesis is not supported by the data. An equally plausible explanation is that suicidal risk is almost independent of taking GnRH agonists because pubertal blockade fails to address important co-occurring psychological issues. — Hruz
The authors acknowledge that “the study’s cross-sectional design… does not allow for determination of causation.” But this caution was not conveyed in the many news reports generated by the study. “Puberty blockers reduce suicidal thoughts in trans people” ran a typical headline (LGBTQ Nation 2020).
Aside from the spurious leap from association to causation, the analysis is inevitably limited by the poor quality of the data.
Firstly, the survey’s respondents are not sampled from any defined population. The convenience sample excludes those who underwent medical intervention but subsequently stopped identifying as transgender. It also excludes those who did commit suicide. — Biggs
Nevertheless, a word of caution is in order. The authors conclude that all who wish should be given PB. Presently, however, there is no method to predict persistence in GD. Estimates vary (1), but on average only about 15% persist; in contrast, when given PB, virtually 100% persist (2). Thus, an indiscriminate prescription of puberty blockers will significantly increase the number of adolescents who continue to full transition, which may worsen long-term outcomes in attempted suicides. — Ring
the article by Turban et al.1 creates more confusion than clarity. The authors imply causal evidence for a reduction in suicidal ideation with transgender adolescents who received puberty suppression (PS), yet they fail to acknowledge the exceedingly high rates in both groups of suicide ideation (75% and 90%) and suicide attempts (42% and 51%). The cross-sectional design using online survey data is insufficient to validate the efficacy of such a life-altering therapy. Because the data was collected by survey, there is no way of knowing how many would-be participants in either group actually succumbed to suicide.The differences in expected outcomes if PB is or is not prescribed can be estimated. — Field + Turnbull
First, I have great concerns about the method of self reports which was used in this questionnaire. The answers might reflect the desire of the transgender social group rather than true psychological or physiological benefits … A higher odds ratio is noted; however, without significant difference (table 2). This might be attributed to the small sample size of the puberty blocker users (2, 3). Nevertheless, suicide attempts resulting in inpatient care would be an important indicator to know the true outcomes of puberty blockers. We would suggest a further investigation on this issue to clarify the outcome of puberty blockers rather than concluding based on “no significance”. — Cheng
The following is a brief summary of the flaws in the Turban et al.’s study, which render their conclusions misleading:
1. The source study, the United States Transgender Survey 2015 (USTS), employed a non representative, biased convenience sample. The results from this survey are unreliable.3
2. Over 70% of the USTS respondents demonstrably did not know what puberty blockers were, claiming to have commenced treatment after age 18. Although Turban et al. attempted to control for this, a proper adjustment was not possible.
3. There was no control for underlying mental health. Since more stable individuals are more likely to be eligible for puberty suppression, one cannot discern mental health benefits or harms of puberty suppression without controlling for pre-treatment mental health.
4. Turban et al. ignored their own finding that a history of puberty suppression was associated with an increase in recent serious suicide attempts. — Clarke
How does a medical treatment change the way people perceive you? To undergo an elaborate + painful + expensive + invasive + irreversible experimental procedure because you hope other people will accept you the way you want seems like a recipe for heartache to give a child as affirmation. As Avi Ring wrote in his comment under the paper, without a reliable way to predict or separate out who will desist from who who persist, puberty suppressions given to all kids who present seems excessive and increases suicidal behaviour: Giving PB to all who wish it is expected to significantly increase the total number of suicide attempts, up to 240 per 1000, compared with the outcome when not giving puberty suppression to anyone, 60 per 1000.
In his reply to Clarke, on of his critics, Turban writes: incorrectly states that this manuscript found an increase in recent serious suicide attempts among those who accessed pubertal suppression during adolescence. Though the raw values were higher for some of these outcomes, this was not a statistically significant finding, and thus the appropriate conclusion is that the study found no statistically significant association between access to pubertal suppression and greater odds of any measure of adverse mental health outcomes. I find the arrogance stunning — everything points a correlation between increased psychiatric distress and disorder in kids who seek GAC. Correlation is not causation and Jack Turban and the Gender Affirmationists refuse to remember this important and basic fact from basic research methods.
