NYT contributors blast paper’s coverage of transgender people

[Auburn85 438]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3859501-nyt-contributors-blast-papers-coverage-of-transgender-people/

 

Quote

 

by Brooke Migdon - 02/15/23

 

More than 200 New York Times contributors on Wednesday published an open letter condemning the paper’s coverage of transgender people and issues, calling out Times reporting that has been cited to justify criminalizing gender-affirming health care.

“We write to you as a collective of New York Times contributors with serious concerns about editorial bias in the newspaper’s reporting on transgender, non⁠-⁠binary, and gender nonconforming people,” reads Wednesday’s letter, which was written jointly with the Freelance Solidarity Project, a group of freelancers in the National Writers Union.

The letter — addressed to Philip Corbett, the Times’s associate managing editor for standards — has been signed by some 200 and counting reporters, essayists, critics, opinion columnists and more. Notable signatories include the writer Roxane Gay, actress Cynthia Nixon, and whistleblower and activist Chelsea Manning.

The Times in recent months has come under fire for publishing reporting on transgender youth and health care that transgender journalists and LGBTQ rights advocates have decried as misleading and inaccurate.

The work of Times reporters who cover these issues fairly has been “eclipsed,” according to Wednesday’s letter, by more than 15,000 words of front-page coverage debating the propriety of medical care for transgender children published in the last eight months alone.

“The newspaper’s editorial guidelines demand that reporters ‘preserve a professional detachment, free of any whiff of bias’ when cultivating their sources, remaining ‘sensitive that personal relationships with news sources can erode into favoritism, in fact or appearance,’” the letter reads.

“Yet the Times has in recent years treated gender diversity with an eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic, charged language, while publishing reporting on trans children that omits relevant information about its sources,” the letter adds.

The letter’s signatories point to a widely circulated Times story by Emily Bazelon that uncritically uses the term “patient zero” to refer to a transgender young person seeking gender-affirming care, “a phrase that vilifies transness as a disease to be feared,” they write.

The story, published in June under the title “The Battle Over Gender Therapy,” also quotes expert sources who have since said their work was misrepresented in the piece. It also includes quotes from Grace Lidinsky-Smith, who Bazelon fails to mention is the president of the Gender Care Consumer Advocacy Network, a group that opposes gender-affirming health care for transgender youth.

Bazelon responded to criticism of her story in a since-deleted Twitter thread, writing that most comments reflect “a profound disagreement over the role of journalism on a controversial topic involving a vulnerable group.”

“To me, being a journalist means following the facts where they lead. It isn’t advocacy. I didn’t know where this story would go when I started reporting eight months ago,” she wrote.

She also noted that she referred to the Dutch patient as “patient zero” “because the Dutch used that term for him & he used it in our interview.”

Bazelon and Jake Silverstein, the editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine, defended the article’s focus on the debate playing out in the medical field.

“Reporting on subjects that are highly politicized is challenging. That’s why Emily’s methodical, principled, & deeply journalistic approach was important,” Silverstein wrote in a tweet.

The Hill has reached out to The New York Times for a response to the open letter.

Republican state officials and lawmakers have used recent Times reporting to justify their support for laws intending to bar transgender young people from accessing gender-affirming health care deemed medically necessary by most major medical organizations.

Last year, former Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) cited three Times articles in an amicus brief defending an Alabama law that would make it a felony, punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment, for a medical professional to provide gender-affirming care to patients younger than 19.

Earlier this month, Nebraska attorney David Begley referred to Times reporting while testifying before the state legislature in support of a bill that would similarly ban gender-affirming health care for youth, relying on the outlet’s reputation as the “paper of record” to justify criminalizing gender⁠-⁠affirming care.

But Wednesday’s letter asserts that the Times also has a reputation for misrepresenting the LGBTQ community, pointing to reporting from the 1960s and 1970s that suggested homosexuality is “an inborn, incurable disease.” 

The paper also neglected to put the HIV/AIDS crisis on the front page until 1983, according to the letter, when the disease had already claimed the lives of hundreds of New Yorkers. In obituaries, Times reporters ascribed death from HIV/AIDS to “undisclosed causes” or a “rare disorder” and excluded the partners of the deceased from the records of their lives. 

“Some of us are trans, non⁠-⁠binary, or gender nonconforming, and we resent the fact that our work, but not our person, is good enough for the paper of record,” Wednesday’s letter reads. “Some of us are cis, and we have seen those we love discover and fight for their true selves, often swimming upstream against currents of bigotry and pseudoscience fomented by the kind of coverage we here protest.”

