Puberty blockers: Can a drug trial solve one of medicine's most controversial debates?

Do we know who the Chief Investigator will be? Has the protocol been written and reviewed? Has it been through the ethics committee and approved by the regulators?

If none of the above has been done, it will be months before this opens with alot more hurdles ahead

My treatment was initiated by and overseen by a compassionate and insightful middle-aged woman. Where does this 'male activists' part come from? It's yet another falsehood you are using to paper over the reality we lived. Please stop.

Oh come on, I thought you were an expert in the history of GIDS?

Oh come on, I thought you were an expert in the history of GIDS?

My treatment was initiated by and overseen by a compassionate and insightful middle-aged woman

How are you defining 'woman'?

I know some people see it as pragmatic and I fully understand their viewpoint.

My viewpoint is that to refuse to refer to, or at least outline, the ideological underpinnings of gender identity ideology Cass has given the concept of gender identity the imprimatur of seeming to be a medical thing rather than a social thing.

Gender incongruence exists because children and young people don’t feel they can tolerate living within the cultural stereotypes associated with their sex. And fixing that requires acknowledging that this is a socially created problem and not something inherently wrong or imbalanced within a particular child.

I see the Cass Review as a wonderful start to restoring balance to the treatment of distressed children. But it does nothing to address the reasons why a group of (largely male, largely middle-aged) activists insisted that preventing children from going through puberty would somehow make these children happier as adults and why the medical profession took them seriously and acted on their assertions.

Very good piece, as usual, from VS. I can't agree with the 'ultras' who criticise Cass for basically not saying, it's all a load of bollocks. That would have probably left the Review dead in the water. Just seemed pragmatism to me.

I think the key word here is "correctly". It's rather ironic that a worldview (trans identity theory, or queer theory, or any variation on those) that is an offshoot or development of postmodernism can be so dogmatic. What you see as "correctly perceived" is "your truth" not "everyone else's truth". My truth is based both on my understanding of "gender" and on physical reality. The truth of the trans people I know is based on their feelings having a mismatch with their physical reality, and rather than confront reality, they want to change reality. Sadly for most of them, that attempt is unlikely to be satisfactory, as physical reality is remarkably resistant to change.

I don't think I ever comment, Rapid, on your posts. But I read all of them with great compassion.

I always find the profound difficulty of your experience, and your deeply thoughtful articulation of it so affecting- and this post, for me, in particular.

The sheer pain of trying to enact what loving your child really means. The deep and complex struggle that comes with the understanding that love is an action/effort, not a passive feeling/ease- and a willingness to tolerate your own discomfort for the ultimate wellbeing of your son shines through.

This scenario, for parents like you, has always brought to mind The Judgement of Solomon story (I'm not a Christian, but some biblical stories, like this one, have stuck in my consciousness since childhood)

It actually hurts my heart.

And I hope so much, that one day, your son is able to clearly see the depth and strength of love he is held with.

There are so many people in the world, for myriad reasons, who will never have been loved like this; so when it is there, the hope is that it is recognised for the gift it is.

I think the key word here is "correctly". It's rather ironic that a worldview (trans identity theory, or queer theory, or any variation on those) that is an offshoot or development of postmodernism can be so dogmatic. What you see as "correctly perceived" is "your truth" not "everyone else's truth". My truth is based both on my understanding of "gender" and on physical reality. The truth of the trans people I know is based on their feelings having a mismatch with their physical reality, and rather than confront reality, they want to change reality. Sadly for most of them, that attempt is unlikely to be satisfactory, as physical reality is remarkably resistant to change.

It means not having to strive to be correctly perceived in a way most people take for granted.

It means there is no 'masquerade'. There is nothing you need nor want to change; you are comfortable in your own skin and at peace.

I don't think I ever comment, Rapid, on your posts. But I read all of them with great compassion.

I always find the profound difficulty of your experience, and your deeply thoughtful articulation of it so affecting- and this post, for me, in particular.

The sheer pain of trying to enact what loving your child really means. The deep and complex struggle that comes with the understanding that love is an action/effort, not a passive feeling/ease- and a willingness to tolerate your own discomfort for the ultimate wellbeing of your son shines through.

This scenario, for parents like you, has always brought to mind The Judgement of Solomon story (I'm not a Christian, but some biblical stories, like this one, have stuck in my consciousness since childhood)

It actually hurts my heart.

And I hope so much, that one day, your son is able to clearly see the depth and strength of love he is held with.

There are so many people in the world, for myriad reasons, who will never have been loved like this; so when it is there, the hope is that it is recognised for the gift it is.

Feeling that your body is wrong AND that people are defining your existence using a surface-level impression of the parts that are making you sad can also make you (even more) sad.

I'm just trying to tease out what this means, butterfly. It isn't intended to be hostile. I just wonder about the rather dramatic way in which you speak of others' perception.
What does it mean to 'define someone's existence'? Do you mean 'recognise you as male'? Maleness isn't a destiny. You can still be anything you want, including a transwoman. Most people, including most GC feminists (certainly me) would absolutely endorse your right to live as a transwoman, to define yourself as such and to present in whatever way seemed to you to express your sense of being female. So in what sense do we 'define your existence' if we simply accurately perceive something about you that makes you sad?

Use of the term 'defining your existence' presents a simple and involuntary moment of perception as if it were an authoritarian and aggressive act.

Sometimes the trans movement (I certainly don't mean you, butterfly - I have only read one or two of your posts and haven't a clue how you feel about what I am going to say next) reminds me of a strand within the incel movement. Incels often seem to present women as being hugely powerful, just in virtue of the fact that men need women's bodies and women are allowed to withhold them. Just having sovereignty over ourselves (our bodies, our perceptions) is perceived as a form of control over men, because it presents an obstacle impeding the gratification of a need.

