CME about controversial medical practice should be presented as such with both points of view presented fairly and objectively. These people are clearly advocates. Did the APA give equal time to the other side or better yet to fair and objective presenters? Or are these people intimidated? I know a Harvard-trained psychiatrist who is waiting for someone else, the liability lawyers, to sort this out.
My opinion derives from the assertion that the underlying, unavoidable dilemma at least in the case of youths is that evidence of success is almost entirely the subjective opinion of a subject who can never experience the counterfactual because the experiment is the dramatic physical alteration of human development which only happens once in a human's life and is for the sole purpose of altering mental health.
It's not only that the experiment alters the subject of the experiment but the commonality and variety of differential diagnoses, the non-morbid one of same-sex attraction but many associated co-morbidities. It seems to me that these facts alone make it reasonable for people in authority in law and medicine to say 'no' to this experiment. At the very least they should insist on a balanced representation of the facts in CME.
It’s interesting that Turban believes the kids only when they say they’re trans — he only questions their narrative when they detransition and say they once thought they were trans but were mistaken. And the only reason he accepts at face value for detransition is minority stress or internalized transphobia.
Turban says, @59:08, “being sure about your differential diagnosis”— but I am perplexed by that, because there isn’t differential diagnosis happening, under the so-called affirmation model. What’s he referring to??
Both presenters are gay men. Karasic lived through the trauma of the gay epidemic in SF and Turban was severly abused by his family when he came out. It is not hard to see the emotional component here of deep sympathy for sexual minorities not being validated for their feelings. However, can either say they can be truly accurate and dispassionate commentators on a complex issue. I listened to Karasic's dismissal of the HHS report and had to wonder if it was the same report I read. When the dust settles on on the trans phenomena, there will have to be a reckoning on how easily science can be weaponized in the service of an emotionally driven ideology.
They claim there is no systematic review evidence for psychotherapy as a treatment to resolve gender dysphoria; whilst referring to this psychotherapy as conversion therapy?
I’m a therapeutic counsellor (in the U.K.) if I help a client to reduce their gender dysphoria so that they no-longer identify as transgender, then I risk being accused of conversion therapy. And may not be supported by my professional body.
How can there be evidence of an intervention practitioners are fearful to practice?
Also, the speaker seems to be equating the lack of evidence that psychotherapy is effective for gender dysphoria with the lack of evidence for "gender-affirming care." I nearly fell off my chair when I heard this. Sure, it may be that psychotherapy isn't very effective, I don't know, but nobody ever became sterile from it, or had bone density problems, or any of the other myriad complications from taking synthetic hormones.
There is a systematic review of psychotherapy. Done by Cass. Included in HHS umbrella review.
The statement saying otherwise is simply false.
Evidence for psychotherapy just like the other interventions is very low certainty. Quoting HHS.
Some systematic reviews saw low certainty rather than very low for some, very few, medical outcomes.
There are studies showing psychotherapy helps gd remit. Though maybe they will say it is not the psychotherapy. That same argument can be used for the medical interventions.
It's just that psychotherapy doesn't remove functioning and often necessary body parts that many young people have not yet had life experience to appreciate.
And MDs, everyone, also have no idea of natural history. Steensma himself said not to use his 2013 paper and I think they are quoting that.
Singh, Bradley, Zucker 2021 is an analysis of desistance that takes into account these arguments that they weren't diagnosed etc etc. Turban just doesn't mention it.
Well .... This would fail a fact check. That this is being presented as the state of the field at the apa is a shocking disservice to those clinicians.
There is a lot of "those of us who provide these interventions agree and we are at big places, so trust us". The outcome studies descriptions had some impressive misrepresentations and omissions.
And those studies showing puberty blockers are reversible or give time to think...uh...yeah .where are those again?
There is a poor-quality transcript. If you watch the recording, you can see the computer-generated auto-transcription but it is not the best and would require a human being to go back and listen to the whole recording to make the necessary corrections. I sometimes go to the copy posted on the Informed Dissent YouTube channel, where I can easily copy it and use AI to correct most of it, while I make a final pass to make those corrections it misses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BinU3jz4zQ
I listened until the end. At 1:09 there is talk of detransitioner care. They used the word "gaslit" a lot and stated that the people who care for detransitioners should be the people who transition [like Jack Turban}. So we know their next move. They must be stopped.
Where's the video of Guyatt admitting he doesn't even know what he signed when McMaster trashed the outcome of their own study under activist pressure?
Thank you--I couldn't remember where I saw it--and I also want this to be shared with the APA, in response to the citation of the McMaster letter (signed by Guyatt) that undermined the SEGM/McMaster evidence review
CME about controversial medical practice should be presented as such with both points of view presented fairly and objectively. These people are clearly advocates. Did the APA give equal time to the other side or better yet to fair and objective presenters? Or are these people intimidated? I know a Harvard-trained psychiatrist who is waiting for someone else, the liability lawyers, to sort this out.