“All of us daresay our stance is unremarkable, even common, and certainly not deserving of the Times’ intense scrutiny,” the letter continues. “A tiny percentage of the population is trans, and an even smaller percentage of those people face the type of conflict the Times is so intent on magnifying. There is no rapt reporting on the thousands of parents who simply love and support their children, or on the hardworking professionals at the New York Times enduring a workplace made hostile by bias — a period of forbearance that ends today.”

Also on Wednesday, the LGBTQ media advocacy group GLAAD published an open letter similarly condemning the Times’s coverage of transgender issues and parked a truck outside the paper’s New York office with messages that accuse the Times of questioning the right of transgender people to merely exist.

“It is appalling that the Times would dedicate so many resources and pages to platforming the voices of extremist anti-LGBTQ activists who have built their careers on denigrating and dehumanizing LGBTQ people, especially transgender people,” the group writes in its letter.

Signatories of the GLAAD letter include high-profile celebrities Judd Apatow, Wilson Cruz and Gabrielle Union-Wade, the parent of a transgender daughter.

 

[DKW 86 7,914]

See other thread in Political Speaking.

[TexasTiger 14,364]

 It also includes quotes from Grace Lidinsky-Smith, who Bazelon fails to mention is the president of the Gender Care Consumer Advocacy Network, a group that opposes gender-affirming health care for transgender youth.

This article mischaracterizes this person & organization claiming they are anti-trans. Grace was on 60 minutes. Watch her. Read what she’s written. She’s not opposed to transition. She has detransitioned and does think she was poorly served by the those providing care before, during & after. Here are the actual goals of her organization. Read for yourself. What do you disagree with?
 

https://www.gccan.org/bill-of-rights

[icanthearyou 4,468]

This is not a political issue.  This is a distraction issue.

[TexasTiger 14,364]

9 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

This is not a political issue.  This is a distraction issue.

Agreed. These 200 contributors are definitely seeking a distraction.

[TexasTiger 14,364]

30 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Agreed. These 200 contributors are definitely seeking a distraction.

ICHY even head slaps when you agree with him! That’s a real head slapper!

[icanthearyou 4,468]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

ICHY even head slaps when you agree with him! That’s a real head slapper!

Now,,, you're just lying.  Emotions have raced past rationale and, logic.

[TexasTiger 14,364]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

Now,,, you're just lying.  Emotions have raced past rationale and, logic.

You described yourself to a T! Pure projection. A head slapping emoji is pure emotion, and that’s your primary tool.

[Auburn85 438]

https://www.nytco.com/press/2023-state-of-the-times-remarks/

 

 

Quote

 

2023 State of The Times Remarks

March 2, 2023

A. G. Sulzberger Chairman and Publisher

...It was also a year in which our country’s most polarizing issues dominated the national conversation. The overturning of Roe v. Wade. The mounting toll of gun violence. A spike in crime and disputes over policing. Battles over gender identity and sexual orientation. Debates over affirmative action, book bans and how history is taught.

Elizabeth Dias took on the question at the heart of the abortion debate. The Upshot team showed us how four gun control proposals could have changed the course of dozens of mass shootings, while the magazine devoted an entire issue to the lives of children lost to gun violence. Emily Bazelon empathetically examined the debate within the medical community over treatment for trans adolescents.

I want to linger for a moment on Emily, one of the best magazine writers alive and someone who received a great deal of unfair criticism for the piece I just mentioned.

I also want to highlight a few other newsroom colleagues — Megan Twohey, Christina Jewett, Azeen Ghorayshi, Michael Powell and Katie Baker — who were also attacked for sensitive reporting on trans issues.

We always take criticism seriously, never more so than when our coverage is accused of misrepresenting a marginalized group. In this case, our editors have listened to concerns with open minds and looked hard at whether our coverage missed the mark.

Again and again, those reviews found that the work was rigorously reported and edited, and that our reporters went to great lengths to ensure each piece was written with sensitivity, nuance and care.

We understand that outside groups will always try to influence our work. But by focusing on a handful of individual stories — even individual sentences and sources that they disagree with — those campaigning to discredit our coverage also overlook how thoughtfully and broadly we’ve explored this topic.

We’ve documented the worrying wave of anti-trans legislation advancing in statehouses across the country; we’ve detailed the horrific violence and discrimination trans people face; and we’ve illuminated the lives and experiences of trans people here and around the world.

And since our reporters involved in this coverage have also faced nonstop attacks, let me also say that the price of reporting fairly and independently about any topic should not be months of threats and harassment. We even had a colleague involved in this coverage confronted in her neighborhood last weekend and spat on...

 

This is just an excerpt of the article. The complete article talks about several topics.

