Are we doing SOPHIE at Trans Mission the solidarity concert tomorrow?
10.03.2026 14:29
👍 5
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
Are we doing SOPHIE at Trans Mission the solidarity concert tomorrow?
🙁
crush said bye…
Yes. I kicked off a thread last night expecting it to be lengthy, but ten minutes into reading the “evidence” review, I just couldn't bring myself to continue past post three.
You don't engage with abuse, you distance yourself from it.
Really importantly - THIS 1000 page 'evidence' review, does not dignify a detailed response.
I will NOT be preparing a detailed analysis of every wrong step taken.
We need to instead state openly & clearly that this fraud is abusive and beneath contempt. That we reject it.
We can't combat an exercise in power & domination over trans youth by showing them the errors in their homework.
The errors here are so obvious.
They are intentional.
They are almost showing off - how little pretense at 'evidence' is needed to subjugate trans youth.
The whole thing is not about healthcare evidence.
It is a exercise in power over trans youth (and trans communities).
They are demonstrating their power.
And asserting their power to squash trans youth.
For anyone wondering whether to respond to the consultation.
Don't bother.
They are not interested in good healthcare. Not even interested in a semblance at good evidence-based healthcare.
We also hear that a similar 'study' was done on adult HRT.
For adults it will be a bit harder to skew the evidence.
Unless they break the adult population by age range, looking ONLY for studies on 18-25 year olds for example.
No data distortion would be surprising at this point
Through this method, and some other chicanery, smoke and mirrors, they were able to claim NO EVIDENCE for a healthcare that is well understood, safe, cheap, beneficial and hugely important.
This claim of NO EVIDENCE is enough for a full ban.
I don’t recall any great physical shift as midnight struck on the Auckland wharf, marking the eve of my 18th birthday.
First of all they decided that a 16 & 17 year old taking HRT without prior time on blockers is COMPLETELY different from taking HRT without prior time on blockers.
Then they decided to exclude from consideration every study that focused on young people who went first to blockers before HRT.
BUT the NHS came up with a clever trick to stop these 16 & 17 year olds from accessing (safe, beneficial, low risk, well evidenced) HRT.
They looked at the evidence in a VERY specific way.
Yesterday the NHS banned all under 18 prescriptions of HRT for trans young people.
This ban was justified by 10 new studies that largely stated NO EVIDENCE for under 18s HRT exists.
The study underpinning this played one particular trick.
Let's briefly look at how the NHS rigged the game 1/5
2/ Title and loading screens!
6/ And the papers are self-contradictory too.
well malfeasance in public office these days is basically bribery. so no, unless you can show the NHSE officials are taking money from the hate groups. (I can't rule this out tho!)
Their own policy proposal notes “gender incongruence of adolescence and adulthood” is a distinct diagnosis from “gender incongruence of childhood”. Which means it is completely invalid to insist on reviewing treatment for adolescents and adults separately in this way.
Screenshot of the first page of a legal court filing. The header reads “Case 3:26-cv-01996, Document 1, Filed 03/09/26, Page 1 of 48.” The page lists attorneys from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) representing the plaintiff, Anthropic PBC. Centered text identifies the court as the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The case caption shows Anthropic PBC, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Department of War; U.S. Department of the Treasury; Federal Housing Finance Agency; U.S. Department of State; and other federal agencies. On the right side appears the title “Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.” The document is formatted with numbered lines along the left margin.
Anthropic just sued the US government and is seeking an immediate TRO over the labeling as a supply chain risk.
www.courtlistener.com/docket/72379...
ThE goLd sTaNdArD
They never ask the question of the evidence of harms from withholding treatment. Despite the fact they found no evidence of harms from HRT. Wihtholding treatment from a population like this is not a neutral act, it is an intervention in and of itself. One that has no basis in medicine.
This is absolutely what will happen when young trans people rationally stop seeking NHS "care" that offers nothing more than conversion therapy appointments.
That's all they ever do. They ask for things that can be inferred by other literature because the only way to *ethically* get that information is through inference, and then say "Oops, we can't ethically study this!" as an excuse to cease care.
Bingo!
It’s almost like the UK’s right-wing press doesn’t actually reflect public opinion but instead the fevered imaginations of a very small group of sociopaths.
This isn't the only oddity. In the oestrogen mono review, the first paper in the excluded studies table, states it was excluded because the intervention was out-of-scope, as it was oestrogen + anti-androgens. I've looked at that paper, the AAs used were histrelin, triptorelin, and spironolactone.
So the 10 reviews for the consultation on HRT for trans youth that was started today have been published. I'm currently skimming through them, and I'm already very suspicious of what's been included, and more importantly what's been excluded.
As dire as it is, it’s incredibly funny seeing the phrase “intervention out of scope (oestrogen + anti-androgen)” in a so-called review of gender affirming hormone therapy. Oh the overwhelmingly dominant intervention for trans feminine people is out of scope, is it?
