Newsnight now

Surely this hormone wash rubbish could have been proven with twin studies. The fact it hasn’t suggests it is just that: rubbish.

But even if a male foetus was exposed to more oestrogen in the womb than normal (??) and subsequently decided they felt at odds with their sex/body/stereotypes they would still be a man, they would still on average commit crime at the same rate as other men, they would still have a penis, still the advantages of a male body for sport. They still wouldn’t be a woman. So surely all this hormone wash theory leads to is that men should be more accepting of a variety of presentations of masculinity?

I’m sick to death of these claims that hormone washes in the womb determine one’s sexuality or determine if one will conform to sex role stereotypes. It is no different to the old homophobic and misogynistic claims that lesbians and gay men have too many opposite sex hormones or not enough same sex hormones, and anyone who does not conform to sex role stereotypes must have too many hormones of the opposite sex. They are regressive and do not prove what the researchers claim they do.

Way back in the 1920’s they tried to claim that taking cross-sex hormones made people attracted to the same sex, they used rat experiments to try to prove it. When they tried the same experiments on gay men by giving them testosterone it just made them engage in more gay sex not seek out female partners.

The hormonal wash nonsense is just a continuation of that same old pseudo science and is used to push a narrative. All of these kinds of ‘experiments’ start from the assumption that homosexuality and non conformity to sex role stereotypes is a sign of someone being somehow like the opposite sex in a biological way. I think that premise needs to be named as the nonsense that it is. The only good thing is it shows just how regressive trans ideology is as it relies heavily on these decades old homophobic and misogynistic assumptions.

I am now worrying about how rats identify.

Rats probably don’t have identities

Have you ever even asked one for its pronouns? Do better.

Eventually they replied saying they thought it was appropriate

It's not impartial. It's the language of transgender ideology. They are failing in their need to represent fairly the views of everyone. There is little evidence for the beliefs of genderists.

Rats probably don’t have identities so you can only observe behaviour. A bit more complex than just ‘homosexuality’ but yes it’s sexual behaviour as in mating/ mounting, receptivity and proceptivity.

Point is brain development is affected by prenatal sex hormones, and there is a complex link between sex, sexuality, gendered/sex behaviours and development of human identity.

It’s likely other factors as well. As proposed in the other paper being discussed on this forum.

I complained to bbc Scotland about a year ago about use of assigned at birth in a news piece

Eventually they replied saying they thought it was appropriate 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

That is thought by most specialists involved in the field to be a significant contributor, yes.

Contributor to what? Homosexuality?

I only read the abstracts, but I assume that is what is meant by 'sexual behaviour' in rats.

it was all caused by in utero hormone washes changing the brain),

That is thought by most specialists involved in the field to be a significant contributor, yes.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031938481900974

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2692257/

This is an update to let you know that we had referred your complaint to the relevant people and regret that it may take a little longer before we can reply

The BBC is predictable in its total capitulation to this lobby. Its narrow ideological bias is part of the problem

I complained to the BBC about the repeated use of the phrase 'assigned at birth' in this piece and have received the following holding response:

This is an update to let you know that we had referred your complaint to the relevant people and regret that it may take a little longer before we can reply.

Although we reply to most complaints within 2 weeks we cannot achieve this every time. It depends on what your complaint was about and how many others we are handling, or may sometimes be due to more practical issues. For example a production team may already be working on another programme or have gone on location.

I've just watched this.

You know in one of the other threads where a poster glumly pointed out that people coming here to educate us are always only capable of 'a garbled mess' (or words to that effect)?

I didn't expect the same from someone representing the Tavi. On Newsnight.

I got a generic response back for my email thanking them for the Newsnight piece, I have heard that the BBC does take note of these comments so hopefully it was worth it.

‘Dear Chatty

Thanks for taking the time to send us your views, we appreciate your feedback and are glad to know you enjoy our work.

This is an automated message (sorry that we can’t reply individually) to let you know that we’ve read your feedback and will report it overnight to staff across the BBC for them to read too (after removing any personal details). This includes our programme makers, commissioning editors and senior management.

Thanks again for contacting us and we hope you continue to enjoy our work.

Best wishes

BBC Audience Services.’

Nonhypothetical thank you for your post and for you and your DD.
Last year, didn’t they say that they will be expanding the NHS GIDS (in England anyway) by rolling them out wider, I think regionally? So how does that work when difficult questions are already coming up about current practice?

