Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Janice Turner on Keira's Case in the Times today

113 replies

Igneococcus · 10/10/2020 07:39

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fba6fad2-0a6b-11eb-9ac5-9d2cf4a10c9f?shareToken=f626b4b291808447a875b53cd678f216

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Clymene · 16/10/2020 08:50

I suspect the 80% number is even higher with ROGD. A poster on here mentioned that a large number of girls at her school had desisted during lockdown.

msflibble · 16/10/2020 06:45

Yeah puberty is awful. Your body changes, suddenly its neat smooth lines are corrupted by strange lumps and bumps and HAIR in weird places. Weight inexplicably piles on. Grown men look at you hungrily, your easy carefree life as a child in a neutral body is over. You are filled with the desire to be accepted by your peer group yet you lack the self-confidence or sense of identity that would make you feel accepted. Beauty advertising from all angles tells you you are riddled with imperfections that must be fixed - hair, skin, body.
Who wouldn't want a way out of that?

PotholeParadies · 16/10/2020 02:22

Yesterday I was at school pick up and I overheard two girls in year 6 (11 years old) speaking to each other as they left school.

Girl 1: "I hate puberty".
Girl 2: [indistinct noise of agreement]

What girl doesn't?

AnotherLass · 15/10/2020 23:50

ThinkWittyThoughts

I think that it is slightly more complicated than that - not that I want to defend the GIDS. However, my understanding is this: the 80% figure comes from old studies from when "transkids" were tiny handful of children, mostly boys, who were dysphoric from a very young age. Most of them desisted moderately early in puberty and clinicians like Zucker said that if the dysphoria had persisted well into teenage years, they'd probably be among the 20% who persisted permanently.

All that has been thrown into disarray by the new phenomenon which is mostly girls, very large numbers, and the dysphoria actually starts in puberty. People who aren't braindead see that it has all the hallmarks of a cult and think that many of them will desist or detransition. Sensible clinicians like Zucker say that the same rules don't apply to this cohort. However, nobody really has any proper empirical evidence on what will happen to them, because it's a new thing and because nobody has even been studying or keeping track of them.

SirVixofVixHall · 15/10/2020 23:18

@ThinkWittyThoughts

There's something I really don't understand about the "prescribe hormones" it's the "only treatment option". I hope someone can help me with it.
  1. The discomfort with gender starts around start of puberty.
  1. 80% of young people will desist if they go through puberty.
  1. Therefore PUBERTY is the the treatment that will solve most children's discomfort.
  1. Puberty blockers are therefore extending the period of distress and are counter productive for most young people.
  1. 20% will continue to have gender discomfort. Now they have an adult (post-puberty) brain and are capable of making their own decisions. No Gillick competency questions need arise.

So WTF are medical professionals so bloody keen to keep young people in distress and risk the (long term) health of 80%?

As far as I can see, it's to make it easier for the 20% to "pass". Superficial, cosmetic bullshit to persuade the general public of their chosen gender.

This keeps churning in my mind and I can't get over it. What am I missing? How are medics justifying this to themselves and their peers?

I feel just the same .
msflibble · 15/10/2020 22:20

I didn't seriously consider having kids until I was 30 years old, how can children possibly understand what they are giving up? Sexual function as well is a huge part of life, I can't believe the defence said "some people are very happy being asexual" ah ok it's fine to destroy the sexual function of children then is it??

Suffrajester · 15/10/2020 12:27

It doesn't even help the boys that much: Jazz Jennings was the poster child for this treatment protocol and was subjected to horrific malpractice and experimental surgery, and needed four revisions. The surgery would have been much easier if he'd developed and had enough tissue for the surgeon to do a penile inversion. Same issue Susie Green's kid had, which she thought was hilariously funny when interviewed. Hmm If they were managed with the "watchful waiting" approach and supported to manage their mental health and any other comorbid conditions they may have, most of them would desist, but it would also benefit the minority who would go on to seek surgery and hormones in adulthood. The process for adults is still experimental and dangerous but it's a lot better understood, and once they're adults and have been through child mental health services they will have a better grasp on whether they really want to go ahead with it.

