Google has removed two websites providing “DIY” hormone replacement therapy used in gender-affirming care from search results at the request of the UK government, according to legal letters viewed by 404 Media (@404mediaco).
I continue to circle back to something that seems glaringly obvious when you read the #CassReview and when we talk methodological criticisms.
The selection of studies for the review could be considered reasonable! The grading could be considered reasonable! There are reasons to dispute both of these, but we could even make an argument for that. In that sense they didn't "discard the evidence."
But then in their conclusions they definitely discarded it.
I was critical of the Cass Report earlier, talking about how discounting studies that weren't double blinded RCTs was bad form. Apparently Dr Cass has responded, saying that '"obviously" young people could not be blinded as to whether or not they were on puberty blockers or hormones because "it rapidly becomes obvious to them [...] But that of itself is not an issue because there are many other areas where that would apply"' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68863594
It is very telling to me how the NHS and the BMJ (and various others) are not doing any correction of the anti-trans crowd when they attribute things to the Cass review that it doesn't say.
They are pretty much exclusivley talking about it in terms of debunking criticisms. Not support that draws an incorrect inference.
I genuinely wasn't expecting this to happen in Scotland
There isn't a children's GIDS in Wales, so the only way trans kids can be put on puberty blockers in Great Britain now will be to go privately (and they're planning to restrict that in England) or be part of the clinical trial planned for December 2024
Another problem that I have with the #CassReview: its attempt to draw a line between puberty blocking and GAHT.
One would not expect that puberty blocking would reduce dysphoria and, in fact, it would be kind of weird if it turned out that it did: that doesn't fit with how any of this works.
Puberty blocking is about giving time to make a choice.
If all of the kids who are going on puberty blockers are then going on GAHT, a clear alternate hypothesis would be they should just start GAHT.
Puberty blockers are the compromise solution because we know that this is an area that requires moving cautiously. We want to make damned sure, within our ability to do so, before forcing the kid to go through puberty if they have expressed dysphoria. Any puberty.
It's tempting in a triple blind sense to say "well these are two treatments"—and the review attempts this—but if your concern is PHS you know you could just… jump straight to GAHT or prioritize it very early.
They talk about "returning to normal best practices" but in a real way that would be more accepting and more progressive than the previous status quo.
Because ordinarily when you have a situation in pediatric care where there is nothing "on label" there should be a conversation between the kid, the parent, and the doctor.
This is done very commonly, because most drugs aren't authorized for the age group they get used with (like 70–80% of prescriptions?)
There's literally nothing here that ties into any of the fields that are relevant. Her specialization is all in developmental and mental disabilities in high-support-need younger children.
"Independent" evidently means "so far out of her lane that she can't see her lane on this side of the horizon."