Stella O'Malley, Trans Kids: It's Time To Talk

thread discussing Helen Webberley's interview on 5Live recently. At the beginning of the show, she said defining 'biological sex' was 'tricky'

The problem with Webberley is that she really believes this whole bullshit and is, no doubt, convinced that she is doing the right thing. And for some, adult, clients, who have sorted their shit out, a compassionate doctor and no waiting times will be a good thing.

Doesn't change the fact that her rushing people through transition who may not have sorted their shit out and basically without gatekeeping has great potential to cause great harm, particularly when it comes to underage patients.

But she is too much caught up in her 'mission' to understand that. Which makes her dangerous.

I do wonder whether the government which is offloading responsibility for people who identify as transgender onto charities like Stonewall and Mermaids is a deliberate ploy to try to avoid financial liability on the government's part.

When lawsuits start to come in, Stonewall and Mermaids will go bust. And then just probably start up again anew from scratch.

Leaving taxpayers to pick up the bill.

I have heard insinuations that in the US there are steps to 'de-medicalize' gender dysphoria not to 'demarginalize' transpeople but to shield medical professionals from liability.

The whole argument over whether gender dysphoria is an illness makes no sense.

It's not an illness so men can claim to be women because of some sort of female essence, and require no medical treatment.

But at the same time, children with gender dysphoria need to be treated immediately with puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones and surgery as soon as they're old enough. If they don't follow this route they will probably kill themselves.

So which is it? Is it an illness? If so, why are so many adults not having treatment? If it's not an illness, why are children being medicated?

May 2018
Interview with Helen Webberley in the Independent about the Channel 4 Genderquake debate:
(extract)

"I have been very open about my individualised approach to the treatment of transgender patients, irrespective of age, and my firm belief that they should be able to access the support and medication they need in a timely and supportive manner, and where possible via their GP. In line with self-identification of gender, I firmly advocate informed consent and individualised care.

This has attracted a certain amount of media interest. So I was not surprised to receive an invitation to appear on Genderquake, part of Channel 4’s series of programmes which are described as an opportunity “to encourage and to enlighten public discussion about sexuality and gender identity”.

My initial response was entirely positive. There is an overwhelming need for informed debate round the topic of society’s approach to transgender people and how we can better support this marginalised group. As a medical professional who has had firsthand experience of meeting and treating more members of the transgender community than most in my position, I was keen to add my voice to the mix.
This changed rather abruptly after I dug a little deeper. I spoke to a GP registrar and LGBTQ+ advocate (Dr Adrian Harrop) who had also been contacted by Channel 4, as well as a number of friends, fellow trans advocates and members of the trans community. The overwhelming opinion was that this had the potential to be yet another orchestrated engineered battle between trans people and those who essentially deny their very existence."

www.independent.co.uk/voices/trans-genderquake-debate-channel-4-germaine-greer-munroe-bergdorf-lgbt-rights-a8341776.html

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3243516-Dr-Helen-Webberley-GenderGP-Interview-in-The-Independent-re-GenderQuake-Debate

thread discussing Helen Webberley's interview on 5Live recently.

At the beginning of the show, she said defining 'biological sex' was 'tricky'
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3374512-trans-debate-bbc-5live-post-9am-today-mon-24th-sept

Some of us "been there/ done that" TS men and women have been saying for a while that there will be "career ending / family relationships ending" court cases over all this in 20 years time.

I think so. I have heard insinuations that in the US there are steps to 'de-medicalize' gender dysphoria not to 'demarginalize' transpeople but to shield medical professionals from liability. (Not a lawyer, so not sure how much there is to it. But if true that's appalling.)

Also: Isn't it funny how the same people who will insist that their 'lived experience' and therefore their opinion trumps any scientific or professional analysis aren't really keen on hearing what dissenting TS people have to say?

on recent thread, Popchyk wrote,

"this is worth reading

gendergp.co.uk/queries/

From Gender GPs own website. The information has been on there for ages.

Are you being investigated by the GMC?
"I have had numerous complaints to the GMC about my transgender service.
A complaint from Alec Rook questioning whether I was qualified to provide gender care. This was fully investigated and no concerns were found on my fitness to practice in this area.
A letter from Stuart Lorimer, consultant psychiatrist at Charing Cross and GenderCare private clinic regarding my practice with numerous comments and concerns. The GMC decided that the complaint did not need investigating.
Another letter from Stuart Lorimer with further concerns. The GMC did not feel this warranted an investigation.
I raised concerns about James Barrett, consultant psychiatrist at Charing Cross and the GMC did not investigate but instead opened an investigation about me. This was closed with no fault found.
Professor Hindmarsh, via Dr Butler, consultant paediatric endocrinologist has made a complaint about my treatment of a transgender child. This investigation is currently ongoing.
A ‘senior doctor’ from Charing Cross has made an anonymous statement to the CQC which has now ben passed to the GMC. He outlines various concerns he has, none of which he can substantiate."

Also:

"As there are a large number of patients relying on my care who can’t get the help they need from anywhere else, and because there is a high incidence of self harm and suicide in this patient group, I am going to transfer the hub of my service to my other residence in Malaga, Spain so that I can continue providing care while the regulatory processes are being sorted out".