Jesse Singal did a very thorough critique of the Tordoff study last year, I don’t intend to duplicate his work, you can go read his own article about why the Tordoff study cannot be used to prove that Puberty Blockers lower the odds of depression and suicidality.
I’ll add this regarding Tordoff nothing burger study. When an interrogator tortures a human being they can elicit any answer they want from their subject. Data sets are like this — you can torture them with crude statistical procedures to hide the fact that your treatment sucks balls and you got nothing and that is what Tordoff et al have done. Puberty Blockers don’t reduce depression or suicidality and the comparison group had some interesting variances in suicidality and depression sounds different than Puberty Blockers reduced depression and suicidality. Amongst the questions I have after looking at the Tordoff study are what is responsible for the drop out rate of the None group? How can this be a comparative group when the raw statistics bear an untold story that is much more than Gender Affirming Care Saves Lives?
The Missing eTable 3 from the Tordoff Supplementary
Misconception 2 :: Gender dysphoria is not a phase or a social contagion, desistance is rare, most cases persist beyond childhood and therefore require treatment
McNamara et al assert that “well regarded research” has debunked the contagion and desistance claims. They state regret is rare.
Kristina Olson’s name shows up when I check the footnote for that “well regarded research” to support the regret-is-rare-and-its-not-a-phase-claims. First of all, Olson’s TransYouth study involved kids recruited (opt-in) from gender clinics. Second, a individual has a clear case of Sex Denialism who wrote in the LA Times about a young patient: when John was born his parents and his doctors said he was a girl. Third, Olson reported the preliminary results of a 20 year longitudinal study after 2 years. Fourth, Olson suffers from a case of magical thinking or a compulsion to deliberately misrepresent the facts—a Buzzfeed article quotes her as saying the data is misleading, which indicate children grow out of their dysphoria. Olson claimed to debunk Littman’s ROGD hypothesis, her study does no such thing.
Dr. Olson’s study was rushed to publication after two years into the study to give the transgender activists a ‘success’ story. The results were anything but scientific. The assessment of anxiety and depression was done by the parents. The kids in the study were those whose families were recruited from their transgender clinic[s] and did not include all [types of] patients and their families. . . . Olson’s plan is to affirm everyone and see how they look 20 years out. The already published Swedish study has shown what will happen: appearance of happiness until 10 years out, and then a precipitous dive into depression with a 19-fold increase in suicide completion. — Dr. Quentin Van Meter
What Olson did inadvertently demonstrate is the power of social transitioning — the vast majority of kids who socially transition continue on to transition, and this underscores the importance of parents and qualified clinicians and primary care providers in directing gender care for kids, not teachers and schools and SOGI lessons.
Notes:
Well-regarded research is the description for Olson’s work, a study irrelevant to the present discussion taking place about GAC. When a Gender Affirmationist scholar tells you about well-regarded research she means research I agree with done by people who espouse the views on Gender Affirming Care that align with my own.
Gender Affirmationists stick firmly to the narrative that Post GAC regret is rare. They deliberately ignore research that challenges the GAC model, that research is not considered well regarded research, for political reasons noted in point one above.
Lisa Littman’s first study (see below for the Open Access PDF) on the social contagion aspect of Gender Dysphoria in young girls, has received much hostility from the Gender Affirmationists. Littman’s research challenges the GAC model, and therefore does not count as well regarded research because it demonstrates the potential iatrogenic harm that the GAC model can inflict on young adolescent and adult female people. This study captured data from parent questionnaires and formulated a number of hypotheses to explain the rapid onset of gender dysphoria in the young female population. Systemic sexism, deeply embedded in human society, seems to be a factor driving girls and women to identify as the opposite sex.
