Lia Thomas exposed 'male genitalia' in women's locker room after meeting

[mandrill]

More allegations of conservative-sponsored pseudo-science:

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Society For Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is an activist non-profit organisation that is known for mischaracterizing standards of care for transgender youth and engaging in political lobbying using misinformation which contradicts the evidence base around transgender healthcare.[1][2][3][4] The group routinely cites the discredited[5] theory of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and has falsely claimed that conversion therapy can only be practiced on the basis of sexual orientation rather than gender identity.[6] SEGM opposes informed consent for transgender healthcare for people under the age of 25.[3] SEGM is often cited in anti-transgender legislation and court cases, sometimes providing evidence briefs themselves.[4][6] It is not recognized as a scientific organization by the international medical community.[2][3][7]

Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine issued a report which described SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists.[8] A commentary published in the journal Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology described them as a "discriminatory advocacy organization".[4] Joshua Safer, a spokesperson for the Endocrine Society, described them as outside the medical mainstream.[3] Aviva Stahl stated they were "pushing flawed science"[1] and Mallory Moore stated they have "ties to evangelical activists".[9][6]

SEGM is closely affiliated with Genspect: seven advisors to SEGM are on Genspect's team of advisors, including Stella O'Malley, Genspect's founder.[10]

Activities and positions
William Malone, a founder of SEGM, has opposed the informed consent model for transgender healthcare, where adults older than 18 can start hormones after signing an informed consent document without requiring an evaluation by a mental health professional. He told Medscape that "cognitive maturity doesn’t occur until the age of 25."[3]

SEGM made a submission[11] in defense of the state of Arizona's ban on Medicaid coverage for transgender healthcare.[6] In it, they advanced the discredited idea of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), which suggests a subtype of gender dysphoria caused by peer influence and social contagion. ROGD has been condemned as unevidenced and nonscientific by the majority of the worlds' major psychological bodies.[9][12] Lambda Legal and Cooley LLP filed an amicus brief opposing the ban on behalf of LGBT advocacy organizations such as PFLAG, the Southern Arizona Gender Alliance, and the TransActive Gender Project. The Pediatric Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health also filed amicus briefs opposing the ban.[13]

Citations in anti-trans legislation
In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton cited SEGM's statement that "childhood-onset gender dysphoria has been shown to have a high rate of natural resolution, with 61-98% of children reidentifying with their biological sex during puberty" in a bill that would define providing gender-affirming care to minors as "child abuse". The statistic is cited from a paper which showed a strong association between the intensity of a child's dysphoria and its persistence.[2][21][22][6]

In March 2020, SEGM was cited in an Idaho bill barring transgender people from changing their sex on their birth certificate. A SEGM spokesperson said they never expressed support for the bill.[1] The legislation stated SEGM "has declared that the conflation of sex and gender in health care is alarming, subjects hundreds of thousands of individuals to the risk of unintended medical harm, and will greatly impede medical research" without providing evidence for the claims. The ACLU condemned the state for their actions.[23] Malone also testified to the legislature in favor of a bill that would make it a felony to prescribe hormone blockers to people under 18 or refer them to gender-reassignment surgery.[6]

In February 2023, Mike Leman spoke for the Catholic Dioceses in support of Wyoming Senate File 111, which ban gender-affirming care for minors. He cited a study from SEGM that questioned Dutch research into such care.[7]

Reception
On April 16 2021, BuzzFeed News stated "A small number of highly controversial doctors and researchers have been pushing these anti-trans bills. Representing organizations with seemingly professional names like the American College of Pediatricians or the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, they have effectively accomplished for gender dysphoria what anti-vaxxer medical professionals have sought to do for their cause: give credence to the notion that no scientific or medical consensus exists regarding the relative safety and efficacy of a given treatment, despite the clear and growing evidence to the contrary".[1]

In August, Trans Safety Network described SEGM as "an anti-trans psychiatric and sociological think tank" and fringe group and reported that most of SEGM's funding came in donations greater than $10,000.[24][9]

