Transgender Documentary on BBC2 Thursday 2100 "Transgender Kids: Who Knows best?"

Mortificado - the current prescribing wisdom for HRT in peri and post menopausal women seems to be "until your mid 50s", but there is some evidence to suggest that so long as dosage is carefully controlled and tapered, there may be some benefits to taking it longer. The main risks are of slightly increased risk of ovarian, uterine and breast cancer - and obviously transwomen are only at risk from the last of these. The main benefit (other than alleviation of menopausal symptoms) is to the musculo-skeletar system (the first question my physio asked when I went with my current hip problem was "are you on HRT?" - so I'm in for an interesting conversation with my GP about risks/benefits: I have no family history of cancer, but major family history of arthritis). Actually, that's another consideration - as usual, the people not talked about are transmen - oestrogen suppression and testosterone treatment leave them with lowered bone densities akin to post-menopausal women - but this happens to them in their twenties.

It's on page 171 of that PDF, called Leuprorelin. It's 22,572 for the larger amount and 7524 for the smaller amount per injection, I'm assuming that's in £? This is for a proprietary version where no non-proprietary exists.

Out of interest, how long are menopausal adult women allowed to take HRT before they have to come off it because of the related risks?

Having read the (Canadian) patient information leaflet, I see it is usually prescribed for precocious puberty - so for a short period until the child over until they hit a more appropriate age to go through puberty. That's quite a different balance of risk:benefit to potentially taking this for 6, 7, 8 (or more?) years.

Questioning it is transphobic Bert

It's fascinating to think that there are threads and threads about childhood vaccinations, which have been shown by about a thousand studies to be as safe as a drug can be, but no questioning at all of the drug regimes these poor children are being subjected to......

I'd be interested to see how much the drug companies get fir this. The NHS drug tariff list is here. Is anyone on a desktop or device they do a search in a PDF for Lupron?

So you can't take SSRIs on Lupron? You can see why mental health co-morbidity might be so breezily swept under the carpet and not explored when a significant group of antidepressants are off the table. As for the bone density/osteoporotic aspect... These are children!

On Lupron, I find it terrifying that this drug is being given to children at all. I was on a similar drug to treat endometriosis and it was terrible. The side effects were so severe that I was off work for weeks until I adjusted to it. And I was an adult! What such a powerful drug could do to the body and mind of a child that is still developing makes me feel quite sick when I think about it.

This sunny "oh, they can just take puberty blockers to give them time and space to think things through" is completely insane. Drugs like this should only be given to children as an absolute last resort.

Can't remember whether it was this thread or a different one, but I googled Lupron, a drug which is often used as a puberty blocker and the potential side effects are very concerning and debilitating. It isn't necessarily harmless or reversible. And in the article I was reading some twat said "well it's better than them committing suicide". As if that is the only possible scenario.

I feel exactly the same, Fish. It is truly so horrifying. That poor lesbian in the documentary had me all teary. I think it's all going to explode eventually, ok, but by that time how many kids will have their lives mangled?

But you are doing everything you can to protect your DC. That's all you can do, really.

I get exactly what you're saying wanking

The way I see it is that this process should be difficult.

Maybe not so much for adults, but certainly for children. And it was a long and difficult process a few years back, now it takes no more consideration than deciding to have a haircut, only this isn't totally reversible.

In 10-20 years the 80% of children who don't transition in adulthood will more likely be nearer 10% due to the early medical intervention and the damage that is being done to children now will just be coming to light.

It's like watching an accident waiting to happen and being unable to stop it while the rest of the world cheers from the sidelines.

I'm tempted to write something brief and not incompatible with Christianity...

Oh dear, just had a quick google and it seems that horse may have already bolted...

You've nailed it re "inclusivity" BBC. This is scope creep. No one wants to be thought of as uninclusive.

Agree with PP about the Rev's article. I intitially thought "dare to debate this damaging idea that gender is a social construct" was saying "dare to argue against the transactivist's idea that gender is innate".

Argh, so frustrating to be up against common or garden sexism as well as transactivists shiny new brainwashing sexism. I'm tempted to write something brief and not incompatible with Christianity and send it to influential church leaders because I suspect there will be more weighing in on the debate... probably a mad idea though...