[homersapien 12,262]

Good segment on PBS Newshour on the subject:

Parents concerned as new state laws restrict rights of transgender children | PBS NewsHour

[TexasTiger 14,364]

On 3/3/2023 at 4:26 PM, homersapien said:

Good segment on PBS Newshour on the subject:

Parents concerned as new state laws restrict rights of transgender children | PBS NewsHour

Excess begets excess. Irrationality begets irrationality. Bigoted folks seize  opportunities handed to them.

[homersapien 12,262]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Excess begets excess. Irrationality begets irrationality. Bigoted folks cease seize opportunities handed to them.

(Presumably you meant "seize")

I agree completely. But exchanges such as this (in the media) don't bother me at all.

What worries me is when those bigoted folks happen to be in positions of power - such as state governments - and enact legislation in accordance with their bigotry.

 

[TexasTiger 14,364]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

(Presumably you meant "seize")

I agree completely. But exchanges such as this (in the media) don't bother me at all.

What worries me is when those bigoted folks happen to be in positions of power - such as state governments - and enact legislation in accordance with their bigotry.

 

There are inadequate safeguards for minors now in our current mental health & healthcare system. Politics & capitalism are driving what should be healthcare decisions based on sound science, not mantras invoking science. Most other western countries have realized this and tapped the brakes. In our country, extremes tend to rule the debate. This issue is no different. Bigots on one side, zealots on the other. Kids lives get caught in the middle.

[homersapien 12,262]

52 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

There are inadequate safeguards for minors now in our current mental health & healthcare system. Politics & capitalism are driving what should be healthcare decisions based on sound science, not mantras invoking science. Most other western countries have realized this and tapped the breaks. In our country, extremes tend to rule the debate. This issue is no different. Bigots on one side, zealots on the other. Kids lives get caught in the middle.

Maybe.   I'd like to see some actual data demonstrating the extent of the actual problem before I decide.  

 

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 14,364]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Maybe.   I'd like to see some actual data demonstrating the extent of the actual problem before I decide.

 

Unalterable changes are being made to kids with little hard data to justify it now.

[homersapien 12,262]

19 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Unalterable changes are being made to kids with little hard data to justify it now.

How many kids? 

How many are helped and how many are being harmed?

What is the balance between harm of making "unalterable" changes to individuals in the affected population and the number of suicides prevented in that population by providing timely treatment?  

These are questions that need to be addressed by professionals with experience in the field, not by politicians.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 14,364]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

How many kids? 

How many are helped and how many are being harmed?

What is the balance between harm of making "unalterable" changes to individuals in the affected population and the number of suicides prevented in that population by providing timely treatment?  

These are questions that need to be addressed by professionals with experience in the field, not by politicians.

 

 

Not by political activists either, even those in the medical field, who go to extremes to shut down discussion by falsely asserting these issues are resolved based on solid evidence and smearing anyone who questions them. Current practices advocated by many in the medical establishment for drastic, inalterable medicalization is unprecedented for practices with so little evidence-based support. The standards have been significantly lowered from 10-20 years ago to determine who gets these treatments as children.
 

“These documents are often cited to suggest that medical treatment is both uncontroversial and backed by rigorous science. “All of those medical societies find such care to be evidence-based and medically necessary,” stated a recent article on transgender healthcare for children published in Scientific American.20 “Transition related healthcare is not controversial in the medical field,” wrote Gillian Branstetter, a frequent spokesperson on transgender issues currently with the American Civil Liberties Union, in a 2019 guide for reporters.21 Two physicians and an attorney from Yale recently opined in the Los Angeles Times that “gender-affirming care is standard medical care, supported by major medical organizations . . . Years of study and scientific scrutiny have established safe, evidence-based guidelines for delivery of lifesaving, gender-affirming care.”22 Rachel Levine, the US assistant secretary for health, told National Public Radio last year regarding such treatment, “There is no argument among medical professionals.”23

Internationally, however, governing bodies have come to different conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of medically treating gender dysphoria. Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare, which sets guidelines for care, determined last year that the risks of puberty blockers and treatment with hormones “currently outweigh the possible benefits” for minors.24 Finland’s Council for Choices in Health Care, a monitoring agency for the country’s public health services, issued similar guidelines, calling for psychosocial support as the first line treatment.25 (Both countries restrict surgery to adults.)

Medical societies in France, Australia, and New Zealand have also leant away from early medicalisation.2627 And NHS England, which is in the midst of an independent review of gender identity services, recently said that there was “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision making”28 for minors with gender dysphoria29 and that for most who present before puberty it will be a “transient phase,” requiring clinicians to focus on psychological support and to be “mindful” even of the risks of social transition.30

…

But Helfand remarked that neither was made clear in the WPATH guidelines and also noted several instances in which the strength of evidence presented to justify a recommendation was “at odds with what their own systematic reviewers found.”

