Michael Biggs paper on the Tavistock

Why exactly were GIDS staff consulting families about the patient information sheet? That should based on clinical data only, free from external influences.

Just a point about this (speaking as someone involved in research). It is good practice to consult patients/families on patient information sheets to ensure they are readable and sensitive/friendly for the reader. Information sheets written by academics without consultation can be offputting and opaque, which also doesn't help with informed consent.

Obviously no relevant clinical information should be dropped on their say-so - this would go against good clinical practice. But we need to be aware of these nuances if we are to get involved in discussions about how research has been carried out.

It is the new Thalidomide.

Yup.

Where are all the early transitioning kids? If they were say 12 in 2011, they should be 18 now

I strongly suspect they will be desperately clinging on to the false promises.

Sadly it may take a few more years for them to feel brave enough speak out.

It is the new Thalidomide.

That is going to give me nightmares for a long while. Michael Biggs is owed a lot.

There is a high incidence of psychopathy among surgeons.

publishing.rcseng.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1308/rcsbull.2015.331

It’s often an asset - but clearly not always.

I think quite a lot of this is about surgeons and medics doing things because they can. We persist in trusting these people absolutely when we have seen time and again what happens when power gets the better of them.
The psychologically healthy ones keep themselves in check, but many of them are not healthy - just like the general population.

But I hadn't though about the end result - an adult child unable to form satisfying sexual relationships, needing permanent medication and with little or no sense of self actualisation, needing the validation of others to establish their sense of self.

Did I read that Jazz Jennings mum helps Jazz with their dilation?

Jazz is 18.

Not normal.

"I was salivating,” he recalled.

BOAK. Creepy fucking creep.

Horrific, scary shit. Heartbreaking for the kids & families involved.

Does anyone know where the paper is/will be published?

Once they gave them the hormones consistent with the gender they affirmed, they looked beautiful. They looked normal."

That's so creepy. There is no insight there into the person, just a sort of experiment.

It's always a tendency with surgeons, to have an almost engineer-like attitude that is about very straightforward problem solving, very linear. But not really a great approach to treating people.

I’ve never really thought about this angle before, but the kids on puberty blockers - how do they do university/friendships/relationships/hold down a serious job/decide to settle down/get a mortgage if mentally they are stuck at 11 even in 20s and 30s? They are going to need support just to get by surely?

So presumably by that age they will have started cross sex hormones. Does that affect maturation of the brain?

Just in case anyone thinks Bicker is exaggerating when she writes, The primary rationale wasn’t about healing or alleviating distress; it was about beauty, please see this thread about Norman Spack, the Boston physician who imported the "Dutch protocol" to the US and has promoted its spread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3469374-Dr-Norman-Spack-evangelist-in-chief-for-early-medical-intervention

Two relevant quotes, from an NYT article and Spack's TED talk, respectively:

Dr. Spack recalled being at a meeting in Europe about 15 years ago, when he learned that the Dutch were using puberty blockers in transgender early adolescents.

“I was salivating,” he recalled. “I said we had to do this.”

The puberty-blocking protocol gained legitimacy in 2009, when it was endorsed by the Endocrine Society, the leading association of hormone experts, on the recommendation of a task force including Dr. Spack. (NYT)

"Once they gave them the hormones consistent with the gender they affirmed, they looked beautiful. They looked normal." (TED)

Spack's clinic sees patients as young as THREE years old.

I've been convinced for some time that parents insisting that their primary aged child is the opposite sex is Munchausens or fabricated illness. But I hadn't though about the end result - an adult child unable to form satisfying sexual relationships, needing permanent medication and with little or no sense of self actualisation, needing the validation of others to establish their sense of self. And parents being critical in all that.

Red

They are creating codependency a tactic often used by people with narcissistic personality disorder.

Bloody hell, Red , that's a scary thought.

We've talked on FWR for some years about the kind of predators who may be attracted to adults with retained childlike physical form and minds, but considering this as a means of extended control within a family is a new and alarming one to me. I've seen it in the context of disabled young adults struggling with parents not ready to let go ownership of decisions and control, but where the parent has had a hand in actively creating the issues around capacity and independence? Whole new safeguarding issues there.

Yes, that’s true. Only in males.

*I’ve never really thought about this angle before, but the kids on puberty blockers - how do they do university/friendships/relationships/hold down a serious job/decide to settle down/get a mortgage if mentally they are stuck at 11 even in 20s and 30s?

Hold that thought.

Now apply a potential munchausen by poxy lens to your thinking.

Now tell me what you see.*

Which is why this is such a desperate read.

go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.thetimes.co.uk/article/transgender-children-puberty-blocking-drugs-for-the-past-four-years-i-ve-been-stuck-as-a-child-5s6tkh7z2?shareToken=fd8ff48027eb9af4d3829ad49612a29c

It was about preventing the one process that has been shown, in fact, to alleviate dysphoria — actually going through puberty — in order to create more aesthetically pleasing trans adults.

True but so so wrong. Although the 19 year old in the recent BBC program on blockers looked like a lad prancing about like a little girl. When i was that age a lot lads had long hair it was normal but the behaviour and speach of the TG was very different - very immature. So sad.

And never forget that, fundamentally, the reason to do all this was to allow for a more pleasing aesthetics in adolescents later taking cross-sex hormones

Only in males. This never even applied to females, because they still need to have a mastectomy (even at 12).

In fact, I think blockers also stunt your height, which, while desirable for male children wanting to be trans-girls, is the opposite to what trans-guys want.

And never forget that, fundamentally, the reason to do all this was to allow for a more pleasing aesthetics in adolescents later taking cross-sex hormones and also perhaps undergoing surgery.

The primary rationale wasn’t about healing or alleviating distress; it was about beauty.

It was about preventing the one process that has been shown, in fact, to alleviate dysphoria — actually going through puberty — in order to create more aesthetically pleasing trans adults.

They could see it, everyone could, they just don't care.

One of the most horrifying things, to me at any rate, is that we saw this coming years ago - all of us ordinary Women and mums with little to no serious medical knowledge, we SAW it like a big flashing red light, how can you rob a child of puberty, pump them full of awful drugs and expect there not to be horrendous consequences?
If we could see it, why not the ‘experts’ ?

That struck me too, Big.

“The wording … [of the Patient Information Sheet] was agreed with a number of families with whom the draft had been discussed” (Di Ceglie 2019: 149)".

Why exactly were GIDS staff consulting families about the patient information sheet? That should based on clinical data only, free from external influences.

How can you maintain an ethical, unbiased trial when you are negotiating with some of the prospective participants about whether to include certain information about known or uncertain risks?

These families clearly have an interest in the trial going ahead and may therefore wish to remove some of the risks from the patient information sheet.

What was the criteria for including these particular families in that process? Why those parents and not other parents? Were those parents put forward by a lobby group?

Sounds like some parents were involved in deciding that other parents (who started the trial later) should be unaware of certain information about risks. How is that ethical?

The deeper you look at this, the murkier it gets.

Where are all the early transitioning kids? If they were say 12 in 2011, they should be 18 now. Are they on any social media or talking about their experiences? It would be interesting to hear fro them how they feel about it now, especially given this paper.