There's this tendency to overstate the rigor of the Dutch protocol so that you can say: that's the gold standard but we're not following it and also *these* kids are different.

It makes you sound so reasonable! And these kids *are* different than previous cohorts. But it was also wrong to transition *those* kids and it wasn't rigorous. It was a small study that used hocus-pocus to justify the experiment it ran on kids, many of whom were just gay.
The Dutch clinicians were at WPATH in September, presenting the results of their longitudinal study. And they had the most remarkable incuriosity about what they were doing that I've ever observed up close.
They said they were interested in whether patients they had transitioned as children and teens continued to identify as "binary trans" or whether their identities were now more "fluid."
They reported 18% of children & 31% of teens experienced “multiple attenuations” of their gender identity -- a meaningless term that conveniently lumps trans/nonbinary identification together with detransition so that there are no detrans numbers to point to.
They reported cheerily on the profusion of gender identities their patients had adopted over the years, from "elf" to "fairy" to "friendly non-intimidating woman" (???) and also "some" patients detransitioned.
Of the patients they actually managed to follow up with, more than one in four (27%) said they found it "troublesome" that gender transition had rendered them infertile.
But the future is so tricky! Who can predict it? *Least* of all clinicians who shrink their patients' horizons...
And now, years later, surrounded by evidence of regret and harm, they joke that they're "not really interested in prediction." One researcher said "I can predict how I’ll feel in one minute—still nervous!—but I cannot predict how I will feel tomorrow.” The audience laughed.
But it's not funny. This is an adult in a conference room joking that she has no idea how she'll feel tomorrow—after all, anything could happen between now and then!—to gloss over evidence that children and teens can't consent to sign away the rest of their lives.
I think about this episode of @widerlenspod every day because Steensma and De Vries sound like they're from outer space and have never interacted with humans before, because Sasha & Stella are prompting them to plumb depths they've never even considered.
https://t.co/6VuqDTfIdD
At a conference that so often devolved into sheer insanity (endorsing 'gender-affirming care' for eunuchs and people who claim multiple personalities), this session was restrained and reasonable-sounding. That's why it was so chilling.
All around the world, gender clinicians look to the Dutch. And the Dutch have no idea what they're doing and they never did and they never will.
Circumstances outside of their control are forcing them to talk about regret and detransition and all they can come up with is: "Respecting someone's autonomy also includes that the person has the right to make a decision which they may later regret." https://t.co/BUFuCaExZj
If they were talking about regretted tattoos, I'd agree. But they're talking about irreversible interventions with lifelong consequences that they carried out on minors under the banner of medicine.
Of course, they'd rather talk about patient autonomy than medical responsibility. They refuse to translate "some patients changed their minds later/experienced multiple attenuations of their gender" (autonomy framework) into "we harmed patients" (medical responsibility framework)
If clinicians like them are allowed to control the conversation about regret and detransition, then that conversation will be about autonomy (mistakes were made but not by me!).
For those of us who are concerned about patients being harmed by 'gender-affirming care,' we musn't reinforce the respectability of these clinicians by putting the Dutch protocol on a pedestal. They must go down with the care model they pioneered and spread around the world.
https://t.co/y2V3e8BQYC
I think about that a lot, too. They had such bargain-basement expectations for their patients. Why would we expect these people to have meaningful relationships, be happy in their bodies that we altered because they were unhappy in their bodies, etc.?
They acted like it was unfair to expect better outcomes -- by which I mean, they acted like it was *unfair to the clinicians,* not unfair to the patients.
Instead, we get these odd disquisitions on "regret" (safely contained in air quotes). What does it mean if a patient "regrets" medically unnecessary and life-altering/life-limiting surgeries and hormone regimens?
De Vries and Steensma want us to unpack our ideas about what "regret" means. It's "too binary" to say a patient "regrets" or doesn't regret surgery.

Maybe we just need to 'queer' our concept of what a good medical outcome is!
If you went down a medical pathway and lost your fertility along the way and 10 or 15 years later, that's "troublesome" to you -- wasn't that just part of your "gender journey"? Your process of self-discovery?
Yet those of us who insist that people with gender dysphoria deserve to live full lives and that doctors shouldn't circumscribe children's futures by medically experimenting on them are the baddies. Make it make sense.

More from All

Master Thread of all my threads!

Hello!! 👋

• I have curated some of the best tweets from the best traders we know of.

• Making one master thread and will keep posting all my threads under this.

• Go through this for super learning/value totally free of cost! 😃

1. 7 FREE OPTION TRADING COURSES FOR


2. THE ABSOLUTE BEST 15 SCANNERS EXPERTS ARE USING

Got these scanners from the following accounts:

1. @Pathik_Trader
2. @sanjufunda
3. @sanstocktrader
4. @SouravSenguptaI
5. @Rishikesh_ADX


3. 12 TRADING SETUPS which experts are using.

These setups I found from the following 4 accounts:

1. @Pathik_Trader
2. @sourabhsiso19
3. @ITRADE191
4.


4. Curated tweets on HOW TO SELL STRADDLES.

Everything covered in this thread.
1. Management
2. How to initiate
3. When to exit straddles
4. Examples
5. Videos on

You May Also Like

The first ever world map was sketched thousands of years ago by Indian saint
“Ramanujacharya” who simply translated the following verse from Mahabharat and gave the world its real face

In Mahabharat,it is described how 'Maharishi Ved Vyasa' gave away his divine vision to Sanjay


Dhritarashtra's charioteer so that he could describe him the events of the upcoming war.

But, even before questions of war could begin, Dhritarashtra asked him to describe how the world looks like from space.

This is how he described the face of the world:

सुदर्शनं प्रवक्ष्यामि द्वीपं तु कुरुनन्दन। परिमण्डलो महाराज द्वीपोऽसौ चक्रसंस्थितः॥
यथा हि पुरुषः पश्येदादर्शे मुखमात्मनः। एवं सुदर्शनद्वीपो दृश्यते चन्द्रमण्डले॥ द्विरंशे पिप्पलस्तत्र द्विरंशे च शशो महान्।

—वेद व्यास, भीष्म पर्व, महाभारत


Meaning:-

हे कुरुनन्दन ! सुदर्शन नामक यह द्वीप चक्र की भाँति गोलाकार स्थित है, जैसे पुरुष दर्पण में अपना मुख देखता है, उसी प्रकार यह द्वीप चन्द्रमण्डल में दिखायी देता है। इसके दो अंशो मे पीपल और दो अंशो मे विशाल शश (खरगोश) दिखायी देता है।


Meaning: "Just like a man sees his face in the mirror, so does the Earth appears in the Universe. In the first part you see leaves of the Peepal Tree, and in the next part you see a Rabbit."

Based on this shloka, Saint Ramanujacharya sketched out the map, but the world laughed