World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

My irony meter is being tested.

The advocate from an ideology rooted in postmodern codswallop lecturing people on the scientific method. Lol

Puberty blockers are harmful. It's why even in cases of precocious puberty, they are used sparingly.

This is well known. In the cases they are used it's generally a lesser of two evils as the complications from a far too early puberty can be devastating.

In cases of precocious puberty, they try get the child as close as possible to a normal puberty age, and then let that happen.

Blocking a perfectly healthy child's natural puberty is not in any way the same. Then that child will either start the correct sex puberty far later than they normally should, or worse, go through a pseudo opposite sex puberty through the use of hormone treatment.

If they've been shown to be effective (and safe) for gender dysphoria, why is Dr Cass saying that far more studies need to carried out to see whether they are, ehhh, effective??

Have you got a link to the activist Twitter account you read this on?

It's not my distinction. That's how medicine works. A drug is tested for a particular illness, and while it may sometimes be given off-label for other indications, that's not the same thing as saying the drug is safe for everyone and for any illness that any doctor thinks of using it for.

Ivermectin for covid being an example. It's approved for humans for treating certain parasitic worms. It also has known antiviral properties - in fact it was being called a wonder drug only a few years ago. So - contrary to what a lot of people assume - it was a reasonable hypothesis to test it for covid, since we didn't have much else at the time.

But - and here's the thing - scientists who carried out proper tests on their patients soon realised that it didn't really work. Conspiracy theorists, contrarians and people wanting to make a quick buck selling the stuff, all went on insisting that it worked.

Which group do you think is more likely to refuse to make their data available for examination?

It's not about the drug having a different level of danger in a different person.

It's about the risk of giving the drug versus the risk of not doing so.

You absolutely do not want to take Thalidomide if you're planning to be pregnant any time soon, but if you have myeloma then it might just contribute to saving your life.

Taking radioactive iodine is a terrible idea because it carries with it an increased cancer risk and will kill your thyroid gland - but if your thyroid gland is malfunctioning and causing all sorts of symptoms, the increased cancer risk of killing it off is outweighed by the benefit in terms of quality of life improvements, the abatement of symptoms, and the reduction of life-threatening risks associated with the thyroid condition you would otherwise be living with.

This is not a terribly difficult concept, so it's hard to find a reason other than you being ideologically upset by the implication why you're refusing to understand it.

If puberty blockers are shown to be a safe and effective treatment for children suffering from gender dysphoria, I will be happy for them to be given them.