The Composition and Demographics of the Growing Trans Population

Perhaps I'm not overly sensitive to the presence of trans people amongst my daily chores and travels. Perhaps that I see the visibility as positive rather than a negative outcome clouds my judgement.

I'm very knowledgeable about the current treatment pathway both medical and surgical and do know that the NHS is certainly not rushing anyone through. But, I guess experience is no substitute for anecdote in an age when a misrepresentation is twice around the world before reality has peered out from under the duvet.

I do know though that forcing a child away from treatment can lead to all sorts of negative consequences. A travesty if it persists into adulthood when invasive surgical interventions become a necessity.

Can you explain what you mean here? What invasive surgical interventions are you talking about? GRS appears to have a worse outcome in those who have had their puberty blocked as children.

And when you say 'forcing a child away from treatment' you really mean 'preventing children from starting on a medical pathway whose consequences they don't have the capacity to understand'.

As far as I am aware the only violent attack that was confirmed was the lady assaulted at speakers corner. The assailant was convicted and rightly punished, they did wrong, I understand that.

I understand that there are protests at the meetings but, there is a right to peaceful protest in the UK. Personally, I wouldn't have the time or inclination to stand in the cold but, If anyone else has been assaulted I suggest it is reported to the police who will look for evidence in support of the allegation.

As for evidence for my belief I watch the news and read papers. The story is there but, it certainly hasn't really taken off even with the Times making great efforts to paint bad trans people like Karen White as somehow representative of the population in general. Those journalists who are anti trans/ gender critical do need to up their game.

what relevance does the photo have to the incidence of trans people using the TFL network?

The relevance is to your incomplete perception of the situation statsgeek1. One which you seem content to maintain.

Like CharlieParley says, your arguments seem to be based on the prevalence of transsexuals and their treatment 10+ years ago. The landscape is now radically different. Your observation about not seeing trans people on public transport shows you are not seeing things as they actually are now.

As for it being "rude and disrespectful to post" the photo, it's a photo of a person who has sought a high public profile as a politician and been very upfront about being trans.

I think most journalists won't touch it with a barge pole because it just isn't on the radar of most people
What evidence do you have for that belief? It is contradicted by what we hear from journalists and people who try to contact them
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/was-this-journalist-sacked-for-saying-sex-is-binary/

You also ignore the violent attacks women face when we meet to talk about our existing legal rights. They put people off meeting or talking; as they are designed to.

I'm definitely allowed to say transsexual. They would almost certainly struggle to describe me as transphobic in the cold light of day.

I haven't made any claims about who is or is not likely to persist into adulthood. I do know though that forcing a child away from treatment can lead to all sorts of negative consequences. A travesty if it persists into adulthood when invasive surgical interventions become a necessity. Clearly our opinions differ but, if we can articulate them openly then that can only be good.

You are right about the girls, that is an interesting development and definitely one for research. It's like the tables have completely turned and a general increase in acceptance alone would not explain it away.

I think most journalists won't touch it with a barge poll because it just isn't on the radar of most people. The ones that do, Pink News excepted are generally negative with their opinions of transsexual people. That negativity at times manifests itself in their ability to stick to the facts resulting in a small apology a few days later somewhere in the corner of page 35.

That said, the GC position has a mouthpiece. They have several holding prominence in most of the national press and are regularly given a free run on Sky News often without question or challenge. I must say though, I was pleasantly surprised when Piers Morgan called out Caroline Farrow on her tweets to Mrs Green.

On the other hand if you've arrived at a point where you can confidently say you've found a better treatment pathway to relieve gender dysphoria than the present one you need to speak to somebody in a senior position in the NHS and share your revelations, they may thank you.

You've got this backwards.

The best pathway to relieving gender dysphoria in children, which is what we are discussing, is watchful waiting. We have both the empirical data and the longitudinal studies to show it works and prevents iatrogenic harm to children by maintaining their right to an open future.

There is no such data proving the efficacy of the affirmation approach, nor any longitudinal studies showing it offers a better outcome than the watchful waiting approach.

I'm not surprised at this either - the expertsat the Dutch clinic who developed the medical treatment approach that included the use of puberty blockers designed it to be used only in connection with intense counselling aiming to reconcile the child with its birth sex. That is unfortunately not what is happening.

And while this experimental treatment may be an excellent way to alleviate the stress puberty causes, it also interferes with the natural process that leads to gender dysphoria resolving in the typical cohort of children who identify as trans.