ThinkWittyThoughts · 12/10/2020 18:20

@OldCrone

As far as I can see, it's to make it easier for the 20% to "pass".

And that only applies to males who want to 'pass' as women, because they will avoid the masculinising effects of testosterone at puberty.

There is no similar 'benefit' for girls not going through puberty, so there is absolutely no reason to put any female child on puberty blockers, and yet the majority of children being treated in this way are now female. It's insane.

Goodness, how had I missed this? It's misogyny all over again isn't it?!

Girls & women taking lifelong consequences to support those very few young males who want to look pretty.

Be nice & kind can fuck off.
I'm so over this shit.

MaudTheInvincible · 12/10/2020 18:09

@OldCrone

As far as I can see, it's to make it easier for the 20% to "pass".

And that only applies to males who want to 'pass' as women, because they will avoid the masculinising effects of testosterone at puberty.

There is no similar 'benefit' for girls not going through puberty, so there is absolutely no reason to put any female child on puberty blockers, and yet the majority of children being treated in this way are now female. It's insane.

Sad once again, it's the girls who are sacrificed for the benefit of a few of the boys

It makes me sick it's so patriarchal

Clymene · 12/10/2020 18:00

I think it's about passing and I think it's driven by men who transitioned as adults. We all know that most women who transition, apart from being shorter than an average man, pass reasonably well. But male physiology is harder to hide.

The fact that it's mainly girls rather than boys transitioning doesn't seem to be considered.

Young women used to develop eating disorders in an attempt to stop their bodies developing. Now they can get a doctor to make it stop Sad

InflamatoryWrit · 12/10/2020 17:59

What am I missing? How are medics justifying this to themselves and their peers?

You are not missing anything. Sadly.

OldCrone · 12/10/2020 17:57

As far as I can see, it's to make it easier for the 20% to "pass".

And that only applies to males who want to 'pass' as women, because they will avoid the masculinising effects of testosterone at puberty.

There is no similar 'benefit' for girls not going through puberty, so there is absolutely no reason to put any female child on puberty blockers, and yet the majority of children being treated in this way are now female. It's insane.

ThinkWittyThoughts · 12/10/2020 17:52

There's something I really don't understand about the "prescribe hormones" it's the "only treatment option". I hope someone can help me with it.

  1. The discomfort with gender starts around start of puberty.
  1. 80% of young people will desist if they go through puberty.
  1. Therefore PUBERTY is the the treatment that will solve most children's discomfort.
  1. Puberty blockers are therefore extending the period of distress and are counter productive for most young people.
  1. 20% will continue to have gender discomfort. Now they have an adult (post-puberty) brain and are capable of making their own decisions. No Gillick competency questions need arise.

So WTF are medical professionals so bloody keen to keep young people in distress and risk the (long term) health of 80%?

As far as I can see, it's to make it easier for the 20% to "pass". Superficial, cosmetic bullshit to persuade the general public of their chosen gender.

This keeps churning in my mind and I can't get over it. What am I missing? How are medics justifying this to themselves and their peers?

Malahaha · 12/10/2020 10:34

The Telegraph on Keira:

www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/knew-wasnt-like-biological-men-would-always-female-no-matter/?fbclid=IwAR3zeudDC16oQpVOGa4yOTrRpm8DIMOu97a-7IenwvGNhulh9af8U2WCrZ0

It's behind a paywall. Full text here:

I knew I wasn’t like biological men – I would always be female no matter how hard I tried'Centre-stage in the gender detransition debate, Keira Bell opens up about why she turned her back on her new life.

Early last year a strange thing happened to Keira Bell: she started to cry. It had been years since the 21-year-old from Hertfordshire was last able to properly shed tears, ever since she started receiving testosterone injections at the age of 17.

The male hormones and puberty blockers she was prescribed forced many changes in her teenage body: her voice dropped, hair sprouted on her face and body, and her sex drive increased.

