DES is the precedent: exogenous hormone with substantial effects on babies in utero and even into the 2nd generation. Babies are not support animals to your ridiculous 'opposite of reality' self concept. You are not a fit parent if you do not prioritize the wellbeing of the baby.
For a long time now, I have been wondering when managed care coordinators in the US and Canada would do an actuarial assessment of the cost of trans surgery. Perhaps because the number of trans people who undergo full surgical transition is low, we haven't heard about this and it has not, as yet, had a huge impact on the financial solvency of the healthcare system.
When I was pregnant with my daughter, I was extremely nauseous for the first five months. There were only a few medications that had been authorized to treat this. Like all women, I was repeatedly told not to drink alcohol, not even half a glass of wine, while pregnant and breast feeding.
I read the paper under discussion. I don't want to get into the details of the paper here except to say that while they agree that birth abnormalities may occur, they argue that regardless of the possible side effects on their babies, it is prejudicial to trans men to stop them from taking androgens while pregnant.
The known effects on pregnancy and fetal development of taking the level of androgens that trans men normally take:
Abnormal placental development
Preterm birth
Fetal urogenital and intersex conditions
Metabolic dysfunction
Autism
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
This seems like quite a long list. Apart from the ethical questions of deliberately exposing a developing fetus to these risks, there will invariably be an uptick in medical costs. Moreover, many of these trans men will come to deeply regret their decision to take androgens while pregnant once they are forced to turn their whole lives upside down to care for a child with a severe developmental abnormality like autism.
I wonder if the authors on this paper have ever had to take care of a child with autism or a child that has been born at extreme prematurity. Some of the babies born by trans men taking androgens will be normal. Prediction: those will be the stories written up glowingly in the press. The trans men struggling with developmentally abnormal babies and children will be banished from the popular discussion about trans men and the risks of taking androgens while pregnant.
Meanwhile, most women are still asked to not drink alcohol during pregnancy, and I haven't seen any papers saying that the birth defects caused by drinking alcohol while pregnant are no big deal.
I read the article yesterday, and yours today. TBH, the trouble that I have is that this is so appalling and makes me so angry, it makes me want to disengage and say, “Fuck it. If this is really want you want, go ahead. Let us all know how that turns out in 10 or 20 years.”
I know that’s not a remedy. But honest to God, how can all the Trans Nonsense continue to have legions of supporters when the conversation goes in this direction? Won’t this just pique/peak everybody?
I share your frustration completely! What I find with so many friends/neighbors/acquaintances who have not done their own homework (even with many prompts from me :)) is that they continue to rely on "progressive" MSM (eg, Rachel Maddow) and "experts" like Rachel Levine. Getting past all that continues to be a vertical climb, which is why I admire so much the tremendous hard and good work of Kara and others to get the word out as broadly as possible.
and maybe they'd even LIKE the baby to be affected later- they may be more likely to grow up different/ trans/ non-binary / woteva... (heartless and cynical, as all their ideology is...)
Your point about women and alcohol consumption during pregnancy, and the stunning contrast with this issue, is excellent and extremely thought-provoking.
As I stated on Reality’s Last Stand, manipulating children’s genitals are the stock in trade of current transsexualism. I recommend reading Lynn Conways glowing description of children forced to have their genitals in their entirety surgically removed at quite a young age in India to see the thinking a “transsexual activist”.
After reading what Kara wrote, I tried again to read the article. Kara is 💯 right about its importance and the importance of highlighting this issue wherever it appears. That said, I failed again the read the entire article, not because I didn’t want to, but because I couldn’t understand most of the detail. I hope, going forward, others will be able to communicate about this issue on a less technical, more general public level. (This is NOT a criticism of the article itself, I have only applause for this clearly thoughtful, detailed effort to raise highlight this issue.)
