Newsnight tonight: Britain's Experimented with Puberty blockers

All the way through there isn't a challenging of the idea that you can change sex.

All these kids are pretty much indoctrinated that if they take these drugs their body will be on the path to how they want it.

The reality is that rather than changing sex, all that happens is they are prevented from becoming a mature bodied adult of the sex they are.

Yet this does not seem to be part of the vocabulary because they don't want to talk about biology and 'natal sex'.

www.transgendertrend.com/tavistock-experiment-puberty-blockers-update/

Professor Biggs is taking no prisoners in his latest assessment.

"In sum, the Tavistock’s statement continues the sorry record of prevarication and obfuscation that has dogged the experiment for several years. GIDS is clearly incapable of undertaking rigorous scientific research, perhaps because it has been swamped by exponentially increasing caseloads. There is no such excuse for the failure of UCL’s Institute of Child Health, the experiment’s lead sponsor. Neither organization can be trusted to objectively analyze the 2011 experiment.

We demand that a team of independent researchers be given access to all the data from the experiment. They will need expertise in statistics, psychiatry, and endocrinology; most importantly, they must have no vested interests in the promotion of GnRHa drugs. Given that this experiment has been used since 2014 to justify the provision of these drugs to children under the NHS, the outcomes of this experiment – on all the physical, psychological, and behavioural measures that were collected – must be published urgently".

I agree with that.

An independent team needs to look at that study. Now.

Wish Emily Maitlis had interviewed Susan Bewley in the studio. That’s what we need now. Seriously pointed questions and no treading on eggshells or emotive set designs.

Hated the production but that's the first real investigative report I've seen from BBC. Deborah Cohen is a proper medical investigative journalist. Flaws yes but am quite stunned they did it.

This is the link to the programme online. The item starts at around 20:57 (or 27 minutes in). www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00072kj/newsnight-22072019

I can understand that mumsnetters would think this is a very limited view of the issue, but I think for the BBC to even mention that maybe GIDS could be wrong is quite a break through. And because it is newsnight might get some follow up by other media outlets.

Although of course the real reporting was the 2 open letters published this week.

re newsnight reporting style.

I dont know why but at some point newsnight decided that to get younger viewers that had to

1. dumb down the depth of their reporting
2. use silly gimmicks and inappropriate music.

It can no longer be though of as a serious news programme!

The interview style is of silly schoolchildren thinking they can be a bit naughty and not play by the rules as it is all about having a gotcha moment that can become click bait. When not interviewing each other or their cronies in the media.

Worse still they have exported one of their on to Radio 4's pm where his schoolboy sniggering and this is all a comedy routine have made that news slot equally idiotic.

This is the link to the programme online. The item starts at around 20:57 (or 27 minutes in). www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00072kj/newsnight-22072019

I can understand that mumsnetters would think this is a very limited view of the issue, but I think for the BBC to even mention that maybe GIDS could be wrong is quite a break through. And because it is newsnight might get some follow up by other media outlets.

Although of course the real reporting was the 2 open letters published this week.

re newsnight reporting style.

I dont know why but at some point newsnight decided that to get younger viewers that had to

1. dumb down the depth of their reporting
2. use silly gimmicks and inappropriate music.

It can no longer be though of as a serious news programme!

The interview style is of silly schoolchildren thinking they can be a bit naughty and not play by the rules as it is all about having a gotcha moment that can become click bait. When not interviewing each other or their cronies in the media.

Worse still they have exported one of their on to Radio 4's pm where his schoolboy sniggering and this is all a comedy routine have made that news slot equally idiotic.

That was an incredibly weird piece. Philomena Cunk crossed with Brass Eye indeed.

I found some of it too waffly and would have liked them to point out the danger of sterility and expanded on the risk to brain development. I also would have like to have heard something about differential diagnosis and how many of the children labeled with GD have other serious issues going on.

Having said that it's a move in the right direction for the BBC even if they have a long way to go. Makes me appreciate just how much we have researched and discussed this on MN.

And with that as your default position, how on earth do you even begin to approach actual medical research?

You can't.

You've made conversations about biological side effects off limits because you've deemed talking about biology taboo.

Thus affirmation of your own political bias and belief is the only thing that matters.

It's quasi religious woo woo.

