Posie: truthcrime harassment continues

One is an evidence based treatment for a recognised medical condition, gender dysphoria and is also commissioned by the NHS.

Then why wasn’t it done by the NHS?

Also - at 16? Nope.

Please explain what the difference is, and why one is appropriate and one not?

One is an evidence based treatment for a recognised medical condition, gender dysphoria and is also commissioned by the NHS.

The other is a culturally ingrained harmful practice that inflicts an intentional injury to female genitalia for non-medical purposes, and has no health benefits for girls and women.

In that case linked the court ordered an independent medical opinion be given to decide what is in the best interests of the child regarding any treatment.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that is a bad idea? I would have thought most posters on this thread would be in favour of that approach in the instance we are discussing of a parent taking their child abroad for a treatment not legal in the UK at that age.

The link reports:

The grandparents, rather than parents, will be the ones to help make medical decisions for the child going forward. But before any hormone treatment is allowed, the court ordered, the teen should be evaluated by a psychologist who is not affiliated with the current facility where he is receiving treatment, on “the issue of consistency in the child’s gender presentation, and feelings of non-conformity.”

These drugs have life changing, lifelong effects. They are not a harmless pause button on puberty. They cause osteoporosis, infertility, metabolic damage etc

They also potentially affect brain development putting in question further a child's capacity to make life changing decisions.

I support Posie. I'd put my money where my mouth is if I had money.

There are no circumstances in which puberty blockers and surgery are an appropriate treatment route for a minor with gender confusion. None.

Most teens with gender identity issues revert. The concept of irreversible and life changing treatment in a condition where a high percentage of the patients would not choose that post puberty is against medical ethics.

These drugs have life changing, lifelong effects. They are not a harmless pause button on puberty. They cause osteoporosis, infertility, metabolic damage etc. To treat children who may not even need or want the treatment in a few years with harmful and irreversible drugs says to me that this is ideologically based, because it is NOT in he best interests of the patient

I support you Posie and will donate if necessary.

I support Posie too and am willing to put my money where my mouth is.

Was just pointing out that preventing access to gender treatment can be as much as a safeguarding issue in some cases as inappropriately encouraging it could be in others.

And again who is suggesting "preventing access"?

I support Posie.

It seems to have become established 'fact' that children suffering gender dysphoria should be put on a path of positive reinforcement of their gender identity - nothing wrong with that when it involves wearing the clothes, playing with the toys, having the hairstyle.

But I'm, concerned at the use of puberty blockers - followed by sex hormones and surgery - when the evidence I've read is that 80% of gender dysphoric children will recover after puberty, and be happy living as their biological sex.

Seems to me this is child safeguarding issue - being put on a road of drugs/surgery/infertility isn't a decision a child can make in their early teens, and I don't agree that a parent has the right to make that decision on behalf of the child. No matter how well-meaning the parent is.

wasn’t legal for minors in the UK, which does rather suggest there were concerns about its appropriateness....

Ok I accept that point boat. Was just pointing out that preventing access to gender treatment can be as much as a safeguarding issue in some cases as inappropriately encouraging it could be in others.

It can do Olennas

That's in the US. That's not (or should not be) how we understand the concept of child safeguarding here.

I was referring to the attempt to cast SG as having facilitated something inappropriate for her child.

Can you explain to me why a parent taking a child to a different country to engage in surgery to remove genitalia (FGM) is different to a parent taking a child abroad to engage in genitals being removed for any other reason?

Both surgeries illegal in the uk. Please explain what the difference is, and why one is appropriate and one not?

I was referring to the attempt to cast SG as having facilitated something inappropriate for her child

The action SG took was illegal in this country so she took her child out of the country before their 16th birthday to have the operation on that day and soon after she did having that operation at 16 became illegal there too.

Can you really not bring yourself to criticise her? True colours eh?

that's not what safeguarding means

It can do Olennas

familyllb.com/2018/02/19/parents-lose-custody-for-failing-to-respect-teenagers-wish-to-transgender/

I was referring to the attempt to cast SG as having facilitated something inappropriate for her child.

But the surgery conducted in Thailand wasn’t legal for minors in the UK, which does rather suggest there were concerns about its appropriateness....

No I don't. They need to be strengthened if anything. But preventing a child from accessing medical care they require is also a safeguarding issue. You created a false dichotomy.

Well Self ID will dilute down child safeguarding- for all children, of both sexes. That’s one of the main reasons I oppose it.

Denying access to medical treatment they need? Like say vaccines, dental checkups? Or do you mean ‘affirmative therapy including puberty blockers?’

Because that is not what safeguarding is at all.

Sorry missed the bold:

But preventing a child from accessing medical care they require is also a safeguarding issue.

Who has been doing this?

I was referring to the attempt to cast SG as having facilitated something inappropriate for her child. Those are the comments that have been investigated by the police and what is being referred to here as 'truthcrime harassment'.

It links safeguarding and gender identity treatment in a way that implies either or.

I was responding to Bowl then as part of the above discussion. If they were referring to the potential invasion of female only space by non transitioned males then yes there is a potential safeguarding issue. But that isn't what the person under discussion was being questioned about by the police.

But preventing a child from accessing medical care they require is also a safeguarding issue.*

Who is doing this?

I can kind of see where MNHQ are going with this - agreed that both 'in the public eye' kids (ie the 1 now adult, 1 approaching adulthood) referred to on this thread have already had their most private info publicised by their (to my mind) narcissistic & abusive parents - utterly shameful behaviour by those parents imho. But it's precisely because I judge those adults so harshly as atrocious parents to those poor kids that I think we ought to not use what they've exposed about their individual kids in their wanton pursuit of publicity, validation & money. I don't believe they were ever in any way in the right to expose their kids as they have, and I think as women who object to that, it's reasonable for us not make the already huge public humiliation their parents have caused them any worse than it is already.

Sorry if that reads jumbled, but trying to work out my thoughts as I type - guess what I'm saying is that we can amplify our message best by not stooping to their despicably low level IYSWIM

However, think it's also very important we're allowed to communicate about why we're opposed to the horrific acts those parents have committed, and fully support Posie's right to name it for what it is - castration, and mutilation of otherwise perfectly healthy kids' bodies - the shame lies with those pushing this agenda, not with those of us calling them out for the harm they're committing.

But preventing a child from accessing medical care they require is also a safeguarding issue

that's not what safeguarding means

But preventing a child from accessing medical care they require is also a safeguarding issue. You created a false dichotomy.

No, you have. Who suggested preventing children from accessing medical care they require? Would you like a definition of "false dichotomy"?

Or do you want current safeguarding protections for children, all children, watered down?

No I don't. They need to be strengthened if anything. But preventing a child from accessing medical care they require is also a safeguarding issue. You created a false dichotomy.

I think if this went to court it’d be a huge eye opener for a lot of people.

Of course that means Posie has to go to court, and that’s extremely stressful and not something I would wish on her (unless she wants it.)

I would also contribute again to the crowdfunder.