Last month, at the beginning of Trans Awareness Week, an article by Professor Charlotte Paul investigating the risks associated with puberty blockers was published in North & South magazine.
North & South’s first issue appeared in 1986 and — apart from a hiatus in 2020 after Bauer Media closed its New Zealand arm — it has been published continuously for 37 years, with a stellar history of investigative journalism over that time.
In short, it is hardly a fringe magazine. And nor is Charlotte Paul a fringe academic. She is a medical doctor, epidemiologist and emeritus professor of the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the University of Otago. She was a medical adviser to Judge Silvia Cartwright for the cervical cancer inquiry and has a long history researching the safety of medicines, including that of hormonal contraception.
In her article, Paul summarised her main concerns as “the unknown long-term effects of puberty blockers (gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonists) used to treat children with gender dysphoria, the corresponding need for great medical caution, and the apparent absence of it in current medical practice in New Zealand.”
You might think Trans Awareness Week would be an appropriate time for the media to have actually increased the public’s awareness of such issues, but none of the information in Professor Paul’s careful analysis was picked up by other mainstream journalists — despite its alarming revelations.
In fact, just one paragraph in her article should have sent journalists hurrying to her door to find out more.
Paul wrote: “New Zealand is becoming more of an outlier in our increasing use of puberty blocking hormones. In 2022, 416 young people aged 12-17 were taking puberty-blocking hormones, compared to 48 in 2011, the first year of use for gender dysphoria. We have [more than] 11 times the rate of use as England: 110 per 100,000 versus 9 per 100,000. We also have no minimum age for prescribing. If puberty starts at 10 or 11, these children are eligible for blockers.”
These are shocking facts, but there’s more. The article quotes a systematic review from Sweden this year that concluded: “The long-term effects of hormone therapy on psychosocial health are unknown”, and such therapy “delays bone maturation and gain in bone mineral density”.
The review authors also warned that “such treatment in children with gender dysphoria should be considered experimental”.
Paul pointed out that, at least for boys, puberty blockers may impair genital development and hence sexual function if they proceed to cross-sex hormones — and “in this case infertility is likely for both sexes”.
Anyone who follows regular commentary about trans issues in overseas publications — including the Telegraph, The Australian, the New York Times and the Washington Post — will already know that many of those transitioning “are on the autism spectrum and many have underlying mental health problems”, as Paul put it. But they may not know that “children in state care are disproportionately likely to identify as trans.”
In answer to The Platform’s query whether this assertion is made on the basis of local or overseas evidence, she cited a paper published in 2022 by the Youth19 Research Group, from the University of Auckland and Victoria University of Wellington, titled: “The health and wellbeing of takatāpui and rainbow young people who have been involved with Oranga Tamariki.”
Jan Rivers, an analyst with research interests in trans issues, told The Platform: “There is an important untold story related to what is happening in Oranga Tamariki. Lots of kids in care identify as trans with the likelihood of causation from prior trauma being high in creating a trans identity… New policy will see care-home providers and foster carers lose their roles unless they affirm children in their care in their identities.”
Professor Paul’s article was very informative for anyone interested in understanding how trans ideology is being implemented in New Zealand. With a few honourable exceptions, editors have generally been in no hurry to investigate or publicise the risks of puberty blockers, the profound regret of detransitioners, or the distress of parents who are faced with what Paul described as a “terrible trap”, where they are caught between desperately wanting their child to be happy while having serious concerns about radical treatment they fear may have irreversible and damaging effects.
Why most of the mainstream media regard trans issues as a no-go area is in part due to trans activists’ dedication to shutting down discussion as quickly as possible — a policy known as “No Debate”. A common tactic is to cast anyone who even raises the topic as a bigot, a transphobe or — worse — accusing them of helping to push trans people towards suicide.
The inadequate coverage Paul identified in her article is not helped by the fact that two of our biggest media organisations — NZME and MediaWorks — appear on Rainbow Tick’s website as paid-up members. It touts its annual accreditation process as “risk mitigation” against being “seen to be discriminatory or insensitive” towards those belonging to the LGBTTQIA+ community, which can lead to “fast, negative and often costly consequences”.
Although it is not spelled out explicitly, no organisation could be unaware that the “fast, negative and often costly consequences” cited can include ruinous consumer boycotts if they offend rainbow activists. As the Rainbow Tick website coyly puts it: “People are increasingly considering the implications of their purchasing power.”
Consequently, it came as little surprise in mid-March that TodayFM, which was owned by MediaWorks, swiftly reprimanded two of its hosts, Leigh Panapa and Miles Davis, when — in a moment of unauthorised frankness — they objected on-air to various manifestations of trans ideology.
Admitting it might mean the end of her job, Panapa said she would nevertheless refuse to read out the words “pregnant people”, stating that the correct terminology was “pregnant women — not people”.