In August, Vice News characterized William Malone as an "anti-trans activist" and stated that while SEGM claims to be concerned about the lack of evidence surrounding gender-affirming care for young people, they use the same tactics and citations as Florida's memo, which claimed to provide a scientific basis for banning gender-affirming care but was criticized by organizations such as WPATH. Vice reached out to authors cited in the memo, who said it took their research out of context as the research, and later research, supported gender-affirming care.[8]

In January 2023, R.V. Scheide writing in A News Cafe stated "law firms such as Center for American Liberty can count on support from anti-transgender Christian physician groups such as the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine for expert testimony in court cases."[26]

Medical community
In April 2021, Medscape Medical News asked Joshua Safer – an endocrinologist from Mount Sinai acting as a spokesperson for the Endocrine Society on transgender issues – about SEGM, SEGM member Will Malone, and their concerns about treatment for transgender youth, he stated: "This is a relatively small group that has been making the same arguments for a number of years, and they are very much outside the mainstream. It's not that there's a debate within organized medicine, where there are equal numbers of people on both sides. Dr Malone is outside of those arguments; [he is] not in the mainstream".[3]

In March 2022, SEGM funded a paper titled "Reconsidering Informed Consent for Trans-Identified Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults"[27] which appeared in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. In June, the journal published a response which compared SEGM to the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a prominent conversion therapy advocation organization which focused on sexual orientation change efforts, as they both provide "scientific experts" to testify against LGBT rights.[28]

In April, the Yale School of Medicine issued a report in response to the attacks on transgender healthcare in Arizona and Texas which described SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists "without apparent ties to mainstream scientific of professional organizations" whose "medical claims are not grounded in reputable science and are full of errors of omission and inclusion" and help lawmakers criminalize transgender care.[2][8]

In September, a commentary published in Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology titled "Supporting and Advocating for Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth and Their Families Within the Sociopolitical Context of Widespread Discriminatory Legislation and Policies" used SEGM and the American College of Pediatricians as examples of "discrimatory advocacy organizations" with ties to "professionals who lack expertise in the field". They stated they spread misinformation about transgender health care by mischaracterizing clinical best practices and the scientific research base around transgender care by relying "on a very small, nonrepresentative sample of the available literature, which is often inaccurately interpreted".[4]

In October, Science-Based Medicine described SEGM as a "transphobic organization" which is closely affiliated with Genspect, who they described as "an anti-trans gender critical (GC) organization", and stated they "both regularly peddle anti-trans pseudoscience".[6][10]

In the Fall of 2022, America First Legal ran a campaign ad claiming "Joe Biden and the New Left even promote surgery on teens and young adults, removing breasts and genitals". Kaiser Health News fact checked the claim and found it false, stating "even leaders of the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine, who are wholly skeptical of the acceleration in gender-affirming care", found it false.[29]

In February 2023, in response to Mike Leman citing SEGM for Wyoming Senate File 111, Dr. Alex S. Keuroghlian, who directs programs at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Fenway Institute, stated "there are a lot of unofficial, fringe and radical organizations posing deceptively as legitimate healthcare professional societies and claiming, falsely, that gender-affirming medical care causes harm".[7]

 

[mandrill]

More allegations of rightie-sponsored anti-trans pseudo-science:

Biased Science in Texas & Alabama

On February 18, 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an interpretation of Texas state law (the “AG Opinion”), taking the position that certain medical