I hope you can understand, butterfly, how commonly women experience a man approaching them in some way and requiring compliance to their needs. Not just in the extreme way of rape, sexual assault, flashing, lewd comments, but in a million smaller ways. Unwanted approaches, superficially friendly comments, that we have to respond to smilingly, endorsing the man's ego, as if flattered, in order to forestall their angry perception of us as (to use some of the comments typically thrown as woman) cockteasers, frigid whores, stuck up slut, etc.

This is the context in which we are presented with an additional requirement -- to fully perceive a transwoman as female (not just to use preferred pronouns etc but to go further than that in order to avoid being seen as 'grudgingly humouring' as butterfly puts it).

This requirement comes on top of a huge pile of life experience in which we have been required to second-guess ourselves, defensively misrepresent our reaction to male people.This is order to keep ourselves safe from overt or seething anger from those who 'define our existence' as if we were simply the means to (or the obstacle to) the gratification of a desire.

My child is indeed my child (though he is adult). He remains my son, from my perspective. He cannot be my daughter to me unless that makes sense to me. It doesn't . Far more of his relatives see him as a man than as a woman, even if some are prepared to pretend. They have known him, factually and perceptually, for many years as male. Does he have the ability unilaterally to change his identity, or is his identity formed in community? Is this the reason people "go no contact", because their identity in community cannot stand up if it is not totally affirmed? Is this healthy?

He is not "she" unless one believes that third person pronouns now refer to the social construct "gender" and not to sex. Gender is societal expectations and roles; one can only measure gender against adherence to stereotypes. Even then, I know no-one who is totally "feminine" or totally "masculine".

He, by his own admission, did not experience "gender dysphoria" until after he came to the conclusion he is transgender. I do not know what "transgender" means to him; he has been unable or unwilling to articulate this. At first, he was relaxed about "chosen" name and pronouns, but he has hardened to a position of demanding compliance. I believe that this has come about because of the societal pressure from those around him, self-described trans allies who are, to put it bluntly, loading on to him their expectations of how a trans person has to behave.

And yes, you have made a number of assumptions, which is fully understandable. I appreciate the opportunity to see what those assumptions are, and to have my assumptions challenged. It is refreshing to see some recognition that other people's stories (parents' for example) are valid, not just trans people's stories in isolation from those who love them. My wife and other close relatives are also severely impacted, and I believe my son is being damaged by the pressure he is under to see his family as bigoted. Deep down he knows we love him, but he is being drip fed a narrative of "anything other than complete agreement is unacceptable and means lack of acceptance of you". He knows he does not have to agree with us to be loved. Does he still know that we do not have to agree with him to love him? Does he still know that he can still love us if he disagrees with us? Does he know that we would drop everything if he was in trouble and called for help?

If he wants us to accept him as the image of himself he is presenting, he has to allow us to spend time with him. It's not possible to get used to the new behaviour of someone we are no longer permitted to see and to relate to. It is utterly unreasonable to expect an instant realignment of our perception of him. And it is only possible to relate to anyone based on the reality of our own perception of them - not on their perception of themselves. This is the fundamental flaw in the trans worldview I keep coming across - the idea that a person has the right to dictate how everyone else sees them.

It means not having to strive to be correctly perceived in a way most people take for granted.

It means there is no 'masquerade'. There is nothing you need nor want to change; you are comfortable in your own skin and at peace.

I look like the version of me who was spared the majority of pubertal development under endogenous testosterone and was allowed to commence exogenous oestrogen at 18. I was able to identify this was the right path at a young age, helped along by some genetic quirks that ended up proving quite useful in the long run.

That is me. I'm very happy that my body largely matches my perception of it, especially since I lived just long enough in a state where it didn't to be able to understand the difference!

I live a life where I generally experience gender congruence. It's really hard to overstate how much of a difference that makes. I got a very lucky break, all told. Most people in that situation, especially back then, never get a chance to 'jump the rails' in so complete and drastic a fashion.

It is now no longer possible for trans kids - especially trans girls for whom this treatment really does define a life trajectory - to decisively fix their gender incongruence in this way in the UK. That road is closed - potentially forever - or at least until compassion and sense allow us to revisit the topic once the neoreaction movement has burned itself out.

I hope you can understand how horrifying it is to hear the despair of desperate teenagers who can see the path I was allowed to walk and the life it has enabled, and know that there is now nothing that can be done to spare them from the needless suffering that lies ahead.

They've tried being themselves in the bodies they have. They try, desperately, every day.

Turns out there is this amazing hack which lets you jump developmental rails so all of this stuff never becomes an issue, but it only works for a brief window during your youth and Wes Streeting is about to ban it for good.

So 'gender congruence' means convincingly masquerading as the opposite sex?

Sure.

I look in the mirror and don't want to cry.

I walk down the street and don't get transphobic abuse.

I board an aircraft and staff say 'good afternoon madam' without hesitation, awkwardness or uncertainty.

I walk into a toilet desperate for a pee and don't inspire nervous or hostile looks.

I share knowing glances with other women to silently communicate a situation has bad vibes.

I can easily find clothes that fit me. I can walk into a shop to buy them and not feel awkward or unwelcome.

I talk on the phone and people reflexively address me correctly.

I can see photos of myself without feeling a crushing pang of sadness.

I get cast in acting roles as female characters. I do not have to automatically be portraying a trans person.

I don't hate how my body looks or feels.

I feel comfortable in my own skin.