LGBTQ+

[CVByrne]

4 minutes ago, Eidolon said:

You are flat out wrong I'm sorry. I'm not asking this as a gotcha but as a sincere question, do you actually know any trans people in your life? Beyond having been an out transwoman for over a decade the vast majority of my social circles are naturally trans people and I have never met anyone who expressed anything but a desire that they had been able to transition earlier and not go through the disastrous effects of the wrong puberty.

Yes, I know two transwomen, one is post op one is pre op. I'm assuming the trans people you know transitioned later in life (ie older than 16) and I'm pretty much certain all of those people (like the two I know) are absolutely trans, were born in the wrong bodies and would have benefited from transitioning earlier. The problem however is we can't diagnose prepubescent children accurately enough that we can be sure we are doing more benefit than harm to all the children as a whole by medical intervention like puberty blockers. This is why the systematic reviews of the evidence "have concluded that the risk-benefit ratio of youth gender transition ranges from unknown to unfavorable." What this means is we are benefiting some kids and harming others. 

Quote

The phenomenon of De-transitioners are a vanishingly small number of people who transition and the vastly overwhelming majority of them de-transition or experience regret due entirely to societal issues outside of our control (institutionalized violence, work/housing discrimination, familial ostracisation, social stigma and constantly having to defend our rapidly diminishing access to health care and right to even exist) most respondents stress that in an equal world they would continue their transition.

As stated above, as the majority of all trans people transition in adulthood there should be an incredibly small number of people who de-transition. I'm sure many of those  who do are for some of the reasons you stated. However the transitioning of children is a very recent phenomenon in that there was a 600% increase in referrals of children between 2016 and 2022 to Gids. The ramifications of that are what is occurring now as in the reason European countries have changed the rules on medical interventions in children is evidence based systematic reviews. 

Quote

Every serious study done on Gender Affirming care shows it is not only the best way to manage Gender Dysphoria but that alternatives amount to having the same disastrous outcomes as conversion therapy.

Why is a kid who is sure they are cis at 11 valid and encouraged to play physically punishing sport, go to the gym,  learn to box whatever they want in pursuit of those ideals (stuff that can do way worse damage to your body at a young age than blockers which have been shown to be completely benign with no long term effects in the vast majority of cases) valid in making those decisions but an 11yr old who is sure they are trans 'not capable of making that decision? Surely by that logic we should just label every child as agender until they are an adult and then they can decide for themselves? You can stop taking blockers, you can't undo puberty.

This is not true however, as the systematic reviews done by Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands and England have shown. Especially as there are long term impacts of puberty blockers, with bone density, permanent infertility etc. Nobody should conflate that any other care other than Gender affirming care is tantamount to conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is the opposite of care, that is to state that no outcome can be a transitioning.

These are children who need help and absolutely should get it. The issue is many children showing gender identity issues who are treated with non medical intervention would not choose to transition post puberty. Simply put the systematic reviews came to the conclusion that there is a lack of evidence to support medicalised gender transitioning for children. 

Quote

Trust me as someone who has actually BEEN THROUGH the very process you are describing that is SO not how it works. getting HRT especially in your country requires numerous visits to mostly hostile GPs, therapists and other people who at any point can and do knock you back to square one and thats without even touching on the YEARS long wait lists to even get that first appointment.

Doctors are not waving puberty blockers are kids that dont specifically request them, it just doesn't happen outside of the unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence springing from places like Mumsnet and other GC circles with a vested interest. 

I don't have insight into the process that was in place for Gids / Tavistock or the similar places in the European Countries in the period from 2018 to 2022 when the explosion in referrals of children for gender identity issues went up 600%+ other than the comments that have made it into publications from people who worked there or ex patients. All I know is whatever the process was in that period has been changed after the systematic reviews.

