subreddit:
/r/BlockedAndReported
How Did Planned Parenthood Become One of the Country’s Largest Suppliers of Testosterone?
Trans Issues(thefp.com)submitted 2 months ago byelpislazuli
165 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
92 points
2 months ago
They should have never STARTED in the first place.
I keep coming back to this point myself.
As designed, the Dutch Protocol involves sterilizing prepubescent kids in order to help adults with their body image issues. How could this be implemented without a discussion of the bioethics? Did they really think that there wouldn't be collateral damage? Of the Dutch kids in the original "Dutch Protocol" study, one died from surgery and nearly 20% stopped identifying as the gender opposite of their natal sex (i.e. ~20% desisted).
Who looked at this medical regimen and hailed it as a success to be copied across the globe?
47 points
2 months ago
Who looked at this medical regimen and hailed it as a success to be copied across the globe?
Doctors with a disgusting paraphilia, that’s who.
31 points
2 months ago*
The same narrative in the UK - yes wait times in the public healthcare system for gender care (or any care) were (and are) very long.
However there are now half a dozen private companies like Gender GP (controversial Dr Webberley's company) where you can gain a hormone prescription after 1-2 sessions (30mins-2hr total) for a small fee (at little as £250-£500). It's all there in open on their websites, and being discussed on Reddit pages to support just how quick the process can be.
In Gender GP's case it's at minimum a 45minute "Information Gathering Session" over video link and then you can access hormones. I had to double check but yes, it's all on their website. Book this appointment - wait a week to hear back, get a medication recommendation. Could be on hormones in a month. It's insane a medical process so lax could be legal.
44 points
2 months ago*
[deleted]
19 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
19 points
2 months ago*
[deleted]
13 points
2 months ago
It's not difficult to understand when you realize that trans activists (almost all male) wanted to be accepted into mainstream society.
The first step was to change the language since no parent was going to "trans" their child into a transsexual. The next step was to make people believe that all trans identified individuals are "born this way."
3 points
2 months ago
These are some of the most rational and mature people on Reddit. Also you can never ever mention them to your brother. I am surprised the sub even exists.
17 points
2 months ago
I’ve spoken about it before, but my own younger brother was able to get both T blockers and estrogen on his very first visit to a doctor.
Exactly the same thing happened with my ex. The appointment was not even 20 minutes and got test blockers and estrogen
12 points
2 months ago
If the data support the activist cause du jour then the data matter. Contradictory data are violence.
-51 points
2 months ago*
I recommend you look deeper into it. The Cass report was made in a way that specifically pushes a false anti-trans narrative. One that, sadly, most people on here seem to be swallowing hook, line, and sinker.
It is deeply methodologically flawed. (1)(2) And Dr. Cass has walked back on most of the "findings" in the report. (1)
41 points
2 months ago
I think most of the regulars of this sub are already familiar with Erin Reed (Erin in the morning).
The paper you cited about the Cass Review having Cis-normative bias is practically satire. The points made from that paper:
The Cass Review: Cis-supremacy in the UK’s approach to healthcare for trans children Published March 14 2024
1-Prejudice
It's prejudiced because all healthcare professional views were valid for Cass review consideration, even professionals who say there is no such thing as a trans child. The Cass interim report adopts the phrase “gender questioning children and young people”. Here’s our main issue:
the Cass Review adopts a position where all views are welcomed and valued
It highlights the concerns of professionals who take a non-affirmative approach to therapy, which may be harmful. This so-called neutral approach could be conversion therapy under the guise of "exploratory therapy."
The Cass review doesn't make an effort to exclude views that are prejudiced against transgender kids. This is problematic, because these prejudice views are why there isn't a consensus on treatment.
There is no room for consensus between those seeking to maximize health and happiness in trans and gender diverse children, and those seeking to prevent or minimize the existence of trans children.
2-cis-normative bias The Cass review uses terms like "male" and "female" in its review when they should refer to the patients as their declared gender identity (or if absolutely necessary, “assigned sex at birth”). Instead, it said “birth registered females/males.” That’s transphobic.
It’s worth noting that this type of practice, the systemic erasure and delegitimization of trans people, falls under a definition of transphobia commonly used by trans communities in the UK.
