September 8, 2014
In the UK, Children as young as three years of age are now being admitted to state medical clinics for “corrective treatment” of sex-role noncompliance, with the aim of upholding social norms of gender and to prevent the development of “visibly transgendered” adults. Such treatments involve administration of drugs which halt normal child development (“Puberty Blockers”) followed by the lifetime administration of cross-sex hormones, resulting in sterilization. In the US, the first federally-funded state eugenics program in over thirty years will be launched in Oregon on October 1, 2014, specifically targeting pre-pubertal children deemed by parents and providers to be “transgender”. Surgeons now routinely perform complete “Sexual Reassignment Surgeries”: removing the genitals and reproductive systems of children as young as sixteen.
The following are excerpts from an interview featured in this month’s issue of LGBT Health Journal, discussing the “Current Practice and Future Possibilities” of sterilized transgender children:
“Dr. Eyler: So there are treatments for trans adults who want to become parents. Would the two of you like to discuss the needs of transgender youth, particularly children who may not complete pubertal development in the natal sex, and possibilities for future fertility for them?
Dr. Pang: My experience has been only with postpubertal individuals. The youngest transgender person whom I have treated was 22 years old, so I do not have any experience with children who are either early postpubertal or prepubertal. I think that more transgender young people are becoming interested in potentially being parents. Last year, I was contacted by the mother of a transgender teenager, a 15-year-old transgender son. Her son is interested in fertility preservation; they had questions so I explained to them what it would involve. The technologies that I have to offer are useful only for postpubertal youth, such as someone his age, but I am sure that you, Anderson, might have ideas about how to help prepubertal children.
Dr. Clark: In the trans community, more and more trans youth are being treated at younger ages, such as at Dr. Norman Spack’s clinic at Children’s Hospital in Boston. Some gender variant children are treated with puberty suspending medications, GnRH analogs, similar to the treatment of children who are experiencing precocious puberty. This keeps them from going through the full puberty of the birth sex, spares them from developing secondary sex characteristics that are misaligned with their psychological gender, and gives them some time to mature.
Dr. Eyler: Cognitively and emotionally.
Dr. Clark: Yes, to be able to decide, when they get older, whether they want to medically transition. Some gender variant children are not actually transsexual or transgender as such, and will eventually decide to stop treatment and experience the puberty of the birth sex. Others, with the support of their parents and clinical team, find that they need cross-sex hormone treatments to proceed with the puberty that is aligned with their gender.
The Endocrine Society Guidelines1 support puberty-suppressing treatment beginning as early as Tanner (sexual maturity rating) stage 2, so this can precede significant hormonal and sexual development. Some adolescents, therefore, don’t develop the ability to produce viable gametes (eggs and sperm). Adolescent trans girls may lose fertility from estrogen treatment, even if they developed the ability to produce sperm before this was started. When they reach the age of majority, trans youth may also proceed with gender-affirming surgery that includes removal of the gonads.
For children and young adolescents, it is often the parents who are thinking about future reproductive capacity, because they would like the possibility of grandchildren, and because they are looking after the future interests of their children. When I speak at community conferences, they often come to ask about reproductive options for their children.
Dr. Eyler: Yes, and as a biologist, you are prepared to discuss the significance of the gametes not maturing and what future reproduction might involve.
Dr. Clark: Yes. The most applicable research has been performed on behalf of children who are treated for cancer and are rendered infertile. The Society for the Preservation of Fertility focuses on the needs of both postpubertal and prepubertal youth who may experience sterility from cancer treatments.
August 22, 2014
Denver State Women’s Wellness Center now to offer cervical cancer screenings to men who feel like they are female
April 3, 2014
“DENVER — A state-run women’s wellness program now provides breast and cervical cancer screenings for transgender women, announced the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Wednesday.”
UK “Transgender Chicken Circuit” pre-teen Leo Waddell denied puberty blockers: Doc says long term effects unknown
September 10, 2013
12 year old Leo (formerly Lily) Waddell’s hopes were put on hold last week in her bid to become one of the rarest of breeds: a marketable female “transgender child”. Leo and her hairdresser mother Hayley have been making the rounds in the UK this year publicizing the child’s transgenderism and her participation in another rare breed: an experimental program of chemical castration for gender nonconforming children using “puberty blockers”.
Why, what’s so rare about that, the reader asks? Dutch clinics do this, Australian clinics. In the US there are such clinics in Boston and Los Angeles and Chicago and at least a dozen other places. In the US there are doctors like Dr. Michelle Forcier in Rhode Island who will even wave all psychological evaluation for these kids, and surgeons like Dr. Beverly Fischer who perform “sex-change” surgery on children as young as twelve. Administering chemical castration to gender nonconforming children is a gosh-darn bonafide medical trend, a tsunami, the reader exclaims!
