Michael Biggs paper on the Tavistock

I think.these children have a right to know. I'm.sure there are age appropriate ways to discuss it with them.

I am not convinced there are. I think it's not something kids really can understand. You can explain the mechanics, but its not going to be meaningful.

Aaah rich gay men.

The only people allowed to acknowledge biological sex...

It's Eugenics, it'll stop the homosexuals, the autistics and the non-comformers from reproducing, eventually leaving a generation of clean human.

Not sure about this as suragacy is being made easier and gay men are likely to be main users.

(I've noticed that the NO website is going through a spruce up; could someone please tell me how to archive a web page please?)

And featured in the No Outsiders lesson plans:

equalitiesplans.blogspot.com/2016/10/transgender-awareness-ks2-3-10000.html?m=1

That episode seems to have been removed from the BBC website by the way, although it was there this time last year because I complained about it and was fobbed off

It's here if anyone wants to see Polly Carmichael telling a child how harmless puberty blockers are.

www.transgendertrend.com/uk-cbbc-childrens-tv-i-am-leo/

Depressingly none of this is surprising to me, but seeing it all spelt out in one place rather than scattered here and there is even more sickening.

This is eugenics. Those who support it nothing but a bunch of modern day Mengeles.

I'm not prepared to pretend otherwise.

Didn't realise that Russell Viner, of University College London, who was the chief paediatrician for the puberty blocker experiment in 2010, is now President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

The RCPCH has recently asked its ethics and law advisory committee to look at the ethics surrounding the rapid increase in the use of blockers to treat under 16s who identify as transgender.

So Viner is investigating himself.

Being asexual is a legitimate gender identity Datun... don't be transphobic.

I know this is sarcasm but it's a serious concern. With so many categories for everything now it's entirely feasible that children and young people will be shunted from one to another by lobbyists and self interested adults as suits.

The irony is that for the adult narcissistic AGPs it's all about the sexual function.

This is the unethical sterilising of a generation of vulnerable children. Every adult who advocates for this needs locking up and the key throwing away. How dare they undermine all our well developed and nuanced guidelines about safeguarding and consent just in order to promote the interests of a profoundly selfish group of adult narcissists.

Absolutely.

When I read this, my heart starts thumping, because I believe it's quite normal to expect treatment of this magnitude to have been thoroughly tested and studied. It's still shocking, each time I realise it isn't.

It's actually like a bunch of new students wielding a scalpel. Sickening. And is sometimes quite difficult to believe.

It's no good just firing the people responsible, they should face arrest. Otherwise they will just blithely go onto the next committee/team.

And, I believe one the most important things, is the mental stunting. I don't want to see happy, clappy kids saying they feel fine about what's happened to them. Because they have no fucking idea as they are still mentally eleven.

I want to know what these do to their brain. What it does to their maturation. Their cognitive and processing abilities.

I want to know if, as well as being infertile, and having no sexual function and having the genitals of children, are they mentally ever going to mature?

I want to know if some bastard is ever going to turn round and say sexual function is not important, because they're not interested anyway..

It much time to think properly here but if for prostate cancer presumably the drugs are relatively short term use?

Endo is no more than 6 mo?

Blockers being used for several years in teens.

Thanks Lang.
L

Or, more likely it'll be buried and hidden by 70% of the media.
^
This, although I suspect more than 70%.

Thanks for this Red and for the Equality Act thread - you're on fire today.
I'll have to save them both to read later but I can still remember Polly Carmichael's face on the Panorama (was it Panorama?) interview a few months ago. She looked like a rabbit in headlights.

Every time I think we can't uncover any more corruption and lack of ethics, yet more is revealed

I really cannot wait for the day here a paper decides to finally print or a channel decides to finally show the depth of all this. Ideally with screen shots etc of all the people and organisations and the multiple emails, recordings of the phone calls etc are all featured to ensure that not a single one of them can chime in with " we never knew"

No one should get away with this.

Michael Biggs has pursued this relentlessly and thank you to him. He also has been on the receiving end of persistent harassment just as have countless women academics but he has also persisted.

This is the unethical sterilising of a generation of vulnerable children. Every adult who advocates for this needs locking up and the key throwing away. How dare they undermine all our well developed and nuanced guidelines about safeguarding and consent just in order to promote the interests of a profoundly selfish group of adult narcissists.

Every time I think we can't uncover any more corruption and lack of ethics, yet more is revealed.

Surely this published research will spawn a documentary and programmes and phone ins?

Or, more likely it'll be buried and hidden by 70% of the media.

It was introduced as a general policy.

"The NHS had no justification for introducing the Dutch protocol in 2014" p1

And yet they did.

Surely this published research will spawn a documentary and programmes and phone ins?
Perhaps we should all lobby our MPS, THE BBC, newsrooms, Womans Hour to discuss this research?

This, on page 10, is striking and makes me wonder what kind of recourse there is for Parliamentarians to demand clarification on that earlier answer.

'Since my critique was initially posted in March (Biggs 2019a), GIDS has responded with prevarication and obfuscation. When a parliamentary question was asked on my behalf, the House of Lords was told on 22 May that the Tavistock “plans to publish the data once all of the young people in the study have reached the stage when a clinical decision is made about moving from pubertal suppressants to cross-sex hormones, which the Trust expects to occur in the next 12 months” (Blackwood 2019). Just over a month later, GIDS belatedly posted a webpage providing an update on the experiment. “The study concluded in February 2019 when the last cohort member began the next stage of therapy (cross-sex hormones) at age 17 years” (GIDS 2019b). How can these two statements be reconciled? If the study had really finished in February, coincidentally just before my critique appeared, why was Parliament told in May that it would finish in the next twelve months?'