The profile photo in the above page shows that this is the very same Dr Darren Bull who was implicated in the death in custody of vulnerable Holloway Prison inmate Sarah Reed in the most appalling of circumstances.

These links tell the story (warning - this makes for a very, very disturbing read that any normal person will find enraging and distressing)

That's awful. Poor Sarah

Chattylion
NHS commissioning (such as NHS England in England and CCGs) is supposed to be evidence based. What happens when those bodies try to commission a GIDS service or a related service like fertility preservation so they look for evidence of what works?
Are they called disingenuous or harsh for asking for evidence?

This is a really interesting question. Currently the Tavistock has the monopoly, there are no other youth services. Before being referred by the GP, dd had to be screened by CAMHS (which was pointless as they had no gender dysphoria training - it was all caused by in utero hormone washes changing the brain), before the CCG would commission a referral. This was a few years ago, I'm not sure if you still have to be screened by CAMHS.

When you've only got one choice of provider to commission from, and severely limited finance, what real choice do CCGs have? I'm not saying it's right. The Tavistock are seen as the experts and I suppose the commissioning of services is done on the long standing reputation of them being seen as the experts. It's only now, with the huge number of referrals, and the change in demographic, that people are starting to ask questions and look for data.

After dds experiences, I've been questioning our local CCG and NHS trust. I've concluded that nobody has any idea what is going on in any area. The psychiatrist's response on Newsnight was not surprising to me. My questions and complaints have been replied to with arrogance and gaslighting. In one response I was told that they can understand why, when I read 'the colour black is black' in an assessment report, that I might assume that the colour black is black, but when the clinician wrote 'The colour is black is black' in their report, they actually implied 'The colour black was white'. I was simply misreading it. I've even had the Prince Andrew memory failure response - 'DR-X does not recall saying Y in the feedback session, but if they did , they apologise if you felt offended'. They have outright lied to us in official responses to complaints. It's ingrained in the NHS complaints procedure.

Then I read and researched only to discover that the in-depth assessment is non existent as the GID clinics now operate on an affirmative approach and see puberty blockers as the first line treatment.

Yes. I think this should have been highlighted more in the Newsnight piece - it's not just the lack of research/evidence at play here- it's that the GIDS are now only affirming - any other approach is considered transphobic, or "conversion therapy" - which it is not.

amiright17 I am so sorry that you are going through this with your daughter.
I am interested in your comment that they have colluded with your child and increased the dysphoria. This makes complete sense to me, that the affirm , never challenge, approach to a distressed and confused child pushes that child further towards an entrenched belief that they are in the “wrong” body. These are not people in any position to make true consent, these are children , confused, distressed, often perhaps feeling out of kilter with themselves , a feeling experienced by many adolescents. They are being manipulated by adults, many of whom may be well meaning , but who are completely misguided. In no other area do we think that lying to children is going to help their mental health.
The health professionals dealing with dysphoria become key adults in that child’s life, they have an almost parental position of responsibility, and yet they seem incapable of saying no, or exploring the reasons why so many young girls look at womanhood and do not want it.

iamright, I'm so sorry you've both been so badly let down. I know it's not much comfort, but you really are one of the reasons I keep getting back on this horse, even if I do need a break from the abuse sometimes.
You are not alone and you won't be dismissed while I have breath in my body.

I just thought that readers might be interested in some information about Dr Elizabeth van Horn

In 2015 Dr van Horn recommended a Dr Darren Bull for a prestigious award from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, as evidenced in the below article

"CNWL doctors in the running for top awards
CNWL doctors Owen Bowden-Jones and Darren Bull have been shortlisted in the prestigious RCPsych (Royal College of Psychiatrists) Awards 2015.
CNWL doctors Owen Bowden-Jones and Darren Bull have been shortlisted in the prestigious RCPsych (Royal College of Psychiatrists) Awards 2015.

Dr Bull, who works in the Addictions and Offender Care Directorate at HMP YOI Holloway, has been shortlisted in the Specialty Doctor/Associate Specialist of the Year category, following his nomination by Consultant Psychiatrist Dr Elizabeth van Horn.

Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Bowden-Jones (pictured), who is Lead Clinician for the CNWL Club Drug Clinic, has been shortlisted in the Psychiatric Communicator of the Year category.

The winners will be announced at the RCPsych Awards Ceremony, to be held at the Royal College of Psychiatrists' headquarters in London on 10th November 2015.

