I am Jazz. ***Trans content. Please do not open if you just want to post insults or whinge about another trans thread***

So in all likelihood is being trans a mental illness then?..I'm still here reading all the comments ,they are all very well put ..I'd watched the jazz programme happy in the knowledge she could stop taking her hormones and go through male puberty..it's shocking that's not the case..

Thanks for link Datun that will give me enough to look it up.

cuirderussie yes, that sense came to me reading/writing this. It clarified another point about seeking to own children's bodies as well as women's. I need to think this through.

No, and I would not expect that in one year that would happen. It is just that the number starting x sex hormones is relatively small compared with in-takes and those starting puberty blockers.

I think what I really mean is that I'm not confident in saying that 100% go on from blockers to x-sex without evidence for this (at least where health care is publicly funded).

This article brings together over 50 peer reviewed studies of gender dysphoria in children.

They talk about the likelihood of going onto cross-sex, but also point out that if a child does stop and then goes through puberty at 18, that also has implications.

There are virtually no published reports, even case studies, of adolescents withdrawing from puberty-suppressing drugs, and then resuming the normal pubertal development typical for their sex

In essence, doctors are engaging in a giant experiment on minors by blocking their maturation, and they are doing this without even coming close to the ethical standards demanded in other areas of medicine.

www.google.co.uk/amp/dailysignal.com/2017/06/20/new-paper-says-puberty-blockers-arent-answer-gender-confusion/amp/

SummerflowerXx

Here is the link to that case. Sorry it's Daily Mail, the first one that came up when I googled. There was a thread on here about it, at the time. Maybe an advanced search could help?

Googling should bring up a lot more about it. I think the thread on here had the actual court transcript and a lot more information.

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3883880/amp/Parents-bitter-battle-child-s-gender-Father-brands-controversial-transgender-charity-meddlers-case-mother-dressing-son-five-girl.html

YetAnotherSpartacus

Is there any more to that link? Only it doesn't say that the children on puberty blockers in one column are the same children who go on to cross-sex hormones in the other.

You'd have to be on puberty blockers for several years, wouldn't you? Before you went on to cross-sex hormones, I mean.

I wish this information was easier to find.

Summer, yes and the transactivists piggyback on the gay rights movement just as the paedophile rights advocates like PIE piggybacked on political revolutionaries in the 70s. It's totally cynical.

at that sign. That is really disturbing, because it suggests keeping children in a state of perpetual childhood. That is not about creating women out of boys, it is about staying a child.

There is something about the way in which this takes ownership of children's bodies which is disturbing and reminds me of the 1970s liberalise paedophilia shit. Because that is what it is, it is taking ownership of children's bodies and choices for adult gratification (commercial, political, social, if not sexual).

Datun - I found some stats from the Tavistock. I'm not sure that that is true re all going on to x-sex hormones.

<a class="break-all" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZLVx49cqJ-kJ:tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/documents/408/gids-service-statistics.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-b" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZLVx49cqJ-kJ:tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/documents/408/gids-service-statistics.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-b

My post was in response to Datun sorry not clear

Yes, I agree with your comments about Jazz's mother; but I am curious why there are not safeguards in place. This is not something which is happening in a household as other types of abuse do. It is socially, politically and commercially endorsed.

There is a case discussed upthread, which mentions a judge removing residency from the mother where she believed that her child was trans* and wanted medical treatment (I say treatment hesitantly, as treatment to me would be psychological therapy, not puberty blockers, but hopefully you know what I mean). Was that case in the UK?

So I think Jazz is in the USA, but in Britain, there has been a legal case around transing children. Does anyone have a link to the case? (Apologies if I have missed it, i have not posted on FWR for some time)

The fact that the parents took their child on national tv aged six to declare Jazz as transgender is horrifying. I don't understand how anyone could think putting their young child in the glare of publicity like that could possibly be in their best interests. How could Jazz ever backtrack when pushed so relentlessly on this path with so many people watching? The treatment to which this child has been subjected is wildly unethical and this whole situation is a tragedy in the making.

This sort of thing, is what I mean. This is Ada Wells, the ex LGBT officer at Edinburgh University. Among other things, he called women with vaginas cuntscum and tweeted that he hoped policeman would die (during a demonstration, I believe)

SummerflowerXx

Your analysis is spot on. Someone else called it the perfect storm. All sorts of things coming together to create a situation - that has now leapt to become politicised.

Totally agree, the backlash against women gaining ground, the sex positivity, the rise of individualism at all costs.

A transwoman on here the other day said that Stonewall was running out of both money and things to campaign for. That they used to be vehemently anti-trans and then did a complete volte-face. Suddenly money and support is pouring in.

People do not want to be accused of haranguing transpeople, as the memory of haranguing gays and lesbians is still too fresh. It's a cool to be supportive.

The push to destigmatise trans has also allowed people who would not normally find support, to jump on the bandwagon.