Finally, if you polled all transpeople and asked them would you have benefitted from earlier transitioning in childhood. You of course would get close to 100% of respondents saying yes they would. But that isn't what this debate is about at all however. It's about those children for whom via the best intentions of Gender affirming care we send down a transitioning path where we are ultimately doing harm to when they don't transition and essentially were misdiagnosed as trans. 

It is simply the Risk-Benefit that this discussion is about. Risk of harm via misdiagnosis and long term impacts of medical intervention vs benefit to trans people in transitioning earlier. I believe in evidence based medicine and I believe the public health services in those 4 European Countries in their duty of care. 

 

[LondonLax]

52 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Yes, I know two transwomen, one is post op one is pre op. I'm assuming the trans people you know transitioned later in life (ie older than 16) and I'm pretty much certain all of those people (like the two I know) are absolutely trans, were born in the wrong bodies and would have benefited from transitioning earlier. The problem however is we can't diagnose prepubescent children accurately enough that we can be sure we are doing more benefit than harm to all the children as a whole by medical intervention like puberty blockers. This is why the systematic reviews of the evidence "have concluded that the risk-benefit ratio of youth gender transition ranges from unknown to unfavorable." What this means is we are benefiting some kids and harming others. 

As stated above, as the majority of all trans people transition in adulthood there should be an incredibly small number of people who de-transition. I'm sure many of those  who do are for some of the reasons you stated. However the transitioning of children is a very recent phenomenon in that there was a 600% increase in referrals of children between 2016 and 2022 to Gids. The ramifications of that are what is occurring now as in the reason European countries have changed the rules on medical interventions in children is evidence based systematic reviews. 

This is not true however, as the systematic reviews done by Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands and England have shown. Especially as there are long term impacts of puberty blockers, with bone density, permanent infertility etc. Nobody should conflate that any other care other than Gender affirming care is tantamount to conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is the opposite of care, that is to state that no outcome can be a transitioning.

These are children who need help and absolutely should get it. The issue is many children showing gender identity issues who are treated with non medical intervention would not choose to transition post puberty. Simply put the systematic reviews came to the conclusion that there is a lack of evidence to support medicalised gender transitioning for children. 

I don't have insight into the process that was in place for Gids / Tavistock or the similar places in the European Countries in the period from 2018 to 2022 when the explosion in referrals of children for gender identity issues went up 600%+ other than the comments that have made it into publications from people who worked there or ex patients. All I know is whatever the process was in that period has been changed after the systematic reviews.

Finally, if you polled all transpeople and asked them would you have benefitted from earlier transitioning in childhood. You of course would get close to 100% of respondents saying yes they would. But that isn't what this debate is about at all however. It's about those children for whom via the best intentions of Gender affirming care we send down a transitioning path where we are ultimately doing harm to when they don't transition and essentially were misdiagnosed as trans. 

It is simply the Risk-Benefit that this discussion is about. Risk of harm via misdiagnosis and long term impacts of medical intervention vs benefit to trans people in transitioning earlier. I believe in evidence based medicine and I believe the public health services in those 4 European Countries in their duty of care. 

 

Can you cite some of these claims you are referencing? Have you read source material on these ‘systematic reviews’ or is it a summary article you are referencing here?

 

[CVByrne]

17 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Can you cite some of these claims you are referencing? Have you read source material on these ‘systematic reviews’ or is it a summary article you are referencing here?

 

See the post further where I referenced the two articles. Both have numerous references to the source material for their articles. They reference the countries 

re links below

Europe Adopts A Cautious Approach To Gender-Affirming Care For Minors (forbes.com)

The evidence to support medicalised gender transitions in adolescents is worryingly weak (economist.com)

Then with 2 mins of looking

Quote

Norway’s guidance on paediatric gender treatment is unsafe, says review (bmj.com)

"The report found that there is insufficient evidence for the use of puberty blockers and cross sex hormone treatments in young people, especially for teenagers who are increasingly seeking health services and being referred to specialist healthcare. Ukom defines such treatments as utprøvende behandling, or “treatments under trial,” said Moen."