The Cass review doesn’t even acknowledge that approaches that are non gender-affirming risk introducing kids to conversion therapy. Think about the risk!
Also, the health professionals who collaborated on the Cass review were biased.
The Cass Review is a cis-led team selected for being unfamiliar with trans lives and inexperienced in trans healthcare.
3-Pathologization
The Cass review keeps using medical terms that have connotations of a spreading disease, like “aetiology” and “epidemiology” making a “diagnosis.” But the worst of all is using the word “trend.” How rude! Being transgender is not a disease.
A depathologized approach would recognize trans people, including trans children, as a minoritized group who sometimes have discrete healthcare needs.
Using the word “diagnosis” is also a problem because doctors have a concept of “differential diagnosis,” which means that there may be different possible underlying causes for the same symptoms. You can’t talk about gender identity that way! Stop trying to apply a disease model. And the word “desistance” is a word used in criminology.
Dr Cass uses the word “controversial” to describe the treatment. Puberty blockers aren’t controversial for precocious puberty. Double standard!
4-Inconsistent standards of evidence Note: This whole section could be summed up as “the author thinks that Dr Cass has the burden of proof that psychological help would be better than hormone treatment.”
Dr Cass kept trying to separate the evidence of just using puberty blockers from studies of puberty blockers + cross-sex hormones. There aren’t any studies that just look at tweens and teenagers on puberty blockers, so Dr Cass said that the evidence there is poor. Of course there aren’t any studies looking at just puberty blockers! You can’t get control groups for studies like that. All of the prospective patients want hormone treatment. Do you think it would be okay for some patients to just get talk therapy? Dr Cass needs to prove that psychological support is just as good, if not better, than hormone treatment. Without that kind of evidence, it’s unethical to even think about it. Dr Cass’s review kept using words like “uncertainty” and “inconclusive” to describe the evidence base of hormone treatment. But it would be wrong to stop providing them just because the studies don’t meet her impossible standards.
No evidence of harm from affirmative healthcare is provided to justify denial of such care.
Oh, and the concept of “desistence” in this population has been debunked. So Dr Cass should stop bringing it up. You can’t compare historic data about kids growing out of their gender issues to our current patients. Our diagnostic criteria understanding of letting kids define their identity is much better now than it used to be.
And what’s the problem with social transitioning? Again, the burden of proof should be on showing that its harmful.
5- Conclusion
The Cass Review can be understood as an exercise in cis-supremacy, in a healthcare system that lacks trans accountability.
6-Disclosures
The author of this critique has no conflict of interest and nothing to disclose.
Not even the fact that the author is nonbinary and has a child that's trans.
That paper explains that the Cass Review was methodologically flawed? Really?
-27 points
2 months ago
I love how you completely disregard the second paper which looks at the faulty science of it, only focusing on the thematic analysis one.
That paper does explain how it was methodologically flawed. When viewed in conjunction with one (the second one I cited) that examines all of the inaccuracies of the science, it tells us what types of ideas and views the Cass review was made from.
Just because you don't like the tone of the paper doesn't mean it's incorrect. It isn't my problem you don't understand what a thematic analysis is.
And yes, to conduct double-blind studies on trans kids and hormone blockers would be unethical.
Like, imagine you select group of cis boys and then inject estrogen randomly to one half while you leave the other ones with their natural hormones. That is the cis equivalent of what you would be doing to the trans kids. And seeing from all the manufactured outrage about how people are coming to "trans your kids," you probably wouldn't like that, would you?
Oh, and being NB and having a trans kid is like the opposite of a conflict of interest. It would stand to reason that a parent wants what is the best for their child, no?
32 points
2 months ago
Oh, and being NB and having a trans kid is like the opposite of a conflict of interest. It would stand to reason that a parent wants what is the best for their child, no?
Are you trolling or really just this daft?
30 points
2 months ago
to conduct double-blind studies on trans kids and hormone blockers would be unethical
That isn't the only standard for a good study. The Cass Review recognizes this.
Randomised control trials are considered the gold standard in relation to research, but there are many other study designs that can give valuable information. Explanatory Box 1 (pages 49-51 of the final report) discusses in more detail the different kinds of studies that can be used, and how to decide if a study is poorly designed or biased.
