EU New report from European medical orgs declares unwavering support for gender-affirming care - The report also slammed the UK's controversial Cass Review.

A new report from a slate of European medical organizations emphasizes the importance of gender-affirming care for transgender youth. It also condemns the UK’s controversial Cass Review that claimed gender-affirming care is dangerous for young people.

The new 400-page report, released last week and written in German, included 26 medical and psychotherapeutic professional organizations from Germany,
Switzerland, and Austria. According to an analysis and translation by transgender journalist Erin Reed, the guidelines recommend puberty blockers for trans youth, as well as individualized care.

The report adds, “If, in individual cases, the progressive pubertal maturation development creates a time pressure in which health damage would be expected due to longer waiting times to avert irreversible bodily changes (e.g. male voice change), access to child and adolescent psychiatric or psychotherapeutic clarification and medical treatment options should be granted as quickly as possible.”

The report also slams the Cass Review for recommending psychotherapy as a treatment for gender dysphoria rather than gender-affirming care, since “none of the studies included in the review in question were able to show a reduction in gender dysphoria through psychotherapy.”

The Cass Review is a 400-page review of oft-cited research on gender-affirming care for minors. The review concluded that there’s little reliable evidence showing positive outcomes from such care and urged “extreme caution” before giving minors puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy. It also said that “life-changing” decisions on gender-affirming care should be put off until adulthood since the brain continues maturing into the mid-20s.

Outraged trans activists said the Cass Review excluded hundreds of studies showing the critical benefits of gender-affirming care for youth. Reed eviscerated Cass’s findings at the time of its release, saying the report included concepts rejected by more than 60 mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association.

Reed said the new guidelines from Germany, Switzerland, and Austria “mark a significant advancement for transgender healthcare in those countries, reinforcing a growing trend in Europe toward expanding, not restricting, access to gender-affirming care.” Its recommendations, she added, “dismantle the false narrative that Europe is ‘pulling back’ on transgender care. In reality, it is the United States that stands as an outlier, with its regressive policies placing it far to the right of much of the Western world.”

She also called out the media for ignoring the new report recommending gender-affirming care despite publishing piece after piece on the Cass Review.

She wrote on Bluesky, “Anyone find it funny how when the UK releases the Cass review to ban trans care, we get everything ranging from New York Times push notifs to op-eds in every major US paper… But when Germany, Switzerland, and Austria release pro-trans youth care guidelines, not a single article anywhere but mine?”



Article Link

Archive

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

The Troons are once again selective quoting and completely misrepresenting what the document actually says.

It contains for example gems like this:

"Angesichts der vielseits unsicheren Evidenzlage in diesem Themenfeld, die sich absehbar nur mittelfristig ändern wird, wurde im Interesse der Akzeptanz der Leitlinie angesichts kontroverser Debatten ein möglichst breiter und damit für die Versorgungspraxis überzeugender Expert*innenkonsens bei den einzelnen Empfehlungen angestrebt."

TL:
"Considering the varied and uncertain evidence about this topic, which will likely only change in the intermediate-term, we decided to seek, in the face of many controversial debates, to improve the acceptance of this guideline by looking for the largest consent of our Experts possible for the treatment options for each single recommendation."

The entire thing is based on expert opinions based on sparse scientific evidence.
In the introduction of the guideline they even list two contributors who withdrew with their entire organization from the paper because they refuse to ratify the final version.

I am still reading further, but prefacing your document with "we have little scientific evidence, but this is what WE the experts think, after bullying out controversial voices and creating an echo chamber!"
I will quote and translate further relevant passages to clarify what this actual says.


[EDIT] Adding some further context where gender transition of minors is discussed.

"Einwilligungsfähigkeit ist ein Schwellenbegriff, sie liegt entweder vor oder nicht vor. Sie wird erst im Lauf der individuellen Persönlichkeitsentwicklung erworben und ist jeweils abhängig von der Komplexität der anstehenden Entscheidung"

TL: "The ability to consent is a threshold concept, it either exists or not. An individual acquires it durings personality development and it depends on the complexity of the pending decision."