For example, one of the commissioned systematic reviews found that the strength of evidence for the conclusions that hormonal treatment “may improve” quality of life, depression, and anxiety among transgender people was “low,” and it emphasised the need for more research, “especially among adolescents.”35 The reviewers also concluded that “it was impossible to draw conclusions about the effects of hormone therapy” on death by suicide.

https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382

[TexasTiger 14,364]

20 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Not by political activists either, even those in the medical field, who go to extremes to shut down discussion by falsely asserting these issues are resolved based on solid evidence and smearing anyone who questions them. Current practices advocated by many in the medical establishment for drastic, inalterable medicalization is unprecedented for practices with so little evidence-based support. The standards have been significantly lowered from 10-20 years ago to determine who gets these treatments as children.
 

“These documents are often cited to suggest that medical treatment is both uncontroversial and backed by rigorous science. “All of those medical societies find such care to be evidence-based and medically necessary,” stated a recent article on transgender healthcare for children published in Scientific American.20 “Transition related healthcare is not controversial in the medical field,” wrote Gillian Branstetter, a frequent spokesperson on transgender issues currently with the American Civil Liberties Union, in a 2019 guide for reporters.21 Two physicians and an attorney from Yale recently opined in the Los Angeles Times that “gender-affirming care is standard medical care, supported by major medical organizations . . . Years of study and scientific scrutiny have established safe, evidence-based guidelines for delivery of lifesaving, gender-affirming care.”22 Rachel Levine, the US assistant secretary for health, told National Public Radio last year regarding such treatment, “There is no argument among medical professionals.”23

Internationally, however, governing bodies have come to different conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of medically treating gender dysphoria. Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare, which sets guidelines for care, determined last year that the risks of puberty blockers and treatment with hormones “currently outweigh the possible benefits” for minors.24 Finland’s Council for Choices in Health Care, a monitoring agency for the country’s public health services, issued similar guidelines, calling for psychosocial support as the first line treatment.25 (Both countries restrict surgery to adults.)

Medical societies in France, Australia, and New Zealand have also leant away from early medicalisation.2627 And NHS England, which is in the midst of an independent review of gender identity services, recently said that there was “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision making”28 for minors with gender dysphoria29 and that for most who present before puberty it will be a “transient phase,” requiring clinicians to focus on psychological support and to be “mindful” even of the risks of social transition.30

…

But Helfand remarked that neither was made clear in the WPATH guidelines and also noted several instances in which the strength of evidence presented to justify a recommendation was “at odds with what their own systematic reviewers found.”

For example, one of the commissioned systematic reviews found that the strength of evidence for the conclusions that hormonal treatment “may improve” quality of life, depression, and anxiety among transgender people was “low,” and it emphasised the need for more research, “especially among adolescents.”35 The reviewers also concluded that “it was impossible to draw conclusions about the effects of hormone therapy” on death by suicide.

https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382

After other scientists questioned the methodology used in an article claiming people’s mental health improved after medical procedures, this prominent psychiatric journal had to issue a correction:

“Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total Population Study” by Richard Bränström, Ph.D., and John E. Pachankis, Ph.D. (doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080), was published online on October 4, 2019, some letters containing questions on the statistical methodology employed in the study led the Journal to seek statistical consultations. The results of these consultations were presented to the study authors, who concurred with many of the points raised. Upon request, the authors reanalyzed the data to compare outcomes between individuals diagnosed with gender incongruence who had received gender-affirming surgical treatments and those diagnosed with gender incongruence who had not. While this comparison was performed retrospectively and was not part of the original research question given that several other factors may differ between the groups, the results demonstrated no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care visits or prescriptions or hospitalizations following suicide attempts in that comparison.

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.1778correction

[homersapien 12,262]

On 3/4/2023 at 6:28 PM, TexasTiger said:

Not by political activists either, even those in the medical field, who go to extremes to shut down discussion by falsely asserting these issues are resolved based on solid evidence and smearing anyone who questions them. Current practices advocated by many in the medical establishment for drastic, inalterable medicalization is unprecedented for practices with so little evidence-based support. The standards have been significantly lowered from 10-20 years ago to determine who gets these treatments as children.
 