It seems that everyone now has to be 100% inclusive of trans people, which sounds great in theory, in reality it is causing a lot of trouble and is detrimental to everyone

The thing is "inclusive" has a new meaning in the trans ideology. It's part of their whole new dictionary. Inclusive in general means not excluding someone - in employment, housing, services and so on. That's fine. But the trans meaning of inclusive means "agree with blatant and extremely troublesome denial of reality". I don't think any of us want to treat transpeople as subhuman in any way, but that's not the same thing as agreeing men are women or vice versa.

rosehippy he has also massively missed the meaning of 'gender as a social construct' and refers to 'biological gender' so I'm not massively interested in what he has to say and whether people take it seriously.

It seems that everyone now has to be 100% inclusive of trans people, which sounds great in theory, in reality it is causing a lot of trouble and is detrimental to everyone

This statement has floored me a bit. It's so true and self evident but really stark when you spell it out like that.

I get what you mean Cocoa. There's a cartoon (which I can't find) which is roughly - you're a girl and you like engineering? Trans answer: you're really a boy, and need your body fixed so you can be a proper man who likes engineering. Patriarchal answer: you're deluded and need your mind fixed so you can be a proper woman who likes needlework instead. Feminist answer: women can be engineers.

I have read the Rev Robertson's article.

While the article makes important points, it seems to me things have got muddled up.

Feminists have spent decades arguing that gender is a social construct - meaning that women, defined by sex, should not be pigeon-holed into roles seen as suited to their sex. Caring, nurturing, domestic roles seen as natural because women are the reproductive sex. Gendered expectations because one is biologically female.

The sex is biological and cannot be changed, the expectations relating to the social roles (gender) can be.

Whereas Rev Robertson seems to be dismissing the idea that gender is a social construct - in order to argue that gender does not equate to sex.

I am not articulating this well

It seems ridiculous that I have to speak against transgender rights to get help for my transgender child.

I don't think you are speaking against transgender rights, more asking for more transgender rights...in that there should be the right to have various treatments rather than only surgery and stuff.

The way it is with trans stuff, I kinda see it being like telling cancer patients that they have to have areas chopped off and no other route of treatment will ever be considered. Oh, and if you chose to go private and have chemo instead just to see if that works before taking the more drastic step of surgery, you will get no counseling or help anymore. To top it all off, figures will be distorted so much that you will be told that if you do not chose amputation, 50+% of patients in the same situation die (when thats not actually the case)

I am not always the best with words, so I feel I should clarify before posting that I am making light of neither cancer sufferers nor transgendered peoples struggles here. I just keep trying to think of some kind of comparison and this is what keeps coming to me.

I did the whole kneejerk reaction when being transgender became more mainstream.

I was standing up for everything that I am now against due to this new self identifying nonsense.

I saw what me and my child went through and thought those stringent rules and all the hoop jumping would weed out the people who didn't really want this.

I've never been so wrong.

his SIDE of the argument, even

Article in the Scotsman today by Rev David Robertson

www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/dare-to-debate-this-damaging-idea-that-gender-is-a-social-construct-1-4342596

"There is a fear that dare not speak its name, a question that dare not be asked. An ideology is being foisted on Scotland’s children which, though well-meaning, is ultimately harmful."

"It is an attempt to teach that gender is just a social construct and nothing to do with biological sex. Human autonomy now extends to the extent that you get to choose your own gender. And there are now longer just two – that is so 20th Century! Now, according to Facebook, we can choose 56.

84 per cent of children who experience gender identity issues resort to their biological gender by the time they are in adulthood. Giving puberty blockers to primary children, or telling five year olds that they can identify as whatever they want, is at best, unwise, and at worst, a form of state sponsored child abuse."

Somehow I suspect the fact that the author is Christian will count against his sign of the argument.

I'd think what you're doing is to protect your own DC and other people's, Fish. Be proud of yourself.

Yes, it does. But you're speaking up for a more cautious, less knee jerk approach to transgender rights rather than speaking against equality and freedom from discrimination.

It seems ridiculous that I have to speak against transgender rights to get help for my transgender child.

How fucked up has this whole thing got?