Well, here’s the difference. It’s all in the word “experimental”. For something to be experimental, data has to be collected about the subject. Unlike all those other clinics who are administering drugs to stop the growth of children’s sex organs the one in the UK, -funded by the National Health Service- claims to be actually keeping records of the experiments they are doing on children. None of the other physicians administering these off-label unapproved drugs have bothered. Dr. Marvin Belzer who oversees the pediatric transgender clinic at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles says he was “too busy treating” the children and “never had the time to do the research”. None of the children who have been subjected to these treatments have been followed into adulthood, nor the results of such treatments tracked, even though they have been going on for nearly two decades. No follow-up data of any kind, physiological or psychological, has ever been collected.
The problem with medical data collection and oversight is that it tends to introduce accountability: the dreaded paper trail. Which is what inconvenienced our twelve-year-old friend Leo last week when her mother approached her family doctor to administer the experimental pre-pubertal chemical castration injections. Her physician performed due diligence and researched the medication. What she found is that the long-term effects of puberty blockers have never been studied. The manufacturers of the medication warn that the long-term effect on children is unknown. Side effects can be profound, disabling, and irreversible. Transgender activist and Philadelphia Trans Health 2012 keynote speaker Ryan Cassata reports becoming so violently ill on the medication that she was forced to abandon “treatment”. Leo’s doctor reached the reasonable clinical conclusion based on this information and protected the health of her patient by not administering the medication. Leo and her mother went to the news media. To the Mirror. To the Mail. To the daytime TV talk circuit.
From the Mirror:
Leo, who underwent extensive psychological and hormone tests before being prescribed the medication, would have been one of the youngest in the UK to receive the drug. But his family doctor refused to give him the injections because she did not know how they would affect Leo in later years.
Leo from Lowestoft, Suffolk, said: “I’m devastated. This was the one thing that would’ve made a massive difference to me and it’s been taken away.”
Mum Hayley, 48, also slammed the GP’s refusal. She said: “We asked why and she said because she didn’t know anything about the long-term effects.
“But that’s why they’re researching it. Leo has a disorder, and needs treatment. He’s been showing signs of puberty for a while now and it’s upsetting for him. He needs to have treatment.”
Hayley is now approaching other surgeries in the hope of finding one to give Leo the monthly injections.
The Sunday Mirror revealed earlier this year how Leo was to take part in the study by University College London Hospital and the specialist Tavistock and Portman clinic in West London.
In a statement, Leo’s GP Dr Jennie Morrison said: “I have had no previous experience of administering this specialist medication to young people and have already sought advice from my prescribing authority.
“Any clinical decision I make always gives consideration to every aspect of the patient’s wellbeing. My priority has always been, and continues to be, the welfare of the patient.”
The Tavistock and Portman clinic said: “We respect different views, which have at their heart a concern for the long-term welfare of young people.”
You may or may not have noticed that although females comprise the majority of children being administered off-use maturity-stopping puberty blockers, the females themselves hold little celebrity cache on what transsexual BenGirl blogger Elizabeth calls “the Transgender Chicken Circuit”. Marketable “transgender children” are almost solely male. Female (F2T) representation seems to dilute the popular narrative. Jazz, Coy Mathis, Nicole Maines, “My Princess Boy” : all male. Girls who want to wear pants and have adventures and avoid being raped are a dime a dozen and they are not a marketable commodity.
The “Transgender Chicken Circuit”, for the uninformed, is a patchwork of media appearances, news and feature articles, talk shows, documentaries, convention and seminar appearances that savvy parents can weave together into a modest cottage industry of transgender child celebrity. Think of it as a Munchausen-marinated transgender version of “Toddlers and Tiaras” whose fans are aging cross-dressing male autogynephiles in possession of both a wistful longing for an unexperienced girlhood, and a generous disposable income. These men are the funders of the agencies and lobbying groups promoting the medicalization of childhood gender nonconformity. The best known example is billionaire financeer and lifelong closeted crossdresser (and father of three) James “Jennifer Natalya” Pritzker whose Tawani Foundation single-handedly funds the experimental pediatric transgender drug clinic at Children’s Hospital of Chicago.
There is a disturbing element of pedophilia exhibited by many “fans” of the “Transgender Chicken Circuit,” as evidenced by plentiful transgender adult male YouTube channels featuring dozens of videos of these children, creepy-ass fetishized “fan sites”, and expensive glossy coffee table photography books of the sort that would get Calvin Klein into trouble. Add the transgender pornography sites which track the children’s “progress” and it’s pretty clear that sexualizing these children is a large part of their marketability.