medicine.yale.edu

Executive Summary and Table of Contents

Introduction and Summary
On February 18, 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an interpretation of Texas state law (the “AG Opinion”), taking the position that certain medical procedures constitute child abuse as defined in the Texas Family Code.1 Texas Governor Greg Abbott cited the AG Opinion as authority for his February 22, 2022 directive requiring the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to “conduct a prompt and thorough investigation of any reported instances of these abusive procedures” (the “Governor’s Directive”).2
On April 7, 2022, Governor Kay Ivey of Alabama signed S.B. 184 (the “Alabama Law”), which imposes felony penalties on anyone providing certain medical care to any child, adolescent, or young adult under age 19.3
We are a group of six scientists and one law professor. Among the scientists, three of us are M.D.s., three are PhD’s, and all treat transgender children and adolescents in daily clinical practice. We all hold academic appointments at major medical schools, including the University of Texas Southwestern and Yale University. In this report, we examine in depth the scientific claims made in the AG Opinion and the text of the Alabama Law about medical care for transgender children and adolescents. Note that, although we reject the AG’s assertion that gender-affirming care constitutes child abuse and we oppose the Alabama Law’s criminalization of such care, we do not address, in this report, the legal validity of either.4 In accordance with our expertise, our focus is on the science.
After examining the AG Opinion and the findings of “fact” in the Alabama Law in detail, we conclude that their medical claims are not grounded in reputable science and are full of errors of omission and inclusion. These errors, taken together, thoroughly discredit the AG Opinion’s claim that standard medical care for transgender children and adolescents constitutes child abuse. The Alabama Law contains similar assertions of scientific fact, and these too are riddled with errors, calling into question the scientific foundations of the law.
In this report, we focus closely on the AG Opinion, because it contains a full explanation of its reasoning, while the Alabama law presents a list of purported scientific findings without argument or citation. We note, throughout, when the purported findings in the Alabama law echo the claims made in the AG Opinion.
The Texas Attorney General either misunderstands or deliberately misstates medical protocols and scientific evidence. The AG Opinion and the Alabama Law make exaggerated and unsupported claims about the course of treatment for gender dysphoria, specifically claiming that standard medical care for pediatric patients includes surgery on genitals and reproductive organs. In fact, the authoritative protocols for medical care for transgender children and adolescents, which define what we term “gender-affirming care,” specifically state that individuals must be over the age of majority before they can undergo such surgery. The AG Opinion and the Alabama Law also ignore the mainstream scientific evidence showing the significant benefits of gender-affirming care and exaggerate potential risks.
These are not close calls or areas of reasonable disagreement. The AG Opinion and the Alabama Law’s findings ignore established medical authorities and repeat discredited, outdated, and poor-quality information. The AG Opinion also mischaracterizes reputable sources and repeatedly cites a fringe group whose listed advisors have limited (or no) scientific and medical credentials and include well-known anti-trans activists.
The AG Opinion falsely implies that puberty blockers and hormones are administered to prepubertal children, when, in fact, the standard medical protocols recommend drug treatments only for adolescents (and not prepubertal children). For purposes of this report, we use the term “adolescent” to refer to a child under the age of majority in whom pubertal development has begun.
The AG Opinion also omits mention of the extensive safeguards established by the standard protocols to ensure that medication is needed and that adolescents and their parents give informed assent and consent, respectively, to treatment when it is determined to be essential care. There is no rush to treatment: the course of gender-affirming care is tailored to each individual, and standard protocols mandate a process of consultation involving an interdisciplinary team including mental health professionals, medical providers, and parents.
By omitting the evidence demonstrating the substantial benefits of treatment for gender dysphoria, and by focusing on invented and exaggerated harms, the AG Opinion and the Alabama Law portray a warped picture of the scientific evidence. Contrary to their claims, a solid body of reputable evidence shows that gender-affirming care can be lifesaving and significantly improves mental health and reduces suicide attempts. The standard medical protocols were crafted by bodies of international experts based on a solid scientific foundation and have been in use for decades. Thus, treating gender dysphoria is considered not only ethical but also the clinically and medically recommended standard of care. Indeed, it would be considered unethical to withhold medical care from patients with gender dysphoria, just as it would be unethical to withhold potentially lifesaving care for patients with any other serious medical condition.