 

Edited July 23, 2023 by CVByrne

[Chindie]

*Somewhere in the wilderness, Jesse Singal's ears prick up*

[chrisp65]

***just to say, without turning this in to a full time research project, every time you think you find something definitive, you then find something contradictory, so I’m absolutely not claiming the below is definitive, I reckon another hour and I could reverse every statement I make below, and then reverse it back again for another hours reading, so, with that in mind…***

There’s no arguing against good data being necessary for all good decision making.

But what we have here is a branch of medicine with very low numbers, where little research has been recorded. The keystone pieces of research are (relatively) old and as such were completed when the ‘rules’ for research were different (1990’s).

As a result, there has been a call for more evidence before more physical treatments are undertaken. But there’s a problem here. The reaction has been to essentially stop treatment, until there is more evidence. But how do you get more evidence, if interventions have been stopped? It begins to get a bit Catch 22.

The mythical cases of people tricked or persuaded against their will during childhood appear even if true to all be based in the U.S. with its own very peculiar non centralised private health system. I’m still struggling to find any example of any UK based case where an adult wants to be de transitioned because they were, essentially duped or rushed in to treatment. There is transition regret, just as there is all manner of regret recorded in all manner of surgical procedure. But this scenario has been enough to essentially stop all treatment, until there is more evidence. But there is a problem, where does the additional evidence come from, if treatment is stopped or severely restricted?  

To give a sense of numbers involved here, this century in the UK there have been less than 900 transitions in total male and female all ages. Less than 40 per year.

A paper from a parliamentary committee reported that the average age for transition in 2020 was 42, the youngest person to undergo surgery on the NHS in 2020 was 21 years old. 

U.S. Evidence suggests that over there (and it’s a difficult fractured non centralised system so I think the figures could be ropey) 8% of people that transition then want to de trans. Of that 8%, 60% of those then want to switch again. According to Stonewall, that figure is more like 1% in the UK. So clearly there is a sub set that have something going on way beyond my understanding. Stonewall suggest that of the 1% that de transition its not a ‘change of mind’ on themselves, its due to the loss of support from family and friends.

In the meantime, to revert back to empirical evidence, I am personally aware of one individual who since the age of 4 was asking when they will be turning in to a boy. Who was bullied out of school because they were different and who, now in their twenties is being asked to present a dossier of ‘evidence’ for their case. Evidence requested includes photos of them with short hair as a child. Apparently, if you don’t have photos of short hair in childhood, you can’t have been that serious about believing you were a boy. As we all know, children are famously in control of what haircut they have. As we all know, all males have short hair, all females have long hair. That is the quality of evidence now being used by medical professionals, that’s apparently the wonderful world of evidence lead medicine.

Anything else the dossier of evidence needs to provide? Yes, a cheque book in your ‘preferred’ name. A cheque book. Can you even still get cheque books? This is the quality of the medical evidence. 

Basically, the numbers for minors being ‘in the sytem’ in the UK are vanishingly small but there has been a flip in attitude, in direction, in politics, with the system now basically set against assisting the trans person. The trans person of any age.

 

 

[CVByrne]

36 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m still struggling to find any example of any UK based case where an adult wants to be de transitioned because they were, essentially duped or rushed in to treatment. There is transition regret, just as there is all manner of regret recorded in all manner of surgical procedure. But this scenario has been enough to essentially stop all treatment, until there is more evidence. But there is a problem, where does the additional evidence come from, if treatment is stopped or severely restricted?  

Keira Bell obviously believes she was duped, as in too young to consent thus she took her court case. So what you would call transition regret she would call being duped. 

Also the treatment of puberty blockers has not been stopped. The systematic reviews found lack of evidence to support their safety or clinical effectiveness and restricted use to clinical trials so we can build further evidence. 

I find it worrying that people want to disregard or call into question the health care systems from the most socially liberal countries in Europe who all came to the same conclusions in multiple systematic reviews. 

