Society/Culture Sexism & Gender Equality

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Endocrinologists warn against hormone treatment for childhood gender dysphoria

by Barbara Kay

January 16, 2019

have a transgender friend. She is now in her 50s, so has been taking the relevant hormones for more than 30 years to maintain her female appearance. What I like about Monica (not her real name) is that she is as disapproving as I am of the bullish trans activism that makes light of lifetime hormone usage, and the risks posed by such long-term usage.

Monica made her decision as an adult with open eyes. She felt she needed to live life as a woman, and was willing to take risks—known and unknown—in order to do so.

She is now suffering from cancer of the prostate (the irony of this distinctly male affliction has not escaped her), the aggressive kind, and may not survive for very long. Her doctors do not rule out the possibility that the cancer’s onset is linked to her decades of daily hormone usage.

The trans lobby would have us assent to the proposition that gender dysphoria is a perfectly natural phenomenon, only requiring belief in the theory of gender fluidity to make sense, and that transition’s attendant need for a lifetime of daily hormone consumption and major surgery is an anodyne trivial sidebar to the commendable end of “becoming” the opposite sex.

If you can accept that one’s biological sex is completely untethered from one’s gender identity, you will have no difficulty with rapid and uncritical affirmation of a child’s transitioning process getting underway at the first sign of cross-gender experimentation. You will buy into all the other trans activist mantras as well: that any therapist or medical professional who urges caution or a wait-and-see attitude, or who attempts to focus prudent attention to the endocrinological corollary to the transition process is transphobic.


Up to now, trans activists have been extremely successful in intimidating endocrinologists who find the lack of concern about the effects of puberty blockers and crossover hormones disturbing.

They are amazed at how quickly their freedom to speak up on this issue has been quelled. One of my endocrinologist friends has told me quite frankly that he would be in danger of losing his hospital appointment if he advised parents of a trans-presenting child to seek a period of therapeutic assessment before moving on to puberty blockers.

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (JCEM) is an organ of the Endocrine Society. And it is the Endocrine Society which has published clinical practice guidelines on the treatment of gender dysphoria for both adults and children, first in 2009 and then in revised form in 2017. These guidelines—very trans affirmative—were written in conjunction with the World Professional Organization for Transgender Health (WPATH) which is regarded by objective endocrinologists as a radical political group at its core, but which has infiltrated an otherwise responsible, science-based medical organization.

A group of concerned endocrinologists, under the leadership of California-based Dr Michael Laidlaw, an endocrinologist trained in the study of hormones and glands, who treats diseases caused by hormone imbalances in patients, has written a letter of dissent to the editor of the JCEM, which has been accepted and will be published later this month. In a just-issued press release, Dr. Laidlaw’s group warns of the serious dangers of puberty blocking medications and cross sex hormones in the treatment of child and adolescent gender dysphoria: “Children and adolescents with questions about their gender are increasingly being given life-altering, irreversible hormones and surgery which can lead to increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease, life threatening blood clots, permanent sterility, and sexual dysfunction, among other problems,” they state.

They also express concern about Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD), for which there is no reliable testing method, a condition predominantly afflicting teenage girls, many of whom suffer from autism or other neurodevelopmental problems.


The main thrust of the letter is that “physicians need to start examining [this therapy] through the objective eye of the scientist-clinician rather than the ideological lens of the social activist. Far more children with gender dysphoria will ultimately be helped by this approach.”

There is nothing in the letter that has not been said many times in op-eds and blog posts, at private conferences mounted by concerned parents, and in videos posted by dissenting individuals. What makes this letter uniquely valuable is its appearance in a medical journal whose credibility cannot be denied or ignored.

Endocrinologists who have chosen to remain passive as the trans movement steamrolls its course through society’s juridical, educational and political institutions will now be forced to acknowledge that dissenting views are worthy of formal, respectful attention and open discussion.

This is an encouraging step forward in the battle to restore scientific detachment and common sense to public discussion of this subject. Hormonal treatment of children with dysphoria as a first, rather than a last resort, is increasingly becoming a grave concern.

In fact, it is a public-safety issue in urgent need of rational, evidence-based debate. Congratulations to the JCEM for what must be regarded as an act of courage in these gender-fevered times.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/e...one-treatment-for-childhood-gender-dysphoria/
 
https://quillette.com/2019/03/29/denying-the-neuroscience-of-sex-differences/

Denying the Neuroscience of Sex Differences
Imagine your response to picking up a copy of the leading scientific journal Nature and reading the headline: “The myth that evolution applies to humans.” Anyone even vaguely familiar with the advances in neuroscience over the past 15–20 years regarding sex influences on brain function might have a similar response to a recent headline in Nature: “Neurosexism: the myth that men and women have different brains” subtitled “the hunt for male and female distinctions inside the skull is a lesson in bad research practice.”
Turns out that yet another book, this one with a fawning review in Nature, claims to “shatter” myths about sex differences in the brain while in fact perpetuating the largest one. Editors at Naturedecided to give this book their imprimatur. Ironically, within a couple of days of the Nature review being published came a news alert from the American Association for the Advancement of Science titled, “Researchers discover clues to brain differences between males and females,” and a new editorial in Lancet Neurology titled “A spotlight on sex differences in neurological disorders,” both of which contradict the book’s core thesis. So what in the name of good science is going on here?
 