Also, re the article Kara writes about here, among other things I am interested in learning more on the topic of “queering” medicine are the below:
>The Reality’s Last Stand piece notes: “The authors, a group of transgender sociologists and enthusiasts, and healthcare activists, with not one medical degree among them.” This leads me to ask:
1) what are the bona fides of journal are they writing in?
2) are articles in the journal subject to peer review, and if so, who are considered peers and what is the process?
3) is it possible to rebut the article within that particular journal, and, if so, has anyone made that effort?
Other questions include:
>How widespread is this phenomenon already?
>Has anyone tried to do a review of the literature for journal articles of this type? (I recall, as one example, seeing an article in the premiere journal of oncology (ASCO) by self-described “queer oncologists.” The authors, among other things, specifically proposed “eliminating sex from our conceptual framework of bodies and disease.” https://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/JCO.22.02037)
There is a desperate need for more short-form articles aimed at the general public explaining this phenomenon and showing how widespread it is. For example, just now, when I went to ASCO to find the link above, I saw a plethora of titles that could be additional articles “queering” medicine.
This happens very frequently now (“ultracrepidanarianism” - type that on an iPhone!) particularly with non-physicians pretending to be physicians. A terrible example is “Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD” from Stanford who pushed the idea that basically nobody should do anything about Covid, or that everyone had already been infected (April 2020). Terrible. It’s critical to look at who is writing and ask why nowadays. The barrier entry on published opinion on things medical is very very low.
I worked on a proposal 4-5 years ago with Australian Academic institutions which would have enforced some unusually good practices, enforcing a data escrow model managed by a global non-profit.
1. The proposal research declared in advance along with methodology
2. Measures of success for the outcome declared
3. Data gathering protocol established and reviewed
4. Data stored in a non-modifiable blockchain with open access to peer review
5. Analytic formulas and application stored for open review
6. Outcomes stored in escrow
7. Peer reviews stored
8. Ability to run an independent analysis on the entire set of research and store the result with the data.
It avoids a number of traps
- You can’t start down research path A, find it was a failure and try to Cherry-Pick B
- You can’t change goalposts
- There is no dispute on ethically sourced and soundly managed data
- Nobody has to ask a researcher for data, and it’s mathematically impossible for the data to be retrospectively modified
- Non-standard or incorrect formulas for calculations can be easily identified
- Outcomes versions are unalterable, but allow for corrections
- Peer reviews are stored and cannot be hidden once asked for
- Independent statistical and other assessments can be run and stored without modification with research outcomes
So if you did ethical research and found that the actual suicide rate for dysphoric children was 4:15000, and independent mathematical rating of the study was tier-1 quality and it met all methodology, ethical and design goals, it could forever be called something like a “Tier 1” when cited, in the title.
If you did a poorly designed study with clearly falsified data, and biased calculations, the study would be forever branded “False” and Named so, and be prevented from being used by citation without “False” or “null” or other branding in the title by copyright.
Organizations which used studies deemed False would not be allowed to use real Tier 1 studies in publication, and could be sued for copyright infringement for publishing False studies without attribution.
A study deemed false or forged could be elevated with corrections to data, but they would be additions to, not substitutions of. The history would be carried forever with the study.
That way falsified, inconclusive, unethical, poor quality and other studies could be identified easily, and legally be prevented from misuse. They could be cited verbally of course, but not in writing.
“Meta” studies could proceed as usual, but now easily weed out false information.
Thanks so much for this, really opens a window onto the pitfalls and at the same time shows how a good review system can be built. I am curious, also, to know if this was put into practice anywhere.
As the Bush snr era drug prohibition advertisements advised - Just Say No medical professionals to prescribing Testosterone to women without contraception.
DES is the precedent: exogenous hormone with substantial effects on babies in utero and even into the 2nd generation. Babies are not support animals to your ridiculous 'opposite of reality' self concept. You are not a fit parent if you do not prioritize the wellbeing of the baby.
For a long time now, I have been wondering when managed care coordinators in the US and Canada would do an actuarial assessment of the cost of trans surgery. Perhaps because the number of trans people who undergo full surgical transition is low, we haven't heard about this and it has not, as yet, had a huge impact on the financial solvency of the healthcare system.
