You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Transgender’ tag.
The rapid proliferation of gender ideology over the past decade—especially the surge of adolescent-onset gender dysphoria—stands as one of the clearest examples of social contagion in modern Western societies. A clinical framework once reserved for a very small number of adults with persistent, childhood-onset dysphoria was transformed into a cultural mandate through the convergence of three forces: institutional capture, algorithm-driven identity formation, and activist-driven medical practice.
Between 2015 and the early 2020s, referrals for gender services exploded—driven overwhelmingly by teenage girls with no prior history of dysphoria. Peer-group clustering, sudden identity shifts following intense online exposure, and the complete inversion of historic sex ratios all point to a socially transmitted phenomenon rather than a newly discovered biological one. Yet under the “affirmation” model, minors were placed on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and permanent surgeries despite limited evidence, poorly understood risks, and a professional culture that increasingly discouraged clinical skepticism.
The hardest obstacle to unwind, however, will not be the institutions that enabled this shift. Policies can change, clinics can be restructured, and professional bodies can revise guidelines—as they already have across parts of Europe. The most immovable barrier will be parents. Many acted from compassion, social pressure, or a sincere desire to be “supportive,” but they now face an excruciating truth: they approved irreversible medical interventions on psychologically vulnerable teenagers during a developmental window historically marked by transient distress, identity confusion, and social sensitivity.
Double mastectomies on minors, lifetime fertility loss, and surgeries with complication rates exceeding anything considered acceptable elsewhere in medicine are not abstract debates. They are lived consequences. For parents, acknowledging error would require confronting a moral reality few can bear: that they were active participants in harming their own child. The human mind is built to avoid that revelation at all costs.
As a result, the detransition wave—real, growing, and increasingly documented—will face its fiercest resistance not from clinics or activists, but from within families. Parents will cling to the “lifesaving care” narrative long after the institutions that encouraged it have quietly retreated. They will reinterpret events to preserve psychic stability, even if doing so deepens the suffering of the child who must now live with the consequences.
Reversing the damage will require more than policy reform or legal accountability. It will require a public reckoning with the psychological mechanisms of self-deception, moral injury, and sunk-cost loyalty that allowed an entire society to medicate and operate on distressed adolescents in the name of affirmation. That reckoning—private, painful, and unavoidable—is the hardest part still to come.
References
-
The Cass Review – Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People (Interim Report) — NHS-commissioned review (Feb 2022) by Dr. Hilary Cass. Sex Matters
-
The Cass Review: Final Report (April 2024) — Hilary Cass’s full independent review. BASW+1
-
NHS England: Public Consultation Analysis & Summary – Interim Clinical Policy on Puberty-Suppressing Hormones (Jan 2024) — analysis of feedback on proposed policy changes. NHS England
-
Commission on Human Medicines (UK) Report – Proposed Restriction on GnRH Agonists for Under-18s — recommendation to restrict puberty blockers. GOV.UK
-
Equality & Health Inequalities Impact Assessment (EHIA), NHS England — assessment of health-inequality risks from the policy change on puberty blockers. GOV.UK+1
-
Karolinska Institutet Systematic Review on Hormonal Treatment in Youths (<18) — finds that GnRHa treatment should be considered experimental due to lack of long-term data. Karolinska Institutet News
-
Karolinska Hospital Policy Statement (April 2021) — stops prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors under 16 except in research settings. Feminist Legal Clinic
On September 1, Alberta’s Fairness and Safety in Sport Act came into force, marking a decisive step in a global debate over equity in athletics. The law—formerly Bill 29—requires athletes aged 12 and older to compete in categories aligned with their sex as recorded at birth. Out-of-province visitors remain exempt, and younger children are unaffected. The aim is not blanket exclusion, but to preserve a level playing field for female competitors.
The rationale rests on clear evidence: even after hormone therapy, biological males often retain advantages in strength, speed, and endurance. A 2021 study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that transgender women maintained a measurable edge in running times even after two years of testosterone suppression. High-profile cases—from swimmer Lia Thomas in the NCAA to weightlifter Laurel Hubbard at the Olympics—have underscored how even rare instances can shape competition outcomes and displace female athletes.
Opposition has been swift. Groups like Egale and Skipping Stone argue the Act is discriminatory, casting it as a rollback of human rights protections. Their concern is not trivial: trans youth already face higher rates of marginalization, and exclusion from sport can exacerbate social isolation. For activists, the law sends a stigmatizing signal that identity is secondary to biology, undermining inclusion.