Lisa Littman’s recent study (see below to download the Open Access PDF) captured reasons for detransitioning. Her study captured a cross sectional analysis from anonymous survey data. Respondents were recruited through a variety of means to ensure wide capture from varying viewpoints. Littman found the reasons differed by sex and she found female children who transitioned younger were more likely to detransition. She also found vastly differing reasons for transitioning and detransitioning. Her results, being based on a more randomly recruited population sample, would represent more accurately the realistic picture for detransitoners. Her results echo the growing voice of detransitioners, the existence of whom Gender Affirmationists refuse to acknowledge.
Olson specifically measured retransition. She used vague categories and had a male-dominant sample. Edwards-Leepers + Anderson, two pioneers in the field of pediatric gender psychology, don’t see much value in studies such as Olson’s to elucidate why precisely the 300 gender clinics across the USA have high demands for kids wanting to become the opposite sex.
Misconception 3: There is no such thing as too young to give children puberty suppression and cross sex hormones
McNamara et al choose to avoid the question and decide to address the concern concretely, pre-pubescent kids are not given puberty suppression medication and adolescents only receive cross hormones with the supposed informed consent process together with a parent.
The authors make no attempt to address concerns about giving these drugs to kids for OFF LABEL USE. Again, GnRH agonists are not approved anywhere on the planet to delay puberty in kids with Gender Dysphoria or any kind of psychological or body dysphoria disorder. The valid and reliable evidence does not exist to support this Gender Affirming Care model. The authors provide no valid and reliable evidence that puberty suppression and cross hormone therapy have efficacious results in kids with GD because none exists to support that claim.
Puberty has a development and neuro-physiologic purpose! Puberty is a human right, a necessity for all kids to experience in order to grow into healthy + resilient adults. Sexual function and experiences are integral components of human existence. To deprive a child of sexuality for life seems quite cruel and authoritarian. It is on the level of Mengele to do this experiment on children.
Misconception 4: Children and Teens are not undergoing sex re-assignment surgery
McNamara et al choose to focus on semantics and avoid addressing why the question of ‘why do teenagers need surgical treatment for a psycho-emotional issue?’ Not since lobotomies and hysteria before that have we needed to treat emotional and perceptual problems with surgery. Why is genital reconstruction and double mastectomy an affirming treatment for a human whose central nervous system has not achieved full maturity (which happens at around age 27 or so)? No answers to those questions appears in this paper. The Endocrine Society recommends “gender-affirming mastectomy” only when a health care provider deems it developmentally appropriate, write McNamara et al. Well that particular guideline states the following:
5.6. We suggest that clinicians determine the timing of breast surgery for [females who identify as trans] based upon the physical and mental health status of the individual. There is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific age requirement.
Young people developmentally unable to consent are undergoing radical and unnecessary surgeries under false pretenses and their parents in many cases have been emotionally manipulated into consenting—this is indeed happening. When it is developmentally appropriate to perform radical surgery on a vulnerable and emotionally disturbed 15 year old female person? When is it developmentally appropriate to bully and coerce the parents of such a girl into consenting to a double mastectomy because would they rather have a dead daughter or a living son? Yes, this happens, read and listen to Prisha Mosley’s story, she has testified for a number of American State hearings on Gender Affirming Care about the severe iatrogenic damage she suffered and ensuing trauma as a result of being shunted hastily down a medical path based on the deeply flawed GAC model of primary care.
Misconception 5: Gender Affirming Care is Safe and Not Experimental
McNamara et al write: Recent legislation has falsely claimed that GnRH agonists and exogenous sex hormones are associated with adverse health outcomes, such as reduced bone density, venous thromboembolism, cardiovascular disease, and cancers … All medical treatments carry risk. McNamara et al cite studies on the psychology of receiving GAC in teens as their evidence that Gender Affirming Care is safe and not experimental.