The pair also objected to mandatory pronouns on emails and communications and scandalously opined that only women can have babies.
The hosts were quickly pulled into line after rainbow representatives objected to their “toxic and inappropriate conversation”, but the abject apologies they offered on air less than 24 hours later clearly weren’t enough. Their MediaWorks masters approved of their decision to undertake “Rainbow Tick training” the following week (although the closure of TodayFM a fortnight later may have reduced the pressing need for ongoing re-education).
It’s little wonder then that some editors who have published articles on the possible dangers of puberty blockers have privately acknowledged it is not worth the grief — which is exactly what the transgender lobby is hoping for.
However, it is not just the mainstream media that appears to have failed in its duty to keep the public informed and to act in the interests of children. In her article, Paul challenged the Medical Council and the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) to step up to fulfil their public role of protecting the health and safety of patients.
Paul wrote: “Doctors are bound by the Medical Council’s Standards of Good Practice. There appear to be breaches of several standards in relation to prescribing unapproved medicines, assessing the patient’s condition before prescribing, practising in the patient’s best interests, assessing capacity to give consent, and responsibilities to provide accurate and balanced information. Yet so far the council has declined to investigate. The HDC has also declined to investigate a specific complaint alleging lack of informed consent for the prescription of cross-sex hormones to a 16-year-old.”
Last year, the Ministry of Health changed the wording on its website so puberty blockers were no longer described as “safe and fully reversible”. But, as Paul notes, it is in no hurry to deliver the “evidence brief” on their use as it promised more than a year ago.
In June, the ministry told Newshub (in one of its rare forays into the topic): “The Ministry of Health does not have formal guidelines on puberty blockers… The evidence brief, which is examining whether or not puberty blockers can be considered safe and fully reversible, is currently being examined. We expect the findings will be ready for release within the next 2-3 months.”
In August, it expanded that brief to include “the impact of any changes to the mental health and wellbeing of those who may be considering puberty blockers”.
Professor Paul notes that information was meant to be delivered by the end of the year but “nothing has emerged to date”.
Even when the brief does appear, it’s a reasonable bet the mainstream news won’t pay it much attention.
Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was originally published by ThePlatform.kiwi and is published here with kind permission.
In her article, Paul summarised her main concerns as “the unknown long-term effects of puberty blockers (gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonists) used to treat children with gender dysphoria, the corresponding need for great medical caution, and the apparent absence of it in current medical practice in New Zealand.”
You might think Trans Awareness Week would be an appropriate time for the media to have actually increased the public’s awareness of such issues, but none of the information in Professor Paul’s careful analysis was picked up by other mainstream journalists — despite its alarming revelations.
In fact, just one paragraph in her article should have sent journalists hurrying to her door to find out more.
Paul wrote: “New Zealand is becoming more of an outlier in our increasing use of puberty blocking hormones. In 2022, 416 young people aged 12-17 were taking puberty-blocking hormones, compared to 48 in 2011, the first year of use for gender dysphoria. We have [more than] 11 times the rate of use as England: 110 per 100,000 versus 9 per 100,000. We also have no minimum age for prescribing. If puberty starts at 10 or 11, these children are eligible for blockers.”
These are shocking facts, but there’s more. The article quotes a systematic review from Sweden this year that concluded: “The long-term effects of hormone therapy on psychosocial health are unknown”, and such therapy “delays bone maturation and gain in bone mineral density”.
The review authors also warned that “such treatment in children with gender dysphoria should be considered experimental”.
Paul pointed out that, at least for boys, puberty blockers may impair genital development and hence sexual function if they proceed to cross-sex hormones — and “in this case infertility is likely for both sexes”.
Anyone who follows regular commentary about trans issues in overseas publications — including the Telegraph, The Australian, the New York Times and the Washington Post — will already know that many of those transitioning “are on the autism spectrum and many have underlying mental health problems”, as Paul put it. But they may not know that “children in state care are disproportionately likely to identify as trans.”
In answer to The Platform’s query whether this assertion is made on the basis of local or overseas evidence, she cited a paper published in 2022 by the Youth19 Research Group, from the University of Auckland and Victoria University of Wellington, titled: “The health and wellbeing of takatāpui and rainbow young people who have been involved with Oranga Tamariki.”
Jan Rivers, an analyst with research interests in trans issues, told The Platform: “There is an important untold story related to what is happening in Oranga Tamariki. Lots of kids in care identify as trans with the likelihood of causation from prior trauma being high in creating a trans identity… New policy will see care-home providers and foster carers lose their roles unless they affirm children in their care in their identities.”
Professor Paul’s article was very informative for anyone interested in understanding how trans ideology is being implemented in New Zealand. With a few honourable exceptions, editors have generally been in no hurry to investigate or publicise the risks of puberty blockers, the profound regret of detransitioners, or the distress of parents who are faced with what Paul described as a “terrible trap”, where they are caught between desperately wanting their child to be happy while having serious concerns about radical treatment they fear may have irreversible and damaging effects.
