Medical evidence over trans ideology: welcome to the doctors’ resistance

Yes, Eliza Mondegreen's report from the EPATH conference was worrying. So much for hopes that in Europe, at least, reality was starting to break through...

https://archive.ph/QyKOq

It could be that for sure Mids2019 I just find it troubling that people are seriously calling for public bodies to adopt changes with possibly serious health impact after the meaning of the words used has been obscured. Why should scarce health resources be diverted to what looks like emotional validating? It massively shows up the politicisation here. Wanting it should never be an argument in itself.

Other patient lobby groups would be politely ushered out of the room having been offered a nice cup of tea and asked to come back another time with a clear factual version of what they are actually asking for which can be assessed objectively.

@Slothtoes

I presume this means that for measures that are sex specific e.g. BMI there should be a whole new classification for trans people as presumably they may be aiming for a physical shape of their identified sex? I don't think there is any evidence this is necessary or has a bearing on physiological reality but who knows 🤷

I couldn’t make sense of the Graun there. ‘gender based scores’ could mean absolutely anything in this context.
i do agree that ‘treatments’ or ‘healthcare’ offered to respond to gender identity distress seem to glaringly lack any evidence for safety and effectiveness and value for public money versus other less invasive and more talking therapy options but maybe that’s not the point that they were trying to make..

A group of junior docs and medical students in the Guardian article group who are the main ones pushing gender ideology. CAN-SG is mainly doctors and other health professional with more experience.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/05/nhs-treatment-algorithms-not-taking-transgender-patients-into-account

And yet we have this where it seems the trans community want a whole new evidence base for medical treatment of trans people. The answer is simple if you were born a certain sex the diagnostic pathway is for that sex. Trans women can't pretend not to have propagated and trans men still to sleeve extent have a uterus. It is unethical in the extreme to ignore biology in the medical profession.

The vast expense (possibly redundant) suggested in this article is ludicrous. It feels like there should be whole new gender based chapters written in medical text books?

Thank God some of you have your heads screwed on correctly.

Also Susan Bewley has been consistently excellent

This is very pertinent. How can we talk about sexual abuse and violence against women if our sex is regarded - by some medics, of all people 🤔 - as something we can dip in and out of on a whim?

Great article, Hadley - thank you.

I assume so. Really impressed by her.

I’m a GP, VERY openly gender critical at work, and I haven’t met any disagreement from ANY colleagues.

I have vigorously challenged another professional who was using ‘he’ to refer to very vulnerable female patient (not present), and they didn’t disagree with me.

I am not at all a ‘political’ being ( I am probably undiagnosed ASD) and I am totally mystified by the way all the doctor’s organisations have been captured by this ideology.

Margaret McCartney a GP who regularly appears on Inside Health and whose big interest is evidence based medicine, has been consistently good on this. She tweets occasionally about it and is always bang on.

Much of the rest of 'Medtwitter' has been captured and bully other doctors who post anything GC. It's baffling and disappointing.

Is that the Dr Louise Irvine from the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign, who stood against Jeremy Hunt in the general election a few years ago? Always liked her.

"I'm sure 1st year anatomy is a real hoot there!"
I just spluttered coffee on the bed at this! Sounds like a glinner sketch! "Professor, when are we studying girldick?"

This isn't the main point but the following is actually rather insightful:

“It’s confusing to describe a young female patient’s history of sexual abuse and trauma if I have to refer to her as ‘him’,” said an NHS psychiatrist.

Exactly. This is exactly why pronouns aren't just inconsequential and to be polite one should go along with it. Doing so means lying to yourself. Which indeed can be confusing.

What's needed are individual doctors and small groups in each and every institution, unafraid to speak up. The moment that happens, others will decide to be bold as well.
Then we'll see how strong a stranglehold this fake science has on the medical industry.

Igneococcus · Today 10:50
Thank you very much, that is heartening to some extent. The capture of medical people is hard to believe but I hope the membership of this grows.

Will read the article later - it looks very interesting, so thanks for posting @Igneococcus
I just wanted to make the quick point though, that it's hardly surprising that some new Dr's are pro trans, when they're being trained at Edinburgh uni!
The ideology has infected that place like the plague, judging by what's been shown on youtube lately!
I'm sure 1st year anatomy is a real hoot there!

Sure, it's deffo the Be Kind, Be Yourself, Be Happy therapist/physician mantras that dominate the early and middle journeys.

You only have to read Eliza Mondegreen's shocking reports from the recent EPATH conference...bad data is ignored, free speech and dissent is ignored, the moment a child says they might be trans, they are, and nothing must deviate from transition.

And tellingly, no questions from the floor, nervous laughter when awful data eg osteoporosis risk is mentioned, and the kind of siege mentality that would have embarrassed even David Koresch at Waco.

These poisonous individuals are setting the momentum in gender "care". It's up to this new grouping to shout, and shout loudly enough, so more join, and the EPATH mantra is squarely challenged and reversed.

We kinda thought Tavistock roll up was the end. No, it's not even the beginning of the end, it's the end of the start.

Helen's article indicates the start of the move to get to the start of the end.

Arrogant cult of personality surgeons, biased and self-absorbed therapists, and profit-driven pharma, what could go wrong?

The push here has come from physicians/paediatricians/psychiatrists and outlier GPs, not from surgeons.

I'm not saying we should not criticise surgeons who perform the surgery - we certainly should. But surgeons are not leading the push for transition in the UK.

The rot goes deeper. Combine white male dominated professions looking to atone for sins against blacks, gays, trans, and, oh, women (hmm, something's gone wrong w atoning for mistreating women by deciding to... mistreat women again), a new glittery community that must be protected at all costs, and the clincher as laid out by Helen Joyce, the self made universal, personal happiness now being the benchmark, all levers of the state to be pulled to achieve everyone's personal maximum state of happiness.

Put this all in the pot, simmer, stir, and you have the trans stew, with ingredients from every organisation you can name.

And that's all that's on the menu.

Ironically, the two groups medicine should be bowing down to atone for, are women and gays.

However, true to form, medicine's ignoble history of trying to erase homosexuality, and dismiss women as hysterics, is in vogue once again.

I'm glad that at least there is a regulator that isn't captured, RealityFan.

It's so depressing to see medical bodies fall for such a profoundly anti-scientific ideology - even the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has drunk the Kool aid. They, of all people, should know what a woman is.

It's as if they'd all started believing that illness was caused by an imbalance of the four humours, or began using blood-letting as a treatment. I feel at a loss what to do about it - if you can't engage with qualified medical practitioners on a rational basis, how on earth are you going to change their minds?

Isn't that amazing, that you (very caringly) needed to check if I could reveal myself. Thanks.

No, not a physio. I believe like speech therapy, they're in trouble on free speech concerns.

I'm not a million miles away from physios.

I'm a health professional, luckily with a light touch regulator and one to one with patients where I have full autonomy, my patients mainly GC and happy to talk about this subject.

Are you a physiotherapist by any chance? I remember Elaine Miller being reported to her professional body but not being worried because they weren't fully captured. Don't answer if you'd prefer not to.

Also depressing that the individuals involved didn’t feel they could give their names.