Driven by the transgender lobby, a cluster of extremely well-funded physician providers have for the past several years been prescribing fertility-suppressing drugs on an FDA unapproved, “off use” basis to halt the maturation of children deemed as failing to conform to social stereotypes based on sex. These physician’s rationale is that studies show a tiny percentage (around 2%) of these sex-role non-conforming children will end up seeking surgical “sex change”, and a larger minority (around 15%) will report some form of continued distress with sex-roles post puberty. Providers who pioneer this “cosmetic medicine” protocol among a pediatric population operate from the belief that the distress of those 2% of children who may go on to identify themselves as transsexual later in life will be alleviated by administering puberty-preventing drugs before the children reach sexual maturity. This protocol is followed by the administration of sterilization and lifetime cross-sex hormone medicine and reconstructive cosmetic surgeries intended to disguise their reproductive function as that of the opposite sex.
This clinical practice is in opposition to multiple long-term studies which show that such treatments do not decrease morbidity rates for transgender people post “treatment”. Physicians administering these drugs also operate from the conclusion that the severity of the distress of those 2% of children (those who later go on to request medical cross-hormone and surgical treatments to appear socially as opposite-sex persons) is so profound that it should be prioritized above the harmful outcomes for the majority lesbian and gay children referred for these experimental treatments.
Dana Beyer, middle-aged heterosexual male, father, and Executive Director of Gender Rights Maryland posits that sex-role nonconformity is a pediatric disease process. Beyer speculates that gender malaise may be caused in children by ecological contamination. “There are probably many reasons for the increase in prevalence, including the increased dumping of environmental pollutants known as endocrine disruptors..” Beyer notes.
Beyer acknowledges that most children referred for medicalized sex-role “treatment” would mature into well-adjusted lesbian, gay, or non-conforming heterosexuals if left untreated (objectively evidenced by their failure to require psychological care as adults). Repeated multi-decade research has established this as undeniable fact. Nonetheless, Beyer believes such childhood behavior is “diseased”. Beyer, like many mainstream transgender medical lobbyists asserts that the potential distress of a tiny minority of children who may end up in middle age like him (attempting the impossible task of cosmetically undoing the biologic signifiers of maleness) – justifies the experimental medical maiming, sterilizing, and lifetime drug dependence of any number of lesbian, gay or otherwise “birth defected” sex-role nonconforming children.
“..if a child grows up and decides to de-transition, then what of it? The harm done is minimal..” Beyer says. How does Beyer justify these priorities, and the transgender medical lobbying for these experimental protocols on children? Believe it or not the foundation for this practice is the hope that children who are subjected to cross-sex cosmetic surgical/medical treatments prior to maturity may “pass” better than people like Dana Beyer as the opposite sex. Dana can imagine no better outcome for the future than that.
Yet what of the majority of children who are clinically referred for treatment to medical professionals for gender variance who would self-resolve during maturity as well-adjusted lesbian or gay adults if left medically “untreated”? We know this occurs because these outcomes have been studied over decades prior to the recent experimental drug treatments, and those studies have been duplicated and confirmed. In contrast, the only, singular study of children who received experimental medical “correction” of sex-role incongruence (in the Netherlands) terminated upon administration of cross-sex hormone treatments. Alarmingly, every child who was medical-tracked for this “disorder” proceeded onto sterilization. Since the study was arbitrarily aborted at that point (presumably to cover the potential liability of providers) long-term outcomes are unknown.
In May, international transgender lobbyists met to codify and update genderism into the World Health Organizations IDC medical codes. The committee’s objective was to advocate for genderist representation and the medicalization of distress caused by sex-roles. Even so, the committee on “transgender children” ended up splintering and causing a standstill of the entire council. Why? Because the gays. The research is undeniable. Medicalizing gender nonconformity in children is explicitly and undeniably anti-gay. From the trans-lobbying committee:
“…attaching a medical diagnosis to gender diversity in childhood contradicts WHO’s commitment to respecting rather than pathologizing sexual diversity. Specifically, research indicates it is impossible to reliably distinguish between a gender-variant child who will grow up to become trans and a gender-variant child who will grow up to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual, but not trans.12 As such, by conflating gender variance and sexual orientation, the proposed GIC category amounts to a re-pathologization of homosexuality.”
