"I regret transitioning"

Indeed, shiny.

Totally. It's all smoke and mirrors.

It does make you wonder that if they are not doing any due diligence over this, what else gets passed with as little thought?

Absolutely agree that the conflation is deliberate and designed to entrap ill-informed virtue signalllers like Maria Miller and the GMC.

The irony is that there can be no more extreme form of gay conversion therapy than sterilisation and castration.

I think there has been a deliberate conflation of conversion therapy to "cure" homosexuality (traumatic and ineffective) with the skilled psychological therapy which could and should provide a careful and objective exploration of an individual's gender identity to help someone come to an informed decision about life-changing medical treatment i.e. not designed to prevent transition. The T has been tagged onto to the LGB (again).

I'm still encouraged by more and more people on here who are starting to see the weakness and danger of the ideology.

And the BTL commenting too. And MSM is also starting to question.

But it's a bit of a dodgy unofficial party line, as surely transpeople who are not happy in future (especially children) could hold individual doctors liable for not making them aware of risks?

Yes, I think that's the case with many organisations. And I agree it has exactly the same effect as banning discussion of risks.

Hi Datsun- I am not saying that is the explicit policy of the GMC; I'm saying that is the effect of them supporting the TA line that conflates all counselling with conversion therapy.

I very much doubt the GMC or RCGP have a clue about what Trans activism actually wants. They are just blindly assuming that doing what TAs and Stonewall say must be the right-on, liberal position (see also Maria Miller, Jess Phillips etc etc). The danger is that doctors will be put off counselling anyone considering transition because doctors quite rightly fear the GMC.

shiny

I've read your post twice and I just want to make sure I understand it properly. Are you saying you are actually not allowed to disclose the risks of drugs used for transitioning purposes? You're not saying that you can disclose the risk but you then have to still comply with the patients wishes? You actually can't tell them the dangers?

What is the piece of legislation that is being used to defend that?

Sorry to grill you! I see you are in an utterly conflicted position. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

That's awful, and scandalous, shiny. The patients or their families have a right to know that there are risks. And you are not able to practice in a way that you consider ethical.

Why has everyone swallowed whole what these lobbying groups with clear vested interests promote? What happened to evidence bases and fact checking?

Hi Datun sorry - only just saw your question to me - I didn't think you were being goady at all.

Most people in the medical establishment have no idea what is happening with TAs. That is why we have seen the Royal College of GPs and GMC mindlessly promoting the TA line that any counselling before transition is 'conversion therapy' - this despite the fact that it would be a breach of medical ethics, and in fact the law, to perform any medical treatment without informed consent. So, to take the RCGP/GMC line literally, doctors are legally and ethically obliged to ensure that all patients understand the implications of a medical/surgical treatment...except for anyone wanting to transition. So I could be up in front of the GMC for failing to counsel a patient about the side-effects of aspirin but also up in front of the GMC if I did warn a patient of the risk of taking puberty blockers off-licence, lifelong hormones or lopping off their genitalia. Go figure.

What would actually happen if/when a doctor is had up by the GMC for advising patients about the risks of GR treatment is anyone's guess. Very few doctors will be prepared to take the risk because - even if you are eventually vindicated - the GMC can suspend you while an investigation is underway, meaning no work and no income, sometimes for years.

That's a weird way of putting it, "zero tolerance for FGM", don't you think? Sounds like some might argue for a little bit of tolerance, that there are degrees of tolerance that might be considered... I'd have gone for "the eradication of FGM", I think.

But I digress. Idk why GRS isn't described as genital mutilation. I think it is. It doesn't matter that people have the surgery voluntarily. A doctor got struck off for amputating the healthy limbs of transabled patients, because just because something is voluntary doesn't mean it's beneficial.

Having GRS appears masochistic in the extreme. The results for transmen are so dreadful that hardly any of them go through with. Only 20% of transwomen have SRS. Reading about what it's like to own a surgically constructed neovagina is so utterly depressing. You have to be always stretching it or it'll heal up. The surgery is a long way from creating a convincing replica and, according to researchers, they have a "foul smell". I think it's genital mutilation and I hope that eventually people realise that patients with GID need compassionate MH care far more than they need surgery.

Interesting my twitter feed has lots of WHO posts saying today is the International day of zero tolerance for female genital mutilation. Why is gender reassignment surgery not genital mutilation?

Blimey, I'm a radfem too, I think.

Hello, Stopmaking. Have you got a lot of online resources? Because women here can give you loads of links. Your DD might benefit from watching some of the videos made by young women detransitioners. You will find lots of other parents in your position on the blog 4th Wave Now set up by the mother of another dysphoric DD. I can send more if you like, and other posters will be able to offer others.

As for radfems, I was surprised to discover that I'm a radical feminist. I've been a feminist for most of my life, which makes me a second wave feminist. Sadly the "feminism" of the third wave which came after isn't actually feminism at all, it's just consumerism and identity politics with no feminist "meat" to it. Second wave feminism is now called radical feminism. This kinda tickles me, because I was thrown out of the feminists back in my teens for wearing make up and sleeping with men. But now I'm a radfem and, as I agree with everything the radfems are saying, seems like I'm in the right place.

Stop

stop

I've never been called a radical feminist, I've don't think I've even got my feminist wings yet! But I am a woman and I've lived long enough to see exactly how that matters.

I'm sorry to hear of the tough time your daughter is having. It's a complicated and emotional mix when a young person is already questioning themselves and then perceives being trans as the answer to all their confusion.

There is another mother of a trans child on here who has found some relief by talking to the 'bigoted feminists' who have provided some balance.