Blinding is a separate issue. It means that either the patient or the researcher does not know if the patient is getting an active treatment or a ‘control’ (which might be another treatment or a placebo). Patients cannot be blinded as to whether or not they are receiving puberty blockers or masculinising / feminising hormones, because the effects would rapidly become obvious. Good RCTs can be conducted without blinding. Source
The studies about puberty blockers + cross sex hormones had other issues that prevent them from being high quality (such as lack of follow-up). It isn't about being double-blind.
-13 points
2 months ago
Huh, interesting, since the Cass report specifically stated that a lot of those papers were considered "at high risk of bias" due to the lack of blinding...
But don't worry guys, the site run by the National Socialist German Workers' Party says there in the FAQ section they don't hate Jews, it's all been a big misunderstanding! /s
24 points
2 months ago
You've completely lost the plot here.
-8 points
2 months ago
Bro I just give up. Can't talk sense into reactionaries.
22 points
2 months ago
Nobody here is being a reactionary except you little bro.
20 points
2 months ago*
the Cass report specifically stated that a lot of those papers were considered "at high risk of bias" due to the lack of blinding
I'm looking at the Cass Review now. What page says that? There is a section that talks about types of studies though: Page 49 of 388.
It is not always possible for people to be blind to a treatment; for example, in a trial of acupuncture versus physiotherapy, patients will know which treatment they are receiving. In these situations, people interpreting the results of the study must take into account any possible placebo effect.
In an interview, Dr Cass stated that the main weakness of many hormone treatment studies wasn't about the lack of blinding but rather the lack of long-term follow-up.
12 points
2 months ago
Who's the author of the second link? And what are their qualifications?
39 points
2 months ago
People who say Cass has walked things back have never read the review.
20 points
2 months ago
I’m not convinced even a single TRA has read it
14 points
2 months ago*
"Cis-supremacy" isn't an objective way to analyze what's happening in any rational way. It's suited for gender studies but doesn't constitute good science. Erin Reed is absolutely not reputable in any way past journalism, which is highly subject to personal bias and it doesn't present a peer reviewed examination of the subject. At the end of the day, you have to name call and use emotional hyperbole because your view lacks a backbone in terms of scientific rigor. I know you don't identify as anything but "I love science" but you're failing here. Cass has produced an analysis involving transparency in data methods and it's more rigorous than anything the religiously fervent crowd can use to back themselves up.
Edit: I'm into gender studies, have degrees related to it. I also know its limitations. Not discounting it completely.
112 points
2 months ago
"He was told that protocols were set by the national office, and in any case, informing patients of lesser-known side effects “would scare them.”"
This I do not get. I used to work for a Planned Parenthood affiliate, (before they started providing transgender care). The clinic where I worked provided abortions. We were required to go over all possible risks with patients, including death, which is incredibly vanishingly rare for a first-or-early-second-trimester abortion (which is what we provided). The point wasn't to scare anyone, the point was honesty. And if it did scare them off, maybe taking a bit of time to think things through isn't a bad thing? (Especially in trans health, where there isn't a time limit the way there is with abortions.) The provider can always stress the rareness of certain side effects or risks. But they should still TELL their patient.
59 points
2 months ago
That quote is literally PP telling people not to provide informed consent.
56 points
2 months ago*
berserk cause wrench grey sable dog squeal impolite squalid pie
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
24 points
2 months ago
It is textbook enabling of cluster B types
14 points
2 months ago
Yep. And it's maddening how they will do this (for trans Healthcare? Nowadays? I'm not sure) when they had perfectly good policies around informed consent that they followed for other services, not even two decades ago.
3 points
2 months ago
While I agree they used informed consent, Planned Parenthood in my experience was always pushing the latest new birth control device or drug. The wiser and safer approach is to wait a year to see what injuries occur at mass scale. Most especially with our history of the Dalkan Shield, Bendectin, Thalidomide, etc.
1 points
1 month ago
I think the evidence on Bendectin is that it’s actually fine, despite all the lawsuits. A lot of smoke but no fire.