The repeated errors and omissions in the AG Opinion are so consistent and so extensive that it is difficult to believe that the opinion represents a good-faith effort to draw legal conclusions based on the best scientific evidence. It seems apparent that the AG Opinion is, rather, motivated by bias and crafted to achieve a preordained goal: to deny gender-affirming care to transgender youth. The same is true of the scientific claims made in the Alabama Law.
Many reputable scientific and professional organizations have issued statements opposing the Texas action,5 but to our knowledge, none have conducted the in-depth, point-by-point review that we provide here.
Throughout this report, we use the highest-quality scientific evidence available. In this context, large-scale, randomized controlled trials would be inappropriate for ethical reasons: when medical care has been shown (by other methods) to reduce gender dysphoria and improve mental health, as is the case for gender-affirming care for individuals with gender dysphoria, it would be unethical to deny that care to a control group of patients. This is true in many areas of medicine. In such cases, physicians instead rely on studies using other scientific methods, and they judge the relative quality of evidence based on several factors, including whether the study is peer-reviewed, published in a high-impact journal, up to date, and conducted by reputable investigators.
In this report, we cite studies that are peer-reviewed, up to date, conducted by respected investigators, and published in high-impact journals that are widely read. This represents the highest-quality evidence available to physicians making treatment decisions in this context. By contrast, the AG Opinion relies on very poor-quality evidence. Only two of its sources are peer-reviewed scientific studies. Of these, one is badly out-of-date, and the other is cited for a proposition that is irrelevant to the treatment of transgender children and adolescents.6
To summarize, we find that:
1. The AG Opinion and the Alabama Law falsely claim that current medical standards authorize the surgical sterilization of transgender children and adolescents. In fact, present medical standards state that individuals must be the age of majority or older before undergoing surgery on genitals or reproductive organs.
Current medical protocols do not allow for either surgery or drug therapy for prepubertal children and specifically state that genital surgery should not be carried out before patients reach the legal age of majority. The standards of care do permit the careful use of drug therapies for adolescents (but not prepubertal children) and caution that drug therapies should be undertaken only after a careful, staged process of psychological and medical counseling. The AG Opinion’s and Alabama Law’s lists of “sex change procedures” and the claims that doctors are routinely sterilizing children and teenagers do not reflect current medical practice.
2. The AG Opinion and the Alabama Law ignore the substantial benefits of medical care for transgender children and adolescents, care which has consistently been shown to reduce gender dysphoria and improve mental health. The best scientific evidence shows that gender dysphoria is real, that untreated gender dysphoria leads predictably to serious, negative medical consequences, and that gender-affirming care significantly improves mental health outcomes, including reducing rates of suicide.
The AG Opinion and the Alabama Law omit any discussion of the demonstrated benefits of gender-affirming care as recognized by established medical science. The AG Opinion and the Alabama Law also greatly exaggerate the percentage of adolescents whose diagnosed gender dysphoria dissipates without gender-affirming care. And the AG Opinion repeats discredited evidence claiming that there is a wave of so-called “rapid-onset” gender dysphoria among U.S. adolescents.
3. The AG Opinion and the Alabama Law greatly exaggerate the risks of gender-affirming drug therapy.
The AG Opinion exhibits a poor understanding of medicine and consistently misstates medical protocols and scientific evidence. Contrary to the AG Opinion’s statements, gender-affirming drug therapy (including puberty blockers and hormonal treatments) is safe and effective and has been approved by the major medical authorities. Puberty blockers are fully reversible; when discontinued, puberty begins, and fertility develops normally.
Gender-affirming hormone treatments can reduce fertility to some degree while ongoing, but the evidence suggests that these effects are reversible when hormone therapy is discontinued. Standard medical protocols manage these risks in the way any medical risks should be managed: by weighing the benefits of treatment against potential harms and by a careful and individualized process of consultation and consent. Indeed, the informed consent procedures for gender-affirming drug treatment are at least as rigorous as the consent required for any other drug treatment.