I'll pm you with her user name so you can search her posts for any information that might help.

And don't feel like you have let your daughter down. There are umpteen ways our children can be confused about a myriad of issues - you can't forever be one step ahead.

Can I just add my heartfelt thanks to all you radfems. My daughter has decided she is transgender - we are about 8 months in - and it was such a relief to find some common sense around the issue. I am now fully prepared to accept that there is a small possibility that it may be the only way she can live her life is to take hormones and surgically alter her body. That should be the last resort, after she has dealt with the serious mental health issues that preceded her announcement; after she has come to terms with the fact that she has only until recently undiagnosed autism - much more likely to be the cause of her not feeling she identifies with her female peers; and after she has had a chance to mature fully.
What I cannot accept, and what now keeps me up at night, is that the diagnosis of and treatment for her gender dysphoria may well be based on ideology and not clinical evidence. And now praying that while the waiting list for the GID grows, some common sense prevails.
So thank you everyone. In my middle age I think I too should become a radical feminist - I feel like I have let my daughter down really badly by sleepwalking through life thinking that, just because I don't feel in the slightest bit oppressed, it not is still very hard if you don't conform to sex stereotypes. Or indeed what being neuro-untypical or suffering from poor mental ill health can do to a person. Massive wake up call all round.

I have a friend (I know her originally through an online group but I have met her and her daughter irl) whose 16 year old daughter is now her "son", who has posted photos on Facebook of herself injecting "T" and is counting the days to her mastectomy. I can't believe a 16 year old is allowed to do this when they can't vote or order a beer in a bar. I know it's difficult parenting adolescents and I can't imagine gender dysphoria thrown into the mix. But it's awful to watch, knowing she is permanently altering her body at such a young age. I am 100% convinced, having met her, that if this trans cult hadn't such influence, she would simply be a young gay woman.

I'm pleased that a voice has been given to this issue.

I am now 35. As a child, I was convinced I wanted to be a boy: in fact, the description in the article is close to what I felt for a few years. I would only wear boys clothes (e.g.full on tantrum at having to be a bridesmaid and wear pink), and played with e.g. cars, meccano. My interests were scientific-things.

Then I grew up and realized I was simply a gay woman.

I'm now 100% fine with my body. I do wonder if, were I to express the same sentiments today, I would be pushed down the route of puberty blockers, and being encouraged to actually become a man.

And, as I understand it, most like me do not transition (I gather I'm a fairly typical case, and this is why I see it as literally erasing gay people). That doesn't mean we shouldn't be supportive of children who are not conforming to gender expectations, and it doesn't mean we should tell them that there is anything wrong with being trans (there isn't). What it means is that there is plenty of time for children to work things out without having these massive life choices impressed upon them before they can properly think.

He's great on twitter and on Guardian comments. Perhaps people will listen to a man when he says these things.

The blogger Gender CriticalDad, who is trying to steer his lesbian teenage DD away from hormones and surgery says that radical feminism (which he didn't know much about previously) is the only thing that makes sense of what's going on to him, and that so-called TERFs have been the only people who have been able to support him. Then there's Fish, who has found comfort in the Feminism Boards in her lonely struggle to best parent her gender dysphoric DC.

It's all too sadly true that 3rd wave feminists - aka funfems or libfems - will do and say whatever TRAs tell them that good allies should do and say.

When the shitty scandal of transing kids and young adults finally hits the fan it will be only be feminists who come away clean. We've been tweeting like the canary in the coalmine. Somehow I don't think anyone will turn round and say "You know what? You were right."

All of this is so worrying. I know two transmen; both 'former' lesbians, one androgynous and one butch. Both still in relationships with women, both still having no surgery or hormones (thank god). Otherwise intelligent young women who have just swallowed the koolaid and can't see how their issue is so clearly with how they're treated as gay women in patriarchy, not their sex. It's so sad and stressful. The sooner the mainstream reaches peak trans the better - I can only hope that once that happens it's a boon for feminism; however since neoliberal/intersectional/3rd wave feminists are such vocal TRAs I think it's more likely we'll be partially or wholly blamed for it

shiny

...the risk is that this becomes normalised and GPs have to choose between issuing prescriptions and being hauled in front of the GMC.

I'm not trying to goad you or criticise, I promise. I am only too well aware of the fear rippling through the section of the population who question the ideology.

Can I ask what would happen if someone was hauled in front of the GMC? If a doctor questioned the guidelines they were handing down, with evidence of detransitioners, co-morbid MH issues and things like your anecdotal assertion that surgery can sometimes make gender dysphoria worse, is there a procedure in place where they would be forced to address the issue?

I understand that people transition at different times and for different reasons. Equally, I understand that there are some for whom the medical route is the best option to alleviate their symptoms. No problem there. But it's a question of precedent. Are doctors expected to make a judgement call over whether it is suitable or not? Because once legislation is in place that you cannot discriminate, the criteria used as to whether medical treatment is appropriate, will be swept aside.

And although you say the numbers are tiny, the number of people, particularly girls, who are transitioning is rising exponentially.

Thanks for engaging. I appreciate the information.

I Have no experience on this subject but do feel the media play a big part on making this subject almost the normal nowadays .look at this the first pregnant man eh no its a woman .programmes about children getting hormone blockers .it just seems they are saying want to change sex then fine have an op and all will be dandy .Then these poor folk who probably have mental health issues are then left with more issues when they realise nobody will actually view them as there desired sex but always a he/she .i feel heart sorry for individuals who hate there own body that much but chopping bits off is probably not the answer .