My opinion derives from the assertion that the underlying, unavoidable dilemma at least in the case of youths is that evidence of success is almost entirely the subjective opinion of a subject who can never experience the counterfactual because the experiment is the dramatic physical alteration of human development which only happens once in a human's life and is for the sole purpose of altering mental health.
It's not only that the experiment alters the subject of the experiment but the commonality and variety of differential diagnoses, the non-morbid one of same-sex attraction but many associated co-morbidities. It seems to me that these facts alone make it reasonable for people in authority in law and medicine to say 'no' to this experiment. At the very least they should insist on a balanced representation of the facts in CME.
It’s interesting that Turban believes the kids only when they say they’re trans — he only questions their narrative when they detransition and say they once thought they were trans but were mistaken. And the only reason he accepts at face value for detransition is minority stress or internalized transphobia.
And he says we should support the families who he says know their kids best--however, clearly he only says that about families who affirm.
Turban says, @59:08, “being sure about your differential diagnosis”— but I am perplexed by that, because there isn’t differential diagnosis happening, under the so-called affirmation model. What’s he referring to??
Both presenters are gay men. Karasic lived through the trauma of the gay epidemic in SF and Turban was severly abused by his family when he came out. It is not hard to see the emotional component here of deep sympathy for sexual minorities not being validated for their feelings. However, can either say they can be truly accurate and dispassionate commentators on a complex issue. I listened to Karasic's dismissal of the HHS report and had to wonder if it was the same report I read. When the dust settles on on the trans phenomena, there will have to be a reckoning on how easily science can be weaponized in the service of an emotionally driven ideology.
Have I got this right?
They claim there is no systematic review evidence for psychotherapy as a treatment to resolve gender dysphoria; whilst referring to this psychotherapy as conversion therapy?
Frustrating af.
I’m a therapeutic counsellor (in the U.K.) if I help a client to reduce their gender dysphoria so that they no-longer identify as transgender, then I risk being accused of conversion therapy. And may not be supported by my professional body.
How can there be evidence of an intervention practitioners are fearful to practice?
This caught my eye as well.
Also, the speaker seems to be equating the lack of evidence that psychotherapy is effective for gender dysphoria with the lack of evidence for "gender-affirming care." I nearly fell off my chair when I heard this. Sure, it may be that psychotherapy isn't very effective, I don't know, but nobody ever became sterile from it, or had bone density problems, or any of the other myriad complications from taking synthetic hormones.
Do these people hear themselves?
There is a systematic review of psychotherapy. Done by Cass. Included in HHS umbrella review.
The statement saying otherwise is simply false.
Evidence for psychotherapy just like the other interventions is very low certainty. Quoting HHS.
Some systematic reviews saw low certainty rather than very low for some, very few, medical outcomes.
There are studies showing psychotherapy helps gd remit. Though maybe they will say it is not the psychotherapy. That same argument can be used for the medical interventions.
It's just that psychotherapy doesn't remove functioning and often necessary body parts that many young people have not yet had life experience to appreciate.
And MDs, everyone, also have no idea of natural history. Steensma himself said not to use his 2013 paper and I think they are quoting that.
Singh, Bradley, Zucker 2021 is an analysis of desistance that takes into account these arguments that they weren't diagnosed etc etc. Turban just doesn't mention it.
I’m puzzled by this, @57:52—Turban reports a finding that “trans people are more likely to be exposed to conversion therapy than cis people.”??
Well .... This would fail a fact check. That this is being presented as the state of the field at the apa is a shocking disservice to those clinicians.
There is a lot of "those of us who provide these interventions agree and we are at big places, so trust us". The outcome studies descriptions had some impressive misrepresentations and omissions.
And those studies showing puberty blockers are reversible or give time to think...uh...yeah .where are those again?
The audio is difficult to hear, has a transcript been made?
There is a poor-quality transcript. If you watch the recording, you can see the computer-generated auto-transcription but it is not the best and would require a human being to go back and listen to the whole recording to make the necessary corrections. I sometimes go to the copy posted on the Informed Dissent YouTube channel, where I can easily copy it and use AI to correct most of it, while I make a final pass to make those corrections it misses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BinU3jz4zQ
Thanks 🙏
I have much better audio on my headphones compared to just listening to my laptop, which is fine for most things
Here is the predominant CME accreditor and their complaint form: https://accme.org/rules/complaints/
I listened until the end. At 1:09 there is talk of detransitioner care. They used the word "gaslit" a lot and stated that the people who care for detransitioners should be the people who transition [like Jack Turban}. So we know their next move. They must be stopped.
Where's the video of Guyatt admitting he doesn't even know what he signed when McMaster trashed the outcome of their own study under activist pressure?
that's Mia Hughes and Stella O'Malley:
https://x.com/_CryMiaRiver/status/1965155081038561553
Thank you--I couldn't remember where I saw it--and I also want this to be shared with the APA, in response to the citation of the McMaster letter (signed by Guyatt) that undermined the SEGM/McMaster evidence review
Wondering where the PDF is?
Thank you!
Verbal diarrhea. I’m amazed all these psychiatrists in attendance can sit through this nonsense and not see the circular reasoning perpetrated.