Observer today re Keira Bell

I'm amazed Dawson wasn't in court representing GIDs or maybe Mermaids or the Tavistock to put those Judges right. Amazing how all this evidence being shouted about was missing from that court case.

What Dawson is saying there is that puberty blockers are reversible and then under their breath if used for precocious puberty. The words as used swerve around the issue of their non-licensed use for gender "development" treatment.

Juno Dawson, writer for the Young Adult market, stated that puberty blockers are NOT experimental and ARE reversible.

archive.vn/Sg8AV

As I understand it, the editorials are normally penned by leader writers who don't put their own name to it because they're not expressing their own opinion. I think it's unlikely to be the editor himself but it's still very significant.

I've been trying to work out who wrote the editorial - Paul Webster is the Observer editor - but nothing to indicate in anything he's previously posted that he might have reservations about the TRA narrative. Unless this is the point he finally goes public after years of biting his tongue.

I posted about this above MondayYogurt. There's an argument now emerging by trans activists that "blockers are reversible" because a child can stop taking them at any time. They simply won't engage with whether a child stopping taking them could get back onto the development track they would have been on had they not taken them at all.

Can anyone clarify something about this "blockers are reversible" line.

Do they mean that if a child went on blockers from 16-18, then stopped, they would go through a full puberty and have no negative physical side effects?

Apparently, for editorials The Observer doesn't include the name of the author.

The Observer opinion piece, I can’t see who it is written by, which must be deliberate? Or am I blind?
I’ve noticed they mention a couple of times that they have previously reported on the Tavistock whistleblowers (Albeit a year ago) so I wonder if they are now covering themselves from the incoming storm.
My friends are all currently too busy being outraged on FB that anyone could object to the drag dancing on Strictly and boasting their kids want to do drag now to read this.

“Someone came in and stole our children whilst we slept.”

The Observer and Guardian are both owned by the Guardian Media Group which in turn is owned by The Scott Trust - is that correct?

If yes (Wikipedia says so), it does make me rethink some of my more tinfoil hatted ideas about the influence of the Scott Trust as it suggests the differences might be more down to good old fashioned editorial influence. Which in turn makes me wonder if I've been making too many excuses for Katharine Viner.

I was very struck by the tone of the Observer editorial. It doesn't sound defensive at all and it doesn't read as if they're frightened of a reaction. That's something very new in left-wing publications - even when you get a half way supportive piece it tends to be hedged about with a lot of cringing. This isn't

The thing with being a weekly paper is that they have far more freedom than a daily to choose the subject of editorials. So much happens in a week that if a topic is tricky you can simply choose not to write an editorial about it at all. There was no need to write an editorial about the judgment. The choice to do so is in itself telling.

I was very struck by the tone of the Observer editorial. It doesn't sound defensive at all and it doesn't read as if they're frightened of a reaction. That's something very new in left-wing publications - even when you get a half way supportive piece it tends to be hedged about with a lot of cringing. This isn't.

TRA Towers is built on quicksand.

Exactly bewaretheickabog. It's the likes of Mermaids that are causing the distress, and their response shows no thought for the children and young people involved.

It’s trending on Twitter.

I do wish people would recognise the children have been let down, not by transphobia, but by organisations like the Tavistock, Mermaids and Stonewall.

They have failed them by refusing to explore options apart from affirmation and medication. They have failed them by not having proper checks and balances and by riding roughshod over basic safeguarding. They have failed them by not following good practice and due diligence. They have failed them by ignoring the law on informed consent. They have failed them by encouraging self-harm and suicide ideation as the alternative and telling them people with genuine concerns are transphobic bigots. They have failed them by closing down all debate and research.

If children are distressed it’s not because of JKR or the witches on MN it’s because the organisations supposed to help them have acted unlawfully and with tunnel vision.

Misgendering and dead-naming people is a hate crime according to these organisations but medical experiments rendering children sexually dysfunctional and sterile are ok as is joking about your gender dysphoric child’s genitalia. What has happened is criminal and KB et al have brought much needed sunlight.

Let’s hope things change and all children get the support they need.

Trans activists are currently tweeting their fingers into stumps with their endless repetitions of "puberty blockers are reversible". That doesn't look like a change, but actually something has changed. If you read what they're saying then you can see that what they mean by this phrase has shifted in meaning. It now means that a child can start taking puberty blockers and can, if they chose, stop taking them. The "reversibility" of puberty blockers as argued by trans activists is now independent of long term effects.

Ooo they're quite desperate to find a head to chop

Some might say of course he would say that.