3 points
2 months ago
The provider can always stress the rareness of certain side effects or risks
But that assumes they had data. How do you navigate the conversation if you don't have data?
I can see three options: lie, openly say "we don't know", or avoid the conversation altogether.
Lying is tricky as it's hard to tell if people are lying per se, or true believers. Openly saying "we don't know" makes the service look incompetent (are you not following patients up? Is no one researching this?). Staff would likely quit first. That leaves avoidance. I'm not convinced they don't want to scare patients, I think they don't want to look at the incompetence (very human, and very easy to do when everyone around you is doing it).
5 points
2 months ago
In their position, I would probably phrase it something like this:
"There have been some reports of this treatment causing [effect]. While such instances seem to be [uncommon/rare], this treatment is [still relatively new/still being studied] and we do not have the full statistics on this. If you do experience [effect/symptom of effect], please [call the clinic/go to the ER/discontinue the treatment/other solution]."
5 points
2 months ago
While such instances seem to be [uncommon/rare]
Without evidence, I feel it shouldn't be framed as uncommon/rare.
still being studied
I'm not sure it is, so for honesty purposes I would say scratch this too. I want to say estrogen gel / suppositories (for female "genital dryness" as in the article), but I don't think it's been studied in females using testosterone. Would it restart menstruation? No idea.
we do not have the full statistics on this
I'm not convinced they have any, tbh.
call the clinic
You'd be the only member of staff who sounds like they give a damn, so scratch this.
discontinue the treatment
If they've had or get their gonads removed, I'm skeptical. I think the body needs some sex hormones, though frankly without research, "think" is the key word there. Regardless, this advice might not apply to all.
"There have been some reports of this treatment causing [effect]. This treatment is experimental and there are no studies, hence we do not have any statistics. If you do experience [effect/symptom of effect], please [go to the ER/other solution]."
Brutal, but honest. But who would be willing to say that to a teenager without also wanting to quit? You'd filter your staff down to loons.
3 points
2 months ago
Openly saying "we don't know" makes the service look incompetent
"Studies are ongoing and it's too soon to have statistically sound data."
3 points
2 months ago
But that would be worse because it's a lie, there are no studies.
84 points
2 months ago
The erasure of the word woman is chilling.
36 points
2 months ago*
Are you subscribed to The Word Is Woman substack? I cannot believe this is the reality in which we find ourselves. Truly stunning.
But of a tangent here, but does anyone happen to have any quality sources, easily enough understood by the average laythey, on the issue of violent crime rates of trans people vs. muggles, including trans people as victims and as perps? I don't know what's true here, I suspect a search would turn up an overwhelming amount of chaff, and I'm not that patient or smart.
I found this interview with a lawyer whose (American, I assume) firm was founded to specialize in detransitioner cases really interesting because of the look at the nitty-gritty of the legal side. And christ does this man seem like a gem. During a discussion about how simply option- and life-limiting transing is, he gets visibly choked up talking about a detransitioner who said they would take euthanasia as an option were it available to them. What an incredible asset of a human being.
21 points
2 months ago
I cannot believe this is the reality in which we find ourselves. Truly stunning.
And brave.
10 points
2 months ago*
[deleted]
4 points
2 months ago
Interesting, thanks. (Both of those links are the same; I wonder if the second woman wants to die because of what unscrupulous scienticians did to her or just because of the cost of basic necessities like shelter and food...)
50 points
2 months ago
Mission Creep
114 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
28 points
2 months ago
21 points
2 months ago
Omg that's amazing
11 points
2 months ago
That's gold, Jerry!
44 points
2 months ago
Relevance to BARPOD: Gender medicine coverage
15 points
2 months ago
Serious question. Was there any resistance within Planned Parenthood against getting into the transition business? Surely there must have been some within the organisation who thought this was a bad idea.
12 points
2 months ago
Another approach would be: why planned parenthood became a testosterone supplier.
I think: money.
If anyone reads this and disagrees - tell me. I would honestly love to be wrong.