But here the clash of principles becomes unavoidable. Protecting the integrity of women’s sports means acknowledging physiological differences that identity alone cannot erase. Alberta’s law draws that boundary: co-ed and male divisions remain open to all, while female categories are safeguarded for those born female. Critics frame this as erasure; supporters see it as necessary equity.
The deeper problem lies in public discourse. Too often, debate polarizes into caricatures—claims of “rights apocalypse” on one side, or blanket dismissal of trans athletes on the other. Alberta’s legislation is imperfect but pragmatic: it carves out space for participation without sacrificing fairness. Future court challenges will test whether the balance holds, but the principle is clear. True progress in sport must protect all athletes’ opportunities, not just the loudest voices in the debate.
“There’s a saying in medicine that goes, “when you hear hooves, think horses not zebras.” Meaning always opt for the most plausible explanation first.
So let’s apply that to the enormous surge in adolescent girls identifying as transgender in the past decade.
Option 1:
All throughout human history, there have been girls who showed no sign of gender distress during childhood who suddenly at puberty realised that they were actually boys, but modern medicine had yet to be invented so they had to suffer the lifelong agony of being trapped in the wrong-sexed body. Curiously, not one ever gave voice to this pain.
Then, only when the caring, benevolent medical industrial complex invented the concept of transsexualism and out of the goodness of their hearts made puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries available were these tortured souls able to embrace their true authentic selves.
As well, miraculously, the modern trans rights movement began in 2014 and achieved immediate and complete societal acceptance of transgender people, so all of these boys trapped in female bodies felt comfortable coming out en masse starting in 2015.
Or, option 2:
It’s an internet-fuelled social contagion on steroids.
Incredibly, in gender clinics all over North America, doctors are still opting for zebras.”
Let’s think of horses in 2025, for the sake of the children and adults who need to foreground reality and not gender fantasy this fine New Year.
The CBC likes to think that they are an objective news source. They are not. Let’s take a look at this article that is so completely lopsided that if it ‘objective CBC reporting’ was a car, two wheels would be spinning freely in the air.
First of all, please go to the Let Kids Be website and read what they have to say about the dangerous practice of mutilating (transitioning) children.
“Members of London’s transgender community say a new ad appearing on London Transit Commission (LTC) buses this week carries a message with the potential to harm young people who seek, or are receiving, medical care related to their gender identity.”
Potential harm? You mean like having children and people think twice about undertaking procedures that will sterilize them for life and require life long medical attention. The horror.
“Elliot Duvall, a transgender man who lives in London, said the ad shouldn’t be allowed because it’s focused on denying care that is allowed in Canada and follows standards of care accepted by health practitioners.
Gender-affirming health care — an approach that affirms a trans person’s gender identity instead of trying to change it — is endorsed by medical associations in Canada and around the world, including the Canadian Psychological Association and the Canadian Pediatric Society.”
Both these associations are institutionally captured and are ignoring the evidence based medicine that contradicts their political views. This from the Cass Report:
-
The use of masculinising / feminising hormones in those under the age of 18 also presents many unknowns, despite their longstanding use in the adult transgender population. The lack of long-term follow-up data on those commencing treatment at an earlier age means we have inadequate information about the range of outcomes for this group.
- Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.
- For the majority of young people, a medical pathway may not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems.
- Innovation is important if medicine is to move forward, but there must be a proportionate level of monitoring, oversight and regulation that does not stifle progress, while preventing creep of unproven approaches into clinical practice. Innovation must draw from and contribute to the evidence base.
Yeah, so quoting only one side of the issue is nothing like “objective reporting”.
“”It’s absolutely appalling to be honest with you,” said Duvall about the bus ads. “It’s also hard because every person, whether they’re a minor or not, should have health-care rights.”
Let’s call bullshit on this statement because on of the cornerstones of *ANY* healthcare procedure is informed consent. Which isn’t happening in Canada.
“Robyn Hodgson, a registered nurse and formerly the co-ordinator in the transgender and non-binary program at the London InterCommunity Health Centre, said the ad’s message has the potential to harm young people.
“We have medical criteria for when young people should receive appropriate care,” said Hogdson. “So it’s unclear from this advertisement what it is that they seek to ban. There are medically approved criteria for doing different levels of care at different points of developmental progression.”