Quote

Basically, the numbers for minors being ‘in the sytem’ in the UK are vanishingly small but there has been a flip in attitude, in direction, in politics, with the system now basically set against assisting the trans person. The trans person of any age.

While this statement in relation to medical system is simply false. It shows that your views on something are actually entrenched and that you don't agree with the concept of evidence based medicine if it conflicts with your views. 

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

While this statement in relation to medical system is simply false. It shows that your views on something are actually entrenched and that you don't agree with the concept of evidence based medicine if it conflicts with your views. 

It’s based on the reality of knowing someone in the system right now. It isn’t false, it’s what’s happening today. If you don’t want to accept that, that’s fine, but stop telling me what I think. It kind of stifles discussion when you keep doing it. You’ve repeatedly imposed views and comments on me here, now you’re telling me my views are entrenched and I don’t agree with the concept of evidence. Shall I start telling you what you really believe and where your entrenchment is? That’s not how proper discussion works chap.

[CVByrne]

16 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It’s based on the reality of knowing someone in the system right now. It isn’t false, it’s what’s happening today. If you don’t want to accept that, that’s fine, but stop telling me what I think. It kind of stifles discussion when you keep doing it. You’ve repeatedly imposed views and comments on me here, now you’re telling me my views are entrenched and I don’t agree with the concept of evidence. Shall I start telling you what you really believe and where your entrenchment is? That’s not how proper discussion works chap.

I sensed in the discussion that there was something personal to you on this subject. Individual cases vary and I don't pretend to know about the case of the person you know or what they're going through.

My views are based on the medical care for the population as a whole. I am a statistician so believe in evidence based decisions over large sample sizes. As I stated, I believe in the medical systems and their systematic reviews that there is a lack of evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness for medical intervention in children. 

I also would hope the majority of people would believe in evidence based medical care. Like the proven effectiveness of vaccines. 

[TheAuthority]

On 23/07/2023 at 09:45, CVByrne said:

Yes, I know two transwomen, one is post op one is pre op. I'm assuming the trans people you know transitioned later in life (ie older than 16) and I'm pretty much certain all of those people (like the two I know) are absolutely trans, were born in the wrong bodies and would have benefited from transitioning earlier. The problem however is we can't diagnose prepubescent children accurately enough that we can be sure we are doing more benefit than harm to all the children as a whole by medical intervention like puberty blockers. This is why the systematic reviews of the evidence "have concluded that the risk-benefit ratio of youth gender transition ranges from unknown to unfavorable." What this means is we are benefiting some kids and harming others. 

As stated above, as the majority of all trans people transition in adulthood there should be an incredibly small number of people who de-transition. I'm sure many of those  who do are for some of the reasons you stated. However the transitioning of children is a very recent phenomenon in that there was a 600% increase in referrals of children between 2016 and 2022 to Gids. The ramifications of that are what is occurring now as in the reason European countries have changed the rules on medical interventions in children is evidence based systematic reviews. 

This is not true however, as the systematic reviews done by Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands and England have shown. Especially as there are long term impacts of puberty blockers, with bone density, permanent infertility etc. Nobody should conflate that any other care other than Gender affirming care is tantamount to conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is the opposite of care, that is to state that no outcome can be a transitioning.

These are children who need help and absolutely should get it. The issue is many children showing gender identity issues who are treated with non medical intervention would not choose to transition post puberty. Simply put the systematic reviews came to the conclusion that there is a lack of evidence to support medicalised gender transitioning for children. 

I don't have insight into the process that was in place for Gids / Tavistock or the similar places in the European Countries in the period from 2018 to 2022 when the explosion in referrals of children for gender identity issues went up 600%+ other than the comments that have made it into publications from people who worked there or ex patients. All I know is whatever the process was in that period has been changed after the systematic reviews.