 

[mandrill]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646291920958660609

 

[Frankfooter]

$700 million spent in the EU on anti trans crap alone?

Who’s financing the ‘anti-gender’ movement in Europe?

Over half of funding for anti-gender actors in Europe appears to come from within Europe itself, with significant amounts of money also flowing from the US and the Russian Federation, according to information shared at the European Parliament in March. The public hearing on ‘Foreign...

www.aidsmap.com

 

[mandrill]

$700 million spent in the EU on anti trans crap alone?

Who’s financing the ‘anti-gender’ movement in Europe?

Over half of funding for anti-gender actors in Europe appears to come from within Europe itself, with significant amounts of money also flowing from the US and the Russian Federation, according to information shared at the European Parliament in March. The public hearing on ‘Foreign...

www.aidsmap.com

For some years now, there have been reports of an increasingly organised movement in Europe against access to safe abortion and contraception, LGBTI rights, and sex education. This is visible in different forms, from increased violence and hate speech, to difficulties accessing funding for organisations, and regressive law-making.

These trends point to a growing backlash against women’s rights and gender equality, said Evelyn Regner, member of the European Parliament (MEP) and co-chair of the hearing. This movement is “specifically targeting women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights, while also promoting discrimination and violence against LGBTI people, with worrying consequences in some member states,” she said.

Regner, representing the women’s right committee of the European Parliament, FEMM, focused on the hearing’s need to learn about the financial flows to European anti-choice organisations, which are actively working to undermine women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights.

EPF identified US$186 million of funding coming from the Russian Federation and US$81 million from the US, with smaller amounts from other countries including Mexico and Qatar. The funding identified is not from governments, but from private individuals and foundations.

The US financing comes mainly from ten key Christian Right organisations, usually funded by private individuals linked to far-right and libertarian causes in the US. They seek to actively influence European institutions and their presence in Europe has become significant.

“Over the last seven years, they’ve established a network of offices in Europe – in Brussels, Geneva, London, Strasbourg, Rome and Vienna,” Datta said. “Those cities are not selected randomly, [they are] the centres for human rights decision-making across Europe. So not just the EU, but the UN, OSCE [the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe], Council of Europe, and the courts.”

Where is this money being spent?

EPF identified five elements, which together make up an “anti-human rights infrastructure”.

• Trans-national coalitions e.g. against abortion, LGBT rights or surrogacy.
• New political projects, as anti-gender activists move into far-right political parties.
• New anti-gender social media platforms, like CitizenGo.
• A new presence in the EU, lobbying and targeting institutions.
• Infiltration of positions of power in member states.

An important aspect of this issue is the proliferation of misinformation. For example, OpenDemocracy found that women across Europe are targeted with misinformation by projects affiliated to a large Christian Conservative group, Heartbeat International. The projects establish crisis pregnancy centres that aim to stop women from having abortions.

Heartbeat International has more than 400 affiliates in Italy, including many embedded within hospitals and healthcare centres. One undercover reporter was told by activists inside an obstetrics ward that having an abortion can cause cancer, and that having a baby can cure serious illnesses, including leukaemia.

Provost said, “At almost every affiliate investigated by OpenDemocracy, our undercover reporters were told similar misleading or incorrect claims about their health and/or they were made to feel guilty about having a legal abortion and pressured to do otherwise.”

The same group also promotes so-called abortion pill reversal – an unproven and potentially dangerous treatment that it claims can reverse a medical abortion. OpenDemocracy has launched a new investigation into this issue.

 

[jcpro]

More interesting than your usual stuff.

OTOH Gender HQ appears to cite Ben Shapiro's "Daily Wire", which isn't something a reputable science site should be doing. So that's a little dubious.

Why would you bring Ben Shapiro into this? He is a lawyer by trade, is he not? The politization of the issue is what's hurting those people.

 

[mandrill]

Why would you bring Ben Shapiro into this? He is a lawyer by trade, is he not? The politization of the issue is what's hurting those people.

You mean the incessant attacks on their existence by rightie scumbag politicians?

This assjack wants to ban trans altogether and genocide them.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646163135248695297

 

[jcpro]

You mean the incessant attacks on their existence by rightie scumbag politicians?

This assjack wants to be bans trans altogether and genocide them.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646163135248695297

Ah, it looks like the crazed trans people and their supporters are doing the attacking
.

 

[mandrill]

Ah, it looks like the crazed trans people and their supporters are doing the attacking
.

In what sense, JC?

You mean the trans people have taken over state legislatures and are banning the fundamentalist Jesus People politicians?

 

[jcpro]

In what sense, JC?

You mean the trans people have taken over state legislatures and are banning the fundamentalist Jesus People politicians?