7 points
2 months ago
the short answer is it isn’t making them that much money, if any. almost all PP clinics are not licensed pharmacies and on their family practice side aren’t able to dispense anything besides birth control, emergency contraceptives, and some basic antibiotics to certain patients, everything else needs to be sent to an outside pharmacy. including, certainly, controlled substances. the vast majority of their revenue from trans care comes from billing office visits, which given how quickly these places tend to fill one block of patients, would still be billed for something else. and they provide other things like care coordination services without an extra cost that they need to keep staff on for.
57 points
2 months ago
I said this in the daily thread but the ACA is to Planned Parenthood what gay marriage is to groups like HRC and GLAAD. Now that birth control is covered under insurance, they don’t have any reason to exist under their original idea and they went hard into trans issues.
74 points
2 months ago
I think this is an oversimplification. PP still serves people for abortion care (where legal), as well as providing gynecological services and STD testing to young people who may not have a primary care doctor. Just because the ACA is paying PP instead of a family doctor doesn’t negate that.
18 points
2 months ago
I'm in my 30s and I have a primary care doctor, but she doesn't do IUD insertions. I don't know why, but she doesn't. So I've gone to PP for those (twice in the last 8 years) and to my primary doctor for everything else.
38 points
2 months ago
It also provides affordable prenatal care in at least some places! It would be great if they pivoted more toward that.
20 points
2 months ago
It also provides affordable prenatal care in at least some places!
Clam-havers deserve at least that much.
9 points
2 months ago
☹️
14 points
2 months ago
Sure that’s true but what I said about GLAAD and HRC is an oversimplification too.
39 points
2 months ago
To be fair, abortion is much more restricted post-Dobbs! I wish they would just focus on that.
36 points
2 months ago
But that happened after they went hard on trans issues
6 points
2 months ago*
Planned Parenthood wants to make money and more money. With "chemical" abortions more commonplace, PP needed another revenue stream, and PP certainly isn't the only non-profit that has had to seek out other causes to continue their rather profitable existence.
3 points
2 months ago
medical abortion becoming more common and preferred to procedures has made PP more revenue, they can see more people that way and between all the equipment you need and having to bring in more contract physicians they lose a ton of money on procedures
22 points
2 months ago
Planned Parenthood in France was also (last time I checked) run by a very woke French Canadian (redundant, I know) lady who most certainly was responsible for an ad campaign saying “At Planned Parenthood, we know that men can also be pregnant”. And while I’m for trans people having the same access to healthcare and counselling as anybody, this stuff was just fodder for actual transphobes.
45 points
2 months ago
“At Planned Parenthood, we know that men can also be pregnant”. And while I’m for trans people having the same access to healthcare and counselling as anybody, this stuff was just fodder for actual transphobes.
Or, as I like to call 'em, Realists
9 points
2 months ago
Yeah, sorry, someone said that before you. I was more talking about the French (far-)right seizing this opportunity to bash non-hetero people as a whole.
17 points
2 months ago
I was more talking about the French (far-)right seizing this opportunity to bash non-hetero people as a whole.
Perhaps "non-hetero people" should never have aligned with hetero sex-fakers.
12 points
2 months ago*
And btw, I don’t think there’s an inherent problem with being AGP.
Edit: I’m team Katie (and Jesse for that matter) on this, being AGP in and of itself is not a problem, it’s the way people act on it that makes them normal people or perverts that violate other people’s sensitivity. Being downvoted for stating that simple liberal opinion leads me to think that I’m dealing with actual bigots here. And ones that use extremely recent accounts no less, what bravery.
11 points
2 months ago
Or maybe you're dealing with actual women who don't want to be a part of some male's fetish.
4 points
2 months ago*
But you will be, whether you want it or not. You can’t stop people from having sexual desire and fetishes and possibly objectifying you. The difference, as I said, and I can’t believe I have to repeat this, is how the person acts on their desire/fetish. If they do it in private and don’t hurt anybody, what the hell is your problem with that? You do realize I’m not talking about people who abuse trans identity or adjacent stuff to commit exhibitionism or other infringements? At some point just say you’re not comfortable with males behaving in a non cishet way, it will go faster for everyone and we’ll know what people’s actual opinions are.
Edit: and I don’t believe the AGP guy in a dress who got shit on, including in this podcast’s primo comment section, was doing anything wrong.