Link to transgender trend's update by Michael Biggs.

www.transgendertrend.com/tavistock-experiment-puberty-blockers-update/

The segments with the young trans person were unnecessary and gave the impression that all transitioners are happy with the outcomes - irresponsible.

Indeed. I wonder how these children will be in 10 years time when all their peers are off at university and settling into relationships and they can't because they still have a child's brain and a non-functioning & unsexed body.

Fucking horrendous.

Can’t drink legally at 11

Can’t smoke legally at 11.
Can’t drive a car legally at 11

But fuck all of that. Here’s some drugs which we haven’t really tested and you might self harm and have suiciadal thoughts.

We don’t want you to think we might be transphobic

Biggs and Bewley were good, made clear points.

The feeling the wrong gender bollocks. Teenagers not comfortable with their changing bodies, what teenager is?

Sounded like HRA threatened to investigate before but didn't so will they actually investigate this time? GIDS - not impressed, they need to do better, PC has as good as said blockers put children in a path. International practice - the US is mostly privatised and nutters like the Olsens making a lot of money by pushing medicalised pathway.

They should have mentioned that less than 20% petsist without blockers but with them they all persist. That is a huge difference.

So much more they could have included instead of the spooky music and dodgy 'meaningful' looks at the camera.

Susan Bewley was the one who took Dr Harrop to pieces on twitter with Margaret McCartney the other day wasn't she?

Yes, she's excellent.

Who was the presenter? Dr Deborah Cohen or something like that? Good on her for doing that, I bet she met a hell of a lot of resistance from the BBC trans lobby and that was as loose as the leash was allowed to go on that.

Admittedly my expectations on this topic are not high, especially with the BBC, so I'm impressed by the achievement of getting that on.

So GIDS admitted that every child who,went on puberty blockers went on to take sex hormones. And the suicide thoughts and self harming increased when on puberty blockers.

And they don’t know WHY

FFS

They said that it gave the kids time to pause puberty and see what else was going on

Well that seems to be untrue

Philomena Cunk
Brass Eye
Spot on, but yes, hard-hitting by BBC's woeful standards. The phrase "bad science" was used by one of the contributors and wasn't edited out. I'll call that progress.
The segments with the young trans person were unnecessary and gave the impression that all transitioners are happy with the outcomes - irresponsible.

Transgender Trend have just published an update by Michael Biggs that gives details not mentioned in the programme - they've sent out an email about it.

some people feel that they privilege biology over their lived and felt identity

And with that as your default position, how on earth do you even begin to approach actual medical research?

But but but... They were trying to be really really serious....

(dear god, imagine when newsnight start tackling ball waxing).

Susan Bewley is a brilliant woman. She's one of the medics who wrote to the Lancet and BMJ.

She gives zero fucks. She's far too smart for that.

The park bench and the abandoned scooter in an empty attic was like an episode of Brass Eye.

The spooky loft was something special and I was itching to give the filthy door a good wash down. Michael Biggs and Susan Bewley very good though. It’s a start, but we need more scrutiny of this area of practice.

Threadbaretoe posted this on another thread about GIDS earlier today

I think the GIDs website confirms some of Kirsty's claims. For example.... "Historically, our service used the terms "natal / born" or "biological" to describe the sex and gender someone was identified as at birth. However, we try where possible to avoid these terms now as some people feel that they privilege biology over their lived and felt identity".

To which I simply replied

How can the culture be one which centralises and encourages informed consent and without undue pressure, when they are too scared and its considered too sensitive to mention biological reality?

It becomes increasingly clear to me that the leadership of GIDS has become so lost in the politics and their own bias that they simply do not understand basic principles around medical consent and ethical medicine. They do not understand the need for quality research.

This is a time bomb scandal. A complete safeguarding disaster zone and when it all unravels, I really think criminal charges wouldn't be inappropriate.

Yes the delivery was hammy which was a shame. It’s either Brave and Stunning staring into the middle distance with violins, or flowers in the attic.

Tinsel now that would be worth watching - a TRA vs Cunk.

The content was good - Michael Biggs' research has been excellent and he's uncovered so much about this scandal.
The presentation was dire BUT the detail and the ending .. "this demands open and honest debate" was refreshing from the BBC