“These documents are often cited to suggest that medical treatment is both uncontroversial and backed by rigorous science. “All of those medical societies find such care to be evidence-based and medically necessary,” stated a recent article on transgender healthcare for children published in Scientific American.20 “Transition related healthcare is not controversial in the medical field,” wrote Gillian Branstetter, a frequent spokesperson on transgender issues currently with the American Civil Liberties Union, in a 2019 guide for reporters.21 Two physicians and an attorney from Yale recently opined in the Los Angeles Times that “gender-affirming care is standard medical care, supported by major medical organizations . . . Years of study and scientific scrutiny have established safe, evidence-based guidelines for delivery of lifesaving, gender-affirming care.”22 Rachel Levine, the US assistant secretary for health, told National Public Radio last year regarding such treatment, “There is no argument among medical professionals.”23

Internationally, however, governing bodies have come to different conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of medically treating gender dysphoria. Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare, which sets guidelines for care, determined last year that the risks of puberty blockers and treatment with hormones “currently outweigh the possible benefits” for minors.24 Finland’s Council for Choices in Health Care, a monitoring agency for the country’s public health services, issued similar guidelines, calling for psychosocial support as the first line treatment.25 (Both countries restrict surgery to adults.)

Medical societies in France, Australia, and New Zealand have also leant away from early medicalisation.2627 And NHS England, which is in the midst of an independent review of gender identity services, recently said that there was “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision making”28 for minors with gender dysphoria29 and that for most who present before puberty it will be a “transient phase,” requiring clinicians to focus on psychological support and to be “mindful” even of the risks of social transition.30

…

But Helfand remarked that neither was made clear in the WPATH guidelines and also noted several instances in which the strength of evidence presented to justify a recommendation was “at odds with what their own systematic reviewers found.”

For example, one of the commissioned systematic reviews found that the strength of evidence for the conclusions that hormonal treatment “may improve” quality of life, depression, and anxiety among transgender people was “low,” and it emphasised the need for more research, “especially among adolescents.”35 The reviewers also concluded that “it was impossible to draw conclusions about the effects of hormone therapy” on death by suicide.

https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382

Sounds like there is a vigorous professional debate in progress.

But to my point, I see nothing that suggests having state legislatures enter that debate - via legislation - is going to be helpful to anyone.

To the contrary, it seems the frequency of state legislation illustrates how politicized and reactionary the topic has become.  I don't see how state involvement as a positive thing for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria or for their parents trying to deal with it.

Here's a reference lifted from the Scientific American piece illustrating my position:

What the Science on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Kids Really Shows - Scientific American

Excerpt:

"LAWS BASED ON “COMPLETELY WRONG” INFORMATION

Currently more than a dozen state legislatures or administrations are considering—or have already passed—laws banning health care for transgender young people. On April 20 the Florida Department of Health issued guidance to withhold such gender-affirming care. This includes social gender transitioning—acknowledging that a young person is trans, using their correct pronouns and name, and supporting their desire to live publicly as the gender of their experience rather than their sex assigned at birth. This comes nearly two months after Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued an order for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate for child abuse parents who allow their transgender preteens and teenagers to receive medical care. Alabama recently passed SB 184, which would make it a felony to provide gender-affirming medical care to transgender minors. In Alabama, a “minor” is defined as anyone 19 or younger.

If such laws go ahead, 58,200 teens in the U.S. could lose access to or never receive gender-affirming care, according to the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles. A decade of research shows such treatment reduces depression, suicidality and other devastating consequences of trans preteens and teens being forced to undergo puberty in the sex they were assigned at birth).

The bills are based on “information that’s completely wrong,” says Michelle Forcier, a pediatrician and professor of pediatrics at Brown University. Forcier literally helped write the book on how to provide evidence-based gender care to young people. She is also an assistant dean of admissions at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. Those laws “are absolutely, absolutely incorrect” about the science of gender-affirming care for young people, she says. “[Inaccurate information] is there to create drama. It’s there to make people take a side.”

The truth is that data from more than a dozen studies of more than 30,000 transgender and gender-diverse young people consistently show that access to gender-affirming care is associated with better mental health outcomes—and that lack of access to such care is associated with higher rates of suicidality, depression and self-harming behavior. (Gender diversity refers to the extent to which a person’s gendered behaviors, appearance and identities are culturally incongruent with the sex they were assigned at birth. Gender-diverse people can identify along the transgender spectrum, but not all do.) Major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, have published policy statements and guidelines on how to provide age-appropriate gender-affirming care. All of those medical societies find such care to be evidence-based and medically necessary.

AAP and Endocrine Society guidelines call for developmentally appropriate care, and that means no puberty blockers or hormones until young people are already undergoing puberty for their sex assigned at birth. For one thing, “there are no hormonal differences among prepubertal children,” says Joshua Safer, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in New York City and co-author of the Endocrine Society’s guidelines. Those guidelines provide the option of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas), which block the release of sex hormones, once young people are already into the second of five puberty stages—marked by breast budding and pubic hair. These are offered only if a teen is not ready to make decisions about puberty. Access to gender-affirming hormones and potential access to gender-affirming surgery is available at age 16—and then, in the case of transmasculine youth, only mastectomy, also known as top surgery. The Endocrine Society does not recommend genital surgery for minors.

