Michael Biggs paper on the Tavistock

sorry, 2007 or 2008

Datun

thank you for pointing that out. The 2012 doc also makes the point that it’s been dept health policy since (from memory) 2007 and 2008 not to treat trans IDs as disordered per se. I must confess, a bit of me welcomes things like this. Our girl looks like a boy and is often taken for one. Having a bit of paper that says: her identity provides no grounds for her to seek any treatment kind of protects her from those who would seek to change her. I agree that kids adopt trans IDs as a coping mechanism for things that trouble them. But maybe this memorandum could focus attention on those other troubles directly, which might help the child reflect on the trans stuff? But I don’t know. I suppose I look at these documents nowadays and I instinctively try to think: how could I use this to prevent well meaning but clueless professionals interfere with my child’s head?

I understand why TRAs, MRAs etc want self-ID. I don't really understand why government etc have fallen for it, or at least are going along with it. Is it saving money due to demedicalisation? I suspect that. I wonder if there were strings of law suits as in Canada, especially if the respondents then sued for loss of business due to Stupid Law and gained huge sums from the state in compensation, or any other woman harmed in any other way by self ID, would it make the Powers That Be realise that actually it was in the end a lot cheaper to support the many fewer men with gd in the old way.....

archery

Here is the memorandum of understanding. It calls anything other than acceptance, conversion therapy. And was originally intended to be applied to sexual orientation. You can see how many authorities have endorsed it.

www.psychotherapy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/UKCP-Memorandum-of-Understanding-on-Conversion-Therapy-in-the-UK.pdf

There is an analysis by transgendertrend.

www.transgendertrend.com/children-left-unprotected-by-new-memorandum-of-understanding-on-conversion-therapy/

What it means is that for a health practitioner to offer any therapeutic support or exploration of underlying factors, motives or reasons for a cross-sex identity in childhood they are now taking a professional risk.

Thank you Jux

I’m also now in a good place, but this article got to me.

That’s a really interesting explanation of how we got here, archery2

Has there been any substantial reporting of this in MSM?

Is this when the memorandum of understanding was given to healthcare professionals? And they had to comply with it. Affirmation only?

I’m not familiar with that document and I don’t believe that GIDS operates an affirmation-only policy, although the 2012 British Psychological Society guidelines are leaning that way, for my money. The change I was thinking of is described in the ‘contract’ that NHS England agreed with GIDS to provide a national gender service for young people, in which it sets out what the service will be like. (google E/13/S(HSS)/e ). Para 3.2.6.1 on p.26 describes that the ‘2011 protocol, which following evaluation, has now become established practice.’ Michael Biggs refers to this on p.8 of his article.

There was a moment in 2014 when this treatment - till then, only used as part of a tiny research study - somehow slipped into being adopted as 'standard practice' for the entire NHS. I'm unsure how that could have happened, without a proper write-up from the researchers, publication of the results of the research study and so on. There seems to have been a real failure of process.

Is this when the memorandum of understanding was given to healthcare professionals? And they had to comply with it. Affirmation only?

My cousin was given something like this drug 50-60 years ago, as she was so short. She's still less than 5', and has been plagued by side effects (are they after effects?) ever since. It was years before she forgave her mum for putting her on them.

As children, I remember her as always angry; she recently said that was because of the growth drugs she was forced to have. I believe her, especially after reading this thread. I love her dearly and am so sad she has had her life so blighted.

I dread to think what these poor children will feel about their parents when they realise everything that is in store for them.

Tammy and Sophocles, I do appreciate your speaking about your terrible experience as it has helped me a little to see my cousin's experience more clearly. Her life is a joy now, btw.

The way I see this debate is: specialist doctors used to treating very rare diseases in children are used to working with medicines that aren't backed up by a lot of research. The situation can be quite desperate so it's worth a go.

At the other end of the scale, people like GPs are more used to dealing with common medical problems, for which there are clear pathways for treatment that are very well-established in research. People like GPs are going to be a lot less comfortable with a treatment for which there's such a lack of evidence of its benefits.

There's a real debate to be had about trying innovative medical treatments on very ill children. When this was a matter of there only being 10-15 children per year in the whole country being suitable for puberty blockers, maybe it felt like a reasonable thing to do, to offer this experimental treatment.

But the situation now is that there are more than 2500 of these kids being referred each year - more than 10,000 since 2011 when you count up all the annual referrals. Clearly, we've moved a very long way from the original scenario, and we're more in the territory where GPs are going to encounter these children now and then. It's not surprising, therefore, that people (GPs and many others) are demanding more evidence in favour of these treatments.

There was a moment in 2014 when this treatment - till then, only used as part of a tiny research study - somehow slipped into being adopted as 'standard practice' for the entire NHS. I'm unsure how that could have happened, without a proper write-up from the researchers, publication of the results of the research study and so on. There seems to have been a real failure of process.

Thanks pain. I’m so sorry that you are having to deal with this.

I’m a bit annoyed with myself that I let this get to me yesterday. The topic really sets me off.

Yes, experimenting on children and children's lives is despicable.

Sophocles I’m not sending more flowers, it’s not enough. Just sending my absolute understanding and lots of love.