Finally, if you polled all transpeople and asked them would you have benefitted from earlier transitioning in childhood. You of course would get close to 100% of respondents saying yes they would. But that isn't what this debate is about at all however. It's about those children for whom via the best intentions of Gender affirming care we send down a transitioning path where we are ultimately doing harm to when they don't transition and essentially were misdiagnosed as trans. 

It is simply the Risk-Benefit that this discussion is about. Risk of harm via misdiagnosis and long term impacts of medical intervention vs benefit to trans people in transitioning earlier. I believe in evidence based medicine and I believe the public health services in those 4 European Countries in their duty of care. 

 

Maybe this post should be in the sexism and misogamy thread as an example of mansplaining.

You have a trans woman explaining how she feels, and her experience of being in the trans community, and citing her trans friends. But, nope she's wrong because you are right and know better.

[CVByrne]

3 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

Maybe this post should be in the sexism and misogamy thread as an example of mansplaining.

You have a trans woman explaining how she feels, and her experience of being in the trans community, and citing her trans friends. But, nope she's wrong because you are right and know better.

My response was well articulated representing a different point of view. Is discussion and debate on topics something you have issue with? 

I think your response kind of points to the issues we have in modern discourse. Essentially that you don't agree with me thus you should use derogatory comments instead. 

Edited July 25, 2023 by CVByrne

[foreveryoung]

11 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

My response was well articulated representing a different point of view. Is discussion and debate on topics something you have issue with? 

I think your response kind of points to the issues we have in modern discourse. Essentially that you don't agree with me thus you should use derogatory comments instead. 

Welcome to the world of VT debate!

[TheAuthority]

5 hours ago, CVByrne said:

My response was well articulated representing a different point of view. Is discussion and debate on topics something you have issue with? 

I think your response kind of points to the issues we have in modern discourse. Essentially that you don't agree with me thus you should use derogatory comments instead. 

It was patronizing and self-satisfied.

@Eidolon very kindly tried to share with you her feelings and some of those in her direct community. You didn't say anything in the manner of "I've read this, how do you feel about that? Is that something that is true?" You go straight to something along the lines of "you are incorrect and I know better." 

But again from your general posting, you don't seem able to even consider that your approach could be perceived in any other way than your idea of how it comes across.

Quote

Is discussion and debate on topics something you have issue with? 

er... as I post on a message board regularly the answer is no.

Quote

I think your response kind of points to the issues we have in modern discourse.

Nice way to deflect back. My point was that your response to Eidolon was typical of modern discourse - i.e. I know better listen to me.

Quote

Essentially that you don't agree with me thus you should use derogatory comments instead. 

As @chrisp65 pointed out, evidence to contradict all of your points can be found online quite easily. I took issue with the manner in which you dismissed someone from the trans community's point of view so you could voice your own opinion. It's pretty arrogant way to approach a topic. Why not ask a question? If you think that is me making a derogatory comment towards you must be pretty sensitive.

[TheAuthority]

5 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Welcome to the world of VT debate!

The way you "debate" on VT has been very well catalogued by multiple posters. But thanks for adding to this one!

[CVByrne]

2 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

 

@Eidolon very kindly tried to share with you her feelings and some of those in her direct community. You didn't say anything in the manner of "I've read this, how do you feel about that? Is that something that is true?" You go straight to something along the lines of "you are incorrect and I know better." 

But again from your general posting, you don't seem able to even consider that your approach could be perceived in any other way than your idea of how it comes across.

As @chrisp65 pointed out, evidence to contradict all of your points can be found online quite easily. I took issue with the manner in which you dismissed someone from the trans community's point of view so you could voice your own opinion. It's pretty arrogant way to approach a topic. Why not ask a question? If you think that is me making a derogatory comment towards you must be pretty sensitive.