Leo is due to star in an upcoming documentary funded by her mother Hayley under the “MyGenderation” imprimatur owned by transgender reality show “star” Raphael Fox . The pre-teen disturbingly brands herself as “Leo Sexy Waddell” on her Facebook page.
Beyond the overt pedophilia, and the marketing of a fetishized version of “girlhood” to adult male fantasists, the transgender movement “needs” to create transgender children (as activist Autumn Sandeen has explained) to “take the sex out” of the transgender equation whose most dominant practitioners are adult male sexual fetishists. But perhaps the most important reason to impose transgender labels onto children is to publicize a “born this way” narrative like the one the gay liberation movement used to pacify critics.
The transgender politic supports, celebrates and covets sex-based social stereotypes, a value undermined by their own sex being in opposition to the role they wish to occupy. The only solution to this dissonance is to frame sex-based social stereotypes as innate but reproductive sex itself as malleable. Transgender activists forward the pseudoscience of “brain sex” to posit sex stereotypes as inborn and have tried to co-opt the experiences of child victims of reproductive birth anomalies (“intersex”) to destabilize the concept of human reproductive dimorphism. Intersex activists invented terms like “assigned male at birth” to discuss the medical procedures performed on them as infants. The transgender movement colonized the experiences of intersex children and adopted these terms for themselves, insisting that having ones gonads surgically altered or mutilated in infancy is the identical experience that every healthy child goes through every time their reproductive sex is identified.
Intersex activists have for decades resisted attempts by the transgender movement to use the experiences of children born with disorders of sexual development as correlative evidence of an inborn defect causing certain men to experience sexual excitement by inhabiting a female sexual “object” or “form”. Harry Benjamin, the “father of transsexualism” claimed that transvestitism, transsexuality, and homosexuality all result from unidentified developmental disorders of the reproductive system (Of course, he also believed irradiating women’s sex organs would “rejuvinate” them, among other things.) Intersex advocates have been forced to withdraw from and disband their own organizations, even cease using the word “intersex” in order to prevent their programs from being colonized by the transgender movement’s bid for “born this way” legitimacy. They ultimately succeeded (mostly) in divorcing themselves from trans rhetoric due to the fact that their movement goals are increasingly in opposition to that of the trans politic. The intersex/DSD movement lobbies AGAINST nonessential medical treatment on children designed to cosmetically “normalize” their gender before the age of consent. Their philosophy OPPOSES the very concept of “congruity” between cosmetic biological sex morphology and social gender role that is the core value of the transgender movement. This year the DSD movement saw the United Nations declare that medicalization to promote gender “congruity” is a human rights crime against children. Last month a ruling in the US opened the door for cases involving the medical treatment of sex/gender incongruity in children to be tried on the basis that such treatments infringe the constitutional rights of a dependent population. Which is exactly opposite to the aims of the transgender politic.
With the failure of the transgender movement to destabilize reproductive dimorphism in the public sphere by relating their experiences to the experiences of children with DSD the trans lobby attached themselves to the very same population the gay movement had used to gain “born this way” legitimacy: lesbian and gay children. Sixty years of research shows that the largest demographic of transgenders- heterosexual men- are in no way gender-nonconforming as children. Gay kids are. You won’t see adorable pictures of these heterosexual transgender men as toddlers wearing tiaras and being fabulous. Their “gender identity” started at puberty with an erection while wearing mother’s panties. Such men have little interest in the concerns of girls like Leo but they will use them to promote the “Born This Way” meme when they can.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has never issued any resource documents, treatment guidelines, or position statements on transgenderism since they inserted transgenderism as a pathological diagnosis into their DSM following the de-pathologization of homosexuality over thirty years ago.
Although the diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder was created by the APA and the practice of medicalizing social sex roles is largely carried out on the authority of the APA’s professional membership, up until this point the psychiatric establishment has deferred to WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health).
WPATH guidelines for psychiatric/medical/surgical “treatment” of “gender” have never been based on any research or study into the treatments they advocate. Instead, the guidelines were created by those interested in making a living off the burgeoning gender treatment market. As the practice of genderiam explodes in popularity (some clinics showing a doubling of business ANNUALLY) tension between the APA and WPATH has grown.