I’m not fucking having any of this. I have already written to my MP, copying in my local NHS trust, plus my GP surgery. I am utterly committed to holding these fuckers’ feet to the fire. Nobody should get away with this. It cannot be allowed to be the usual revolving door between high profile jobs and charities and government. Fuck that. Some of these people should be blacklisted for life for what they’ve done, or go to prison. It’s that serious. We all know it’s that serious, but there seems to be a fundamental lack of concern about how serious it all is amongst the people concerned.

My most recent job (before my pelvic pain forced me to give up my dream job and work in general) was a head of department role where I had senior management authority over nearly 100 staff. Not a medical setting. Not even an important setting in the grand scheme of things. But if I had introduced a protocol which, for arguments sake, went against GDPR rules, and which hadn’t been proven “safe” I would be sacked for gross misconduct and my name would be mud.

And yet, these senior clinicians are experimenting on children. They are experimenting on children, in plain sight, unapologetically. What. The. Fuck. Is. Going. On?

painnogain I don’t have pelvic pain now, thankfully, but I hear you about how draining and devastating it is.

It is hard to read, datun because I just cannot reconcile this sunny, optimistic “we’re just hitting the pause button on puberty!” rhetoric being peddled by useful idiots with the often grim reality that is being on these drugs. It’s utterly, utterly irresponsible, and the fact that it’s often posed as an alternative to someone’s kid killing themselves compounds my horror.

No. Just no to all of it. You supporters of mermaids, you adults pushing the line that a child always knows they’re trans, this is to YOU: Stop drugging and castrating kids, stop creating the environment in which kids can be drugged and castrated, and stop lying about the reality of what’s happening.

I don’t even have a dog in this fight, because I don’t have children.

Why don’t I have children? One of the reasons is THIS FUCKING DRUG.

PainNoGain

I agree, it's insane. Absolutely horrifying.

I am utterly horrified. I don’t even know what to say other than what an appalling mess. I am devastated for all those children who have been lied to, experimented on and made into a medical patient for life.

I could cry reading about the side effects. Thanks to Tammy and Sophocles for sharing your own experiences

I have been suffering with pelvic pain for 2 years now and I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. These poor girls can’t possibly understand what they have to come - womb atrophy, horrific pain, all the issues with bones, god forbid a heartbreaking scar on their arm where a surgeon cut away a fucking strip of skin to make a pretend penis. I wish I could tell them what pelvic pain feels like. How it gnaws at you, how nothing helps, how doctors haven’t got a clue so you just get told to do mindfulness. It ruins your life. You can’t sit, can’t walk too far, can’t do anything you used to do. I can’t even work and I struggle to look after my son without help because the pain is crippling. Sorry. Me-rail. It just makes me so fucking furious that these doctors and lobby groups and activists are all so casual about pushing children into being a lifelong medical patient with so many horrifying health issues. It is INSANE.

OldCrone there was another series on Radio 4 called Just a Girl which was first broadcast in 2014 and made into a series for CBBC in 2016. I know for a fact that Susie Green was involved in the CBBC production. It features a trans girl desperate for hormone blockers, who is then put on them. Everything’s tickety boo, just the national broadcaster promoting hormone blockers as ‘totally reversible’ and ‘life saving’.

I’m adding the BBC, and it’s commissioners to the list of those to blame.

niceberg I wiuld imagine the effect would be different on girls and boys. Girls stop growing around when the periods start something to do with fusing of the pelvis and leaving enough space for future pregnancies. But boys grow well into puberty.
I have no idea what the impact could be but couldn't figure out with your post either. (Not asking you to disclose the sex of your child - just saying I am still muddled and shall shut up now and get back to reading)

Sorry Tammy not y !

I'd no idea the drug was used to chemically castrates sex offenders. Bloody hell.

to y and sophocles this must be hard to read.

Jeez. As more information leaks out, it just gets worse and worse. These clinicians seem to be on a relentless path of no return. Making more and more questionable decisions with a horrifically cavalier 'might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb' attitude.

The timing’s interesting.

Also the CBBC programme 'I am Leo' was first shown in 2014.

Does anyone know if anything will now happen to those implicated in this report?

Thanks for the flowers, all - back atcha

Interesting debate on promoting growth versus slowing growth - as with so much of this, the actual facts are hard to determine.

Red I totally agree that politicians and journalists are responsible as well, but the pool of ‘experts’ is limited.

The discipline of children with gender dysphoria was a small sleepy niche. I see dd as being swept up in the big first wave of girls wanting to transition. The tsunami of new patients caught the Tavistock off guard. They were used to working with a very small number of children, many of whom were involved with Mermaids. Giving them a close relationship. Going from the figures in this, 2015 was the year referrals had a huge jump. 2015 was also the year Kenneth Zucker was sacked. This discredited his more balanced approach and set the course we’re now on.

The mixture of more patients, no funding, and the patients being in acute distress, is a heady one. How do you decide who gets fast tracked, who’s most in need? Corners get cut, patients and parents learn the script and tricks to get seen quicker.

I think incompetence and an overwhelmed service takes a lot of the blame too.

Mermaids was a different organisation in 2012. I think Susie Green became chair of Mermaids in 2013 and their first paid CEO in 2016. The timing’s interesting.

Niceberg- thanks for clarifying that! I'm glad for your child's sake they weren't prescribed these drugs- the effects sound horrendous.