The New California Republic wrote:Proctopeo wrote:They're not as reversible as typically advertised, given that puberty is a complicated process that can't effectively be replicated with drugs.
Well, that and the severe bone issues.
Actually, any link between puberty blockers and bone density issues is unclear:
In both cases (height and bone strength) there was some growth but less than would be expected during those years without hormonal suppression. There was no loss of bone density over the study period and the expectation is that the resumption of growth on both counts would be achieved when puberty resumed either naturally or via cross-sex hormones administered from 16. Further papers on bone strength have been published (inc. by some of the authors) supporting this hypothesis though research into long-term bone mass density recovery on this treatment pathway is underway.
https://tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/abou ... -patients/
So the bone density effects appear to be temporary. On the basis of what that is saying, it'd likely only become an issue if a person transitioning was
permanently on puberty blockers, but that's something that doesn't happen, as it'd be nonsensical.
I'd seen this study mentioned while I was looking up the topic; specifically that Tavistock was slow to release the data.
I'd also like to point out two things here:
1.
As anticipated, pubertal suppression reduced growth affecting both height and bone mass density. In both cases (height and bone strength) there was some growth but less than would be expected during those years without hormonal suppression.
Puberty is a period of significant bone density increase; this suggests that while
absolute bone density didn't decrease, relative bone density (that is, compared to peers) did. Since bone density growth is by far the most efficient during periods of rapid growth, this realistically cannot be fully compensated for; this is why the answer to any sort of bone atrophy disease (such as osteoporosis, which this is increased risk factor for!) isn't megadoses of calcium. It's notable that this result is
expected; they knew they would find that bone mass density doesn't increase as quickly with puberty suppressed.
They also mention reduced height gain. While even less reversible, it's much more an annoyance than it is any sort of health risk.
2.
I can't help but feel as if there's a conflict of interest in this study. The NHS Gender Identity Development Service has been experiencing several particular problems in the past few years, much of it connected to the use of this specific drug. After parents expressed concern with the incredible rate at which diagnoses were given and drugs were administered, an internal review was commissioned and finalized in February 2019. The report echoed the same concerns, and went further to state that this irresponsible expediency was the product of extreme pressure from transgender rights groups, and that experimental hormone therapy (such as puberty blockers) should be suspended until the outcomes are better understood. Since the report, 35 psychologists have resigned, including six who cited an "over-diagnosis" of gender dysphoria. And this is then compounded by a lawsuit that actually suspended the prescription of said drugs to under-16s (which is the one that got overturned
literally yesterday, potentially influenced by this very study).
All the motivation to find beneficial results existed; the methods are well-documented, and certainly well-known to anyone involved in statistics. Scruples and ethics are both spooks, and easily set aside in the case of personal gain, or mounting pressure from interest groups. While the data was collected before GIDS fell under intense scrutiny, the study being published well
afterwards makes this irrelevant. It is peer-reviewed, but as it seems likely that there's not too many difference between America and Britain in terms of colleges and related institutions, they're likely in a similar sorry state (t. Sokal Squared) and thus their rubber-stamp is irrelevant as well.
I'd like to see Tavistock's raw, unmolested data as well as their exact results, so I can figure out what they did to get from point A to B. I'll try and look for that material tomorrow, maybe, if I decide to care.
Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:30 pm
