Prospect Magazine: Kathleen Stock v Robin Moira White

And I am not advocating for anything. I am saying that I do not know and that the clinicians, young people and their parents are best placed to make their choices. Those who would deny those choices are saying they know best.

No, that's not true. The concept of 'denial of choice' is an interesting turn of phrase and belies the fact that you believe that there a very young child can make a meaningful choice in this area. You are telling us the conclusion of an assessment which has not yet taken place. I think people are suggesting (well certainly I am) that a young person likely does not have the capacity to make that choice. That being the case, it is NOT a choice and therefore it cannot be denied anyone. We are advocating for a sensible and rational consideration of the scale of the decision being made and the evidence re: potential downsides. It is not appropriate to base the decisions regarding what children understand or is in their best interests on the hindsights of a small number of individuals.

The 80% number is nothing to do with gender dysphoria but comes from a survey of children who display any degree of gender-questioning behaviour - as defined by researchers who had a particular agenda.

I may be wrong, and someone please correct me if I am, but is 'medical' intervention not being sought by people who might fall into a number of boxes which trans ideologists have created? Not just those you might consider to have gender dysphoria? I think you will also have to explain why you mean by gender questioning behaviour because given that for most people, gender is a set of restrictive and often stereotypes wrongly attached to a person's binary biological sex - would we not hope for all kids to be gender-questioning?

It is possible that I am looking at this too simplistically, but if children cannot consent to sexual intercourse before age 16 then under what circumstances would they be able to consent to medical treatment or procedures that impair their sexual development/function?

I guess one circumstance is if it is lifesaving (like chemo which can affect fertility?)

Is this why the 'statistic' about suicides is so important to TRAs because really the only circumstance where puberty blockers is when the alternative is dying?

@RobinMoiraWhite

Robin, can I ask you a question that I’m genuinely interested in what your answer is?

Would you also support children aged 12 having access to puberty blockers if they were not trans, but had decided they were non-binary, and wanted blockers so that they could have nullification surgery at 18?

If those clinicians, parents and young people were currently free of political involvement from adults seeking to further their own political agenda and to prevent things like proper research, safeguarding etc from impeding them in their desires then I'd agree with you.

But they're not.

The 80% number is nothing to do with gender dysphoria but comes from a survey of children who display any degree of gender-questioning behaviour - as defined by researchers who had a particular agenda.

And I am not advocating for anything. I am saying that I do not know and that the clinicians, young people and their parents are best placed to make their choices. Those who would deny those choices are saying they know best.

CheeseMmmm
It's a fantasy about how it would have been, it's not possible, I can see why it would be said, believed.

I have always assumed that people who say this sort of thing have never properly thought through the ramifications of what they are saying.

I also assume they have never read any of the excellent science fiction stories from the fifties and sixties in which the results of time travel/going back and changing things are extensively explored. If they had, they wouldn't be so mind-bogglingly simplistic about it. (Yes, let's just go back and kill Hitler straight after WWI, that will sort out all the problems they had in Europe in the thirties and forties...)

(apologies for typos, headache!)

The comparison with religious belief os totally erroneous, since it only relies on changing a belief, and has (in modern society), no material impacts on one’s body. As a pp pointed out, it is of no matter if Robin had decided to become religious again, and no one and noting would have been harmed in the process.

Comparing this to allowing children to make irreversible permanent medical changes to their bodies at 12 is disingenuous to the highest degree.

If declaring oneself to be an atheist at 12 ran the risk of permanent social exclusion, getting your head cut off by the king, or being punished for apostasy with imprisonments or death, we’d probably think 12 year olds didn’t have the capacity to make that decision too.

Very similar, OldCrone.

I was considered very intelligent at that age, got a prize or two for essays, etc. But, I think in order to understand sex and desire one probably needs the hormones to kick in - and maybe this is an evolutionary feature, so that children too young to have sex don't normally feel like it. (Not sure how this stands nowadays.)

I agree, it isnt perfect but young people, their parents and their clinicians have to have the best chance of being the people most likely to get this right - with the very best help and support. I agree that each detransitioner is a tragedy but so is each child denied the pathway that is right for them.

I dont have the wisdom (or the arrogance) to think I can make that choice for others. But I will defend their right to make that choice and fight for them to have the best and most professional help in doing so.

All the evidence shows that around 80% of children who suffer from gender dysphoria before puberty are no longer dysphoric as adults if they are left to complete puberty naturally and not medicated with puberty blockers.

So for every child like you were, Robin, who you believe would benefit from treatment, there are 4 who will be better off if left alone. And until these children are adults we have no way of knowing which group they fall into. There is no diagnostic test which can reliably predict which children will persist and which will desist.

You are advocating for 4 children to be treated with drugs with massive negative side effects (and no benefit to them) in order to help one child who might benefit from them. And even that isn't necessarily true, since you have said yourself: One thing pretty much universal to the trans friends I have - all of whom have known adversity - is a joy in the life they have. So having to wait until adulthood to make this very adult decision has not prevented them from leading happy lives. And the better health they enjoy as a result of not being medicated as children might also mean increased happiness as adults.

