Kat Karena
@katkarena.bsky.social
No they don't little boy - particularly as we have started suing the asses of those that profit from the mutilation of kids. AMA, American Pediatric Society saw the writing on the wall. The money train is over.
February 12, 2026 at 3:34 AM
No they don't little boy - particularly as we have started suing the asses of those that profit from the mutilation of kids. AMA, American Pediatric Society saw the writing on the wall. The money train is over.
No one has the right to claim more from everyone because they believe themselves to be a privileged class - 'trans'.
GAC is not healthcare - its conformity to an ideology that makes a lot of money for the medical gender industry. You want to do plastic surgery and cut off your body parts - you pay
GAC is not healthcare - its conformity to an ideology that makes a lot of money for the medical gender industry. You want to do plastic surgery and cut off your body parts - you pay
February 12, 2026 at 3:30 AM
No one has the right to claim more from everyone because they believe themselves to be a privileged class - 'trans'.
GAC is not healthcare - its conformity to an ideology that makes a lot of money for the medical gender industry. You want to do plastic surgery and cut off your body parts - you pay
GAC is not healthcare - its conformity to an ideology that makes a lot of money for the medical gender industry. You want to do plastic surgery and cut off your body parts - you pay
A claim that gender-affirming care 'saves Medicare millions' rests on an unexamined premise & a 5-year window that conveniently ends before the hard questions begin.
indefenseofchildren.substack.com/p/the-study-...
RE:“Funding surgery and hormones for trans people can save Medicare millions.“
indefenseofchildren.substack.com/p/the-study-...
RE:“Funding surgery and hormones for trans people can save Medicare millions.“
February 12, 2026 at 3:23 AM
A claim that gender-affirming care 'saves Medicare millions' rests on an unexamined premise & a 5-year window that conveniently ends before the hard questions begin.
indefenseofchildren.substack.com/p/the-study-...
RE:“Funding surgery and hormones for trans people can save Medicare millions.“
indefenseofchildren.substack.com/p/the-study-...
RE:“Funding surgery and hormones for trans people can save Medicare millions.“
I can only laugh at you. There's a saying don't argue with fools.
But fool, the subjective belief that a man is a woman because they feel they are - is ludicrous, something children tend to do as toddlers, believe they're spiderman, dogs - whatever. But not adults.
But fool, the subjective belief that a man is a woman because they feel they are - is ludicrous, something children tend to do as toddlers, believe they're spiderman, dogs - whatever. But not adults.
February 12, 2026 at 3:20 AM
I can only laugh at you. There's a saying don't argue with fools.
But fool, the subjective belief that a man is a woman because they feel they are - is ludicrous, something children tend to do as toddlers, believe they're spiderman, dogs - whatever. But not adults.
But fool, the subjective belief that a man is a woman because they feel they are - is ludicrous, something children tend to do as toddlers, believe they're spiderman, dogs - whatever. But not adults.
lol. Wikipedia is not credible. And I think you need to re-look at that 'every major medical/psychological body' American Society of Plastic Surgeons & the AMA coming out against gender surgeries for those <19. The world is turning back to truth, rejecting fiction.
February 12, 2026 at 12:14 AM
lol. Wikipedia is not credible. And I think you need to re-look at that 'every major medical/psychological body' American Society of Plastic Surgeons & the AMA coming out against gender surgeries for those <19. The world is turning back to truth, rejecting fiction.
If this is how the MJA reads and represents systematic reviews, one has to wonder: what else are they getting wrong?
October 22, 2025 at 12:59 AM
If this is how the MJA reads and represents systematic reviews, one has to wonder: what else are they getting wrong?
When a medical journal systematically misrepresents a major systematic review, it raises serious questions about editorial standards and professional integrity. The Cass Review deserves—and patients deserve—better than this.
/7
/7
October 22, 2025 at 12:59 AM
When a medical journal systematically misrepresents a major systematic review, it raises serious questions about editorial standards and professional integrity. The Cass Review deserves—and patients deserve—better than this.
/7
/7
On blockers and hormones, Cass acknowledges possible benefits but highlights insufficient certainty and therefore steers access toward trial-quality oversight (blockers) and cautious criteria (hormones), while calling for broader psycho-social support and better datasets.
/6
/6
October 22, 2025 at 12:58 AM
On blockers and hormones, Cass acknowledges possible benefits but highlights insufficient certainty and therefore steers access toward trial-quality oversight (blockers) and cautious criteria (hormones), while calling for broader psycho-social support and better datasets.
/6
/6
Cass's stated intent is to strengthen care via service redesign, training, data, and research because the evidence base is weak/uncertain—not to deny care per se.
/5
/5
October 22, 2025 at 12:58 AM
Cass's stated intent is to strengthen care via service redesign, training, data, and research because the evidence base is weak/uncertain—not to deny care per se.
/5
/5
The MJA piece offers an ideological perspective that argues Cass is overly restrictive & methodologically inconsistent. It selectively reads Cass, often framing cautious, research-led recommendations as "withholding care," and portrays standard Evidence-Based Medical caution as ideological. 🤯
/4
/4
October 22, 2025 at 12:57 AM
The MJA piece offers an ideological perspective that argues Cass is overly restrictive & methodologically inconsistent. It selectively reads Cass, often framing cautious, research-led recommendations as "withholding care," and portrays standard Evidence-Based Medical caution as ideological. 🤯
/4
/4
I don't mean to be mean, but surely if you are doctors writing for medical journals, you should learn basic reading comprehension, @MJA.com.au
?
I've gone through the key claims — and then looked at the Cass Review—see table below⬇️⬇️
/3
?
I've gone through the key claims — and then looked at the Cass Review—see table below⬇️⬇️
/3
October 22, 2025 at 12:56 AM
I don't mean to be mean, but surely if you are doctors writing for medical journals, you should learn basic reading comprehension, @MJA.com.au
?
I've gone through the key claims — and then looked at the Cass Review—see table below⬇️⬇️
/3
?
I've gone through the key claims — and then looked at the Cass Review—see table below⬇️⬇️
/3
MJA has come out with this document: "Cass Review does not guide care for trans young people" mja.com.au/system/files...
It's only 7 pages. I've done an initial first take at the claims MJA makes versus what the Cass Review actually says.
/2
It's only 7 pages. I've done an initial first take at the claims MJA makes versus what the Cass Review actually says.
/2
October 22, 2025 at 12:53 AM
MJA has come out with this document: "Cass Review does not guide care for trans young people" mja.com.au/system/files...
It's only 7 pages. I've done an initial first take at the claims MJA makes versus what the Cass Review actually says.
/2
It's only 7 pages. I've done an initial first take at the claims MJA makes versus what the Cass Review actually says.
/2