Before puberty, gender-affirming care is about supporting the process of gender development rather than directing children through a specific course of gender transition or maintenance of cisgender presentation, says Jason Rafferty, co-author of AAP’s policy statement on gender-affirming care and a pediatrician and psychiatrist at Hasbro Children’s Hospital in Rhode Island. “The current research suggests that, rather than predicting or preventing who a child might become, it’s better to value them for who they are now—even at a young age,” Rafferty says....."

Here's another article from "The Lancet", referenced in the above piece on the dangers of hasty and misplaced legislation:

A flawed agenda for trans youth - The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health

 

Bottom line, this is a subject for professionals in the field to deal with, not politicians.

 

 

[TexasTiger 14,364]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Sounds like there is a vigorous professional debate in progress.

But to my point, I see nothing that suggests having state legislatures enter that debate - via legislation - is going to be helpful to anyone.

To the contrary, it seems the frequency of state legislation illustrates how politicized and reactionary the topic has become.  I don't see how state involvement as a positive thing for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria or for their parents trying to deal with it.

Here's a reference lifted from the Scientific American piece illustrating my position:

What the Science on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Kids Really Shows - Scientific American

Excerpt:

"LAWS BASED ON “COMPLETELY WRONG” INFORMATION

Currently more than a dozen state legislatures or administrations are considering—or have already passed—laws banning health care for transgender young people. On April 20 the Florida Department of Health issued guidance to withhold such gender-affirming care. This includes social gender transitioning—acknowledging that a young person is trans, using their correct pronouns and name, and supporting their desire to live publicly as the gender of their experience rather than their sex assigned at birth. This comes nearly two months after Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued an order for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate for child abuse parents who allow their transgender preteens and teenagers to receive medical care. Alabama recently passed SB 184, which would make it a felony to provide gender-affirming medical care to transgender minors. In Alabama, a “minor” is defined as anyone 19 or younger.

If such laws go ahead, 58,200 teens in the U.S. could lose access to or never receive gender-affirming care, according to the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles. A decade of research shows such treatment reduces depression, suicidality and other devastating consequences of trans preteens and teens being forced to undergo puberty in the sex they were assigned at birth).

The bills are based on “information that’s completely wrong,” says Michelle Forcier, a pediatrician and professor of pediatrics at Brown University. Forcier literally helped write the book on how to provide evidence-based gender care to young people. She is also an assistant dean of admissions at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. Those laws “are absolutely, absolutely incorrect” about the science of gender-affirming care for young people, she says. “[Inaccurate information] is there to create drama. It’s there to make people take a side.”

The truth is that data from more than a dozen studies of more than 30,000 transgender and gender-diverse young people consistently show that access to gender-affirming care is associated with better mental health outcomes—and that lack of access to such care is associated with higher rates of suicidality, depression and self-harming behavior. (Gender diversity refers to the extent to which a person’s gendered behaviors, appearance and identities are culturally incongruent with the sex they were assigned at birth. Gender-diverse people can identify along the transgender spectrum, but not all do.) Major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, have published policy statements and guidelines on how to provide age-appropriate gender-affirming care. All of those medical societies find such care to be evidence-based and medically necessary.

AAP and Endocrine Society guidelines call for developmentally appropriate care, and that means no puberty blockers or hormones until young people are already undergoing puberty for their sex assigned at birth. For one thing, “there are no hormonal differences among prepubertal children,” says Joshua Safer, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in New York City and co-author of the Endocrine Society’s guidelines. Those guidelines provide the option of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas), which block the release of sex hormones, once young people are already into the second of five puberty stages—marked by breast budding and pubic hair. These are offered only if a teen is not ready to make decisions about puberty. Access to gender-affirming hormones and potential access to gender-affirming surgery is available at age 16—and then, in the case of transmasculine youth, only mastectomy, also known as top surgery. The Endocrine Society does not recommend genital surgery for minors.

Before puberty, gender-affirming care is about supporting the process of gender development rather than directing children through a specific course of gender transition or maintenance of cisgender presentation, says Jason Rafferty, co-author of AAP’s policy statement on gender-affirming care and a pediatrician and psychiatrist at Hasbro Children’s Hospital in Rhode Island. “The current research suggests that, rather than predicting or preventing who a child might become, it’s better to value them for who they are now—even at a young age,” Rafferty says....."

Here's another article from "The Lancet", referenced in the above piece on the dangers of hasty and misplaced legislation:

A flawed agenda for trans youth - The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health

 

Bottom line, this is a subject for professionals in the field to deal with, not politicians.