"Altersgrenzen werden zwar in der Literatur gelegentlich als Schwellenwerte genannt. So heißt es etwa, dass Einwilligungsfähigkeit ab dem vollendeten 13. Lebensjahr in Einzelfällen, ab dem vollendeten 15. Lebensjahr in der Regel gegeben sein kann. Doch sind diese Altersangaben nur als Orientierungswerte zu verstehen."

TL: "Age limits are occasionally used as thresholds. For example it is said that ability to consent can exist in individual cases starting at age 13, and in general at age 15. But these ages should only be seen as orientation values."

But this means it that:
a) They say minors cannot in general CONSENT to any procedure unless their ability to consent is verified by the treating physician (psychologist) and to a level of LEGAL certainty. Meaning even if some lesbo double mommy construct tries to gender swap their little boy, the child cannot consent and it cannot take place. (There are further recommendations that no level of force by a guardian/parent can take place either)
b) Children cannot generally decide this on their own, guardian/parental acceptance is mandatory.

Nobody is slamming the Cass report at all in the medical/consent orientated chapters, they are trying to create good-faith guidelines for doctors to not get into hot water.

All these recommendations also require extensive and lengthy psychological treatment before any gender affirming intervention can take place, ESPECIALLY for minors.

Where they ruffle the Cass review is in the chapters that deal with statistical analysis, where the Cass report has some glaring deficiencies that are simply factually wrong. (f.e. talking about an exponential increase when the used statistical data does not support it)

 

[YarrBlueballs]

All these recommendations also require extensive and lengthy psychological treatment before any gender affirming intervention can take place, ESPECIALLY for minors.

Are you telling me that tranny media misrepresented something in another language to justify their fetish, despite the very thing they're citing explicitly stating otherwise? Tell me it ain't so! Hell the psychological treatment is basically the neonazi argument at this point as well!

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Are you telling me that tranny media misrepresented something in another language to justify their fetish, despite the very thing they're citing explicitly stating otherwise? Tell me it ain't so! Hell the psychological treatment is basically the neonazi argument at this point as well!

The report is critical of the Cass report in some aspects, but not in the fundamentals.
They agree that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support general/universal treatment recommendations.
They also agree with Cass that a "broad consent based" recommendation of experts should exist UNTIL further scientific evidence is available via studies.
I may not generally agree with the recommendations made here, but they at least are not presenting it as some kind of scientific standard.

I would much rather have any and all surgical or hormonal treatment of children under a certain age excluded, but with this recommendation the treating physician will be on the hook with their PERSONAL and DIRECT recommendation and verification of a minors ability to give its INFORMED CONSENT.

 

[Mexican_Wizard_711]

Death to the Troon Empire!

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Here is the report, machine translated, attached to this post.

The "person" that translated the attached document apparently ignored this section and/or didn't understand what it meant.

This is the original German:

"Vorbemerkung zur Veröffentlichung der Leitlinie als S2k-Leitlinie

Diese Leitlinie wurde ursprünglich als S3-Leitlinie angemeldet. Sie beruht auf einer systematischen Recherche, Auswahl und Bewertung der Literatur entsprechend der methodischen Vorgaben der Klassifikation S3 nach AWMF-Regelwerk. Aufgrund fehlender kontrollierter Wirksamkeitsnachweise und einer insgesamt unsicheren Evidenzlage, die vorwiegend auf nicht kontrollierten klinischen Beobachtungsstudien und Fall-Kohortenstudien beruht, wurden zu einzelnen Interventionen in der Behandlung der Geschlechtsinkongruenz bzw. Geschlechtsdysphorie keine evidenzbasierten Empfehlungen erstellt, sondern alle Empfehlungen werden auf Grundlage von Expertenkonsens gegeben. Dies führte in Abstimmung mit der AWMF zur Entscheidung, die Leitlinie als S2k-Leitlinie zu veröffentlichen.

Die kritische Bewertung der systematisch rezipierten Studienlage ist gleichwohl eine wichtige Basis für die durch den bestmöglichen wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisstand informierte Erstellung der konsentierten Empfehlungen. Dies wird in der Leitlinie dadurch transparent gemacht, dass relevante Aussagen zum Wissensstand in den einzelnen Kapiteln hervorgehoben werden, wobei zu deren Nachvollziehbarkeit die vorgenommene Bewertung der hinter einer Aussage stehenden Evidenz mit Nennung der herangezogenen Studien narrativ dargestellt wird."