There were other more concerning physical changes which she felt she had not been properly warned about by her clinicians, her bones started losing density and she suffered vaginal atrophy (a condition more commonly seen in post-menopausal women).

And, the tears dried up. At moments of extreme emotion Keira would instead feel a lump forming in her thickening throat. But even those moments became rarer, nullified by what she describes as a strange inner numbness.

“The first time I cried was very weird,” the now 22-year-old recalls. “It felt like I was becoming myself again.”

At the time she had decided to turn her back upon the pathway she had been directed down as a teenager and revert to her biological gender. “Detransition” is the proper term for it and while a very personal choice, it was one which has propelled Keira to the forefront of a growing movement of young people who feel they have been pressured or encouraged into gender reassignment treatments or surgeries, which they later regret.

Last week, she appeared at the Royal Courts of Justice for a landmark legal challenge against the Tavistock Clinic in London. Keira, who lives in Cambridge, was referred for assessment for puberty blockers by the clinic in 2013 and later had her breasts removed. She is bringing the action with an anonymous claimant called “Mrs A”, the mother of an autistic girl of 16 who is on an NHS gender development service waiting list.

Their aim is to ban puberty suppressants (which block hormones linked to a person’s biological sex) for under-18s, unless their parents obtain a court order, arguing children cannot fully understand the risks involved. As heard in court, a quarter of the children referred for puberty blocking medication last year by the Tavistock clinic (which runs the UK’s only gender-identity development service) were under 14, and half were under 16. The youngest was 10 years old.

The Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust rejects the claims, saying puberty suppressants are lawful, reversible, that they relieve distress by delaying the onset of puberty and allow children time to consider their gender. When contacted by The Telegraph, a spokesman for the trust said it was awaiting the outcome of the hearing but added the clinic “is a safe and thoughtful service which puts the best interest of its patients and their families first”.

A judgment is not expected for at least a few weeks but the case has ignited attention around the world. The hashtag “I stand with Keira Bell” has been widely shared on social media, prompting various young people who have undergone a similar experience to speak out. A crowdfunder to pay for her legal fees has raised around £130,000.
Keira, a quiet and thoughtful speaker, admits the attention of recent days has shocked her but also strengthened her resolve. “I do hope this case drops a reality bomb on the situation for some people,” she says.

Growing up in the Hertfordshire town of Letchworth, Keira had a “very rocky” childhood. Her parents separated when she was around five and she and her sister were shuttled between them, meaning she failed to settle long in any school.

Always a tomboy, as she reached her teens she started to feel alienated from her peers and different from all the other girls she knew. Suffering mental health issues, she started taking longer absences from school, sitting at home all day, online. Around the age of 14 she started researching the process of physically transitioning, watching videos on YouTube and other social media sites.

After her relationship with her mother broke down she moved once again to live with her father and his new partner in Cambridgeshire. “She picked up on the fact I was on the more masculine side and asked me whether I was struggling with my sexuality or gender,” Keira recalls.

She was taken to see a baffled local GP – “I was the first person he had seen having those issues” – and then referred to the child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS). After a few meetings she was referred to the Tavistock Clinic, which she first attended in January 2013, shortly after she turned 16.

There, she was referred to the endocrinology department and after several appointments prescribed puberty blockers, the first of which she received at the end of that year.

“I definitely felt affirmed at the Tavistock,” she says. “When I spoke to these clinicians there was no exploration of why I felt like that, really. It was just accepted, and they were trying to deal with it [by putting] me on to the treatment path.”

At that stage her family life was in crisis. Her father, who had reluctantly taken her to the early appointments, refused any more involvement and kicked her out of the house. Suddenly she was living alone in a youth hostel in Cambridgeshire, attending a new school but with no friends. “It is a very awkward time when you are going through those changes,” she says.

But her treatments continued. The following year, aged 17, she started receiving testosterone injections and was referred by the Tavistock to an adult gender clinic in west London. At first, she took pleasure in the unfamiliar changes in her body – her lower voice gave her more confidence and she felt renewed energy. But she feels she was not adequately prepared for the more severe side-effects, in particular her deteriorating sexual health. “There is definitely a massive downside and those downsides aren’t spoken about,” she says.