In April 2011 the APA formed a Task Force to evaluate transgenderism and issue recommendations for the formation of the APA’s own treatment guidelines and resources, which would remove APA members from practicing under WPATH guidelines and introduce professional standards based on actual medical research. WPATH responded to APA concerns (and the impending breach in WPATH authority) by attempting for the first time to attach research citations to the most recent version of their treatment guidelines (version 7), issued in September 2011. [PDF here: http://www.wpath.org/documents/Standards%20of%20Care%20V7%20-%202011%20WPATH.pdf%5D
As expected, the updated WPATH standards of care guide offered no pretense of objectivity or professionalism and reads as more of a genderist political manifesto. Citations attached were cherry-picked to support the WPATH political platform, many attached haphazardly. Indeed, WPATH 7 even uses previous (scientifically unsupported) versions of it’s own guidelines as a citation supporting the new ones! Kind of a big no-no. WPATH’s badly implemented strategy to introduce citations was inadequate to halt the momentum of the APA Task Force’s move to break from WPATH’s authority.
The APA Task Force issued their findings Monday in the 28 page “Report of the American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity Disorder” that you can access as either HTML or downloadable PDF here:
Here are a few random excerpts followed by the Task Force recommendations:
December 3, 2011
I got the following message from TYFA’s Director Kim Pearson yesterday. It was such an alarming comment that I thought I would respond to it in a post. Trans Youth Family Allies is an organization dedicated to promoting medicalized transsexualization before the age of informed consent on minor children who don’t conform to sex-roles, even though all research shows that 97% of children who present for professional intervention for gender dysphoria distress-if left alone- grow up to be happy, healthy non-gender dysphoric adults (often, but not always, gay or lesbian).
Ms. Pearson advocates injecting these pre-pubertal children with experimental drugs that suppress puberty, followed by synthetic hormone treatments designed to sterilize the children before sexual maturation. Absent all scientific evidence, she believes that children who reject their assigned sex roles have been born with a congenital birth defect of the brain. Since there is no scientific evidence of such a brain defect, and thus no “cure” for one, she promotes medical sterilization, lifetime disability and drug dependence, and radical plastic surgery treatments for these formerly-healthy children. The organization is funded by adult transsexuals. Here is her comment and my reply:
Thank you all so very much for spreading the word about our organization; for raising our profile on the internet and driving hits to our website. There are many many families out there who will read what you write and be frightened and others who see through you and find the compassion and support they need with TYFA. The attempted suicide rate among transgender folks is 41%; in the general population 1.6%; in families supported by TYFA…LESS THAN 1.5%. Entertain the possibility that we are providing unconditional love and compassionate support to an under-served and misunderstood community.
Hi Kim. I’m glad you approve of my posts about TYFA, particularly since they’ve been quite critical of your program. You offered no critique nor dispute of anything stated in the post you commented on, which I take to mean that you confirm the accuracy of my report. As for your assertion that the facts as reported will “frighten” the families of gender rebellious children, I have to disagree. I don’t think the families of these children are as “frightful” as you seem to think they are. At least here on my site, the families of gender-nonconforming children are intelligent, inquisitive, concerned, and perfectly capable of doing their own research and making up their own minds. Perhaps things are different on your site. The families that click on my “transgender children” tag and read the relevant posts, and follow the references and links to supportive data are doing their homework, researching the facts, and making their own informed decisions, not cowering fearfully. Knowledge is power. From the feedback I’ve gotten from families- the more information the better. I notice your site does not cite any supportive data or research, so perhaps folks are different over at your place.
The only “compassion and support” I see you offering is the “support” of reparative treatment designed to promote sex-role conformity: experimental medical regimes that cause lifetime irreversible sterility, drug dependence, and physical disability, as outlined in the intro to this post, for kids whose parents are struggling, adjusting and looking for ways to be supportive of their kids just the way they are. Radical drug and surgical “correction” seems a heck of a way to support kids to be themselves.
Speaking of frightening the parents of gender non-conforming children, what I find so astounding about your comment are your suicide statistics. I know you’ve refused to cite any data backing up the claims you make in your “educational” presentations to church groups, and you have declined to reveal any source for the extremely controversial assertions you make about child development (assertions that run in opposition to all published research). You claim your mystical contrarian data will be revealed only after scientific bodies will support it (even though you have not ever submitted such data to any scientific board).
I’m addressing your comment here because I’m sure it’s in the best interest of all concerned if we deal in facts when presenting data, and I’d like to provide you with an opportunity to correct the inaccuracy of the statistics you have used in your comment here and elsewhere. Unless your intent is to deliberately distort the facts I am sure you will correct this information the next time you “educate” the public about the suicide attempt rates of children in your program.
We know that there are around 390 million people living in the United States, and that there are around 38,000 completed suicides annually. About one in 10,260 people commit suicide annually (0.0097 of the US population).
