To think that 'gender affirming care" is barbaric and should be banned?

[Appalonia]

This article is from the US but these procedures have been carried out in the UK. Teenagers who are confused and vulnerable do not have the mental capacity to consent to puberty blockers, cross sex hormones or life altering surgery.

Please read this devastating article from a whistleblower who has been working in a gender clinic in the US.

www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids

Considering it has not been proven that hormones and surgery improve the mental health issues of transitioners, I am not quite sure what you investment is here trying to tell people that those ‘treatments’ are the best option for all who are receiving them.

In the group that now forms the majority of youth transitioners, female teens, hormones and surgery are experimental. The effects of them have not been tracked except anecdotally.

I don’t think you really need me to explain this to you- but I’ll bite as in a queue for coffee and apparently have nothing better to do with my time. So when someone is born with a vagina we call them a “girl” , usually give them a “girls” name and “she” pronouns, and often dress them a certain way, do their hair a certain way, make them use certain facilities, engage in certain activities etc. Children who “socially transition” may ask for a range of changes to these arrangements- typically pronoun, name, clothing, uniform at school, and “girl/boy” labels.

We do more than that

We train girls to be nice and kind and boys to be leaders and fearless

We do all sorts of rubbish based on sex

But it's the rubbish that needs changing not the child !

They don’t seem to be able to discuss the issue rationally or engage with it without resorting to emotional manipulation, in the past with the kicker of us being told we are ignorant.

I am looking forward to Tandora producing evidence to support their claims where that evidence in relevant and stands up to scrutiny. So far on other threads that has not been forthcoming.

You don’t need to explain to me that girls have vaginas but I don’t recognise anything in what you say about “making” girls engage in certain activities.

It’s 2023, not 1900. Girls and women can do everything that boys and men can - apart from the activities that their SEX enables only members of their SEX to do. For example, only women can give birth because only women have a womb to grow a baby and a vagina to bring the baby into the world.

Do you understand that?

I would like to see that evidence that supports your claims about affirming only care Tandora, I know there are several of us on this thread would will carefully read your links to understand the direction of your thoughts.

I would also love to see the evidence of why you feel you can so badly misrepresent posters who use the term exploratory therapy to mean conversion therapy. Why would you wish to portray other poster’s views in such an polarised and absolutist manner?

We know that explorative therapy is supposed to be a main feature of treatment in the UK.

So who benefits from that being so negatively misrepresented?

Certainly not the trans people we love.

Why should they have to “accept physical reality” when there are treatments available to help.

Because no treatments will change someone’s sex - they might change the way their body looks or functions but underneath it all they will still be biologically male or female, which is the reality they need to accept. Gender reassignment surgery won’t change the way illness manifests in their body (often with symptomatic differences in both sexes), won’t remove the physical advantage of male puberty, won’t enable a biological man to experience menstruation or pregnancy.

People can identify any way they chose but underlying that is a reality of biological sex.

They are different because having a baby at a young age is a life changing act with the potential to ruin someone's life . There's no good outcome for a pregnant 14 year old.
Waiting 3 or 4 years to have your breasts removed once you are over 18 rather than having it done right now is not going to have anything like the same potential for harm. In fact most children will probably not want it doing by them.

Well I have a 3 year old and I certainly do recognise the idea that girls are steered towards certain activities. Girls are encouraged to play with dolls, and not cars, they are expected to enjoy sitting and colouring rather than playing outside. They are expected to have long hair styled daily which is often painful. They wear impractical dresses and impractical shoes. Their clothes have slogans like "be kind" "pretty" "happy" etc.
This stuff is absolutely everywhere from birth. It's enforced through schools and nurseries. It's actually very difficult to buck the trend, if you want to be part of modern society

Here is something I found from Dr Steensma and team. It is quite old now, but I think it is still relevant. There are some interesting aspects to this paper. One being how much reliance has been put on stereotypes in defining gender in it.

But it is also really important because it shows desistance rates at that time in the Nederlands.