Mainstream Media coverage on “transgender children” loves to follow the drumbeat that children are carefully screened, given counseling, no surgery is done on children. But that isn’t true at all. Are trans activists ill-informed? Reporters incompetent? Doubtful. Dana Beyer repeats this wholly false assertion: “Let me make it clear: There is no surgical intervention done in this country before the age of consent, at 18.” That is simply not true, and no one with a glancing interest in the transgender child trend would make such a claim in good faith. Providers who are willing to “treat” children surgically as minors and medically without psychological screening aren’t exactly hiding. They are openly celebrated in the transgender community. Surgeon Beverly Fischer does gender surgery on children as young as twelve. Everyone knows it, and genderists love and support it.
Dr. Forcier, quoted below, administers puberty blockers to kids in her pediatric practice with no psychological evaluation, no counseling or screening whatsoever, and says that pediatric endocrinologists who require them are “gatekeeping” children from lifesaving medical care.
Respected mainstream transgender activists like (middle-aged heterosexual father and military careerist) Autumn Sandeen claim that the trans movement needs pre-sexual children in order to “take the sex out” of the public face of a movement which largely serves men whose sexual orientation is autogynephilic. Puberty blocking androgen Lupron and antecendents are so toxic that their use among adult transgenders is not advised. Yet the cluster of physicians who prescribe them for children ( unapproved and “off use”) and trans lobbyists (and sadly, parents) continue to present false information to the public and media that is wholly at odds to all pediatric endocrinological medical research. They know it’s untrue, yet they march to the drumbeat of: “Completely safe” “Harmless” “Reversable”…
No. Just no.
“The effect of the puberty-blocking drugs is reversible” – Daniel Metzger, MD, FRCPC, a pediatric endocrinologist at BC Children’s Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and a clinical professor, division of endocrinology in the department of pediatrics, University of British Columbia in Vancouver.
“It’s important to note that puberty blockers are completely reversible” – Mary Moss, gender activist and mother of a “transgender child”.
““Puberty blockers are completely reversible, allowing children to return and develop in the puberty of the natal gender without known adverse sequelae.”- Dr Michelle Forcier, pediatrician at Hasbro Children’s Hospital Clinic RI who administers the drugs to children without any prior psychological evaluation, screening, or counseling.
“There are no side effects or long term effects and they are 100% reversible and it’s given as either a shot or an implant.” – Michele Laurin, gender activist and mother of a “transgender child”.
“Trans kids can take puberty blockers, which are completely reversible and have been being used for years to treat the condition called Central Precocious Puberty. It’s perfectly safe, and it puts puberty on hold for a couple years so they don’t get the negative effects.” – Jenn “NeoGal99” Burleton, a male transgender and founder of TransActive, which bills itself as “the only transgender youth nonprofit in the country with actual office space”.
“The use of puberty blockers (GnRH analogues) allows reversible suppression of ‘puberty hormones’ and the associated pubertal changes.” – Dr. Louise Newman, Professor of Developmental Psychiatry, Monash University
“Supression of pubertal sex steroid production and thus secondary sexual characteristics can be effectively and safely accomplished using gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa)- an intervention that is both temporary and reversible” – Dr Peter Lee and Dr Christopher Houk, pediatric endocrinologists
“Children’s offers reversible medical intervention to a select group of at-risk transgender patients in order to suppress their production of estrogen or testosterone, but only after these patients have entered puberty. This reversible treatment gives patients time to reach an age when they can decide, with their families, whether to begin cross-sex hormone therapy.”- Children’s Hospital, Boston
“Studies have not been completed in children to determine the full reversibility of fertility suppression.” –Abbott Laboratories, 2013, manufacturer of Lupron
Marvin Belzer Md, Director of Adolescent Medicine at Saban Research, one of the top five federally funded pediatric institutions in the country explains: “I never had the time to do the research”.