Threatening women, re-calibrating what sexual orientation means, and putting entitlement to sex at the forefront of everything, is completely unacceptable. Except, now it isn't. It's seen as a natural and understandable reaction to the demand for respect and validation.

You see people completely ignoring heinous crimes, to concentrate on the fact that a commenter has misgendered the perpetrator. Sometimes I think it's deliberate, other times I think they genuinely see it as almost blasphemous. Which is so one-eyed, it's scary.

And I agree about the mother up to a point. To me, she seems like a typically pushy stage school type mum. But I think it goes beyond responsibility at the point at which she consigned Jazz to a life of untold consequence. I agree that context is important, but at this point, where she has departed so widely from parental responsibility, she loses my sympathy.

The aspect I am really struggling with is the whole concept of puberty blockers.

I may be missing something, but given Jazz's experience, does this mean that any child on puberty blockers is going to have their future sex life compromised? Unless they stop taking them and allow their natural puberty to resume.

Which none of them do.

I don't get it. Surely, no one in their right mind can think this is a suitable treatment for gender dysphoria in kids.

I am making a mistake in conflating liberal feminism (which would be the first wave) with neoliberalism in the third wave, apologies. I think third wave feminism comes alongside neoliberalism - although I am not well read enough to pull out the nuances of that argument.

That is a great post Datun - alongside many excellent and informative posts on this thread.

I wonder if the trans*agenda has got legs because of two sets of stigma - firstly, against mental illness. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness, thus we should be treating the mind, not the body. But mental illness is under-funded and still stigmatised and will be used against you.

The second stigma, for all the progress there has been, seems to be against homosexuality and effeminacy. If Jazz would have been an effeminate gay man, or even a feminine straight man, why was/is that not acceptable?

Let's not fall into the trap of blaming the mother. Mothers are blamed for too many individual ills. The mother appears to need help as much as her child. This is happening in a context - the context is a neoliberal free market, where you can choose anything, even your sex. Second wave feminist gender critical politics have been inverted to make gender a choice, not an oppressive, socially constructed imposed role; this was only possible because of third wave liberal sex-positive, being sexualised empowers me, gender is performative, something we do, not something which is imposed feminism. Why has liberal feminism been co-opted in this way? Because it suits men and the market, I think. It is basically part of the backlash against female equality and genuine empowerment- because it gives men access to the safe spaces second wave feminists and their predecessors fought for (refuges, equality at work, single sex bathroom space in public), but also it promotes a very singular idea of what being a woman is.

And as a backlash, it goes even further than what has been done historically- because rather than reduce women to their reproductive organs, the trans* agenda erases reproductive organs and capacity as a sign of womanhood.

If this is not a movement which hates women, I do not know what is. Both Jazz and her parents have been exploited for commercial and political gain by wider interest groups. The parents may be driving this, or simply failing to see the risks, but it is happening in a specific context of which they are only part.

The other thing which comes to mind is that this all seems to shore up a particular (and narrow) idea of masculinity; one which does not include any kind of effeminacy. The only reason I think why transmen are not an issue here is because they do not threaten that ideal of masculinity - and they certainly do not threaten men in 'male space'. They would themselves be under threat. It is patriarchy - hierarchies of men, not only sex-based hierarchies - writ anew.

abigcupoffuckyou

Currently you don't have to do anything to be considered trans. If you say you are, you are. No one can dispute it. You could be a 6 foot four man, with a beard and a wife and children and still say you are a woman. And claim that lesbians should sleep with you because you are a lesbian with a penis. (And lesbians haven't heard that old chestnut since the dawn of time).

The new bill being presented in the autumn will mean that this is now a legal status. Not just social, personal or cultural. Legal. You will be able to access business loans for women, scholarships for women, women's spaces, fulfil diversity quotas, be imprisoned with other women, etc.

Being trans is entirely subjective. There is no scientist to support it other than the same science that supports anorexia. (And you can't tell that from a brain either.)

If you took a female brain and a male brain and put them in a laboratory setting, no one can tell the difference, apart from size. (And no, men do not have the same size brain as women, no matter how they identify).

Gender dysphoria is a biological blip. It should be treated. It should not be given civil rights. It certainly shouldn't be given rights reserved for women.

enoughisenough12

Brilliant post. You encapsulate it all in that comment.

EezerGoode

I'm so relieved you're seeing through the marketing of this.

No one wants children to suffer. I certainly don't. But this child is absolutely going to suffer, is suffering. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Meanwhile, resources, funds, time, research, donations and investment is being taken away from finding out the causes of, and less drastic treatment of, gender dysphoria.

Many parents of trans kids have come on here saying if they don't choose to go down the hormone route, they are left high and dry. No therapy, no analysis, no bloody money for it. They are given no attention, they have no value.

Doctors have been on here saying if they don't push the medical route, they are without support. They're uncomfortable, they don't like it, but they fear for their jobs.

