you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]endless_assfluff 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm going to interpret 'literature' as scientist slang for peer-reviewed articles. Sue Donym on Medium has done some great compilations of PubMed articles, with commentary, including:

*A Republican Billionaire Is Funding the Trans Movement and Conversion Therapy Junk Science. Here’s the Who, and the How (baaah can't get the bullet points right)

*Inauthentic Selves: The modern LGBTQ+ Movement Is Run By Philanthropic Astroturf And Based On Junk Science

It would take a while for me to hunt down and list every paper she mentions. But yeesh, I've read through a few of those PubMed articles and share the author's concerns (no control cohort in a longitudinal study---wtf!). Every intro and conclusion seems to have some variation of the phrase "more data is needed to base these decisions on empirical evidence," implying that there's not enough empirical evidence to suggest the assumed benefits of hormones or puberty blockers outweigh the severe side effects.

So, from what I'm read, no, we don't know what the effects are. There isn't even any evidence to suggest puberty blockers and hormone therapy work better to address gender dysphoria than non-drug therapies (no! control! cohort! I've seen homeopathy papers more thorough than this). But that's not a problem! It's not a problem because we assumed that treatment works, therefore it must work! If you disagree it's because you literally want GNC kids to die.

If anyone wants to chat about specific articles, hit me up. I'm happy to promote scientific literacy if you don't want to take my word for it.