It is false to deny the severe associated side effects of both GnRH and endogenous hormones. Documented long term adverse effects and iatrogenic harm from Lupron—one of the brand names under which GnRH agonist is sold—appear on websites created by Lupron Survivor groups. Lupron Victim Hub contains a wealth of stories of iatrogenic harm. Lupron—In Sixteen Years contains information about the raw data on the drugs trials and the suppression and manipulation of data done by the drug company. You can see the document below from the Federal Registrar regarding Friedman’s falsification of data to evidence GnRH agonist as a treatment for gynecological disorders.
Notes:
You can read David Redwine’s analysis of the raw data from Lupron trials here. Redwine accessed the data at the tabular level from researchers and analysed them. Says Redwine, One of the very first studies of Lupron out of the block was this one. It was comparing Lupron given subcu[taneous] for a week, followed by about six months of Lupron nasal spray. A comparison drug was danazol. One year after Lupron was stopped, here's what happened to the estrogen levels. 63% of women had not regained baseline. 50% had estrogen levels below 100 pg/mL and 1 out of 8 were menopausal. Yes. Small numbers.
John L. Gueriguian, M.D. + former FDA officer + retired professor of pharmacology prepared an expert witness report for a product liability lawsuit. You can access that document below. Here’s an excerpt to give you an idea how very wrong McNamara et al are about their claims that GnRH agonist is reasonably harmless for children.
Lupron should only be limited to six injections for the initial treatment, and a retreatment should not exceed six injection. Lupron cannot be given more than twelve injections per life time.
Lupron affects the autonomic nervous system. Lupron not only affects the gonadal hormones, but is also a powerful modulator of autonomic neural function. The pituitary gland is the "master gland" and is below the brain in the skull. The pituitary gland affects every physiological process of the body. — John Geuriguian
In his report, Geuriguian notes that TAP Pharmaceuticals likely underreported the adverse reactions for children with precocious puberty, he notes that Lupron’s side effects far outweigh its efficacy in treating Endometriosis, and that, when a drug's risks outweigh the drug's benefits, a drug should be banned and pulled from the market. He also notes that reports indicate a consistent (ie across sex) adverse effect of decreased and depressed mood, to the point of requiring add-back sex steroid in the chemotherapy regime.
"L" affected the hypothalamus and, indicrectly, the hypophysis through which any number of endocrine functions are affected, including the thyroid. As a result, some patients were shown to develop thyroid abnormalities. Following Lupron treatments, Thyroiditis has been reported to the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System. The independent literature gave a clear signal, beginning in 2000, that such events had been caused by "L'. Despite it all, TAP neglected to perform the necessary studies to adequately study this question and, in the absence of its own studies, failed to warn prescribers and patients of the potential of "L" to cause such toxicities. Another area of unacceptable neglect concerned the use of "L" to treat endometriosis in children (i.e., those less than 18 years old). Though "L" was studied and approved for the treatment of precocious puberty, there was no study to prove the safety and efficacy of "L" in the treatment of underage females affected by endometriosis, a fact admitted by TAP in its labeling,.: "Experience with Lupron Depot 3.75 mg for treatment of endometriosis has been limited to women 18 years of age and older." TAP's safety signals observed during the precocious puberty studies should have induced it to perform proper studies of underage females treated for endometriosis. It chose not to do so, permissible only if it decided that "L" was contraindicated for the treatment of endometriosis in underage females. It could certainly do that under the "Changes Being Effected" rule of the FDA's regulation. It did not contraindicate the use of "L" in that population.
You can access below David Redwine’s testimony in the product liability lawsuit. Here is a damning excerpt that debunks McNamara et al’s claims.