You see that's not true that's where the difference actually is. I am the only one who has cited anything in support of my arguments, my whole issue on the subject is because of my concerns at the medical systematic reviews of multiple European countries which found use of medical intervention in children had lack of evidence to support its use. It's an experimental treatment that lacks evidence of its effectiveness. Others have posted about personal stories and experiences, which I sympathise with. 

The issues exposed about Tavistock and in the systematic reviews is worrying and children who needed our help are the ones in the middle here of the political polarisation around transgender issues. People are determined to stay in the echo chamber of their political views, even when it comes to something like evidence based medicine. 

People are happy to shout down the idiots who deny vaccine effectivness by citing the evidence. But then are angered by the fact we were using experimental treatment on children that lacked any quality evidence of the benefits to the children we were giving it to. 

Quote

The “innovative practice” model of care is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it rapidly advances the medical field. On the other hand, it is capable of hurting individuals and societies by promoting a nonbeneficial or harmful intervention. For these reasons, it is an ethical requirement that as soon as viability of a new intervention is demonstrated under the “innovative practice” framework, the research must move into high-quality clinical research settings capable of demonstrating that the benefits outweigh the risks. This step is imperative because it prevents “runaway diffusion”—the phenomenon whereby the medical community mistakes a small innovative experiment as a proven practice, and a potentially nonbeneficial or harmful practice “escapes the lab,” rapidly spreading into general clinical settings

The difficult task of reversing runaway diffusion begins with a systematic review of evidence, follows with updating treatment guidelines, and culminates with de-implementation of unproven or harmful practices, known as “practice reversals”. Systematic reviews of evidence play a uniquely important role in this process. Rather than arbitrarily selecting studies and simply restating their results and conclusions, systematic reviews of evidence analyze all of the available evidence meeting pre-specified criteria and scrutinize the studies for methodological bias and errors, issuing an overarching conclusion about what’s known about the effects of an intervention based on the totality of the evidence (Higgins et al., Citation2022). A “practice reversal” of pediatric gender transitions has already begun. Several recent international systematic reviews of evidence have concluded that the practice of pediatric gender transition rests on low to very low quality evidence—meaning that the benefits reported by the existing studies are unlikely to be true due to profound problems in the study designs (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)

Full article: The Myth of “Reliable Research” in Pediatric Gender Medicine: A critical evaluation of the Dutch Studies—and research that has followed (tandfonline.com)

 

[il_serpente]

14 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

You see that's not true that's where the difference actually is. I am the only one who has cited anything in support of my arguments, my whole issue on the subject is because of my concerns at the medical systematic reviews of multiple European countries which found use of medical intervention in children had lack of evidence to support its use. It's an experimental treatment that lacks evidence of its effectiveness. Others have posted about personal stories and experiences, which I sympathise with. 

The issues exposed about Tavistock and in the systematic reviews is worrying and children who needed our help are the ones in the middle here of the political polarisation around transgender issues. People are determined to stay in the echo chamber of their political views, even when it comes to something like evidence based medicine. 

People are happy to shout down the idiots who deny vaccine effectivness by citing the evidence. But then are angered by the fact we were using experimental treatment on children that lacked any quality evidence of the benefits to the children we were giving it to. 

 

So @Eidolon’s personal experiences and those related to her by other members of the greater community to which she belongs don’t qualify as evidence?  It’s no different than anti-vax conspiracy theorists with no scientific background or experience with vaccines claiming that they’re inherently dangerous despite vast evidence to the contrary and precious little in support of their position?   Seriously?

As far as I can tell, nobody is denying the data you’re citing, but numbers are not the only form that evidence can take.  And a few studies with small sample sizes that suggest there may be no statistical benefit to a form of care shouldn’t be the only evidence considered when deciding whether to continue to make a therapy available when there are plenty of examples of people who have or would  have benefitted from it.