And no, it is not possible to gauge from the severity of a child's gender dysphoria whether it will grow up to identify as trans as an adult. The available research shows that children with mild cases often persist while children with severe cases often desist. Which is precisely why the watchful waiting approach was developed.

The photo is of a trans person I assume. A bit rude and disrespectful to post it but, I'm not surprised I suppose. If you don't mind me asking though, what relevance does the photo have to the incidence of trans people using the TFL network?

I think it may be more accurate to say that the majority of trans folk are not open about their distress for a long time. Many will have a personal battle for years and the moment of opening up about their distress is often the point where they have decided that they are going to do something about it and seek help. It's not surprising that to many it's viewed as a rapid onset as for those around them it's all a surprise and very new but the person themselves has often battled it for years.

I am aware of the current case with respect to GIDS. I find it sad that people would want to take care away from such a small group of patients however, the U.K. exported its discomfort of trans people around its colonies for years, particularly to India so I suppose old habits die hard. I find it odd to request a judge has to give the okay for medical treatment. A judgement of that nature will go way beyond treating trans children and even rip up the convention of Gillick competence altogether. That would be a sad day in my opinion.

The U.K. approach to GD is certainly conservative in it's treatment and timescales. You won't find too many on the current NHS pathway getting through the service from GP referral to surgeons table in less than 5 years.

I won't go through all that you're failing to understand statsgeek1 except to deal with this:

So her we go, TFL says the support about 5 million journeys per day by tube. You personally see one or two trans people per week.

Exhibit A:

Perhaps the lack of interest is a result of Brexit being everywhere or perhaps as a nation we've just begrudgingly become more accepting of difference.

I find this comment disingenuous given the fact that the Government has had to speak out against the culture within universities, that journalists wont tough this subject with a bargepole for fear of retribution, and that womens meetings have been met with bomb threats.

People are scared to speak out.

What I have seen is a number of self described experts who hold GC views speaking very loudly against trans healthcare whilst most involved in it are quietly going about their business of trying to make lives a bit more bareable.

On the other hand if you've arrived at a point where you can confidently say you've found a better treatment pathway to relieve gender dysphoria than the present one you need to speak to somebody in a senior position in the NHS and share your revelations, they may thank you.

I saw the panel of experts in Manchester. It's constituents didn't surprise me and I wouldn't have described them as experts in trans health care. There was a conference in Rome last year that probably would have been a bit more accurately described as experts in trans health care involving clinicians and surgeons from across the world.

That is not to say de transitioners and even de sisters shouldn't be heard. They could be a very important cog in driving the satisfaction rate from 98/99% to 100%. Many areas of health care would bite off their own fingers for such a success rate.

Your information is a good five or ten years out of date, statsgeek1. The majority of children now presenting to GIDS did not experience distress for a long time, the new and entirely atypical* cohort of children presents as post-adolescents across the entire Western world.

And we wouldn't have a court case against the Tavistock alleging malpractice (including insufficient psychological support) and asking for the experimental treatment with puberty blockers and cross-sex-hormones on underage children to be stopped and we wouldn't have countless medical professionals, including a professor of evidence-based medicine stating that informed consent is not possible if what you say were true.

And no, the UK is not known for a conservative approach to gender dysphoria. As the UK has adopted a Memorandum of Understanding that holds that counselling which seeks to explore the underlying reasons for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and to reconcile the sufferer with their body is conversion therapy, the UK unlike most countries in the world is following an affirmation model.

Having abandoned the successful Watchful Waiting approach, which seeks to minimise iatrogenic harm by delaying any medical transition, we are now in a place where children are affirmed and socially transitioned long before a diagnosis, and referred for medical transition without adequate psychological counselling.

As this is of course incredibly harmful to children, 35 psychologists have resigned from the children's service in the last three years because the affirmation model means they cannot do their jobs properly and they cannot protect their patients. That's an unusually high staff turnover, even for a high pressure environment like GIDS.

I am honestly surprised you are unaware of these developments.

*atypical in that 50+ years of research and empirical data into the condition have not only suggested a much lower prevalence rate than what is currently happening (6 in 100,000) but also atypical in the timing and manner of their first presentation.

I see affirmation as believing and listening to the child rather than casting doubt on or minimizing their experience. I would be very surprised if those appointments at GIDS do not explore the child's feelings and just sit there affirming them without question. But, if you have it on good authority that is what happens then I'm not in a position to cast doubt. But, for my own peace of mind I'll make some enquiries and see if I can get it from the horses mouth.