Anne health Susie Greens new clinic

Is it paternalistic if no men are involved in her treatment? It seems to me to be rather lazy to invoke paternalism.

'When puberty resumes'?

It has been established that the likely outcome of prescribing GnRH analogues to 'block' puberty is that puberty never resumes. Nobody understands the long term impact of this.

It's less about the power of the patient to consent and more about the power of the doctor to refuse treatment that they think may harm their patient.

There are many areas of medical care where a doctor will refuse treatment that they think is harmful.

Doctors have control over their decisions too, and particularly in a system where the efficacy of care has to be evaluated, patients cannot demand care. See also heavily contested decisions to cease treatment of children.

For women, the negotiation of this is fundamental to sex based rights.

A man can avoid the consequences of pregnancy by simply putting distance between himself and the woman he has made pregnant.

A woman requires medical intervention.

None of this has anything to do with 'gender affirming care', which is the subject of this thread.

You don’t know what you are talking about. Puberty blockers if taken long enough absolutely kill puberty & even if they are stopped puberty will not occur. Once you have missed the window of opportunity for puberty to happen it’s gone forever.

I feel like we’ve gone back several years.

Cass and the Tavistock data established that puberty blockers are being used to stop puberty altogether and it has the effect of ‘locking in’ the trans identity. All but one patient went onto cross sex hormones and that wasn’t because of an extremely accurate and objective diagnostic process targeting the right patients, because they didn’t have one. Their ‘diagnostic process’ has been seen to have failed.

Please provide your data on patients who have successfully gone onto successfully complete puberty after taking puberty blockers to stop their puberty.

PlanetJanette ·

The ethics by which UK practitioners are bound, and the basis by which they should go about resolving ethical dilemma, is set out by guidance from professional organisations like the BMA and in the legal framework within which they operate.

Quite apart from all of the absolute rubbish you've posted, regarding puberty blockers and loss of fertility, it's the RES, not the BMA, which is a union.

Hang on, are you now claiming that you didn't say that you don't think that women have the capacity to consent to a sterilisation?

Because its pretty objectively the case that you did, in fact, say that.

"I agree that medical interventions should only be given to those who can consent. Currently, for this type of decision, affecting fertility and future health, the NHS places the age at which consent should be accepted at about 30. I think that sounds reasonable."

So what is inaccurate in my claim that you have said that a woman in her 20s lacks capacity to consent to sterilisation?

Yes that’s the one.

The kids harmed by this still have time to take legal action.

From Google - “In the UK, the statute of limitations for medical negligence claims is generally three years. This means legal action must be initiated within three years of either the date of the negligent incident or the date the individual became aware of the negligence, whichever is later”

So the clock only starts ticking when the person realises they were sold a dud by the trans activists and they are not really trans but have suffered severe medical harm.

A quick check shows that damages for a medical negligence claim leading to infertility can be up to £200,000.

Damages for incorrect amputation can range from tens of thousands to a million pounds.

It will be very interesting v to look at the legal position re insurers and personal liability from doctors etc. The NHS will clearly be liable for some large payouts if action is taken.

I understand there is still a class action being put together which will obviously take years but could have a huge impact.

As an example, the distributors of Thalidomide paid out £28 million in the 1970s and in 2012 the government paid out £80 million. We shall see what happens to the numbers of kids who want to take action on this.

When they stop being gaslit by the trans activists that it was all their own fault and they only have themselves to blame obviously.

That's like saying condoms sterilise men because they stop semen reaching an egg. While the second clause is true, the sterilisation clause is not - because as soon as the condom is removed the impact on fertility ends.

Blocking puberty blocks the development of fertility. It does not destroy it, and that development of fertility resumes when puberty resumes. Unless as an adult, the (former) child decides that they want to continue on to cross sex hormones.

They weren't though. No children were sterilised.

Adults made the decision to go onto cross sex hormones which will have impacted fertility.

This one from 2020?

As usual, the BBC refers to the dead son as "she" and "daughter", leading to nonsense phrases like "her sperm".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-53889359.amp

Yes. Some of the puberty blocker ghouls were offering sperm or egg preservation in response to the issue of them sterilising children.

Wasn’t there a court case a few years ago where the mother of a young man who sadly died suddenly and unexpectedly after taking puberty blockers and cross sex hormones was trying to use his sperm to produce a grandchild? Or she was complaining in the papers that she wasn’t allowed to - my memory is a little hazy.

The problem is that making statements doesn't make them real...

• trans people exist - no - there are people, men and women who apply a label of trans with an objective behind adopting that label. There is no such thing as a 'trans' adult
• trans kids exist - no - there are adults who label children as trans, but there is no such thing as a 'trans' kid

You claim objective facts - so let's understand the real meaning of words - not their misuse:

• Transition - A passing or passage from one condition, action, or (rarely) place, to another; change. (1545–)

So this has pre-requisites to be accurately used:

• A starting condition
• A end condition
• A difference between the two conditions such that there is change from one condition to the other.

Let's examine the concept of transition / trans in terms of 'sex' and as an example the concept of a man becoming a woman:

• Starting condition = man / boy / male
• End condition - doesn't matter what you do to that person, whether you give them hormones or surgery - or whether they simply self-ID as being the other sex - makes no difference, you still have the original man / boy / male - you can never create a woman / girl / female. You might now have a man without hi normal genitals, he might even have a fake entry to look like a vulva, hormones might have given him bigger man-boobs or moobs - but at no point, whatever you do does he become a she
• As the end condition (man / boy / male) is the same as the starting condition (man / boy / male) - no transition has taken place.