There is no reliable data available on the prevalence of suicide attempts, but there are estimates. The National Institute of Mental Health estimates that for every suicide there are 11 attempted suicides. The CDC places that estimate at 25 attempts per completed suicide. So we can say that the estimated rate of attempted suicides relative to the 38,000 completed suicides is estimated to be 418,000 to 950,000 annually. This means that between one in 933 people, to one in 411 people are estimated to attempt suicide annually in the United States. (0.107 – 0.24 % of the US population are estimated to attempt suicide annually). These estimates are a far cry from the numbers you claimed as fact. The attempted suicide rate that you cited for the children in the TYFA program (1.5%) would be an incredibly high rate compared to the general population (0.107-0.24%).
I’m interested to know how you calculated your numbers of estimated suicide attempts for the general population and especially for the minor children you claim to be representing. Perhaps you were estimating the lifetime rate of suicide attempts, but since the CDC estimates the lifetime suicide attempt rate in the US to be 4.6% I don’t see how you arrived at your estimated figures which by any measure are in stark disagreement with any estimates that anyone else is proposing. If you are attempting to calculate lifetime attempt rates of a small group of children, then those lifetime rates should be far lower than the national lifetime average since the lifespan you are measuring is much shorter than the average US lifespan, which according to the CDC is now 77.9 years. In fact comparison of such a lifetime attempt rate between those who have lived 12 years and those who have lived 77.9 would be essentially meaningless, even if your control number for the average lifetime attempt rate wasn’t completely inaccurate. Which it unquestionably is. Any lifetime average for children should be far lower than lifetime averages for the general population.
I can’t find anyone, worldwide, presenting anything close to your 1.6% figure except one solitary source: The trans-activist group behind the “Injustice at Every Turn” report, which conducted internet polls and tried to pass them off as data. And they cited a source which contradicts that statistic completely. Incredibly sloppy and inaccurate false data that contradicts all known research to such a great degree that one questions whether it was simply a matter of incompetent, inept miscalculation. Child suicides are nothing to play fast and loose with. Dead children are not just “statistics” to be fudged.
I’m very interested to see where you find the calculations of the CDC and NIMH to be incorrect. I’m sure you wouldn’t just make things up out of thin air (?) -so if we could all see where these numbers come from it would be an excellent learning experience for us all. I look forward to your corrections. Thanks in advance.
Speaking of lifetime rates of suicide attempts, the 41% transgender rate you quoted comes from an anonymous internet poll conducted by the same group that fabricated the 1.6% figure: an activist group with the expressed intent of collecting evidence of high morbidity among online transgender respondents. Any time surveys are conducted online, particularly those with an expressed agenda, the results are essentially meaningless. Add in the fact that the publishers have been proven to fabricate data. Regardless, life-span rates (even fabricated ones) cannot be meaningfully compared with childen who have not even reached adulthood. As someone who heads an organization which purports to specialize in pediatrics you must be aware of that.
Have you even surveyed the children in your organization for their pre-TYFA suicide attempt rates? You should certainly have done that, particularly because you cite post-intervention suicide attempt rates as evidence of your program’s effectiveness. Comparison of pre-TYFA and post-TYFA suicide attempt rates is the only way to evaluate a change in attempted suicide rates. Seems like that would be common sense. So. What is that number? And is the 1.5% rate you claimed an annual rate or a lifetime one? Or an “after joining TYFA” rate with no set duration? (In which case it would be an incredibly high rate compared to that of the general public). How does that 1.5% compare with the “pre-TYFA” attempt rate- or did you neglect to poll for that? A comparison of pre and post TYFA rates might be illuminating. Look forward to hearing.
A skeptical person might think that inaccurate suicide statistics are being manufactured or misrepresented in attempt to “frighten” the families of gender non-conforming children into following and supporting your program, especially since you stated that you personally believe these families are prone to being steered by fear. Telling parents that their kids are going to DIE if they don’t follow your program is about as fear-mongering as it gets. Which is all the more reason why we’d like to see those suicide statistics. The real ones.
I think we would also like to know the TYFA participant rate of actual completed suicides. I know that your TYFA co-founder’s 16 year old daughter committed suicide two years after “transitioning” and being celebrated as one of the “success stories”of TYFA’s program.
How many other TYFA “successes” have committed suicide after following your program? What percentage of TYFA children have committed suicide after joining TYFA? That would also be a helpful statistic to know.
- For concerned parents that would like an alternate viewpoint to the TYFA program the following articles (several of which are written by concerned trans people) may be helpful. There’s much more info out there too. Follow links! It’s hard to be a parent when your kid refuses to conform. Hang in there! You are not alone!