"The puberty blocker trial previously announced by NHS England should be part of a programme of research which also evaluates outcomes of psychosocial interventions and masculinising/ feminising hormones."
"The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review…
"The puberty blocker trial previously announced by NHS England should be part of a programme of research which also evaluates outcomes of psychosocial interventions and masculinising/ feminising hormones."
"The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review recommends extreme caution. There should be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18. Every case considered for medical treatment should be discussed at a national Multi- Disciplinary Team (MDT)."
I think a better note is in the summary, where it says:
The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.
That means essentially what Karen Bee claims, at least systemically. The main issue with all of this is that such treatment may help certain individuals, while broad application is not supported by the evidence. There are cases, such as those reflected in research at https://doi.org/10.1101/253310 and https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-015-0022-1, where there is a biological basis for gender dysphoria, but those kids are atypical. The point is: care needs to be individualized not generalized; the government (on all sides) really needs to stay out of it; medical providers should be held liable for outcomes according to an evidence based standard of care.
WPATH disagrees strongly, for science-based reasons.
In contrast to what the Cass Review recommends, WPATH and USPATH firmly stand
by the Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People –
version 8, which was published in 2022—and based on far more systematic reviews
that the Cass Review—in collaboration with The School of Evidence-based Practice
Center at Johns Hopkins University and considers that the (research and consensusbased) evidence is such to recommend that providing medical treatment including
puberty-blocking medication and hormone therapy is helpful and often life-saving for
young TGD people, while withholding such treatment may lead to increased gender
dysphoria and adversely affect psychological functioning. Of note, many countries
have reacted critically regarding the Cass Review, disagreeing with its unfounded
medical opinion to severely limit the use of puberty-blocking medication and
hormone therapy for TGD young people. These countries include Canada, the
Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and many states in the United
States. In Germany, a new guideline on adolescent transgender care has been
drafted (in collaboration with Austria and Switzerland) and is currently under review
by 27 professional societies. As drafted, this guideline does not restrict puberty
blockers and is in broad accordance with the WPATH SOC8 recommendations in its
adolescent chapter. The Cass Review appears to be an outlier, ignoring more than
three decades of clinical experience in this area as well as existing evidence showing
the benefits of hormonal interventions on the mental health and quality of life of
From The Overview of Recommendations:
"The puberty blocker trial previously announced by NHS England should be part of a programme of research which also evaluates outcomes of psychosocial interventions and masculinising/ feminising hormones."
"The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review recommends extreme caution. There should be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18. Every case considered for medical treatment should be discussed at a national Multi- Disciplinary Team (MDT)."
I think a better note is in the summary, where it says:
The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.
That means essentially what Karen Bee claims, at least systemically. The main issue with all of this is that such treatment may help certain individuals, while broad application is not supported by the evidence. There are cases, such as those reflected in research at https://doi.org/10.1101/253310 and https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-015-0022-1, where there is a biological basis for gender dysphoria, but those kids are atypical. The point is: care needs to be individualized not generalized; the government (on all sides) really needs to stay out of it; medical providers should be held liable for outcomes according to an evidence based standard of care.
WPATH disagrees strongly, for science-based reasons.
In contrast to what the Cass Review recommends, WPATH and USPATH firmly stand
by the Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People –
version 8, which was published in 2022—and based on far more systematic reviews
that the Cass Review—in collaboration with The School of Evidence-based Practice
Center at Johns Hopkins University and considers that the (research and consensusbased) evidence is such to recommend that providing medical treatment including
puberty-blocking medication and hormone therapy is helpful and often life-saving for
young TGD people, while withholding such treatment may lead to increased gender
dysphoria and adversely affect psychological functioning. Of note, many countries
have reacted critically regarding the Cass Review, disagreeing with its unfounded
medical opinion to severely limit the use of puberty-blocking medication and
hormone therapy for TGD young people. These countries include Canada, the
Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and many states in the United
States. In Germany, a new guideline on adolescent transgender care has been
drafted (in collaboration with Austria and Switzerland) and is currently under review
by 27 professional societies. As drafted, this guideline does not restrict puberty
blockers and is in broad accordance with the WPATH SOC8 recommendations in its
adolescent chapter. The Cass Review appears to be an outlier, ignoring more than
three decades of clinical experience in this area as well as existing evidence showing
the benefits of hormonal interventions on the mental health and quality of life of
gender diverse young people (1-9).