Defining evidence based medical practice as ‘potentially harmful’ is amazing Orwellian considering that so called gender affirming care is been shown to be based on politics and wishful thinking, as opposed to actual evidence of efficacy. Canada’s standards for GAC are based on the discredited WPATH guidelines.
-
Lack of Consideration for Long-Term Outcomes: The files reveal that WPATH members demonstrate a lack of consideration for long-term patient outcomes despite being aware of the potential debilitating and fatal side effects of treatments such as cross-sex hormones. There’s an acknowledgment within the discussions that patients, including those with severe mental health issues like schizophrenia or dissociative identity disorder, and other vulnerabilities such as homelessness, are allowed to consent to hormonal and surgical interventions without adequate understanding of the implications.
-
Medical Ethics and Informed Consent Violations: There are indications that WPATH does not meet the standards of evidence-based medicine, with members improvising treatments as they go along. The files highlight concerns about the ethicality of these practices, showing that informed consent might not be as thorough or well-understood by patients as it should be, particularly in the context of minors and vulnerable adults. The discussions reveal a pattern where the potential for harm, including infertility and other severe health complications, is known but not adequately communicated or considered.
-
WPATH’s Influence and Policy Implications: WPATH, being a leading authority in transgender healthcare, significantly influences global medical practices, policies, and guidelines. The files expose that this influence might be based on practices that are not backed by robust scientific evidence or ethical medical standards, which could lead to widespread medical malpractice. This has implications for how transgender healthcare is regulated and practiced worldwide, potentially affecting patient care and policy-making in numerous countries.
These findings are drawn from analyses and reports by various entities and individuals who have reviewed the WPATH files, highlighting concerns over the ethical and evidence-based practices within transgender healthcare.
Yes, so let’s not use bullshit to guide our best medical practices. CBC fails to mention any of the tomfoolery associated with using the WPATH guidelines.
“Hodgson believes denying access to a full range of general affirming care could leave minors vulnerable to negative mental health outcomes, including an increased risk of suicide.”
CBC just straight up prints propaganda. GAC has not been shown to improve mental health outcomes.
Evidence Against the Claim:
A study from Sweden, often cited for its long-term follow-up, examined transgender individuals who had undergone sex reassignment surgery. The findings showed that post-surgery, the suicide rate among these individuals was 20 times higher than in comparable peers, even 10 to 15 years after surgery. This suggests that gender-affirming surgery does not necessarily reduce suicide risk over the long term.
A narrative review of 23 studies on suicide-related outcomes following gender-affirming treatment (surgery, hormones, puberty blockers) indicates that while some studies show a reduction in suicidality, the literature suffers from methodological weaknesses. This review highlights the need for better control for psychiatric comorbidities, suggesting that the relationship between GAC and reduced suicide might not be straightforwardly causal due to confounding factors like psychiatric treatment history.
A study in Finland looking at all-cause and suicide mortality among adolescents who contacted specialized gender identity services found that when psychiatric treatment history is considered, gender dysphoria (GD) significant enough to seek gender reassignment does not appear to be predictive of higher suicide rates. Instead, the suicides were more associated with psychiatric morbidities rather than GD itself.
Several sources, including a review from the Heritage Foundation, argue that the research supporting the claim that GAC reduces suicide is flawed. They highlight that studies often lack rigorous methodology, fail to control for pre-existing mental health conditions, and do not establish causality. Some even suggest that easier access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones without parental consent might correlate with increased suicide rates among youth.
An initial study from the Karolinska Institute and Yale, which suggested mental health benefits from gender-affirming surgeries, was later corrected. The correction stated that there was “no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care visits or prescriptions or hospitalizations following suicide attempts,” indicating that the initial findings of mental health benefits were not supported by subsequent analysis.
Unbelievable. Contact the CBC ombudsmen at once.
I’m ashamed of my national broadcaster.
“I am more convincved than ever the trans movement is a deeply misogynistic destructive force created by those who want to destroy the fabric of society, harm women, and harm children.”
Well done, trans activists.
Craven behaviour has been allowed to fester in our institutions for way too long. This individual is *responsible* for the fairness and safety of soccer in Alberta. Guess what chucklefuck? Stating the truth and protecting the girls in your leagues won’t be all sugar and spice given the current activist narrative bullshit climate. Find a backbone already and start fighting for reality and women’s rights
Bullshit baffles brains.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…