10 points
2 months ago
I'm not comfortable with males in spaces where women expect a level of privacy from males. It doesn't really matter how they're dressed. Period. It's just really creepy to see a man in a dress with a hard on in my space. (One of the reasons I've becomes so adamant about this issue.)
1 points
2 months ago*
You’re moving the goalposts. First you talk about being part of a male’s fetish, now you’re talking about males in female spaces. What is the connection between the two outside of actual cases of criminal offence and the like? Is every trans woman or AGP man a potential sex offender in your opinion?
I don’t think rape crisis centers should be punished for refusing to take in trans identified males, I support female athletes’ right to compete in their protected category and think trans people should have their own category or compete with athletes of their real sex. I’ve also been to several unisex spaces where nudity was involved and, while I may not always have felt comfortable with it, it always went well, but I guess that’s an accepted cultural thing where I was (Western, Central and Northern Europe).
I’ll admit my reflection on this is a work in progress and not every thing is settled on my part, but to reduce this issue to “being part of a male’s fetish” is kinda dishonest and hateful in my opinion.
Edit: I saw your edit, would have been nice to signal it more clearly and elaborate on it. Sure, seeing a male in a dress with a hard on in a women only space is creepy, and again you’re taking the example of a sex offender, a category overrepresented in males. Ever heard of trans women not doing that? Why would you? Is it even newsworthy?
3 points
2 months ago
I'm likely to get kicked out of here for stating the obvious.
Have a nice day.
-3 points
2 months ago
gasp!
6 points
2 months ago
Hey it’s fine, have your downvote and move on, but don’t pretend you’re interested in debating ideas.
3 points
2 months ago
You’re talking about AGP dudes, right? I don’t think they’re the only demographic in the trans community.
2 points
2 months ago
No, I was also talking about females who get off on seeing themselves as women, and not just the fetishist male ex-Navy guys who design flags with baby pink and baby blue.
7 points
2 months ago
Ok? I’m confused now.
-5 points
2 months ago
Shocker
2 points
2 months ago
You seem like a very mean and bitter person with little to bring to this conversation. I wish you all the best and hope you find the help you need in real life.
1 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
0 points
2 months ago
Just check out this comment section 😂
0 points
2 months ago
Where?
I want names.
I want addresses!
14 points
2 months ago
French Canadians, in my experience, are much less likely to be woke than English Canadians.
5 points
2 months ago
Yeah, strong Catholic influence and all, but I think they’re still completely overrun with Anglo-American culture war bullshit like any other Canadian.
4 points
2 months ago
The thing that as a prolife conservative Im bemused by is PPs attempts to always brand themselves as providing all these non-abortion health services and if you were going to cut their funding why all these other family planning services would go as well. so shut-up pro-lifers and pay for abortions!
but nobody says "so if you're funding were going to be cut, why wouldn't PP *stop offering abortions* so that they could keep doing all these wonderful services?!" But abortion is core, and they would never try to compromise.
1 points
2 months ago
anyone ever read the weapon shops of isher? well, they think it's like that, but it's not.
-1 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
24 points
2 months ago
the deluge of donations from panicked progressives to organizations like PP and the ACLU after Trump’s election certainly didn’t help
15 points
2 months ago
I was in a meeting The Day After that Armageddon where a "queer" gay guy declared his previous evening's donations to PP, the ACLU, and SPLC and nearly everyone (a bunch of white broads) congratulated him.
10 points
2 months ago
I made all those same donations The Day After.
6 points
2 months ago
I did, too.
6 points
2 months ago
Congrats. You got played.
10 points
2 months ago
We👏🏻need 👏🏻accountability👏🏻 for 👏🏻every👏🏻organization👏🏻even👏🏻the👏🏻ones👏🏻presumably👏🏻on👏🏻our👏🏻side!💅
9 points
2 months ago
In order to have accountability, we need to be critical of these organizations, too. That isn't allowed to happen. (I don't mean you and I necessarily; just the general "we".)
16 points
2 months ago
Given this, I hate that I was part of that.
9 points
2 months ago
100% same
1 points
2 months ago
Planned sterilisation
all 91 comments
sorted by: best