Royal Society of General Practitioners issue 15 page warning

"Warmly supporting" it with a view to being the ones who provide it?!

There is a statement on the mermaids website (deliberately not putting a link). I had a quick read but didn't see any of the issues raised re medication. They are "warmly" supporting the need for more training. So they are cherry picking the report.

Sounds like someone has finally recognised the litigation nightmare looming up ahead.

I think the majority of Drs just haven't known what is going on or it doesn't impact their area of practice/specialism so they've rolled their eyes and stayed out of it. But I always had faith in the NHS systems, GPs and the emphasis on evidence based practice that when a tipping point was reached there would be a sharp U turn. Hopefully we are reaching that point.

It is clear the GMC takes a dim view of the prescribing practices of the Webberleys and their ilk. Meanwhile the RCGP is urging caution. Doctors who blithely carry on prescribing according to patient/parent demands instead of sound clinical evidence do so at their risk.

@BernardBlacksWineIceLolly you need an ad blocker. No pop ups, no banners, no ads - marvellous. Plus the satisfaction you aren't giving them any income.

On my phone it's almost impossible too, adverts etc cover most of the screen.

That's a fairly good article. What adults do to themselves is up to them but children are not here to use to validate adults choices.

We need to be sure. And theres nothing bigoted about that. It's very sensible.

Completely off topic, but can I just take a moment to say how much I hate the Daily Mail website? not about what they print, but the constant fucking pop ups, banners, giant photographs etc make my ancient laptop creak. I always know I'm in for a crash after I open that site. pah!

now off to read the article

I just posted this paragraph from the RGCP statement on the thread about the Times article (hadn't seen this thread).

Gonadorelin (GnRH) analogues are one of the main types of treatment for young people with gender dysphoria. These have long been used to treat young children who start puberty too early, however less is known about their long-term safety in transgender adolescents. Children who have been on GnRH for a certain period of time and are roughly 16 years of age can be offered cross-sex hormones by the NHS, the effects of which can be irreversible. There is a significant lack of robust, comprehensive evidence around the outcomes, side effects and unintended consequences of such treatments for people with gender dysphoria, particularly children and young people, which prevents GPs from helping patients and their families in making an informed decision.

So they acknowledge the lack of evidence regarding these treatments.

They also call for more training for GPs in gender issues and the expansion of gender identity clinics, which might be the bits Mermaids agree with.

I bet that mermaids quote has been cut short and they went on to say their true position.

Link from Penny Mordaunt thread.

go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.thetimes.co.uk/article/penny-mordaunt-its-vital-to-look-into-surge-in-gender-change-girls-98dgffhkd?shareToken=90d3ea2c32de30fa3508486d6e4d67e8

Add in the preliminary findings from GIDS study. I feel the brakes slamming on in favour of "wait and see" hopefully.

"Separately, England’s only child gender clinic has released a note from a study into the first 44 youngsters to receive puberty-blocking drugs there.
In early outcomes after the injections started in 2011 at the Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) in London, there was “no overall improvement in mood or psychological wellbeing” in the cohort. More than a quarter reported that their mood was worse.

All the children, aged between 12 and 15, wanted to stay on the drugs, according to the presentation by Polly Carmichael, director of Gids. Many went on to receive cross-sex hormone treatment after the age of 16, the next step in changing gender."

(From the Andrew Gilligan article on other thread).

The document is here;
''The role of the GP in caring for gender-questioning and transgender patients''
www.rcgp.org.uk/-/media/Files/Policy/A-Z-policy/2019/RCGP-transgender-care-position-statement-june-2019.ashx?la=en

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190707083338/www.rcgp.org.uk/-/media/Files/Policy/A-Z-policy/2019/RCGP-transgender-care-position-statement-june-2019.ashx?la=en" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20190707083338/www.rcgp.org.uk/-/media/Files/Policy/A-Z-policy/2019/RCGP-transgender-care-position-statement-june-2019.ashx?la=en

Maybe Mermaids are showing a bit of common sense. To put themselves against a document like this would be pretty exposing

X post

But...but... at the bottom of the article Mermaids says they ‘warmly welcome’ the advice which is the opposite to what they are saying.

Near the end, it says

The transgender charity Mermaids said: 'This document from the RCGP is warmly welcomed.'

I had to read that twice. Really????

Hallelujah. Surprised Mermaids are okay with this though.

Hopefully this will force people to question WHY lobby groups like Mermaids are so keen to push children onto medical pathways when physicians strongly warn against it.