CNWL Medical Director Dr Alex Lewis said: “Many congratulations to both Dr Bull and Dr Bowden-Jones for being shortlisted for these awards. They are a credit to the Trust for their hard work and dedication to patient care and we wish them the best of luck on the night.”"

source

www.cnwl.nhs.uk/news/cnwl-doctors-in-the-running-for-top-awards/

This is he

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20151206213155/www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellors/darren-bull" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20151206213155/www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellors/darren-bull

Dr Darren Bull also works with a new age centre for So Called Alternative Medicine (SCAM) here:

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20191128073959/www.healingpath.co.uk/dr-darren-bull/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20191128073959/www.healingpath.co.uk/dr-darren-bull/

The profile photo in the above page shows that this is the very same Dr Darren Bull who was implicated in the death in custody of vulnerable Holloway Prison inmate Sarah Reed in the most appalling of circumstances.

These links tell the story (warning - this makes for a very, very disturbing read that any normal person will find enraging and distressing)

blackactivistsrisingagainstcuts.blogspot.com/2017/07/press-release-sarah-reed-inquest-verdict.html

leejasper.blogspot.com/2017/07/justice4sarahreed-sarah-reed-urgent.html

www.inquest.org.uk/sarah-reed-inquest-conclusions

www.facebook.com/groups/799906853449409/permalink/1215506275222796/

Of course when Elizabeth van Horn recommended Dr Darren Bull for a prestigious psychiatric award Sarah Reed was still alive. Dr van Horn was not to know that Dr Darren Ball would go on to achieve notoriety as a prominent person in the atrocious, heartbreaking story of the final weeks of Sarah Reed’s life.

Given Dr Van Horn’s blatant admission that the GIDS service is engaged in ongoing experimental treatments on vulnerable people, given her evasive and frankly shocking answers to EM’s questions in the interview and given her prior endorsement of Dr Darren Bull I lack confidence in Dr Van Thorn’s ability to identify good practice and to discern good practice from bad.

I would not trust her to run a piss up in a brewery.

Floral when my child first told me they were trans and at 16 went to the gp (without telling us) to get a referral to the gender clinic I initially had hope. I thought these are the experts and will explore all the co morbid issues that were clearly there. I was happy that this service would carry out in-depth assessments and do their best to find out why a young person would reject themselves. Then I read and researched only to discover that the in-depth assessment is non existent as the GID clinics now operate on an affirmative approach and see puberty blockers as the first line treatment. How devastating this was when I knew the history of my child and this history did not match with previous known criteria. When ROGD was starting to be suggested, my child ticked all the boxes and I knew this was the case. As we have since found out, this new phenomenon was not given any credence as the TRA’s and the trans cult brigades shut down any other opinion. My personal opinion is if the gp’s were not so quick to refer to Gender Clinics and the Gender Clinics were not so quick to affirm, my child would have listened to them and would have undergone more rigorous therapy to find out why they reject themselves. But no therapist wanted to do this due to the Memorandum of Understanding. Basically, everyone who could have helped failed my child and accepted a feeling over reality. I still find this outrageous and my anger has not abated after two years. They have all colluded with my child’s thoughts and increased the dysphoria. They have taken a young, confused child and accepted their belief. I have a psychiatric background and it shocks me that a profession that tried to help mental distress is advocating hormones and surgery as a cure. Why send someone to a clinic that has psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health workers who are trained to delve into the mind when all they do is offer non psychiatric treatments and prescribe hormones and surgery. May as well bypass the gender experts because their is no expertise when all you have to do to earn your wage is write a prescription and send a referral to the surgeons. And this is seen as as Specialist service.

pencils many thanks for the transcription of the interview, confirms everything we thought we heard. Letter written to congratulate EM for unamiguous exposure of the abuse perpetrated,

I find it really disingeneous to attempt to convince us that it is not the case that they don’t have any evidence, it is just that the evidence they have is qualitative, rather than quantitative.

I am a big fan of doing qualitative research, but I heard nothing in this interview, to suggest they have done any of that

Yes, come on, whatever evidence you have, let the world see it. Or we may be forced to conclude you're making it up.

I was expecting after the newsnight interview that some of the papers or new channels would have picked up on it.

Even in only to say look at EM in action again.

We are so let down by the way news channels "curate" news nowadays.

This was an NHS Clinic admitting they were carry out medical procedures with long term implications without any research to justify it.

Yes, sorry I wasn't disagreeing with you either, and yes it's the arrogance that is jaw dropping.