 

 

And medical folks who objectively look at those overly broad claims find the evidence doesn’t support those statements. The biggest problem is we are being failed by the medical & mental health professions & our political bodies. Both sides take too strong & unyielding of positions not warranted by what is precious little data given the stakes.

[AURex 2,262]

On 3/3/2023 at 7:00 PM, TexasTiger said:

Unalterable changes are being made to kids with little hard data to justify it now.

 

Show me the Scientific data. Not right wing talking points, not fabricated right wing made up numbers -- actual scientific research-based data that support this assertion.

[TexasTiger 14,364]

3 hours ago, AURex said:

 

Show me the Scientific data. Not right wing talking points, not fabricated right wing made up numbers -- actual scientific research-based data that support this assertion.

Shouldn’t you demand hard scientific data showing strong evidence of no harm before puberty blockers are assigned off-label, HRT (which carries significant risk for any person at any age) and removing healthy organs & body parts from minors?  How did this norm get reversed for this one area? You have it backwards. 
 

 I’ve read far more than I’m going to dig up here. But here are a few:

”Practice guidelines for puberty suppression and GAHT are primarily based on consensus rather than high-quality empirical data.^9,10,13–18  The authors of these guidelines point out a lack of strong evidence in identifying the optimal age at which gender-affirming treatments should be initiated.^13,14,16 

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/148/1/e2020027722/179931/Progression-of-Gender-Dysphoria-in-Children-and?autologincheck=redirected

 

Puberty blockers were initially prescribed to address precocious puberty— keeping 8 year olds from premature puberty. Prescribing to someone at the normal age of puberty  is experimental— it delays the development of secondary sex characteristics, but what about brain development? Why would we assume the critical brain development that occurs at puberty continues undisturbed when strong chemicals are preventing other critical changes? We know in other animals experimented on the impact on brain development does not reverse:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453016307922?via%3Dihub

 

We also know biological girls given testosterone not only deal with permanent voice changes and often male pattern baldness, they also suffer irreversible bone density loss.
 

“Results consistently indicate a negative impact of long-term puberty suppression on bone mineral density, especially at the lumbar spine, which is only partially restored after sex steroid administration. Trans girls are more vulnerable than trans boys for compromised bone health.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9578106/

 

Live however one wants. Assume what risks you wish as an adult. But it is the height of arrogance to assume we can ignore  or counteract the very real hormonal differences our bodies are designed with without significant consequences. Teenagers are not equipped to make such decisions with long term detrimental impact they can’t fully appreciate. We can love and support them in the stereotypical gender roles they choose or reject, let them wear what they want, call themselves, etc. without medicalizing them at a point much impact is unknown and known harms exist. It’s cruel to do so.

[CoffeeTiger 5,914]

https://apnews.com/article/transgender-treatment-regret-detransition-371e927ec6e7a24cd9c77b5371c6ba2b

Dutch research from several years ago found no evidence of regret in transgender adults who had comprehensive psychological evaluations in childhood before undergoing puberty blockers and hormone treatment.

Some studies suggest that rates of regret have declined over the years as patient selection and treatment methods have improved. In a review of 27 studies involving almost 8,000 teens and adults who had transgender surgeries, mostly in Europe, the U.S and Canada, 1% on average expressed regret. For some, regret was temporary, but a small number went on to have detransitioning or reversal surgeries, the 2021 review said.

Research suggests that comprehensive psychological counseling before starting treatment, along with family support, can reduce chances for regret and detransitioning.

 

Research and reports from individual doctors and clinics suggest that detransitioning is rare. The few studies that exist have too many limitations or weaknesses to draw firm conclusions, said Dr. Michael Irwig, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He said it’s difficult to quantify because patients who detransition often see new doctors, not the physicians who prescribed the hormones or performed the surgeries. Some patients may simply stop taking hormones.

“My own personal experience is that it is quite uncommon,” Irwig said. “I’ve taken care of over 350 gender-diverse patients and probably fewer than five have told me that they decided to detransition or changed their minds.”

[TexasTiger 14,364]

4 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

https://apnews.com/article/transgender-treatment-regret-detransition-371e927ec6e7a24cd9c77b5371c6ba2b

Dutch research from several years ago found no evidence of regret in transgender adults who had comprehensive psychological evaluations in childhood before undergoing puberty blockers and hormone treatment.

Some studies suggest that rates of regret have declined over the years as patient selection and treatment methods have improved. In a review of 27 studies involving almost 8,000 teens and adults who had transgender surgeries, mostly in Europe, the U.S and Canada, 1% on average expressed regret. For some, regret was temporary, but a small number went on to have detransitioning or reversal surgeries, the 2021 review said.