It is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical probability that altering [plaintiffs] pituitary gland at the age of 17 with six injections of Lupron Depot 3.75 likely did produce her current condition and her significant bone density loss. Her current condition is entirely in context with the known short and long-term effects of Lupron Depot. —David Redwine
Conclusion —The FDA has not approved GnRH agonist for the treatment of children with gender dysphoria or any gender identity issues. This is a highly experimental treatment, on the level of Mengelian experimentation. Puberty suppression is unsafe. It is a grave, grave falsehood, it is fraudulent in fact, for any clinical researcher or clinician or doctor to suggest that GnRH agonists aka puberty blockers, are safe + reversible and without adverse effect. I have shown proof positive of this here. Not to mention that exogenous sex hormones have a definite profile of adverse side effects and medical risks, which is why menopausal women struggle to receive appropriate HRT for their physiologic condition of depleted sex hormones caused by menopause. Furthermore cross sex hormones have an adverse effect on hepatic and metabolic health, particularly in female trans-identified people.
Misconception 6: Puberty Blockers and Hormones given to children do not cause infertility
McNamara et al falsely claim that when stopped, the effects of puberty blockers are fully reversible and sexual development catches up to chronological age quickly. Gender Affirmationists frequently cite Dutch studies as their evidence, a logical flaw because the cohort from the Dutch study does not match up with the cohort of young people presently demanding GAC across North America. McNamara et al engage in the same kind of misleading discourse as they did under Misconception 4 — initial denial followed by partial admission. Exogenous sex hormones may affect fertility the paragraph ends. You can consult the Geuriguian report above for further evidence that GnRH agonists do affect fertility in adults.
Notes:
Gender Affirmationists consistently underreport the adverse effects of the Gender Affirming Chemotherapy regime. It is medical fraud to suggest that administering GnRH agonist with an exogenous cross sex hormone to a child with GD renders no risk to fertility. No one can make this claim because we simply have no evidence to suggest it does not and a lot of evidence to suggest a high risk of infertility.
Long term use of cross hormones in female identified people will result in vaginal and uterine atrophy, necessitating hysterectomy. That is established fact.
Misconception 7: Gender Affirming Care does not increase the risk of suicide, Gender Affirming Care reduces suicidal behaviour
Correlation is not causation. Gender Affirmationists commit the same statistical misinterpretation of data again and again. It is deeply irresponsible to attribute suicide to a single cause. LBGT Movement Advancement Project developed a guide about Suicide + LGBT (see below to access a copy), DON'T attribute a suicide death to a single factor (such as bullying or discrimination) or say that a specific anti-LGBT law or policy will "cause" suicide, recommendation 7 begins.
Suicide deaths are almost always the result of multiple overlapping causes, including mental health issues that might not have been recognized or treated.
Linking suicide directly to external factors like bullying, discrimination or anti-LGBT laws can normalize suicide by suggesting that it is a natural reaction to such experiences or laws. It can also increase suicide risk by leading at-risk individuals to identify with the experiences of those who have died by suicide. — LGBT MAP
It is a form of collective psychological abuse to weaponised child suicide to promote an experimental model of medical care. It is deeply abusive to parents to emotionally blackmail them with the death of their child to coerce them to agree to a treatment option — that is not consent that is coercion. It is deeply irresponsible to incept the idea into a child’s mind that they can claim suicidality to receive the treatment regime which they believe will give them what they think they want. The following excerpt is from a recording of Wallace Wong speaking at the Vancouver Public Library in February of 2019. You can access the transcript below.
… to be sick enough, then we will give you what you need. So what you need is, you know what? Pull a stunt. Suicide, every time, they will give you what you need. They learn that. They learn it very fast, right? — Wallace Wong, page 69-70 of transcript
Misconception 8: Children do not provide consent, treatment decisions are collaborative between clinicians, parents, and the child.
McNamara et al again oversimplify the reality and minimise the gravity of the situation and fail to address the actual concern. Can children consent to pubertal suppression? Can parents? What gives the parent a right to stop a child’s growth for improper medical indication for a thing that trusted and valid and reliable science and thousands of years of human history says is a phase? The UK High Court ruled that children could not consent to puberty suppression and even though the Appellate Court overturned that ruling, Keira Bell won a victory, Tavistock closed and a review of GIDS ordered, which is still underway. You can access the full ruling below. A feature on Transgender Youth by Reuters reported that families did feel coerced into transitioning their children.