Well, that, too. Or are we now back to ignoring insurrection? We've have had 4 or 5 mass shootings done by trans or non binary individuals. Don't they register with you as attacks?

 

[Frankfooter]

Well, that, too. Or are we now back to ignoring insurrection? We've have had 4 or 5 mass shootings done by trans or non binary individuals. Don't they register with you as attacks?

Wow, 4 or 5?

1.3 million people have been killed by guns in the US since 1968.

 

[jcpro]

Wow, 4 or 5?

1.3 million people have been killed by guns in the US since 1968.

LOL!!! Yep. Now subtract the suicides, roughly 60-70% depending on the year, and what do you get?

 

[mandrill]

Well, that, too. Or are we now back to ignoring insurrection? We've have had 4 or 5 mass shootings done by trans or non binary individuals. Don't they register with you as attacks?

Of course they do.

How many mass shootings did white cis males do?..... Did they commit those mass shootings because they're hetero sexual and straight?

How about the Toronto Van killer who killed women because he was an incel?

 

[jcpro]

Of course they do.

How many mass shootings did white cis males do?..... Did they commit those mass shootings because they're hetero sexual and straight?

How about the Toronto Van killer who killed women because he was an incel?

Well, clearly we need to ban vans.

 

[basketcase]

Why would you bring Ben Shapiro into this? He is a lawyer by trade, is he not? The politization of the issue is what's hurting those people.

Love the cherry picked thing to complain about as an excuse to ignore the masses of info/studies he posted.

 

[jcpro]

Love the cherry picked thing to complain about as an excuse to ignore the masses of info/studies he posted.

You should love it. You can post any "research" on a hot topic and it will show you whatever you wish to believe in. Especially the "research " regarding gender dysphoria post 2020. It's a lot like the Covid expertise we've experienced for two years that ignored natural immunity, mask bullshit, lockdowns, vaccine efficacy, basic risk management, etc.

 

[basketcase]

You should love it. You can post any "research" on a hot topic and it will show you whatever you wish to believe in. Especially the "research " regarding gender dysphoria post 2020. It's a lot like the Covid expertise we've experienced for two years that ignored natural immunity, mask bullshit, lockdowns, vaccine efficacy, basic risk management, etc.

Hmm. Mandy posted numerous scientific studies. You claimed to be backed by studies but it turns out the 'studies' you posted weren't studies.

Thanks but I'll stick with peer reviewed science over tiktok.



p.s. Maybe you should actually read those studies on 'natural' immunity, masks, and vaccines because the actual content is at odds with the clickbait headlines you got suckered by.

 

[jcpro]

Hmm. Mandy posted numerous scientific studies. You claimed to be backed by studies but it turns out the 'studies' you posted weren't studies.

Thanks but I'll stick with peer reviewed science over tiktok.



p.s. Maybe you should actually read those studies on 'natural' immunity, masks, and vaccines because the actual content is at odds with the clickbait headlines you got suckered by.

I'm not going to because the "science is settled" on the gender dysphoria and it has been for decades. Of course, these days, they serve you the evolving science that shows, conclusively, that amputating breasts off teenaged girls, using puberty blockers on prepubescent boys, and building vaginas between boys' legs is "gender affirming " care. Sounds like a study I should read.

 

[Frankfooter]

I'm not going to because the "science is settled" on the gender dysphoria and it has been for decades. Of course, these days, they serve you the evolving science that shows, conclusively, that amputating breasts off teenaged girls, using puberty blockers on prepubescent boys, and building vaginas between boys' legs is "gender affirming " care. Sounds like a study I should read.

Not like in the old country where you just wore a dress and maybe if you're lucky you could get enough hormones to grow some boobs.
Now that's the jc tranny stylings!

 

[jcpro]

Not like in the old country where you just wore a dress and maybe if you're lucky you could get enough hormones to grow some boobs.
Now that's the jc tranny stylings!

FYI, in the socialist paradise they had gays and even trannies. They called that particular "crime" antisocial behavior punishable by 10 years of prison. Proletaries of the World Unite!!!!