After leaving college she started working as an IT analyst for a computer game company in Cambridge. She changed her name to Quincy by deed poll, and applied for a government-authorised Gender Recognition Certificate making her officially male.

Around that time she also received a referral from her doctors for a double mastectomy, which she underwent aged 20, in 2017.
Initially it was a relief to remove her breasts after so many years painfully binding them to hide under her clothes. “I wanted them gone,” she says. “But a year after surgery I really started to have serious doubts.”

She cannot put her finger on the exact moment she decided to detransition. There was no single “Eureka! moment”, she says, rather a series of small realisations. Even in the company of men, she never felt like she fitted in. “It became very obvious to me that I wasn’t the same as biological men,” she says. “I would always be female no matter how hard I tried.

Early last year she decided to refuse any further testosterone injections. Her periods returned after a few months and she says her body has slowly reverted to a more feminine shape.

In a statement submitted to the court, Bell described the effect on her body, saying she had been left with “no breasts, a deep voice, body hair, a beard, affected sexual function and who knows what else that has not been discovered”.

Now with a new partner, a woman whom she met late last year, she told the court that she must live with the fact that if she is able to have children in the future, she would not be able to breastfeed.
“I made a brash decision as a teenager (as a lot of teenagers do) trying to find confidence and happiness, except now the rest of my life will be negatively affected,” she said.

The court heard that referrals to the Tavistock’s Gender Identity Development Service had increased from 97 in 2009 to 2,590 in 2018, with girls comprising 76 per cent of cases.

Stephanie Davies-Arai, the director of Transgender Trend (an organisation of parents, academics and professionals, concerned about the unpredented number of children diagnosed in recent years) spoke as an intervener in the case on Kiera’s behalf.

She believes a toxic mix of celebrity culture and social media has increased pressure on young girls to conform to a particular body ideal. “I’m not surprised that so many don’t want to become women,” she says. In recent years, however, she adds the number of people who have opened up about detransitioning has “exploded”.

Keira has been contacted by numerous such young women online and hopes to establish a formalised network of people who have detransitioned.

For now, however, she is steadily dealing with the trauma of her own experience, and focusing on her new relationship. “I just am a woman,” she tells me. “And that is it.”

Chersfrozenface · 11/10/2020 13:15

@PearPickingPorky

Legally, a child under 13 can't consent to sex. And my 13 years old is the same as yours but my best friend at school was having sex at 13 and I know 13 year olds who are now too. I don't think it's great but legally it's permissible

Confused it's 16 though? 17 in Northern Ireland.

Legally, it's a bit of a mess. The age of consent is indeed 16 in England & Wales and Scotland, but also a child under the age of 13 cannot legally give consent, which leaves those aged 13, 14 and 15.

The below is taken from the West Midlands Regional Child Protection Guidelines:
"Young people between 13 and 15
Sexual activity with a child under 16 is also a criminal offence. Where sexual activity involving a child aged 13–15 is a feature, the professional in consultation with the designated safeguarding lead must consider carefully the nature of the relationship in light of all available information known about the parties, particularly their relative ages, whether there are any indications or concerns about coercion or competence of the young person’s decision making, and where there are any such concerns held by any professional, then a referral to children’s social care must be made.

In all cases the professional must provide the child with information on staying safe and being healthy.

Whilst the Sexual Offences Act 2003 recognises that mutually agreed, non-exploitative sexual activity between teenagers does take place and that often no harm comes from it, any sexual activity between an adult and a young person under 16 is a criminal offence. This acknowledges that this group of young people are still vulnerable, even when they do not view themselves as such."

RedToothBrush · 11/10/2020 13:08

@SirVixofVixHall

13 year old children should not be having sex either. I have a 13 year old, she has only just started showing small signs of puberty beginning, she has no idea what an orgasm is, and no real idea of what an erection is. I don’t understand Red when you say that under 13 children can’t consent to sex, surely that should be under 16 ?
Yes thats true but its more the point about the law being even stricter for under 13s. And the fact that there was an argument about 12 and 13 year olds having sex with each other so therefore they understood sex that seemed to be part of the defence.

