R4 Today programme have an item on later about children and gender dysphoria.

cross post with Datun* who answered that way better!

Jessica yes. I've often seen it said online that you just stop the blockers any time and a totally normal puberty then happens (it doesn't), or the cheerful 'well shove more hormones in them until it sorts itself out'.

Sexual development basically doesn't occur. So in Jazz Jennings' case, she has the genitalia of a pre pubescent boy, is not able to erect or orgasm, no real sexual drive of any kind, a very very limited dating pool. Jazz Jennings describes herself as 'pansexual' which sadly I think translates as since she has no physical sexual drive in any direction she is as open to envisaging sex with anyone, she has no reason or inner direction to guide any differently.

If she had not been given puberty blockers, the chances are high that she would have grown up to be a very feminine and pretty gay man which comes with a large dating pool.

People who defend this practice say that hormone blockers are reversible. Which in theory, they might be. So if you stop taking them, and didn’t ever take cross sex hormones, you might just develop normally.

However, 97% of children who start on hormone blockers, go onto cross sex hormones. So it’s a bit moot.

Transactivists say it’s because they are genuinely trans. Detractors say hormone blockers prevent the child from developing the kind of critical thought needed to analyse their situation. And once you have socially transitioned, it’s incredibly difficult to admit you are wrong.

Both sides agree that hormone blockers have not been tested for this particular issue, and therefore it’s incredibly difficult to tell exactly what sort of effect they have on a developing brain.

JessicaEccles

So if a boy has puberty blockers, does that mean his penis will never grow???!!

Yeah. That’s the point. It stops puberty of their natal sex. And then when they have cross sex hormones, they will acquire secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex. So a boy will grow breasts and his fat distribution will change.

So Jazz Jennings, born male, looks like a girl (although not all the time, strangely), has breasts, but has the genitalia of a pubescent boy.

The cross sex hormones would have made him sterile. And the effects are irreversible.

That is absolutely horrific - why are they pushing this? No sexual pleasure and to be honest who exactly are they going to appeal to? I can't see many straight men wanting such a girlfriend in all honesty.

So if a boy has puberty blockers, does that mean his penis will never grow???!! Because that's hell of a thing to decide at the age of around 10.

Fair enough hipster - I know that's a problem. The trouble is a 15 year old is not listening to the Today programme, they are getting all their news from "people like them". Until "people like them" are talking to them about failed neo-vaginas and gay eugenics, then the problem persists.

I used to listen to it at 15, but accept that’s unusual

The situation has got out of hand in large part because, in an effort to embrace diversity, well meaning adults have been going along with it. Presumably, because a lot of the time it doesn’t directly affect them or their families so there hasn’t been a pressing need for facing the realities analytically and critically. In short, all the good feelz and none of the responsibility.

With any luck, a few adults will have thought a bit harder about the issues and be better placed to participate responsibly in the wider discussion.

@Bucketsandspoons that aspect of the Reddit thread really jumped out at me too.

Asexuality is real and valid of course, but to say someone could be asexual, when their genitals have been stunted in their growth and they haven't been given the option to explore their sexuality for themselves?
that is an awful attitude to inflict on this young transwoman.

It reminds me of the historically lazy and damaging medical attitude towards (actual) intersex people.

I see that on the Reddit thread someone did actually refer to the scaffolding and seeding with someones own cells! Except, unless I have REALLY misunderstood, they seed it with cells from the womens own vulvas, so they have "autologous muscle and vaginal mucosal cells". Whereas males don't have the required cells to start with, not actually being female!

The thread was very sad and frankly just ignores all the issues with absent sexual function (it's okay, they won't mind they might actually just be asexual, rather than totally having lost any sexual function they might have had cos they were given puberty blockers etc), and all the issues with the surgical complications of trying to create neo-vaginas with grafts. No, it's just get the right doctor, and it will all be *fine. And you;'ll be able to get fucked properly (even if you've not actually got much sexual sensation to speak of at the end of it all!).

Bucketsandspoons

Yes I thought that.

“Hey, there’s nothing wrong with being asexual”.

They’re not asexual, ffs. They’ve had their libido removed by drugs.

Given your astounding volte face, Iris65, maybe you could grace us with your revised definition of what a woman is.

One of the saddest and most troubling parts of that reddit thread is the headlong encouragement to embrace no sexual function as just 'normal' asexuality.

'Remember, there's nothing wrong, it's just another identity!' But in the same paragraph the mention of living with being suicidal, unfulfilled and unhappy.

I’m interested in where the figure of one in 20,000

Say the UK population is 60,000,000. 1 in 20,000 gives 3000 people.

If you look in uktrans.info/grc-stats you'll find this:

As of the end of June 2015, since the Gender Recognition Act 2004 came into force (April 2005):
- 4,631 applications have been received
- 3,999 full Gender Recognition Certificates have been issued by the GRP

The 1 in 20,000 figure will be something like that. My immediate thought on hearing "1 in 20,000" was "hmmm, you are thinking about what's going on in your immediate scientific realm rather than actually seeing what's happening in the real world".

