Radio 4 Women’s Hour Talking about Puberty Blockers Shortly

It's available now

twitter.com/Transgendertrd/status/1277947448514744320?s=20

Available now!

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000kgsj

Starts about 15 minutes in

I just started a thread about this which I've asked MNHQ to remove.

I listened and thought it was well done. Unfortunately, it's not avilable to listen again. Hope they'll be fixing that. Also hope Deborah Cohen will be covering this on Newsnight.

Which is why, I guess they rush into cross sex hormones. I would imagine the blockers actually amplify that ticking clock.

Parents and yp need to think more carefully about the longterm effects.

Is that a quote from the programme? It seems to be throwing the whole responsibility onto the child and parents, who are not usually in a position to judge the medical implications for themselves. Surely it's the medical practitioners who 'need to think more carefully about the longterm effects'.

DS would absolutely have taken up an offer of delaying puberty aged 11-12. He did say at the time he wished he was a girl (had done at intervals since about age 2, in fact). He was isolated, bullied, delicately pretty, and may sound trivial he had a great treble voice and really struggled with the thought of losing it for some unknown world of spotty, gruff teenagery-ness.

I am embarrassed to say it, but if the option had been there, we might have let him take it. Very glad it wasn't.

However I would also like to see more questioning of delaying puberty this way in and of itself. Even if every physical effects could be entirely reversed, what are the effects on development, well being and mental health of putting pause on biology, living in a hormonal limbo while your peers develop differently and then (if you desist) going through your puberty at a later age?
However reversible the physical effects these young people will never get the time back and it's such an specific, important time in development and (dare I say it) identity. I need evidence that this is beneficial and in their best interests and in which patients specifically and I just haven't seen any.

Excellent point Broomfondle

Sometimes children repeat a year at school for various reasons. DD's best friend did. Academically it has been very helpful for her, but she missed being with her friends and had difficulty breaking into established friend groups in her new year group.
Arresting development is an odd thing to want to do to a child and cannot be without problems even aside of the effects of the drugs.

I didn't listen to the piece so thank you for discussing it here.
I got into 'the debate' through questioning why every guiding principle (evidence based medicine, ethics, affirmation, safeguarding, consent etc) is turned upside down for this particular patient group.
I believe I'm open minded enough to be shown a reason why but I just haven't seen good evidence of one.
It's a good step forward to be talking about the physical effects of blockers being irreversible although it's completely arse over face that it's retrospectively being looked at after the fact.
However I would also like to see more questioning of delaying puberty this way in and of itself. Even if every physical effects could be entirely reversed, what are the effects on development, well being and mental health of putting pause on biology, living in a hormonal limbo while your peers develop differently and then (if you desist) going through your puberty at a later age?
However reversible the physical effects these young people will never get the time back and it's such an specific, important time in development and (dare I say it) identity. I need evidence that this is beneficial and in their best interests and in which patients specifically and I just haven't seen any.

Thingybob
I suspect the "independent" review will be very heavily censored. Imaging the compensation that will have to be paid to the detransitioners if it goes anywhere near acknowledging that children are being coerced (there's a better word but I believe we're not allowed to use it) into believing that their angst about adolescence will be resolved with drugs and surgery.
This thread is a fascinating example of what is happening to children being removed from the pressure of schools who unwittingly collude in "fixing" children into an identity that they are too young to adopt for the rest of their lives:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3952739-The-effect-of-lockdown-on-transitioning-teen-girls

Halfeaten I think a small hurrah is about right.
But I was so pleased it was so sensible.
And that Debra Cohen is digging around the subject and passing being broadcast on other parts of the BBC

Maybe a medium cheer.

Debra Cohen mentioned the independent review that is being chaired by Dr Hilary Cass. I did wonder if the change to more cautious wording on the NHS website was due to initial findings from this group? Does anyone know when we can expect some kind of update from them?

www.england.nhs.uk/2020/01/update-on-gender-identity-development-service-for-children-and-young-people/

It’s interesting that women’s groups have been highlighting this for a couple of years, we were called TERFS. Well, we were right weren’t we! I wonder if Mermaids, Gids, Stonewall Etc will ever acknowledge that.

They deleted their tweet because it incorrectly stated "The NHS no longer says puberty blockers are irreversible". It should have said "reversible". It's actually a positive that they're keen to keep things accurate.

They've only gone and deleted their own tweet about it 😡 the intern must be on SM today

namechange Yes, I take your point, you're right. Maybe I'm being a grump. I'll give a hurrah but reserve the right to keep it a small one

Pleased it was aired. While the snail's pace of progress towards finally protecting children from this unethical medical experimentation is infuriating, the fact that the NHS had finally been forced to have an accurate statement about the lack of knowledge about the impacts of puberty blockers is a step forward. One tiny step to loosening the stranglehold that these groups of adult born males have on the treatment of children.

They didn't feel the need to give an opposing view though. It was presented as a piece of factual research into the issue. Which it was.
Hurrah

Yes I'm grateful they had the discussion. Just frustrated that it's brief and the questions seem silly. Like you say, baby steps.

I feel as though I've celebrated these small steps forward in the past and in actual fact nothing has changed.
Hope I'm wrong.

This was good. I've emailed Womans Hour to express my thanks for raising the issue and allowing Deborah Cohen to talk without interruption.

[email protected]

It was discussed, though. A definite step forward.

I hate the way these pieces are so 'careful'. Nothing can be discussed properly for fear of bringing down the wrath of the woke and the tra.

I've just listened and thought it was actually quite brave for Women's Hour given its previous spinelessnness on these issues. There was no attempt to justify the use of the blockers. The item will have made a lot more people aware.

I thought this was good. Factual and not emotional.

And I felt that the researcher from Newsnight who was being interviewed understood that the science had been completely lacking.

A small step but a positive one.

Implying that it's challenging to do long studies. So? Let's not bother with any long term trials of anything ever? Let's just still give out drugs willy nilly? Let's keep going even though there's no evidence to show it's ok? I know that Jane as the interviewer has to ask questios but sometimes it gets a bit daft.