I would like to see the evidence that shows that "blocking kids who have been dysphoric since early childhood from access to these medications is causing trans kids needless harm". I would like to be sure that this conclusion is not based on godawfully bad statistical analysis, as so much of "trans" medicine is.
I would like to see the evidence that shows that "blocking kids who have been dysphoric since early childhood from access to these medications is causing trans kids needless harm". I would like to be sure that this conclusion is not based on godawfully bad statistical analysis, as so much of "trans" medicine is.
mmm.. Would you agree that if someone was 100% absolutely positively going to transition as an adult that they'd be better off if they got access to GAM as a teenager?
For "needless":
Now, even if you agree, that doesn't mean that you'd agree, for instance, that the result of having 98% of people go through GAM for whom it was correct and 2% end up having gotten drugs they shouldn't have gotten that was net positive. You might decide that was a net negative (and I don't know that you're wrong - it depends on the relative harms of course)
For the actual analysis, I encourage to you read Sweden's info for yourself.
"Would you agree that if someone was 100% absolutely positively going to transition as an adult that they'd be better off if they got access to GAM as a teenager?"
Yes. But the issue is what is the ACTUAL success rate of predicting adulthood transition on the basis of pre-puberty symptom presentation? It sure ain't 100%.
Also, it seems to me that it is essentially impossible to have good data on this. To collect it, you would need to have large numbers of pre-puberty gender dysphoric children, run the diagosis protocol, predict who will or will not transition as adults, and then DENY GAM to a large group who you predict will transition as adults, and then see what fraction actually do.
I very much doubt that this has ever been done, or ever will be done.
And so we are flying blind on GAM even for gender dysphoria even in early childhood.
Still, I will look at the Swedish report to see if they did better than this.
I've now read your link. There is no evidence presented that there exists a diagnostic protocol that can distinguish "true" gender dysphoria in a child (meaning that the child will choose to transition as an adult) from "false" (the child will choose not to transition as an adult).
According to SBU, based on current evidence, it is also not possible to determine how common it is for people who undergo gender-confirming treatment to later change their perception of their gender identity, interrupt treatment or in some aspect regret it. At the same time, it has been documented that detransition occurs, and there may also be an unknown figure, the National Board of Health and Welfare states.
For the group that regrets or interrupts an initiated treatment, there may be a risk that the treatment has led to poorer health or quality of life, says Thomas Lindén.
According to the National Board of Health and Welfare, puberty blocking or cross-sex hormone treatment should therefore only be offered in exceptional cases outside the framework of studies. The authority has developed criteria that care can be based on in the clinical assessment.
According to the authority, the clinical assessments should be in line with the criteria in the ‘Dutch protocol’. Central to this is that gender incongruity debuted during childhood, persisted over time, and that the development of puberty led to clear suffering.
===============
It sounds like they agree it is understudied - and that with exceptions for studies to determine whether this is generally the correct course, and an emphasis on persistent dysphoria (no ROGD) they're not doing any blockers.
That sounds more in line with your stance than I recalled reading - thanks for checking.
My question is, if kindergarteners are being actively encouraged to experiment with identifying as trans, could that muddy the waters between persistent dysphoria and "this gets me special attention" pseudo-dysphoria?
I would like to see the evidence that shows that "blocking kids who have been dysphoric since early childhood from access to these medications is causing trans kids needless harm". I would like to be sure that this conclusion is not based on godawfully bad statistical analysis, as so much of "trans" medicine is.
Is your concern "needless" or "harm"?
For "harm":
mmm.. Would you agree that if someone was 100% absolutely positively going to transition as an adult that they'd be better off if they got access to GAM as a teenager?
For "needless":
Now, even if you agree, that doesn't mean that you'd agree, for instance, that the result of having 98% of people go through GAM for whom it was correct and 2% end up having gotten drugs they shouldn't have gotten that was net positive. You might decide that was a net negative (and I don't know that you're wrong - it depends on the relative harms of course)
For the actual analysis, I encourage to you read Sweden's info for yourself.
Here is a link:
https://genderreport.ca/the-swedish-u-turn-on-gender-transitioning/#:~:text=Sweden%20National%20Board%20of%20Health%20and%20Welfare%20Update&text=%E2%80%9CThe%20diagnosis%20of%20gender%20dysphoria,at%20birth%20has%20increased%20most.
"Would you agree that if someone was 100% absolutely positively going to transition as an adult that they'd be better off if they got access to GAM as a teenager?"
Yes. But the issue is what is the ACTUAL success rate of predicting adulthood transition on the basis of pre-puberty symptom presentation? It sure ain't 100%.
Also, it seems to me that it is essentially impossible to have good data on this. To collect it, you would need to have large numbers of pre-puberty gender dysphoric children, run the diagosis protocol, predict who will or will not transition as adults, and then DENY GAM to a large group who you predict will transition as adults, and then see what fraction actually do.
I very much doubt that this has ever been done, or ever will be done.
And so we are flying blind on GAM even for gender dysphoria even in early childhood.
Still, I will look at the Swedish report to see if they did better than this.
I've now read your link. There is no evidence presented that there exists a diagnostic protocol that can distinguish "true" gender dysphoria in a child (meaning that the child will choose to transition as an adult) from "false" (the child will choose not to transition as an adult).
Hmm, maybe I sent you the wrong link I thought I remembered seeing more information, but when I went looking myself I had trouble finding it.
Reading this:
https://genspect.org/breaking-sweden-drastically-changes-protocol-prioritizes-psychotherapy/
=====================
According to SBU, based on current evidence, it is also not possible to determine how common it is for people who undergo gender-confirming treatment to later change their perception of their gender identity, interrupt treatment or in some aspect regret it. At the same time, it has been documented that detransition occurs, and there may also be an unknown figure, the National Board of Health and Welfare states.
For the group that regrets or interrupts an initiated treatment, there may be a risk that the treatment has led to poorer health or quality of life, says Thomas Lindén.
According to the National Board of Health and Welfare, puberty blocking or cross-sex hormone treatment should therefore only be offered in exceptional cases outside the framework of studies. The authority has developed criteria that care can be based on in the clinical assessment.
According to the authority, the clinical assessments should be in line with the criteria in the ‘Dutch protocol’. Central to this is that gender incongruity debuted during childhood, persisted over time, and that the development of puberty led to clear suffering.
===============
It sounds like they agree it is understudied - and that with exceptions for studies to determine whether this is generally the correct course, and an emphasis on persistent dysphoria (no ROGD) they're not doing any blockers.
That sounds more in line with your stance than I recalled reading - thanks for checking.
My question is, if kindergarteners are being actively encouraged to experiment with identifying as trans, could that muddy the waters between persistent dysphoria and "this gets me special attention" pseudo-dysphoria?