When I was pregnant with my daughter, I was extremely nauseous for the first five months. There were only a few medications that had been authorized to treat this. Like all women, I was repeatedly told not to drink alcohol, not even half a glass of wine, while pregnant and breast feeding.
I read the paper under discussion. I don't want to get into the details of the paper here except to say that while they agree that birth abnormalities may occur, they argue that regardless of the possible side effects on their babies, it is prejudicial to trans men to stop them from taking androgens while pregnant.
The known effects on pregnancy and fetal development of taking the level of androgens that trans men normally take:
Abnormal placental development
Preterm birth
Fetal urogenital and intersex conditions
Metabolic dysfunction
Autism
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
This seems like quite a long list. Apart from the ethical questions of deliberately exposing a developing fetus to these risks, there will invariably be an uptick in medical costs. Moreover, many of these trans men will come to deeply regret their decision to take androgens while pregnant once they are forced to turn their whole lives upside down to care for a child with a severe developmental abnormality like autism.
I wonder if the authors on this paper have ever had to take care of a child with autism or a child that has been born at extreme prematurity. Some of the babies born by trans men taking androgens will be normal. Prediction: those will be the stories written up glowingly in the press. The trans men struggling with developmentally abnormal babies and children will be banished from the popular discussion about trans men and the risks of taking androgens while pregnant.
Meanwhile, most women are still asked to not drink alcohol during pregnancy, and I haven't seen any papers saying that the birth defects caused by drinking alcohol while pregnant are no big deal.
Marnie: what you have written here is extremely valuable, and so clearly stated. This is exactly the kind of discussion that needs to be had.
Thanks, Susan.
I read the article yesterday, and yours today. TBH, the trouble that I have is that this is so appalling and makes me so angry, it makes me want to disengage and say, “Fuck it. If this is really want you want, go ahead. Let us all know how that turns out in 10 or 20 years.”
I know that’s not a remedy. But honest to God, how can all the Trans Nonsense continue to have legions of supporters when the conversation goes in this direction? Won’t this just pique/peak everybody?
I share your frustration completely! What I find with so many friends/neighbors/acquaintances who have not done their own homework (even with many prompts from me :)) is that they continue to rely on "progressive" MSM (eg, Rachel Maddow) and "experts" like Rachel Levine. Getting past all that continues to be a vertical climb, which is why I admire so much the tremendous hard and good work of Kara and others to get the word out as broadly as possible.
Androgen can lead to birth defects It's on the warning label of the medication.
and maybe they'd even LIKE the baby to be affected later- they may be more likely to grow up different/ trans/ non-binary / woteva... (heartless and cynical, as all their ideology is...)
Marnie,
Your point about women and alcohol consumption during pregnancy, and the stunning contrast with this issue, is excellent and extremely thought-provoking.
Testosterone is a “teratogentic”. It induces unnatural deformities in children. Thalidomide was also a teratogenic. Here’s an image of what these children had to deal with. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal#/media/File%3AArtificial_limbs_for_a_thalidomide_child%2C_1961-1965._(9660575567).jpg
As I stated on Reality’s Last Stand, manipulating children’s genitals are the stock in trade of current transsexualism. I recommend reading Lynn Conways glowing description of children forced to have their genitals in their entirety surgically removed at quite a young age in India to see the thinking a “transsexual activist”.
After reading what Kara wrote, I tried again to read the article. Kara is 💯 right about its importance and the importance of highlighting this issue wherever it appears. That said, I failed again the read the entire article, not because I didn’t want to, but because I couldn’t understand most of the detail. I hope, going forward, others will be able to communicate about this issue on a less technical, more general public level. (This is NOT a criticism of the article itself, I have only applause for this clearly thoughtful, detailed effort to raise highlight this issue.)