Why most of the mainstream media regard trans issues as a no-go area is in part due to trans activists’ dedication to shutting down discussion as quickly as possible — a policy known as “No Debate”. A common tactic is to cast anyone who even raises the topic as a bigot, a transphobe or — worse — accusing them of helping to push trans people towards suicide.
The inadequate coverage Paul identified in her article is not helped by the fact that two of our biggest media organisations — NZME and MediaWorks — appear on Rainbow Tick’s website as paid-up members. It touts its annual accreditation process as “risk mitigation” against being “seen to be discriminatory or insensitive” towards those belonging to the LGBTTQIA+ community, which can lead to “fast, negative and often costly consequences”.
Although it is not spelled out explicitly, no organisation could be unaware that the “fast, negative and often costly consequences” cited can include ruinous consumer boycotts if they offend rainbow activists. As the Rainbow Tick website coyly puts it: “People are increasingly considering the implications of their purchasing power.”
Consequently, it came as little surprise in mid-March that TodayFM, which was owned by MediaWorks, swiftly reprimanded two of its hosts, Leigh Panapa and Miles Davis, when — in a moment of unauthorised frankness — they objected on-air to various manifestations of trans ideology.
Admitting it might mean the end of her job, Panapa said she would nevertheless refuse to read out the words “pregnant people”, stating that the correct terminology was “pregnant women — not people”.
The pair also objected to mandatory pronouns on emails and communications and scandalously opined that only women can have babies.
The hosts were quickly pulled into line after rainbow representatives objected to their “toxic and inappropriate conversation”, but the abject apologies they offered on air less than 24 hours later clearly weren’t enough. Their MediaWorks masters approved of their decision to undertake “Rainbow Tick training” the following week (although the closure of TodayFM a fortnight later may have reduced the pressing need for ongoing re-education).
It’s little wonder then that some editors who have published articles on the possible dangers of puberty blockers have privately acknowledged it is not worth the grief — which is exactly what the transgender lobby is hoping for.
However, it is not just the mainstream media that appears to have failed in its duty to keep the public informed and to act in the interests of children. In her article, Paul challenged the Medical Council and the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) to step up to fulfil their public role of protecting the health and safety of patients.
Paul wrote: “Doctors are bound by the Medical Council’s Standards of Good Practice. There appear to be breaches of several standards in relation to prescribing unapproved medicines, assessing the patient’s condition before prescribing, practising in the patient’s best interests, assessing capacity to give consent, and responsibilities to provide accurate and balanced information. Yet so far the council has declined to investigate. The HDC has also declined to investigate a specific complaint alleging lack of informed consent for the prescription of cross-sex hormones to a 16-year-old.”
Last year, the Ministry of Health changed the wording on its website so puberty blockers were no longer described as “safe and fully reversible”. But, as Paul notes, it is in no hurry to deliver the “evidence brief” on their use as it promised more than a year ago.
In June, the ministry told Newshub (in one of its rare forays into the topic): “The Ministry of Health does not have formal guidelines on puberty blockers… The evidence brief, which is examining whether or not puberty blockers can be considered safe and fully reversible, is currently being examined. We expect the findings will be ready for release within the next 2-3 months.”
In August, it expanded that brief to include “the impact of any changes to the mental health and wellbeing of those who may be considering puberty blockers”.
Professor Paul notes that information was meant to be delivered by the end of the year but “nothing has emerged to date”.
Even when the brief does appear, it’s a reasonable bet the mainstream news won’t pay it much attention.
Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was originally published by ThePlatform.kiwi and is published here with kind permission.
4 comments:
In my opinion the whole trans-business is a cult. It seems entirely irrational and is driven by a very small group of very aggressive people with a very enlarged sense of their own victimhood.
Essentially a man can decide he wants to be a woman and put on a frock and we all have to treat him as a woman from that time forth?
We are also led to believe that a man can be born in the wrong body and by surgery he can become a woman. And of course vice versa.
Here is the thing. You can't change the chromosomes. You can't change the XX to XY or vice versa.
Maybe you can try and change the genitalia but it is generally a pretty substandard job at best.
What you can't change at all is the underlying purpose of the reproductive organs. The man's reproductive organs are devoted to making sperm. The woman's reproductive organs are devoted to making eggs. This cannot be changed.
We have failed in our duty of care towards younger members of society in allowing freaks to impose their nefarious ideology on children. Hopefully NZF will ensure that something gets done about this at least where schools are concerned.
The Ministry of Health announced today its "evidence brief" on puberty blockers won't appear until early next year. I have been told the ministry is waiting until Prof Cass's final report is published in the UK, which is apparently imminent. Whether its conclusions are reported in NZ's MSM remains to be seen.
For a great look at the insanity of the trans cult see the doco "What Is A Woman"
Post a Comment