This is a pdf link. I hope it works.

www.researchgate.net/profile/Peggy-Cohen-Kettenis/publication/49738851_Desisting_and_persisting_gender_dysphoria_after_childhood_A_qualitative_follow-up_study/links/09e4150655d20a7ec1000000/Desisting-and-persisting-gender-dysphoria-after-childhood-A-qualitative-follow-up-study.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Desisting and persisting gender dysphoria after childhood: A qualitative follow-up study

Thomas Steensma et al 2011

It is this I thought relevant here:

”As for the clinical management in children before the age of 10, we suggest a cautious attitude towards the moment of transitioning. Given our findings that some girls, who were almost (but not even entirely) living as boys in their childhood years, experienced great trouble when they wanted to return to the female gender role, we believe that parents and caregivers should fully realize the unpre- dictability of their child’s psychosexual outcome. They may help the child to handle their gender variance in a supportive way, but without taking social steps long before puberty, which are hard to reverse. This attitude may guide them through uncertain years without the risk of creating the difficulties that would occur if a transitioned child wants to revert to living in his/her original gender role.”

To be clear, this sentence is the point I want to make.

”They may help the child to handle their gender variance in a supportive way, but without taking social steps long before puberty, which are hard to reverse. This attitude may guide them through uncertain years without the risk of creating the difficulties that would occur if a transitioned child wants to revert to living in his/her original gender role.”

So even in 2011, the Dutch experts recognised issues with ‘social transitioning’.

This post is long but it is worth reading.

It is a paper about how parents and children’s predetermined expectations are impacting the quality of care given by clinicians.

It supports this negative framing of exploratory therapy as ‘conversion therapy’, when it is this negative framing that is causing significant detriment to young patients.

Australian children and adolescents with gender dysphoria: Clinical presentations and challenges experienced by a multidisciplinary team and gender service

Published April 22, 2021
Kasia Kozlowska, Georgia McClure et al

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/26344041211010777

Our study found that the children and families who came to the clinic had clear, preformed expectations: most often, children and families wanted a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to be provided or confirmed, together with referral to endocrinology services to pursue medical treatment of gender dysphoria. Parents (vs. children) also largely came with the same expectations, though they were more likely to be interested in incorporating holistic (biopsychosocial) elements, including treatment of mental health comorbidities, family support/therapy, and long-term psychotherapy for the child. It was our impression that these expectations had been shaped by the dominant sociopolitical discourse—the gender affirmative model. It will be interesting to track the expectations of children and families in the years to come as sociopolitical discourses become more varied and diverse and as the voices are heard of both those who have done well and those who not done well via the medical pathway.

Our study also found that despite the high rates of family conflict, relationship breakdowns, parental mental illness, and maltreatment (see Table 3)—and our own clinical perspective that both individual and family work were indicated for the majority of families—few families rated themselves as being in a clinically severe range on self-report (SCORE-15). Coupled with the dominant sociopolitical discourse—the gender affirmative model that prioritizes the medical treatment pathway—it is not surprising that the large majority of children and families were not motivated to engage in or to remain engaged in ongoing therapy. These data bring three important phenomena into focus.

First, when children and families were given the space and structure to tell the child’s developmental story—nested in the story of the family—they were able to identify and provide a detailed narrative of the key issues that had contributed to the child’s presentation and distress. Without this space and structure, the issues remain undeclared and unaddressed.

Second, some families—but also some clinicians—function within a non-holistic (non-biopsychosocial) framework where the child’s developmental experiences are disconnected from their clinical presentation. This non-holistic framework is likely to promote a healthcare delivery model that dehumanizes the child (by not examining the child’s and family’s lived experience) and that promotes medical solutions (correcting the identity/body mismatch) for a problem that is much more complex.

Third, as noted earlier, our experience suggests that, insofar as the gender affirmative model is taken as equivalent to medical intervention, clinicians (including ourselves) who work in gender services are coming under increasing pressure to put aside their own holistic (biopsychosocial) model of care, and to compromise their own ethical standards, by engaging in a tick-the-box treatment process. Such an approach does not adequately address a broad range of psychological, family, and social issues and puts patients at risk of adverse future outcomes and clinicians at risk of future legal action.