A 15 year old having sex with another 15 year old isn't going to raise the same questions because of how the law sits.

Antibles · 11/10/2020 13:00

I guess with anything if you have very little to work with you end up scraping the barrel of argument, no matter how noxious the dregs.

PearPickingPorky · 11/10/2020 12:39

Legally, a child under 13 can't consent to sex. And my 13 years old is the same as yours but my best friend at school was having sex at 13 and I know 13 year olds who are now too. I don't think it's great but legally it's permissible

Confused it's 16 though? 17 in Northern Ireland.

PenguindreamsofDraco · 11/10/2020 12:18

So isnt there a strange undercurrent here. A young child who has been having sex (I.e. has been abused) with a pre pubescent body at 12 could be deemed to understand enough to consent to blockers to keep him or her in that state indefinitely?
Gosh who could such a state of affairs benefit? If only there were some clue.

Clymene · 11/10/2020 12:14

@SirVixofVixHall

13 year old children should not be having sex either. I have a 13 year old, she has only just started showing small signs of puberty beginning, she has no idea what an orgasm is, and no real idea of what an erection is. I don’t understand Red when you say that under 13 children can’t consent to sex, surely that should be under 16 ?
Legally, a child under 13 can't consent to sex. And my 13 years old is the same as yours but my best friend at school was having sex at 13 and I know 13 year olds who are now too. I don't think it's great but legally it's permissible
SirVixofVixHall · 11/10/2020 12:10

13 year old children should not be having sex either. I have a 13 year old, she has only just started showing small signs of puberty beginning, she has no idea what an orgasm is, and no real idea of what an erection is.
I don’t understand Red when you say that under 13 children can’t consent to sex, surely that should be under 16 ?

PearPickingPorky · 11/10/2020 11:16

The QC argued that Tavistock patients think more about sex and identity than ordinary children, and an 11-year-old “who did not know what an orgasm or erection was would not be deemed capable of consent”.

Not read the full thread but saw this posted upthread and this it's important.

So, if a 10 or 11 year old is incapable of giving consent, because they don't understand sex, they don't get referred.

But simultaneously, according to Tavi, "there is no other treatment option", and they have to treat them because, otherwise, suicide.

So what happens to the 10 year old child who can't have blockers because they can't consent? They just get left to go through puberty, with the physical changes that brings, knowing that leads to "suicide"?

Obviously they don't think that these children being left unmedicated for a few years leads to suicide, or there wouldn't be the option of not-referring GD children who don't have capacity to consent.

Voice0fReason · 10/10/2020 22:56

Janice has done a great job of summing up the situation.
Kiera's case is so strong, I pray that common sense prevails and children will be protected from the horrific harm that has been done to her.

NoSquirrels · 10/10/2020 22:52

Yes, RedToothBrush.

I find the whole idea that an authority of this type can suggest that an 11 year old can make life changing decisions about having children rather bizarre. If an 11 year old rocked up to the doctor and said 'I want to have a baby now before my 12th birthday, please can I have the relevant information about how we can get pregnant quicker and what my birth plan options could be'. No one would say that an 11 year old would be capable of making sure a decision with a level of maturity which fully understood the implications, yet here we are discussing how they can make decisions which might lead to to having to go down the road of IVF or surrogacy or adoption later in life - all of which are emotionally and/or physically difficult.

Thats fundamentally different from a 11 year old who accidently found themselves pregnant (and there would be safeguarding questions asked) and was in need of medical advice and support to cope with a situation which could be lifethreatening in a child of that age because their body isn't fully developed.

Yes.

NRatched · 10/10/2020 22:52

Agree with all of that RedToothBrush

Ontop of this, considering the safeguarding lead from the Tavi is bringing a case also about staff being specifically told NOT to refer any concerns onto her, this is painting a seriously grim picture of the dealings there, for sure.