It gets worse - a new, fresh hell

I would come to the conclusion that the hypothetical Phoenix had suffered severe emotional trauma, perhaps witnessing domestic/sexual abuse as a young child which has caused a fear of becoming a woman.

Any dr who thinks the solution should be to keep Phoenix a perpetual child is sick in the fucking head.

The same authors published a similar article in Pediatrics earlier this year.

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/145/2/e20191606?hwoasp=authn%3A1595931647%3A68176746%3A25455286%3A0%3A0%3ARfAqIhL6aHbAnLIGPq5rsw%3D%3D

You probably won’t be able to read the full paper, but this is about a 15 year old male.

It states:

In this Ethics Rounds, we present a case that combines features of several real cases that raised issues about prolonged pubertal suppression for a patient with a nonbinary gender.

Again, from Melbourne. This is happening.

And can people please stop derailing into arguments about who said what about the authors? This is kids being ruined under our noses, it’s a bit more important.

This is the worst kind of 'medical ethics'. It's a kind of job creation, coming up with contrary opinions and giving them an academic gloss.

Based on previous history, I suspect at least one of those authors of quite enjoying coming out with deliberately controversial ethical opinions and the subsequent attention.

I would never stand on the same side of the debate as this woman, due to her views on what I consider to be child abuse. And I would never disagree with a woman who was trying to uphold child safeguarding, because she had a strong jaw or deep voice etc My point @LittleCabbage, was that you did double think it, even if only for a minute or two. That probably isn't something you would have done a year or so ago, maybe not even a couple of months ago!

That is indicative of the damage TRAs are doing to us. I caught myself doing it a couple of months ago and it wasn't at all pleasant to consider.

I don't want to be changed by all of the TRA crap. I can debate and be informed. I don't want to become suspicious, unpleasant!

Humbert Humbert?

I mean it’s the understatement of the year isn’t it? Any adult with any integrity will find it off putting, any adult who doesn’t should probably be in prison. And “Phoenix” can consent to this? A lifetime of this?

Yes and "Pheonix" is a composite example of such children, but so far they haven't been given this treatment just because they wanted it, because of the obvious harms it would cause.

This paper is unbelievably horrible. It acknowledges the issues with bone density, cognitive impairment, impairment of sexual functioning and likely pain during intercourse that are caused by puberty blockers, and then says that all of these issues are outweighed by Pheonix's distress at "not looking non-binary."

It also says "Pheonix's child like body might make it difficult for them to find sexual partners" and doesn't explore the question of what sexual partners they might find.

Wow. Terrifying. These people need to be kept away from making policy involving children.

I cannot imagine that of all the females who have gone on to puberty blockers all around the world there hasn’t been at least one who has wanted to follow this path. There’s likely to be several.

Yes and "Pheonix" is a composite example of such children, but so far they haven't been given this treatment just because they wanted it, because of the obvious harms it would cause.

This paper is unbelievably horrible. It acknowledges the issues with bone density, cognitive impairment, impairment of sexual functioning and likely pain during intercourse that are caused by puberty blockers, and then says that all of these issues are outweighed by Pheonix's distress at "not looking non-binary."

It also says "Pheonix's child like body might make it difficult for them to find sexual partners" and doesn't explore the question of what sexual partners they might find.

Buck Angel has said publicly, that after long term T use they were in excruciating pain. Doctors didn’t know what to do. Eventually discovered it was atrophying female genitalia. Buck now takes topical oestrogen.

A post menopausal relative has been hospitalised several times with UTIs. She is now being treated with estrogen pessaries and they seem to be working. The mention of waterways made me think - god so these poor girls who are having their ovaries removed and put on cross sex hormones. Does that mean some will suffer a lifetime of cystitis? That would be unbearable.

That whole thing! Including the equity part - it’s ok because Phoenix & parents can afford the cost...

Kantastic and nauticant. Exactly, it’s the use and practical implementation without full exploration of all sides that’s the issue. We need the line drawn again, or time delays put back in, between thought explorations and practical implementation. Academia seems to be far too politicised now.

This thread has a nasty streak. Do critique the paper, don't critique the person or her appearance. That is not relevant to the argument and it is important to keep the high ground.

a hypothetical yet realistic case based on clinical experience

it's not happening yet. The "hypothetical yet realistic case" is the sort of person they imagine would be a good candidate for this treatment. I'm almost tempted to close read this paper and see if any major creepiness has snuck into the academic language.

It is how they sow division.

I would never stand on the same side of the debate as this woman, due to her views on what I consider to be child abuse. And I would never disagree with a woman who was trying to uphold child safeguarding, because she had a strong jaw or deep voice etc.

You’re focusing on the wrong person anyway. It’s Michelle Telfer who is the paediatric endocrinologist. She’s the one who is actually assessing these children for consent and ultimately responsible for prescribing.

The impact on the water ways environment of puberty blockers can't be insignificant.

Just because humans can make it doesn't mean they should use it.

I wouldn't have wondered about her biological sex had she not been involved in writing such dubious papers.

And see above - I did immediately state when I found an audio clip of her voice, which does indeed sound female.

Please don't lump me in as having the same motivations as TRAs. OK!

I apologise for being obtuse, blunt or hasty. But my point stands.

TRA actions, those repeated dismaying discoveries, are starting to make women be so suspicious of any strong jawed, more masculine looking female. That is not a good thing. It is how they sow division.

I think we must resist the temptation... until we know!

Immediate thoughts are Peter Pan and peadophilia.

How can anyone think this is harmless physically or mentally?

In my lea, basic safeguarding training includes some info on how important puberty is on the brain for reorganisation and development of higher level emotional intelligence.

It's known that children who've suffered abuse early in life and thus damaged mentally and behaviourally, can actually make huge progress with the right support during puberty.

I've done that course a fe times sitting next to deputy heads, cleaners and kitchen staff.

And don't even get me started on bones.

From the paper:

a hypothetical yet realistic case based on clinical experience

So I imagine this is happening already.

Look at the video contained in this thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3978928-marcus-evans-psychiatry-sits-on-a-knife-edge

I think you'll be reassured. Here in England, at least, the tide appears to be about to turn.

I'm aware that this is a form of bioethicist trolling but some of the outlandish stuff proposed a few decades ago is now commonplace.

A girl who will never grow, never mature, never have sex.

It's more accurate to say or have no desire for sex. One of the most horrific things here is that were this to go ahead, some of these girls would be used for sex. Perhaps as a stop-gap until the sex robots become realistic enough.

Er. See attached. Lauren is the person on the left. I don't understand why you would step up to answer a question in this way without in fact knowing the answer! It is quite relevant to know biological sex in situations like this, it helps assess motivations.

My statement was in relation to the assumprion that she must be male.

We don't know. So yes, she is female.

To say otherwise is only feeding the TRA monster that absolutely feeds on assumptions and presumptions of us uppity, becunted women!

Critique the science! That in itself is simple enough to do!

*No! Don't do that! Don't assume that a woman's research must be that of a man just because you disagree with her. And shame for judging her by her looks! That's exactly what TRAs accuse women of!

To answer the question though, she is female.*

Please don't lump me in as having the same motivations as TRAs. The trouble is, I am so used to reading arguments from "women" who are either trying to erode women's rights, or dismantle children's safeguarding, and then discovering that said "woman" is actually an AGP-type male, that I am inherently suspicious of the motivations of anyone who argues for these abhorrent practices.

Apologies to Dr Notini for not immediately recognising she is female, but no apology for wondering what on earth her motivation is for encouraging the sterilisation, mutilation and brain retardation of children.