I’m glad the NYT even spoke to you. I’ve experienced my comments not even get published w/some other articles. I’ve recently unsubscribed. They’re untrustworthy.
What's chilling is how folks at the NYT can take seriously the preposterousness assertion that the mere existence of an experimental process that hasn't yet even resulted in any live births makes what happens to the fertility of children subjected to gender medicine not count as sterilizing them. And people wonder why trust in the media is low . . .
This is of course the reason that one of the few recommendations in the endocrine society guidelines that is moderate quality rather than low or low quality is
"1.5. We recommend that clinicians inform and counsel all individuals seeking gender-affirming medical treatment regarding options for fertility preservation prior to initiating puberty suppression in adolescents and prior to treating with hormonal therapy of the affirmed gender in both adolescents and adults. (1 |⊕⊕⊕○)"
The three circles with the plus signs means moderate quality.
The other two moderate ones are confirm diagnosis of GD and deal with other medical conditions that might interfere with gender medicalization, all requirements before medical intervention. The recommendations for medical intervention have low or very low Grade evidence behind them.
"How many" -- if any -- teenage boys go through this "unproven, highly experimental option for "preserving fertility"? It would seem to be a vanishingly small number if there are any at all: as it would give the lie to bland assertions that the (permanent) effects on sexual function and fertility of gender medicine are "reversible". And it sounds very expensive: unlikely to happen outside of well-funded research studies -- that gender medicine practitioners are probably very unwilling to conduct, to avoid destroying their credibility. Finding backers among the gender critical for unethical experiments on children would be impossibly difficult too.
Excellent article Jamie, keep up the good work. This explains it beautifully for the rest of us lay folk spread the word.
I’m glad the NYT even spoke to you. I’ve experienced my comments not even get published w/some other articles. I’ve recently unsubscribed. They’re untrustworthy.
It’s infuriating what’s happening. It’s unbelievable that there are virtually zero standards for authenticity in the press about this issue.
What's chilling is how folks at the NYT can take seriously the preposterousness assertion that the mere existence of an experimental process that hasn't yet even resulted in any live births makes what happens to the fertility of children subjected to gender medicine not count as sterilizing them. And people wonder why trust in the media is low . . .
There's no way to live a life without regret…so you might as well cut your dick off?
This is of course the reason that one of the few recommendations in the endocrine society guidelines that is moderate quality rather than low or low quality is
"1.5. We recommend that clinicians inform and counsel all individuals seeking gender-affirming medical treatment regarding options for fertility preservation prior to initiating puberty suppression in adolescents and prior to treating with hormonal therapy of the affirmed gender in both adolescents and adults. (1 |⊕⊕⊕○)"
The three circles with the plus signs means moderate quality.
The other two moderate ones are confirm diagnosis of GD and deal with other medical conditions that might interfere with gender medicalization, all requirements before medical intervention. The recommendations for medical intervention have low or very low Grade evidence behind them.
Thank you Jamie. An excellent dismantling of Polgreen's claim and NYT's integrity.
Some mistakes are easier to recover from than others. Removing body parts is more than an “ooopsy”.
How depressing is it, how much of an uphill battle do we have fighting this insanity, when the damn Mayo Clinic promotes this crap?
"How many" -- if any -- teenage boys go through this "unproven, highly experimental option for "preserving fertility"? It would seem to be a vanishingly small number if there are any at all: as it would give the lie to bland assertions that the (permanent) effects on sexual function and fertility of gender medicine are "reversible". And it sounds very expensive: unlikely to happen outside of well-funded research studies -- that gender medicine practitioners are probably very unwilling to conduct, to avoid destroying their credibility. Finding backers among the gender critical for unethical experiments on children would be impossibly difficult too.