BMJ's editor on evidence void and overtreatment of gender dysphoria

Although not substantive, I think that the fact that it's the BMJ gives it a gravitas that is very useful. The Tavistock is the world's largest paediatric gender clinic and for too long it's been assumed they know what they're doing and thus have been copied the world over. It needs serious professional pushback to reverse the course of events. Articles like this will help.

I came across a YouTube link that helped me understand the NHS mental health stance better.

It's an interview with a religious woman, she wrote a book which has the religious slant.

I noted that like David Starkey in his (I think it was on) Triggernometry interview they both pinpoint the same beginning point in time.

Absolutely agree. Shockingly unprofessional.

What shocks me most is how many medical workers were complicit in this. They come from multiple disciplines - drs, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists etc - each with their own codes of practice and standards, including training of and an expectation for evidence based care (especially in the NHS to ensure good use of public funding), and yet still there was enough complacency, enough just mindlessly going along with it, that we end up here. Absolutely systemic failings of course, but also individual professional failings from every person involved in my opinion.

I keep saying this but I can’t get over how little data collection, audit or research was carried out by GIDS over the decades. From the world-renowned Tavistock, the UK’s flagship (only) gender dysphoria service, and it seems that their only evidence was that of charities with an almost evangelical agenda.

So shocking. The only conclusion I can reach is that maybe MH services aren’t bound by the same obligations of any other clinical service to audit and research, to ensure best practice based on actual evidence.

Trans side appeals to authority:

"All these medical organisations agree with me"

Because you pressured them into it, in the first place?

Other factors need to be weighed up, such as how invasive is the intervention you are recommending.

I would suggest reporting parents as a safeguarding risk for not going along with the ideology was an overly invasive intervention.

Interesting article and sounds positive, particularly in highlighting the risk over over treatment as above. My only slight concern is the following (emphasis added by me):

. Taking this route is essential: an evidence void not only exposes people to overtreatment but can also be used to deny people the care that they seek, such as through the draconian laws now being introduced in some US states (doi:10.1136/bmj.p533).

This links through to an article about a number of states that it says have brought in laws which are similar to Sweden and Finland.

The risk of overtreatment of gender dysphoria is real.

Wow.
Feels significant.