Video 4 – Childhood Gender Dysphoria.
The Medical Pathway to Sex Reassignment (Part 2).
By Prof John Whitehall.
This medical pathway has got major complications, and it leads to a lifetime of medical care.
So, why do it? There must be evidence. There must be a reason for this. This must all be underpinned, surely, by extensive laboratory and animal and surgical and medical scientific method. Surely, when we go to such extraordinary attempts to work out whether a new antibiotic is safe or not safe, we give it to animals, we analyse it, we theorise about it and ultimately, we have trials. We have blinded trials, crossover trials, all sorts of things. Does it work? Is it necessary? And ultimately, we get the approval, yes, this has got a medical, scientific, underpinning
The question is, what kind of scientific underpinning lies beneath this massive medical pathway? Well, all I can do is quote other people’s work. This what I say, that I’m quoting here from an article, which is very important because it was written by authors from the Children’s Hospital in Melbourne. Why is that important? Because the Gender Dysphoria Clinic is at the forefront of this medical pathway in Australia.
So, here’s some people writing from it and what they wanted to do here. “We’re going to do a literature review on hormonal treatment in young people with Gender Dysphoria, a systematic review. And this will be a summation of international literature on the “psycho-social, cognitive and or physical effects of that.”
Fine. They set themselves the task. They went back and looked at the medical literature from January 1946, all the way through to June 2017, looking for evidence. You know how many papers they found in almost seventy years of medical science? Thirteen! Thirteen only papers. Well, did they say that this is a great idea? Okay, let’s see what they say. “Regarding the psycho-social effects of this thirteen,” and there they say, “this is scarce.” Well, it is. In medical terms, this is not scarce, it’s a euphemism. This is hardly existing. Thirteen reports. Hardly nothing! Regarding the psycho-social effects, they report that the transgendering therapies were associated with significant improvements in multiple psychological measures, including global functioning and depression and behavioural and emotional problems.
Now that we need to look more closely at. What they’re saying is that the intervention by a team of dedicated adults and social workers and psychiatrists and teachers, that everybody whose aim is to make that unhappy child happy, works. So, all this unnatural attention to the unhappy child is, I would argue, likely to make the child happier.
The issue is not the happiness while they’re attending the clinic, the issue is, do they remain happy in the cold and lonely and dark years of adulthood? Well, is there evidence for that? Are they happy or not? Well, one alarming, contradictory thing is that the suicide rate of transgendering people in adults is twenty to thirty times higher than anyone else. And everyone knows that how you look at it, happiness scores are not there. So, I am arguing first of all, that this is a spurious conclusion and is not reassuring because they’re not explaining here the artificial, unnatural, attention that these suffering children are getting.
Let’s move on from that. Well, what about other things to do with behavioural and emotional problems? “Unclear effects on anger and anxiety. And no significant effect on symptoms of Gender Dysphoria.” which is why they’re giving it. Indeed, one study suggested an increase in Gender Dysphoria and body image difficulties. So how unreassuring is that.
Regarding cognitive effects of therapy? Only two references in the entire seventy years. One study examined executive function, which is the ability to make decisions on past experience, emotions, knowledge and so forth. Examining executive function in 8 children on blockers found significantly reduced accuracy and so forth.
They looked at the quality and the basis of the risk of bias in these thirteen studies. And, I quote, this is not my work, it’s theirs. “In all studies that was a medium to high risk of bias because of the small number of subjects, absence of controls, loss to follow up, retrospectity, absence of randomisation and no blinding.” How did they conclude? “There is need to reassess and expand on the findings of other studies.” Is this an unusual thing? No, I haven’t got time to go into it. I am just quoting here the summaries of a number of reviews of this.
“There is a lack of consensus regarding appropriate intervention or even appropriate goals. Limited long-term data. Small numbers from only one clinic. Lack of randomised controlled studies. Thus, the evidence is only expert opinion.” If you even consider the word expert, how can they be expert when this whole phenomenon has arisen only in the last few years? Nobody is an expert. Nobody has been able to follow these children through into the cold and lonely time of adulthood. And their expert opinion, “which is influenced,” according to one writer, “by prevailing cultural belief systems and theoretical orientations.”
So, why do it? Why have this massive involvement in the mind and the body of the children, when there is in fact, no scientific underpinning?
If you oppose this to the guidance of the Nuremberg trial, which the egregious atrocities of the Nazi doctors, and I am not saying these doctors are in anyway, our doctors are in anyway like them, but the Nuremberg trial said that you shouldn’t be doing research unless you had informed consent. You shouldn’t be doing it unless you had scientific underpinning of the reasons you want to do it. And that you should have scientific underpinning by laboratory work and so forth.
What we’re going to do in the next one is look more closely at who are these children. We have outlined here what the medical pathway comprises, and this is being instituted by major paediatric units in Australia. This is what the medical pathway comprises. Next one we’re going to be looking at, well, who are these children? Do we know more about them? We’re going to touch on a sensitive subject. We’re going to look well, who are the parents involved? And then after that, we’re going to look more closely and the one after that on more details on it. So, what we have done now is just outlined the immensity of this intrusion, and we are emphasising the fact that there is no scientific underpinning. This is “expert opinion,” so called. This is experimentation, in the face of all the advice, for example, from the Nuremberg trials
Prof. John Whitehall
Foundation Chair Paediatrics And Child Health, School Of Medicine. Western Sydney University.
Qualifications: MBBS, BA, DCH (MRCP(UK), FRACP, MPH and TM.
BA Murdoch University, Perth Western Australia.
MBBS University of Sydney, Australia
CAUSE(Coalition Against Unsafe Sexual Education.) Australia.
CAUSE extends its utmost gratitude to Professor Whitehall for providing his time and expertise in these videos.
CAUSE was formed as a result of parents becoming increasingly alarmed about the sexualizing content and gender ideologies they discovered that their children were being taught at school.
These videos address the concepts taught in the Safe Schools, Resilience, Rights and Respectful Relationships, and a number of other Sex Ed programs, taught in our Victorian State Schools.
We at CAUSE affirm that all people are equal in value.
We affirm that, within Australian law, all people have the right to live their lives as they want.
Further, we believe that children should be raised within the morality as taught by their parents.
This video and the other eleven on Childhood Gender Dysphoria and a great deal more information can be found on our website.
CAUSE Website URL: https://www.stopsafeschools.com/
Copyright CAUSE(Coalition Against Unsafe Sexual Education) 2018.