This is the translation:

"Preliminary remarks regarding the publication of the guideline as an S2k guideline

This guideline was originally registered as an S3 guideline. It is based on a systematic search, selection, and evaluation of the literature in accordance with the methodological requirements of the S3 classification according to the AWMF (Association of German Medical Societies in Medical Sciences and Medicines). Due to a lack of controlled evidence of efficacy and an overall uncertain evidence base, which is primarily based on uncontrolled clinical observational studies and case-cohort studies, no evidence-based recommendations were developed for individual interventions in the treatment of gender incongruity or gender dysphoria. Instead, all recommendations are based on expert consensus. This led to the decision, in consultation with the AWMF, to publish the guideline as an S2k guideline.

The critical evaluation of the systematically reviewed study data is nevertheless an important basis for the development of consensus-based recommendations informed by the best possible scientific knowledge. This is made transparent in the guideline by highlighting relevant statements on the state of knowledge in the individual chapters, whereby the assessment of the evidence behind a statement is presented narratively, including the studies used, to facilitate comprehension."

To understand what this means you need to understand German medical guideline classifications.

German medical guidelines have 3 categories:

• S1 Recommended actions provided by an expert group.
• S2e Evidence-based guideline (i.e. based on scientific evidence).
• S3 Evidence and consensus-based guideline (i.e. based on scientific evidence and the agreement reached by the group).

An S2K recommendation in a subtype of S2 guidelines (NOT S2e, which is superior to an S2K guideline) means:

"When something is classified as S2K, this means that it is a consensus-based guideline. Members of the guideline group discuss the treatment recommendations/recommended action for doctors and come to an agreement about them."

So, this means that they wanted to make an S3 guideline, which is based on actual evidence and research and is the strongest level of evidence, however, "due to a lack of controlled evidence of efficacy and an overall uncertain evidence base" (meaning they had no reliable or credible research on which to make a recommendation) they had to downgrade the guideline they produced two levels to an S2K guideline as it wasn't possible to meet the criteria for an S3 or even an S2e guideline.

An S2K guideline means that the people who make up the committee making the recommendation reviewed a bunch of publications and come to a consensus on what the best approach was. Is it the second lowest level of recommendation that can be made by a German Medical Society. It is only one step above S1, with S1 being "A bunch of guys on a committee agree what is best", which isn't worth much of anything.

This is the setup used by American medical organizations when it comes to classification of quality of evidence to support a guideline:



According to the American system this paper would rank as Level C - LD, again, the second lowest level of evidence.

I can say for an absolute fact, when something can have any higher level of evidence than Level C because randomized clinical trials can be done, no one in medicine uses guidelines with Level C evidence for anything unless they have no other choice. This is the kind of guideline you would refer to in clinical decision making if a patient was dying and you had no better option to try and save them. A guideline with Level C evidence is one very small step above worthless.

This is literally a "might as well try it, the person is going to likely die anyway" level of evidence for a medical guideline.

Here is another section that proves that these guidelines are of low quality.

Here is the original German:

3.4 Ableitung von Statements und konsensbasierten Empfehlungen

Die Leitlinie enthält aufgrund der insgesamt unsicheren Evidenzlage zur Wirksamkeit von Interventionen keine evidenzbasierten Empfehlungen.

Which translated into English means:

3.4 Derivation of statements and consensus-based recommendations

Due to the overall uncertainty of the evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions, this guideline does not contain any evidence-based recommendations.

Fucking troons couldn't tell the truth of anything if their own lives depended on it.

 

[Thiletonomics]

I am disappointed Austria and Switzerland also supported this. Can kiwis from those 2 countries tell me if this is govermental support or just fringe researchers? @Helvetia @Trennschleifer

IIRC, Austria was either thinking about (or tried to) make COVID-19 vaccinations mandatory, so the country probably leans Left.