Let's examine the concept of transition / trans in terms of 'gender' and the concept of a man living as a woman.

• A man and a woman are defined by gametes / sexual organs / etc. - not how they live - how you cross your legs / whether you wear a skirt / application of makeup - none of those make a man or woman.
• We know and encourage children in a world where we wish to reduce stereotypes that they can be the shape of boy / girl they wish - girls can be astronauts or builders, boys can be nurses or the stay-at-home parent. Either can climb trees or play with dolls, dressing up is available to both, as is woodworking or needlework. Your job and the activities you do don't define you.
• Society has stereotypes for men and women - a snapshot in time of those stereotypes defines gender at that point, however it is fluid as we know from history - high heels first came into the country for men, who in regency time also wore stockings / makeup and jewellery / pink was considered a boys' colour and blue for girls until early 20th century when it reversed - and many other examples.
• A man who lives outside his 'gender' (i.e. a man in the 21st century wearing high heels and a skirt, with makeup as one example) hasn't adopted the female gender - instead, they are simply pushing or changing social norms and boundaries for their own gender - if enough of them do it, they don't all become women, but the social stereotype changes. Stereotypes are observed, they don't create the person.
• So it is not possible to move from one gender to another - you simply change the shape of your born gender - no transition of gender is possible.

So, it is remarkably clear that it is not possible to transition sex or gender - so the concept of a 'trans' person doesn't actually exist - so why do people use it as a label?

• Mental Health illness - there is clear evidence that as bodies can not be changed and sex can not be changed, there is no such thing as physically having the wrong body - so when there is a mismatch between how the person feels and the sex they were born, it is of the brain. While there can unintentionally be a stigma in labelling issues as mental illnesses, to understand mental health and to recognise that it can go wrong (illness) or be healthy is of vital importance to society
• Gender Dysphoria - there is a very real problem for some that they dislike their body / feel that they are born in the wrong body / etc. However, as above, this is a mental health illness, and treatment is not physical mutilation of the body - they can never be the opposite sex, so dealing with the real issue is important.
• Transvestism - this has a simple etymology: trans (as we have seen above - change) and vest from vestments - so change of clothes - it is simply someone (normally a man) who likes to wear the clothes which are stereotypically associated with the other sex. As we have seen above, this simply expands gender boundaries, it doesn't make a man into a woman.
• AGP - sex based games for erotic purposes - certainly not appropriate for children, and rarely appropriate for those (mainly men) who partake.
• Other - other agendas which are suspected and fairly evident - such as anti-women agendas etc.

Conclusion

• The objective facts you list are not facts.
• 'Trans' as a concept for sex change does not exist - you can not change sex
• 'Trans' as a concept for gender change does not exist - you can not change gender
• We need to be more empathetic to those with genuine issues who are perhaps being overlooked (or mutilated) rather than being dealt with appropriately...

I think they realise very well what PB do to children, the real question is why would they support it?

Feminism centres women and girls. It does not have to align with certain political ideologies in order to do that. I personally gave up talking about 'the patriarchy' a long time ago. That doesn't make me incapable of choice or decision making on my own behalf.

If you ever been pregnant, had a termination, given birth to children and then looked after them you will understand that there is really no such thing as ultimate autonomy over one's body or one's actions. We all have to make choices within certain sets of conditions that are not of our choosing. And we all exist within a network of relations.

The body: its physical and biological processes and that which results from them are one of the things that are not of our choosing. And male and fermale bodies and biology are different - each with their own innate teleology.

Yes it’s quite mind blowing how determined some people are to support these activists harming children and vulnerable young people and it’s just tough luck if they realise they made a wrong decision and ruined their health and fertility.

I agree that we need a law similar to the FGM law, or even an extension if the FGM law to prevent this.

No I didn’t explicitly say that. And it’s not patriarchal to point out that doctors know that people (both men and women) change their minds and the distress caused by not being able to have a child when you want one is huge.

What seems particularly brutal is that you support anyone, (including children), making irreversible decisions about their bodies and any regret is entirely their own fault. You dismiss the cases of Keira and Ritchie - blaming them for their harm as they were over 18 and also argue for under 18s to harm their bodies.

As the government has banned the use of puberty blockers to prevent puberty, do you think it acceptable that Susie Green gas set up a company that deliberately circumvents the law?

Side note from the above, but 'Anne' means mother in Turkish.

If that's Green's intent, I find it really creepy - particularly considering what she did to her own child.

Jeez, it’s hard to understand how we can be this many years into this debate and someone who pops up on threads regularly still doesn’t understand what puberty blockers do to children.

Puberty blockers absolutely sterilise children.

Oh yes they do! Puberty blockers sterilise children by preventing puberty. If you don't go through puberty then you are sterile & unable to conceive/impregnate as appropriate.

What do you not understand about sexual development during puberty?

If a child takes puberty blockers during puberty they don't become sexually mature. If they then take cross sex hormones they will never become sexually mature, so have effectively been sterilised.

The only way for a child not to be sterilised by puberty blockers is for them to stop taking them and go through puberty naturally. This only happened to one child in the Tavistock's experiment on children, so all the others were sterilised.

Just as well you’re wrong to say that puberty blockers sterilise children then. They do not.

There needs to be a law, similar to that for FGM, that anyone taking a child outside the UK for this treatment can be prosecuted.