[chrisp65]

As previously said, it’s a very small number of cases here and data collection and evidence collection has been changed since the original studies. The original studies were compliant with the way things were done in their time, the 1990’s. There is no criticism of that. There is a lack of data by ‘modern’ standards. The way to gain more data is not to stop. To stop, you never get more data and the treatment is halted for all. The recommendation is better more modern scientific gathering and understanding of the data. Not stopping all treatments until magic data arrives.

I’m pretty sure I’ve quoted NHS figures. I’ve just combined that with evidence from real lived life of how the new ‘evidence’ the hard scientific evidence that is now demanded is manifesting itself, that people need to supply photos of haircuts, and cheque books. That’s the real life drive for hard data rather than empirical evidence. Hairstyles.

But, I’m sure I’ll be told yet again what I’m actually thinking and what political echo chamber I’m in. It’s fascinating, the person advocating strict use of data is also the person telling others what they think and why they think it.

 

 

 

[VILLAMARV]

Could anyone find the time to point me in the direction of some info on how the data collection in studies has changed over time? Would genuinely interest me.

[CVByrne]

6 hours ago, il_serpente said:

So @Eidolon’s personal experiences and those related to her by other members of the greater community to which she belongs don’t qualify as evidence?  It’s no different than anti-vax conspiracy theorists with no scientific background or experience with vaccines claiming that they’re inherently dangerous despite vast evidence to the contrary and precious little in support of their position?   Seriously?

Of course they do, who has said they wouldn't be? All the positive outcomes from the medical intervention in children would be key data points in the efficacy of treatment. That's how we develop new treatments for many things. But there needs to be larger sample size, there needs to be follows ups of the effects of the treatments, positive, negative, neutral, side effects etc. That's how evidence is gathered in medical studies. 

6 hours ago, il_serpente said:

As far as I can tell, nobody is denying the data you’re citing, but numbers are not the only form that evidence can take.  And a few studies with small sample sizes that suggest there may be no statistical benefit to a form of care shouldn’t be the only evidence considered when deciding whether to continue to make a therapy available when there are plenty of examples of people who have or would  have benefitted from it.

The treatment is still available but it's high restricted as it's still an experimental treatment for the reasons stated in the reviews. I think the basis of the reviews were people we being helped and people we being harmed by the use of medical intervention in children. Thus the data supporting the efficacy of treatment was weak and there were "profound problems in the study designs". 

So of course some people would benefit from the treatment, some people we think would benefit from the treatment we are actually harming. It's that risk/benefit ration appears to be unfavourable, ie on balance we might be doing more harm overall the good.

[CVByrne]

6 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

As previously said, it’s a very small number of cases here and data collection and evidence collection has been changed since the original studies. The original studies were compliant with the way things were done in their time, the 1990’s. There is no criticism of that. There is a lack of data by ‘modern’ standards. The way to gain more data is not to stop. To stop, you never get more data and the treatment is halted for all. The recommendation is better more modern scientific gathering and understanding of the data. Not stopping all treatments until magic data arrives.

Absolutely, that's why it's good the treatment has not been stopped. It's returned to being experimental and is back in use in more controlled way with correct follow ups for accurate data collection so efficacy can be measured. 

[CVByrne]

1 hour ago, VILLAMARV said:

Could anyone find the time to point me in the direction of some info on how the data collection in studies has changed over time? Would genuinely interest me.

I'll link you what I've found on subject later. Basically the series of events seem to be as follows

1) The Dutch Model - 1990s and 2000s research lead to set of key rules and guidelines for medical intervention in children with Gender Dysmorphia

2) That begins to be adopted by different health services in Europe, including NHS and Gids (Tavistock). 

3) There is a massive increase over time in people being referred to Gids, as a result the set rules in the Dutch Model can't be followed due to backlog pressure on Gids. This leads to "runaway diffusion" or the assumption that medical intervention is the standard treatment for those presenting with Gender issues. 

4) Issues raised with Tavistok leads to Systematic Reviews by the Health Services in Europe, which concludes there is lack of evidence for efficacy of the treatment and returns it to a experimental treatment to continue research.