 

[BigJoey41X]

the only good thing about the Islamification of Western Europe is no way these people are going to tolerate dumb bullshit like this, if they already have a problem with gays, imagine what they would do about trannies.

 

[RussianBlonde]

Well it was nice of non whites to help drive out the Muslims in the battle of Vienna.



the everything-is-ww2 mentally is in many ways just another form of slavery guilt. Something that happened an extremely long time ago means the descendants deserve whatever bad thing happens to them. Especially since, functionally, there is zero difference between conservative boomers who does so and liberals.

They both basically subscribe to this since they don't have a larger reference than anything Germany = Nazis and ww2

View attachment 7105972



If they do that, they'd even turn the demographics back significantly since those very islamists live mostly in the capitals. Please ISIS help out

80 years ago, is not a very long time ago. Survivors of concentration camps , your people created, are still among us. That is not "very long time ago".

My country still deals with consequences of the damage your people did, and never paid for it.

I mean face it kraut, you are stained for ever. Most of the world is wired so that when you admit to people you're a kraut, this is what's automatically gonna show up in their head:



Today, in Europe you're known for weak military, homeopathy, self Islamization , ugly women , and promotion of pedophilia.. Youre fucked and I'm happy you are.

 

[Tetra]

80 years ago, is not a very long time ago. Survivors of concentration camps , your people created, are still among us. That is not "very long time ago".

It actually is.

The nonsense you're going on about is no different than someone who goes on and on about the confederacy. When 90% of your country has never been alive to experience something, maybe its time to stop obsessing over it.

My country still deals with consequences of the damage your people did, and never paid for it.

If China can recover from the great leap forward which happened more recently than whatever you're on about, maybe the problem isn't some dumb irrelevant war, eh?


TL;DR

Get over it lol

 

[Übertroon]

Germany also started WW1, and Hitler was from Austria so they are equally complicit. Now Germany is trying to destroy Europe again in a non military way.

Good news is, that historically Germany started like 100 wars across centuries, and they have lost every single on of them.

If Germany is losing all these wars then how can they be responsible for the current paradigm?
How come the allies and USSR gets no blame for the modern day world order?

 

[Bâtard Consanguine]

If Germany is losing all these wars then how can they be responsible for the current paradigm?
How come the allies and USSR gets no blame for the modern day world order?

Germans aren't the problem, it's the troublemakers the Germans tried to deal with. Germany lost, and the troublemakers moved right back in.

 

[TheGoodNamesHaveBeenTaken]

the only good thing about the Islamification of Western Europe is no way these people are going to tolerate dumb bullshit like this, if they already have a problem with gays, imagine what they would do about trannies.

If what happens in Iran is any indication they will have sex with the trannies.

 

[RussianBlonde]

If Germany is losing all these wars then how can they be responsible for the current paradigm?
How come the allies and USSR gets no blame for the modern day world order?

Ah yeah typical Krautism. Dumb irrelevant war.. 6 million people dead, concentration camps for babies and children, cities destroyed. Dr Mengele making medical experiments on babies.

Yep, not a big deal. That's why everybody hates Krauts and their ugly language that sounds like they are deepthroating someone.

 

[Übertroon]

Ah yeah typical Krautism. Dumb irrelevant war.. 6 million people dead, concentration camps for babies and children, cities destroyed. Dr Mengele making medical experiments on babies.

Yep, not a big deal. That's why everybody hates Krauts and their ugly language that sounds like they are deepthroating someone.

What would be different in this world do you think if Germany just capitulated to its Weimar state and embraced liberalism?
I can think of plenty that would be different if they won.

 

[Tetra]

Ah yeah typical Krautism. Dumb irrelevant war.. 6 million people dead, concentration camps for babies and children, cities destroyed. Dr Mengele making medical experiments on babies.

All of that is literally irrelevant because it happened so long ago yes.
It would be like if Tunisia is still angry at Italy because of what happened in Carthage in 146 BC. The atrocities happened, it was bad, but it is literally history at this point.

Also since you accuse everyone who thinks you're dumb of being a kraut for using ancient history as justification for the islamification of Europe, guess you can be called a Muslim then.

You live TODAY not 80 years ago.