Research suggests that comprehensive psychological counseling before starting treatment, along with family support, can reduce chances for regret and detransitioning.

 

Research and reports from individual doctors and clinics suggest that detransitioning is rare. The few studies that exist have too many limitations or weaknesses to draw firm conclusions, said Dr. Michael Irwig, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He said it’s difficult to quantify because patients who detransition often see new doctors, not the physicians who prescribed the hormones or performed the surgeries. Some patients may simply stop taking hormones.

“My own personal experience is that it is quite uncommon,” Irwig said. “I’ve taken care of over 350 gender-diverse patients and probably fewer than five have told me that they decided to detransition or changed their minds.”

This is an article written by a journalist tasked by their editor. Let’s look at more original sources.

”Dutch research from several years ago…” Puberty suppression  became common after one study (funded by a pharmaceutical company) with a small selective sample which, when scrutinized, has been found to be very weak. A study in the UK attempted to replicate those results found very different outcomes.

Professionals from that Dutch clinic advise caution regarding efforts to apply those practices more broadly, particularly in regard to later onset gender dysphoria which has led to the explosion in numbers.

“According to the original Dutch protocol, one of the criteria to start puberty suppression was “a presence of gender dysphoria from early childhood on.”²  Prospective follow-up studies evaluating these Dutch transgender adolescents showed improved psychological functioning.⁵  However, authors of case histories and a parent-report study warrant that gender identity development is diverse, and a new developmental pathway is proposed involving youth with postpuberty adolescent-onset transgender histories.^6–8  These youth did not yet participate in the early evaluation studies.^5,9  This raises the question whether the positive outcomes of early medical interventions also apply to adolescents who more recently present in overwhelming large numbers for transgender care, including those that come at an older age, possibly without a childhood history of GI. It also asks for caution because some case histories illustrate the complexities that may be associated with later-presenting transgender adolescents and describe that some eventually detransition.^9,10 “

 

This recommendation from that a Dutch researcher at that clinic:

As for the clinical management in children before the age of 10, we suggest a cautious attitude towards the moment of transitioning. Given our findings that some girls, who were almost (but not entirely) living as boys in the childhood years, experienced great trouble when they wanted to return to the female gender role, we believe that parents and caregivers should fully realize the unpredictability of their child’s psychosexual outcome. They may help the child to handle their gender variance in a supportive way, but without taking social steps long before puberty, which are hard to reverse.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49738851_Desisting_and_persisting_gender_dysphoria_after_childhood_A_qualitative_follow-up_study

That same clinician involved in Dutch clinic:

“We don’t know whether studies we have done in the past can still be applied to this time. Many more children are registering, and also a different type, ”says Steensma. “Suddenly there are many more girls applying who feel like a boy. While the ratio was the same in 2013, now three times as many children who were born as girls register, compared to children who were born as boys.”

The explosive increase in requests for transgender care simply requires a new investigation. Around 2010, for example, around 150 to 200 transgender people were seen every year in the Amsterdam UMC. Now there are 775, with a two-year waiting list on top of that. Research into that small group of people from before 2013 may not apply to the large group that is here now. And here the help of other countries is also needed. “We conduct structural research in the Netherlands. But the rest of the world is blindly adopting our research. While every doctor or psychologist who engages in transgender health care should feel the obligation to do a proper assessment before and after intervention ”

https://www.voorzij.nl/more-research-is-urgently-needed-into-transgender-care-for-young-people-where-does-the-large-increase-of-children-come-from/

 

A more detailed look at the Dutch study being relied on for much broader application: 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2121238

[homersapien 12,262]

On 3/6/2023 at 10:49 PM, TexasTiger said:

And medical folks who objectively look at those overly broad claims find the evidence doesn’t support those statements. The biggest problem is we are being failed by the medical & mental health professions & our political bodies. Both sides take too strong & unyielding of positions not warranted by what is precious little data given the stakes.

That's just your opinion.  I vigorously disagree.

This issue has become a politicized "culture war" issue by the right wing.

Here's who's behind the GOP assault on transgender rights (americanindependent.com)

Inside the Secret Working Group That Helped Push Anti-Trans Laws Across the Country – Mother Jones

Far-Right Groups Flood State Legislatures With Anti-Trans Bills Targeting Children | Southern Poverty Law Center (splcenter.org)

The Narrative on Trans Rights Is Being Shaped by Right-Wing Media | Teen Vogue

Current legislation in various states simply reflect the politicization of this.  State legislators have no business legislating such matters of which they are so ignorant. 

Leave it to the professionals and the parents/caretakers of those afflicted.