Snake_Baker said:
One of the defining moments in human evolution has been identified as a male adaptation.

On The Evolution of The Sex Differences in Throwing: Throwing is a Male Adaptation in Humans


Michael P. Lombardo
Biology Department, Grand Valley State University Allendale, Michigan 49401-9403 USA; e-mail: lombardm@gvsu.edu

Robert O. Deaner
Psychology Department, Grand Valley State University Allendale, Michigan 49401-9403 USA; e-mail: robert.deaner@gmail.com

Abstract

The development of the ability to throw projectiles for distance, speed, and accuracy was a watershed event in human evolution. We hypothesize that throwing first arose in threat displays and during fighting and later was incorporated into hunting by members of the Homo lineage because nonhuman primates often throw projectiles during agonistic interactions and only rarely in attempts to subdue prey. Males, who threw more often than females in both combat and hunting, would have been under stronger selection than females to become proficient at the ability to throw, intercept, and dodge projectiles as throwing skills became critical to success in combat and hunting. Therefore, we predict that males, more than females, should display innate anatomical and behavioral traits associated with throwing. We use data from a variety of disciplines to discuss: the sex differences in throwing speed, distance, and accuracy; sex differences in the development of the throwing motion; inability of training or cultural influences to erase the sex differences in throwing; sex differences in the use of throwing in sports, combat, and hunting; and sex differences in anatomical traits associated with throwing that are partly responsible for male throwing superiority. These data contradict the view held by many commentators that socialization rather than innate sex differences in ability are primarily responsible for male throwing superiority. We suggest that throwing is a male adaptation.
Click to expand...
Is this to say that the incidence of throwing is up?
 
Research is going down the drain. A colleague showed me the human ethics response he received. He works with elite athletes and they kicked up a fuss because he is only using male participants (Big VO2max differences at elite levels and when taking blood samples as specific time points it can be hard working around the menstrual cycle). He was forced to give a detailed response with references. Even after a through response they recommended that he opened up the study to both genders. A similar thing happened to a researcher in his group.

I look forward to human ethics demanding all research be conducted with a 50/50 split. If they don't I guarantee scientific journals will enforce it when it comes to accepting manuscripts. As if it isn't hard enough recruit and manage RCT's :drunk:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Yet another dishonest article about the gender pay gap. The author complaining when a positive is highlighted, that the negative should have been highlighted instead.
No acknowledgement of the actual reasons for pay inequity.
Another article expecting equal pay based on gender, while doing less actual work.

The tax office's spin on the gender pay gap was a wipe-out
Last week the Australian Tax Office (ATO) released its annual Taxation Statistics report for 2016–17, which usually gives us a pretty good idea of how much money people are making, what jobs they are concentrated in, and where they live.
Some coverage chose to focus on the growing gap between the rich and the poor, a vital issue. But much focus was also placed on the very few professions where women earn more than men, including pro surfing – a finding sold in the press release.
My question: Instead of spruiking some of the few professions where women earn more than men (just 72 of the 1100 occupational categories for which the ATO collects data), why didn’t the ATO highlight the fact that men earn more than women in 90 per cent of professions? Framing matters.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/ge...3-p51ahp.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true
 
Gilette ad comes out = all white males are pigs. Men rightfully kick up a fuss. Women = "boo hoo, get over it. Stop being babies"

Discovery channel's need ad = no women in it. Women kick up a fuss and start going into "WomeninSTEM" overdrive. Men...don't say a thing.

Hypocrisy of it all. Women are free to say as they please and throw males under the bus (more specifically white males) as often as they want. Men on the other hand don't say a thing because they know it's basically career suicide. What's worse is the men that cave on both occasions.
 
Groin guru said:
Gilette ad comes out = all white males are pigs. Men rightfully kick up a fuss. Women = "boo hoo, get over it. Stop being babies"

Discovery channel's need ad = no women in it. Women kick up a fuss and start going into "WomeninSTEM" overdrive. Men...don't say a thing.

Hypocrisy of it all. Women are free to say as they please and throw males under the bus (more specifically white males) as often as they want. Men on the other hand don't say a thing because they know it's basically career suicide. What's worse is the men that cave on both occasions.
Click to expand...

This is where we are at right now.

Hypocrisy when it comes to gender issues is startling
 
CheapCharlie said:
This is where we are at right now.

Hypocrisy when it comes to gender issues is startling
Click to expand...
It is a big problem for so many issues.

If someone speaks up = career suicide. So people won't do it. Alternative = different account = "no name is just trolling"

No legitimate person can speak up unless you are top tier like a Peterson type or someone with a social media presence via youtube etc.
 
Groin guru said:
It is a big problem for so many issues.

If someone speaks up = career suicide. So people won't do it. Alternative = different account = "no name is just trolling"

No legitimate person can speak up unless you are top tier like a Peterson type or someone with a social media presence via youtube etc.
Click to expand...
As you say, career suicide to put forth a rational opposite opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top