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3385789-Helen-Webberley-found-guilty?pg=5

gmmmg.nhs.uk/docs/ip/Guidelines-on-defining-RED-AMBER-GREEN-STATUS-updated-August-2018.pdf

Items which are listed as Grey are deemed not suitable for routine
prescribing but may be suitable for a defined patient population. Whilst prescribers should think very carefully before prescribing or recommending any of the products on the grey list, there may be exceptional instances when the use of one of these products is necessary for a particular patient. A patient may be deemed exceptional if the patient has a clinical picture that is significantly different to the general population of patients with that condition and as a result of that difference the patient is likely to derive greater benefit from the intervention than might normally be expected for patients with that condition. In addition to be assigned a GREY status these drugs will be also be assigned a RAG to define where prescribing responsibility should lie.

Think the word is 'off label' prescribing, not 'grey label'.

It's very common practice in the UK.

To be honest Kay, this isn't about you and given the issues raised in the program and this thread, can we move on please?

Roantrees; I think I may be getting in trouble because of my " writing style". I have tried to use careful wording that makes it clear that I don't think Dr Webberly is mad or bad, or ill intentioned, but I think that her clinic has behaved in ways that could only leave themselves open to criticism, and could have harmed others.

In fact, some one I know who is reading this has just emailed me to say that I am "attacking Dr W again and again".

So ( I've posted a few this morning, so I'll stop;
I don't approve of unsupervised gender clinics.
I don't support giving hormones to under 16 years olds , and am unhappy about puberty-blockers as well.
I am not a patient of Dr Webberly.

Sorry to be a pain; I hope I have made myself clearer now.

as I said, this is about" checks and balances", more than about clinical competence.

Clinical competence involves ensuring appropriate and rigorous checks and balances. Recognising the importance of these and being proactive in seeking them.

Profesional supervision and reflective practice is essential when working with vulnerable adults, children and young people whether in a medical, theraputic, counselling, social care or voluntary sector.

This is at the heart of Safeguarding and child protection frameworks.

Old Crone; good point; it was to a 12 year old. Not sure if it is illegal, ( probably is) but ) it MUST be wrong.

Someone said I had "found a practitioner"...I am not and have never been a patient of Dr Webberly; ( today, 10.21) I said I had considered using her for long term hormones,. I used the NHS, many years ago.

According to my GP, grey label prescriptions are not all that unusual.

And... I've been accused of defending Dr W; if anyone cares enough to look at the words I carefully chose, I have consistently been pretty negative about the set up there. But not insulting .

Webberley saying someone isn't really trans is a bit bloody rich when she and all her allies constantly hammer on about saying the words makes you AN ACTUAL WOMAN.

I find them weirdly blank or something and yes, childlike. It's terrifying to think their intelligence might be stunted. And all these men who transitioned in middle age after reaping the benefits of malehood and adulthood- the wife, the kids, the career etc. pushing this agenda of transing kids. It's so disturbing.

Langcleg; I am not defending Dr Webberly; I am trying to strike a dispassionate , balanced, tone.

Kay you asserted on the previous page:
Whatever the Webberleys have been doing, their good faith and overall professionalism need not be doubted.

We have different ideas of what is defence & dispassionate and balanced tone.

There are clear medical, ethical and professional standards which underpin any medical or theraputic intervention in the UK.
This includes treating people who may experience gender dysphoria.

When treating children and young people there are additional safeguarding frameworks.

Dr Webberleys analysis that Stella "wasn't really transgender" and that had she presented at a GID clinic today she wouldn't have had medical intervention, misses the point entirely.

Today, with schools, sporting organisations and parents told to affirm, whether or not there has been a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, Stella is very likely not to have reconciled herself to her own body. That, together with the online cheerleading, is the difference, not whether she was actually transgender.

it is not unusual for medications to be used for groups they were not developed for, and it is not of itself illegal.

Grey-label prescribing is unusual in the UK.

Incidently; someone referred to her prescribing illegal hormones; although the hormones were not developed for m to f useage, it is not unusual for medications to be used for groups they were not developed for, and it is not of itself illegal.

She was prescribing illegally to children. She prescribed cross-sex hormones to 12 year olds when the minimum legal age is 16.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-41213534

Langcleg; I am not defending Dr Webberly; I am trying to strike a dispassionate , balanced, tone.

She may end up struck off, she may end up sued ( quite possible) but there is no reason to think she has bad intentions.

Dr Marrietta Higgs comes to mind. She had good intentions as well, but did harm.

Old Crone ( I'm sure you aren't)
Just saw your post. Thanks. She's possibly in even deeper trouble , then.

I wish I could get an apology from a Trangender website I used to be on, but was chucked off for supporting WPUK. I and others used to say stuff about the risks of using that clinic unless one was 100% willing to take your own risks in life, and we did not have the mood of the meeting.

Incidently; someone referred to her prescribing illegal hormones; although the hormones were not developed for m to f useage, it is not unusual for medications to be used for groups they were not developed for, and it is not of itself illegal. It needs to be defensible, which is not the same. I am told. This applies to a number of painkillers, for example.

Thanks teawamutu. It is more or less what I thought. Not good for her, of course, but whether it is a "criminal" case I still don't know. It's not good.

It fits with the narrative that the medical establishment don't like things they can't control or oversee. They will argue that that is the correct and safest thing to do, and on the whole who could disagree? I wouldn't.

At the very least it makes her position if sued rather less safe than she would wish!

Kay

From the link I posted just now:
HIW proceeded with criminal action against Online GP Services Ltd and Dr Webberley for operating a service without being registered under Section 11 of the Care Standards Act 2000.

I don't think there's any doubt that this is a criminal offence.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/14/contents

This is not the place to be defending Webberley, Kay. I find it highly suspect that you're so keen to do it.

KayM2, found this story and it is talking in terms of guilty and conviction:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45767360