I am learning a lot from the latest exchanges regarding the abilities of 12 year olds to make momentous and irreversible decisions.

I think when I was that age any little bit I knew about sexual activities made me feel icky and I was sure I wouldn't want to ever be part of them.

This sounds quite typical for someone of that age. There were some witness statements by GIDS patients in the Keira Bell case where children who had been prescribed puberty blockers said very similar things.

A transman who was prescribed PBs at 12 said:
“I made the decision to proceed with pubertal suppression without pursuing egg preservation. It was a difficult decision to make because I did not know whether I would want biological children in adulthood, but I was certain I would never want to carry a child and give birth. ... We discussed sex and I told them the idea of it disgusted me. I knew I would be unable to consider having a sexual relationship as an adult with my body so wrongly formed.”

A 13-year-old who went to GenderGP for PBs because of the waiting list at GIDS said:
"I haven’t really thought about parenthood – I have been asked about it by the gender identity specialist I have mentioned but I just have no idea what me in the future is going to think. I haven’t had a romantic relationship and it’s just not a thing that is really on my radar at the moment.”

The reason these children hadn't thought about sex and relationships and having children is because they were children who were not competent to make decisions about things they can only experience as adults.

Quotes are taken from the judgment in the Keira Bell case here:
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf

Witness statements are in paragraphs 85-89.

This is an interesting discussion. Thank you. I don't mind if people aren't clear about their full process of thought over complex personal issues. Few of us are.

However I care very much when the same people are powerful enough to influence the medical and social treatment of children, citing their own incoherent beliefs as reasons to inflict dangerous medical treatment along with socially irresponsible attitudes and beliefs on children too young to critique and resist. Attempting to silence the parents and other responsible adults seeking to protect these children adds to my concerns.
The mantra of #nodebate has no place when we're discussing the safety and wellbeing of children and young people.

The proof of this:

Females being excluded from all spaces, resources, access to the tax payer funded rape crisis service, in order for male people to have their full preferred choice from all the services? Not a problem. The females' fault and those who won't put male needs first and have different political beliefs shouldn't have equal civil and human rights anyway. Services can't be expected to be accessible to everyone.

Talk about a male person being excluded from anything at all under any circumstances regardless of the impact on others and the other facilities available? Brace yourself to be told all about the feelings and how very very important they are. Words like lived experience, inclusion, diversity, intersectionality. will be hurled around like confetti. However they will only apply to those born biologically male.

I agree, it isnt perfect but young people, their parents and their clinicians have to have the best chance of being the people most likely to get this right - with the very best help and support. I agree that each detransitioner is a tragedy but so is each child denied the pathway that is right for them

I appreciate the response Robin. I think though, that given how many young people find peace with their gender identity, or decide that they don't have such an identity, the biggest chance of getting things right is not to subject children to irreversible medical interventions. There is good reason to have significant concern about the assessments which have led to just that outcome. Personally I don't think we can devolve full responsibility to parents, the child qnd clinicians. As a society we need to take responsibility for the culture and pressures we are creating. Am I right in thinking that you're saying that you don't have the qualifications to comment on how a child could have such capacity? It would be good to hear from a clinician who has operationalised the knowledge and understanding a child would have to have in order to consent to lifelong struggles in fertility, sexual response and health.

it seems the most common answer is that it doesn't cost much (if anything) - for women it may be a minor inconvenience but for the transwomen involved it means a lot.

Which is male framing of females' voices, views, issues as something they perceive as a minor inconvenience. Mixed sex womens spaces will never work, and they will never work because any male walking into them has already imposed sex based thinking upon that space and everyone in it.

Females may have what the more important women agree is relevant, needed and objectively (male judged) necessary. Insert head pat here.

I would really like an answer to my question from - well, actually, doesn't have to be Robin, anyone who thinks that transwomen are entitled to women's spaces - to tell me why women's rights, preferences and desires matter less than those of transwomen.

Hmmm, I don't think anyone is obliged to answer every question put to them.

It is a phrase that THEY used, and yes of course they won't answer it! I never expected them to.

I do find amusing what things never get answered though, don't you?

But you're unlikely to gain any useful information about their process of thought. It's like asking a religious person why they hold their beliefs

Maybe so. Maybe that is it. It probably is similar to a religious belief. So asking people why they believe in gender ideology, as I have been doing for years, actually is pointless. And probably shows why there's never been a satisfactory answer. 🤔 💡

I think when I was that age any little bit I knew about sexual activities made me feel icky and I was sure I wouldn't want to ever be part of them. And I definitely did not want to wear dresses. All water under the bridge.

Another day, another lack of defining what a 'female diaspora' is.

I mean RMW, you are the one that used it so put your money where your mouth is and tell us what you meant.

Unless the answer is too vile, even for MN???

One would think that to arrive at a belief, there must be some process of thought to get to that point. Asking someone to consider this process of thought and try to explain why, is not unreasonable.

But you're unlikely to gain any useful information about their process of thought. It's like asking a religious person why they hold their beliefs.

The value of this debate is for the lurkers.