Reality's Last Stand had a superb overview piece on the issue of "queering" medicine last month. Here it is: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/a-pediatricians-manifesto-for-the
Also, re the article Kara writes about here, among other things I am interested in learning more on the topic of “queering” medicine are the below:
>The Reality’s Last Stand piece notes: “The authors, a group of transgender sociologists and enthusiasts, and healthcare activists, with not one medical degree among them.” This leads me to ask:
1) what are the bona fides of journal are they writing in?
2) are articles in the journal subject to peer review, and if so, who are considered peers and what is the process?
3) is it possible to rebut the article within that particular journal, and, if so, has anyone made that effort?
Other questions include:
>How widespread is this phenomenon already?
>Has anyone tried to do a review of the literature for journal articles of this type? (I recall, as one example, seeing an article in the premiere journal of oncology (ASCO) by self-described “queer oncologists.” The authors, among other things, specifically proposed “eliminating sex from our conceptual framework of bodies and disease.” https://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/JCO.22.02037)
There is a desperate need for more short-form articles aimed at the general public explaining this phenomenon and showing how widespread it is. For example, just now, when I went to ASCO to find the link above, I saw a plethora of titles that could be additional articles “queering” medicine.
This happens very frequently now (“ultracrepidanarianism” - type that on an iPhone!) particularly with non-physicians pretending to be physicians. A terrible example is “Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD” from Stanford who pushed the idea that basically nobody should do anything about Covid, or that everyone had already been infected (April 2020). Terrible. It’s critical to look at who is writing and ask why nowadays. The barrier entry on published opinion on things medical is very very low.
Thanks for that info and insight! Coincidentally, just yesterday, Eric Topol sent out this article on shoddy/fabricated studies: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02299-w
I worked on a proposal 4-5 years ago with Australian Academic institutions which would have enforced some unusually good practices, enforcing a data escrow model managed by a global non-profit.
1. The proposal research declared in advance along with methodology
2. Measures of success for the outcome declared
3. Data gathering protocol established and reviewed
4. Data stored in a non-modifiable blockchain with open access to peer review
5. Analytic formulas and application stored for open review
6. Outcomes stored in escrow
7. Peer reviews stored
8. Ability to run an independent analysis on the entire set of research and store the result with the data.
It avoids a number of traps
- You can’t start down research path A, find it was a failure and try to Cherry-Pick B
- You can’t change goalposts
- There is no dispute on ethically sourced and soundly managed data
- Nobody has to ask a researcher for data, and it’s mathematically impossible for the data to be retrospectively modified
- Non-standard or incorrect formulas for calculations can be easily identified
- Outcomes versions are unalterable, but allow for corrections
- Peer reviews are stored and cannot be hidden once asked for
- Independent statistical and other assessments can be run and stored without modification with research outcomes
So if you did ethical research and found that the actual suicide rate for dysphoric children was 4:15000, and independent mathematical rating of the study was tier-1 quality and it met all methodology, ethical and design goals, it could forever be called something like a “Tier 1” when cited, in the title.
If you did a poorly designed study with clearly falsified data, and biased calculations, the study would be forever branded “False” and Named so, and be prevented from being used by citation without “False” or “null” or other branding in the title by copyright.
Organizations which used studies deemed False would not be allowed to use real Tier 1 studies in publication, and could be sued for copyright infringement for publishing False studies without attribution.
A study deemed false or forged could be elevated with corrections to data, but they would be additions to, not substitutions of. The history would be carried forever with the study.
That way falsified, inconclusive, unethical, poor quality and other studies could be identified easily, and legally be prevented from misuse. They could be cited verbally of course, but not in writing.
“Meta” studies could proceed as usual, but now easily weed out false information.
I don’t know where the proposal ended up.
Thanks so much for this, really opens a window onto the pitfalls and at the same time shows how a good review system can be built. I am curious, also, to know if this was put into practice anywhere.
As the Bush snr era drug prohibition advertisements advised - Just Say No medical professionals to prescribing Testosterone to women without contraception.