I totally understand that transitioning can alleviate the symptoms of gender dysphoria. But it's being taken much too far. Instead of a possible, last ditch attempt, it's being sold as the only solution. Not because it is the only solution, because it is the most expedient one. And it is encouraged by online trans-activists who wish they could 'pass'. But many of these are late transitioning males. It's a completely different set circumstances. It's grooming.

I've said before, and I'll say it again: Jazz reminds me so much of Michael Jackson, and we all know how well his life turned out

I totally agree that the safeguarding implications of this case and numerous others involving children are being completely ignored - a good example is the court case mentioned upthread where the Judge barred Mermaids from having any further contact with the child he decided was being pressurised by his mother to become a girl.
The welfare of the child is paramount says the Children's Act. When children are anorexic we get them support and treatment - not give them a diet sheet. When children are radicalised online, we refer them for support and give them the tools to reject adults who are grooming them into dangerous behaviour. Yet with transgender issues, individuals and groups with zero 'qualifications' but considerable personal interest are given money, prestige and access to power and decision makers to influence social developments in a manner and with a speed that is unheard of. They are enabled to influence policy and to train and influence schools, social care and the legal systems and no doubt to deal directly with adolescents. And yes, Maria Miller and other politicians, the DfE, the NHS - I do hold you responsible for enabling this.
The interests of individual children and adolescents go totally unnoticed as adults validate their own lives and experiences through young people.
We spot grooming behaviour from paedophiles and protect children from adults who fabricate illness in their children - yet nobody is challenging similar behaviour in relation to transgender issues and children. We are moving to an unbelievable position where suddenly vulnerable teenagers are being allowed to self harm / be actively harmed before they are emotionally and intellectually capable of making such life changing decisions.

Absolutely spot on!

There is going to be a 'wrong side of history' and it's not the people on this thread!!

MissHavishamsleftdaffodil - that's a brilliant post.

I totally agree that the safeguarding implications of this case and numerous others involving children are being completely ignored - a good example is the court case mentioned upthread where the Judge barred Mermaids from having any further contact with the child he decided was being pressurised by his mother to become a girl.
The welfare of the child is paramount says the Children's Act. When children are anorexic we get them support and treatment - not give them a diet sheet. When children are radicalised online, we refer them for support and give them the tools to reject adults who are grooming them into dangerous behaviour. Yet with transgender issues, individuals and groups with zero 'qualifications' but considerable personal interest are given money, prestige and access to power and decision makers to influence social developments in a manner and with a speed that is unheard of. They are enabled to influence policy and to train and influence schools, social care and the legal systems and no doubt to deal directly with adolescents. And yes, Maria Miller and other politicians, the DfE, the NHS - I do hold you responsible for enabling this.
The interests of individual children and adolescents go totally unnoticed as adults validate their own lives and experiences through young people.
We spot grooming behaviour from paedophiles and protect children from adults who fabricate illness in their children - yet nobody is challenging similar behaviour in relation to transgender issues and children. We are moving to an unbelievable position where suddenly vulnerable teenagers are being allowed to self harm / be actively harmed before they are emotionally and intellectually capable of making such life changing decisions.

Poor Jazz. Another thing: for someone who wants to be a woman, he doesn't seem to know much about female anatomy. It's unlikely a man will see much of your "vagina" during sex unless he has a speculum - I think Jazz meant "vulva". A distinction my 10 year old understands because of our breezy child-appropriate chats about anatomy, sex and relationships, as well as the book I gave her to look at. Have those lunatic parents not even taught this poor kids the basics?

After a lifetime of hormones I don't think many trans children will reach their forties
The next 20 years are going to be interesting. I can see many children will sue parents or doctors

Jazz and other trans children of her generation are guinea pigs, but they have become so before they are old enough to legally consent to the medication and procedures themselves.

Well put, Icant

I worry very much what this poor child will face in their thirties and forties, and how limited their options will be if they are not happy with how they've been left. This is massively irresponsible of every adult concerned, in particular the medical professionals who enabled it, and is a massive failure of ethics and child protection. Social services should have had to take this to court for an independent and objective decision based on the child's best interests before treatment could be agreed.

Like the Charlie Gard case, this is a desperately sad and concerning situation where a vulnerable child has been exposed in the media, where social media and public opinion has had way too much involvement and where the needs of adults involved to have their feelings and values respected and validated by professionals caring for their child have taken the lions share of time, input and priority over the child themselves. Both cases upset me very much. Not least because when you look at serious case reviews from Victoria Climbie, Baby P and sadly others too, the same finding comes back again and again over the past couple of decades - professionals got too involved in supporting the adults involved and lost sight of the overriding rights of the child. They were afraid to challenge. They were afraid to say the unsayable. They were afraid of public opinion and criticism and of parents kicking off. And the child suffered as a result. As these case reviews keep finding: this is not changing. If anything, it's becoming more difficult.

GOSH have just given an example of how hard it is becoming to stand up to situations like this: seven months of highly expensive litigation, immense adverse publicity and criticism, a massive input of time and stress and evidencing over and over the reasons for disagreement in the child's best interests.

Isn't the doctor a relative of the family?