Notes:
It should stand as common sense that children are limited in their decision-making capacity by their developmental stage. Children exhibit particular behaviours related to their psychological phase of maturation, such as impulsiveness, or high temporal discounting. This means kids devalue the future consequences and overvalue present pay-off. This is why we do not let them make life-altering decisions. This is why they cannot consent to suppressing sexuality or sexual maturation.
Parents cannot consent to suppressing their child’s sexual function.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has identified forced sterilization of girls with disabilities as a form of violence and state signatories to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, (of which Canada is one), are expected to prohibit by law the forced sterilization of children with disabilities.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women all address forced sterilisation of girls and women, and of disabled people as grave human rights violations.
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities underscores the importance of informed consent in all health care decisions of disabled persons, including surgical procedures and affirms their rights to maintain fertility on an equal basis with non disabled persons. Given that many children who receive GAC have a neurodevelopmental disorder such as Autism, this seems relevant. Sterilising autistic children is eugenics.
GAC violates the bodily integrity of children and adolescents.
Misconception 9: Gender Identity is not a social contagion, children freely choose to seek GAC without external influences
Again, McNamara et al refusing to engage with reality, this is more magical thinking from Gender Affirmationists. Reality simply does not support this claim. You can access Lisa Littman’s papers above to see why this simply does not align with reality. Detransitioners all report a social contagion factor, many report coercive control tactics from a gender affirming peer group, they report alienation manipulation to draw young people away from families.
Notes:
I wrote about Sage’s Story in this substack a few months back, see below.
Abby Martinez’s daughter Yaeli did not get affirmed by Gender Affirmationists, instead she ended her life as a result of receiving GAC. Yaeli Martinez was afflicted with the Gender Identity social contagion, through her new school. She befriended a girl who identified as a boy and she joined a school LGBT club, which encouraged her gender confusion. Her teachers and counselors affirmed her gender confusion and socially transitioned her without parental knowledge. Abby found out from her daughter’s friend about Yaeli’s new identity.
When she entered high school, her mother said, Yaeli befriended another girl who identified as a boy and suggested to Yaeli that the reason for her depression might be that she was actually a boy.
Yaeli attended an LGBTQ club at school that affirmed her questioning of her own gender. Her counselor at school also affirmed her decision to begin socially transitioning from female to male.
“I don’t know if the schools, they supposed to let us know what’s going on or not, but they never send me any note about telling me, ‘We need to talk about your daughter,’” Martinez, who is originally from El Salvador, said.
Martinez said she found out what was happening to Yaeli through one of her other children, who attended the same high school. — Daily Signal
Abby Martinez tried to fight back when a Los Angeles school, county social workers, and an LGBT group sought to transition her confused 15-year-old daughter.
But once Yaeli Martinez was moved into foster care and later injected with testosterone, the heartbroken mother could only watch helplessly as the girl spiraled into depression that ended when she stepped in front of an oncoming train.
"They killed my daughter," a tearful Martinez told the Washington Examiner. "They had to pick pieces of her off of the track.” —from the Washington Examiner
In this article I refuted all nine claims made in the McNamara et al commentary.
The conclusion of the McNamara commentary posits that, “legislative endorsement of misinformation harms and invalidates all Transgender and Gender Expansive Youth. Our patients are watching to see how we protect their right to exist …”
Well, Dr. McNamara, protecting the right of a child to experience puberty seems like a very good place to begin protect their right to exist. Furthermore, acknowledging the grave pediatric medical experimentation of GAC would help protect children’s right to exist. Finally acknowledging and apologizing for the death of Yaeli Martinez and holding the teachers and school and state and all clinicians involved responsible for socially and medically transitioning her and from imposing an attachment rupture on her would go a long way toward protecting the right of children to live.
Stop misrepresenting the truth to affirm your ego, Gender Affirmationists!