Not a woman!

It’d be useful if we knew if those women in prison and on death row were female or male.

As we know there is a significant difference in offending types and rates by sex, and many countries are recording crimes committed by males as women’s crimes. In January the NYT reported in the US it’s 15%.

A good start would be assessing outcomes for people who were prescribed PBs as children for gender dysphoria over the last 20yrs.

From 2009-2020 c.2000 kids were given PBs plus xsex hormones by the Tavistock. Despite a 2022 legal order to make data available for research it continues to be hidden.

Granted, the results wouldn’t be perfect but the number of patients is large enough some useful indications of health compared to the general population could be obtained as well as numbers persisting or desisting in with a transgender identity and/or medical treatment.

The head of WPATH, Marci Bowers, has said that no patient blocked at Tanner stage 2 (age 10-12ish for boys) has been able to experience orgasm. High profile trans women who were blocked young, like Jazz Jennings, Kim Petras, Avery Jackson, have stated public that they have no sexual desire.

Adults have had to opportunity to develop physically, socially, intellectually, and can understand the consequences of any interventions. If you’d received PBs aged 11, followed by xsex hormones then you wouldn’t be sexually attracted to anyone, and may have a variety of health problems.

Because that’s not what this study will do.

Over 9000 children were treated by GIDs, over many years, I believe 2000 were given PBs. Why don’t first collect info on how those patients are doing before subjecting another cohort to lifelong harm?

I accept that dysphoria is a real condition, and adults should be free to choose a pathway, medical or otherwise, that feels right for them.

There may even be some children who will, on balance, overall benefit from PBs and xSex hormones. But we don’t know which ones and this trial won’t help.

That’s nice for you, as an adult, to be able to explore your sexuality and identity to find what’s right for you.

I still don’t think children struggling with the idea of their healthy developing bodies should have this choice taken away, or be otherwise harmed.

In this context, they’re referring to how the child is coping psychologically with the prospect of puberty - ie, the development of their sexed body.

But also, roughly 80% of the children referred to GIDs before its closure were same sex attracted.

“This results in an unavoidable paradox: how can young people consent to treatments that are likely to impair or eliminate sexual function when their current rejection of sexuality is itself a symptom of the psychological difficulties they face?”

genderblog.net/tavistock-wh...

Because 226 children as young as 10yrs old will be permanently harmed (osteoporosis, lowered IQ, sterility, loss of sexual function etc) because they don’t conform to regressive stereotypes. The follow-up is only 2yrs in which these harms will not yet be apparent.

sex-matters.org/posts/update...

Excellent piece again from @hannahsbee.bsky.social

Major issues with this
- why only 2years of follow up when many side affects take 5-10yrs?
- will boys at tanner stage 2 be included despite existing strong evidence of harm?
- why include girls when testosterone masculinises at any age?
- will they be screened for autism, trauma, anorexia, etc?