Scientists can provide useful knowledge but they can be very blinkered when there's a political dimension.

"I’m interested in where the figure of one in 20,000 came from. Is that just the figure for children seeking treatment, because it feels to me that the figure is much higher than that right now.
"

One figure I saw was 1.4%, i.e. 1 in 70, for teenagers in schools. I believe that somewhere in the region of 1% is more likely to be accurate for teens claiming to be trans.

"Almost as if the tissue inherently knows what its supposed to be somehow."
This sounds like a very garbled version of the actual science. Which (I think it was reported in New Scientist?) is that females who are born without a vaginal canal, scientists have grown tissue from their own cells, then implanted these as vaginal canals. And they work because (put your science head on here!), these are actual females with the genes for this specialist type of tissue! Plus for females this seems to be an advantage compared to the older method of using part of the colon. But for transwomen, since they are genetically male, they don't have the genes for it, so hoping that your chunk of transplanted colon with suddenly 'learn' how to be a 'real' vagina if you keep taking enough hormones is just nonsense.

Ah, here is the report:
www.newscientist.com/article/dn25399-engineered-vaginas-grown-in-women-for-the-first-time/

It's like the trans reporting of the uterus transplant attempts. A transwoman died from the first attempt (1931?), and later successful attempts have been to women with functioning ovaries but no uterus, and either a donor or a close family member seems to be a good choice. Whatever you think about the political or ethical issues, the simple biological fact (gosh, TRAs really don't like those do they!), is that a male hasn't either the anatomy to accommodate such a transplant, or the genetic material (i.e. ovaries and eggs) to utilize the organ even if it was inserted. Which beings me back again to our old friend Monty Python and 'The Life of Brain':
" Where's the fetus gonna gestate? In a box?"
We know where BTW, in the uterus of a poorer woman (India surrogacy etc etc), or in a relative (Jazz Jennings trying to appropriate their sisters uterus and eggs), and TRA dreamers think this could be either in situ, or in a transplant. And you just thought surrogacy was enough of an appropriation of womens organs!

That's encouraging Iris65, if someone previously as vehemently pro self ID as yourself can change their mind then there's hope for perhaps even Maria Miller...

I agree hipster, it's another way of discrediting experts in an area because the haven't had the Authentic True Self Lived Experience(TM). Again, I don't expect an oncologist to have had cancer, yet in improving cancer care we need to hear their expert authority as well as the patient voices that receive that healthcare (amongst a myriad of other groups involved in healthcare provision). It's not one or the other

On an aside: I think this type of identity politics has a wider, negative impact on the progress made in improving diversity and representation. These paradoxically very rigid and entirely loose categories of self ID are all around this notion of inner essence and I've begun to see this in my field (STEM) being reflected in diversity policies.

The types of conversations about improving diversity are reminiscent of pink lab coats and the softness of science as a way to increase STEM participation by girls and women. It was ridiculed (mostly - but yet echoes of it still prevail) to be the condescending atrocity it was, but conversations going on now, seem to be talking about what these minority and/or maligned groups can bring. Diversity was never about bringing a particular lived experience to the role; rather an individual should have access to the role/sector/opportunity immaterial of the institutional barriers they've encountered through their lived experience.

it is child abuse what has happened to Jazz and various others. whether doctors agree or not, it is simply abuse.
if you cannot trust the state to protect you and advise in these circumstances, then terrible mistakes will be made.

so much evidence based medicine and research is required to prescribe drugs, how are 'puberty blockers' and testosterone and oestrogen prescribed outside their license. none of these are particularly expensive nor money makers. i think the regulatory bodies should be involved.

Hackmum - if the older professional woman was talking as a fertility expert (as LRW was) and not simply with a feminist label - then, people would listen.

It’s their medical opinion that was taken seriously in that interview. Just some random middle aged man would not have been invited to speak.

True, hackmum.

I have just read that Reddit thread. Boggling!
But check out this post at the end - says it all really:

"But unfortunatly their may not be any solution. Giving puberty blockers to children is dangerous. I am a trans woman who was give the blockers and I have never regained any sexual function. I couldn’t get surgery and I still have a micropenis. My parents did what the activists and docs told them to do. But it’s dangerous.
Puberty happens for a reason. Trans kids should get therapy. But they should not be pumped full of hormones. More and more will end up like me. Sterilized unable to procreate and unable to get surgery. I am angry suicidal and have a broken relationship with my parents because of this.
I know this might be upsetting to read but I figured you should get at least one response that is honest that there may not be a solution. I am sorry, but you may have fucked your kid up.
It’s not entirely your fault though several therapists and docs have come out saying they get pressured by the activists to where they feel unable to say no to the blockers. Several have even left practicing because they were uncomfortable with what is happening.
Everyone else here is very optimistic for you and maybe it will all work out but this trans woman had to be honest. I got screwed over by my parents and doctors and the activists all or nothing approach. Looks like you did too.

Sadly I think that's true hack.