In 2016 Lorimer arrived on Tumblr, an area of the net frequented primarily by teenagers. ‘Tumblr, like lycra is probably not for anyone over 30 –yet here I am’ announced Lorimer chirpily, posting his trendy business cards while making it clear that he didn’t represent his ‘NHS employers or my GenderCare colleagues’. Oh and adding that he may post pictures of cute animals.

lilymaynard.com/gendercare-dr-lorimer-brings-all-the-transboys-to-the-yard/

Dr Stuart Lorimer, of the Tavistock and Portman who was also a panellist- said that ROGD is “evidence free”.

A tad ironic, given the judgement last week. It seems the 'evidence-free' theorising was rather closer to home.

The Observer has always been more clued up on this. Tomorrow's Guardian will probably have another piece celebrating 'trans kids' and the benefits of early 'transitioning'.

And let's not forget that all this started before Mermaids lost the plot and Stonewall adopted the T, and it's not just GIDS. The government, EHRC and others have allowed various lobby groups to dictate policy. It's no wonder GIDS has failed.
The parliamentary archive is littered with documents that peddle the idea of 'trans kids'. See eg the 2011 Transgender Action Plan (hello Lynne Featherstone) Section 1, Early Years and Education.
Gires has been very influential.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3398737-We-re-Still-Here-Conference-8th-September-A-report-from-the-inside

TheHarpySings wrote:

"Hi all

First off, I’m a regular poster, have been here for years under various usernames, it I’m posting here on a name change as I don’t want this traced to me.

On 8th September there was a conference held in London a Bloomsbury Baptist Church which was called We’re Still Here, which featured a variety of panels and workshops and was attended by many prominent people in the pro-GRA reform camp.

I decided to attend to find out what was being said as it was clear that they did not want anyone to attend that wasn’t a TRA or an ally.

What follows are my notes from the day. But first a few notes on attendance:

There were probably 80-100 people in attendance. Overwhelmingly white. Mainly older transwomen. A couple of transmen. Some Mermaids delegates. Some fellow travellers/ allies. And me.

Okay. So here’s my notes

1. Health Panel: Chair was Dr Ben Vincent of GIRES.

Part of the discussion on this panel was around GPs reluctance to prescribe “bridging hormones”. GPs are reluctant/afraid to prescribe them for liability reasons. Apparently a brand of T-Gel was withdrawn and GPs are reluctant to switch brands.

There was then a bit of chatter about whether a person’s sex was relevant for healthcare stats.

Then there was discussion about trans children. Dr Vincent was very scathing about GIDS-said there was disgusting and unethical practices. BV spoke about dispelling the myths about desistance and the myths of ROGD- BV called this “concern trolling, malicious and ethically bankrupt”. BV would like a review of the whole system.

Then Dr Vincent said that they’d received a review copy of “Born in your own body” edited by Heather Brunskell-Evans and Michele Moore. BV is reviewing it for some Royal College and said “I will tear it a new arsehole”

Also (and they didn't want this tweeted) BV is also planning a book called Terf Wars which will be a “rigorous takedown of terf arguments” which is getting serialised as articled in some peer reviewed journal- I’m sorry but I couldn’t catch which one.

Dr Stuart Lorimer, of the Tavistock and Portman who was also a panellist- said that ROGD is “evidence free”.

Or alternatively whether the leadership thought it was a good day to bury bad news due to all the focus on Brexit?

Thinking about what lies behind this Guardian, only a week after Suzanne Moore was effectively bullied out and caused a huge stink, and straight after Keira's judgement, I wonder if this leader article doesn't reflect a big behind-the-scenes tussle at the Guardian/Observer, with GC staff having finally had enough, and the Guardian seeing which way the wind is blowing legally, and fearing another Rotherham/PIE type scandal?

Or of course it could just be that the Observer leadership differs from the Guardian leadership on this, in a similar way to the way the Mail on Sunday has always had a much more liberal voice than the Mail (I note the MoS has several articles today on the negative consequences of Brexit ).

Such a good conclusion:
Children are not pawns to be deployed in adult debates about identity. Bell’s bravery has paved the way for a child-centred judgment that gives them the protection they deserve

Listen to that Mermaids, Stonewall, Amnesty and all our thoughtless politicians. Pleasing to see this in their Sunday paper of choice.

Why does it need treatment if it's actually the way people are? And if it is actually an illness, why can there not be many treatments, and why would we not look for the best, least damaging treatment?

If one treatment is known to cause enormous side effects like infertility etc, why would it be forbidden to look at other, better treatments, or indeed continue with this treatment at all?