Relevant bits:

It was our impression that these expectations had been shaped by the dominant sociopolitical discourse—the gender affirmative model.

Coupled with the dominant sociopolitical discourse—the gender affirmative model that prioritizes the medical treatment pathway—it is not surprising that the large majority of children and families were not motivated to engage in or to remain engaged in ongoing therapy.

and the final three paragraphs.

So I ask again, who benefits from the negative misrepresentation of exploratory therapy as ‘conversion therapy’?

The issue relating to the best care for children and adolescents who have gender dysphoria is being discussed world wide.

This is not just a UK issue. There are so many aspects of this issue now though. Including the wait times and the lack of adequate and balanced mental health support that is not ideologically led.

The perpetuation of the suicide risk is so very harmful.

you have no idea what you are talking about.

and social transition isn’t a “treatment” it’s just allowing kids to dress and be called what they want. Or do you think anyone born with a vagina should be forced to wear pink dresses until the age of 18 ?

From your posts I think I might understand it better than you. I have read widely on both sides of the issue and spring time thinking about the logic and facts involved.

I’m afraid you misunderstand ‘social transition’. It is not about clothing and hairstyles - I mean, most of us have spent our lives pushing back against the sex based stereotypes you mention.

It is about affirming the idea in an impressionable child’s head that they may actually be the opposite sex and that people around them either agree or can be compelled to agree.

Once a child has been allowed to embark on this path with the announcements of their new identity, a change of name on the school register and an edict to ‘respect their new pronouns’ (with punishment for those who fail), it would be hard to announce that it was all a mistake. I have seen a girl do this - changed name on register, big announcements to all in the school- aged 12/13.

She is now the grand old age of 14 and mightily embarrassed by the whole thing. Unfortunately the school have not been so fast to change her name back (I guess she’s not as special any more) so she is reminded of her brief phase of teenage angst twice every day.

Some schools hold special assemblies for these children, with special exemptions from normal rules and an in house ‘police force’ (the LGBTQ allies) guarding them from any act of disrespect.

Some parents hold special ‘gender reveal’ parties for their shiny new ‘son’ of ‘daughter’ - ostracising relatives who do not jump on board unquestioningly with the celebrations. These are the parents who may have been very disappointed with the sex of the baby when it was born (we all know some of those) but have now got an opportunity to ‘fix’ that and have the child they really wanted.

As reported by concerned GIDS clinicians, some parents were clear that they would rather have a trans child then a gay one.

Children need and trust parents and other responsible adults to make decisions in their best interest. If all these people are agreeing with a child’s self diagnosis of their own mental health problems or cause of distress, the child will trust that. The trouble is, transition is not the answer for the majority, they just need time to grow and good mental health support.

Anyone who can’t see this needs to read and think a bit more.

"I don’t think you really need me to explain this to you- but I’ll bite as in a queue for coffee and apparently have nothing better to do with my time. So when someone is born with a vagina we call them a “girl” , usually give them a “girls” name and “she” pronouns, and often dress them a certain way, do their hair a certain way, make them use certain facilities, engage in certain activities etc. Children who “socially transition” may ask for a range of changes to these arrangements- typically pronoun, name, clothing, uniform at school, and “girl/boy” labels."

Firstly, parents who do 'dress them [girls] a certain way, do their hair a certain way, make them use certain facilities, engage in certain activities', have significant issues. Unless you are describing making girls use the spaces designated for their safety, and 'engaging in certain activities' involves learning about their bodies in girl's only sessions.

If parents are enforcing gender stereotypes on their children, that is a topic that deserves a whole thread. I would expect that very few, if any parent on this thread would be doing this.

It is ridiculous to see these stereotypes being presented as some kind of reasoned discussion points over and over. Like the point about 'anyone born with a vagina should be forced to wear pink dresses until the age of 18 ?'

But getting back to socially transitioning.

"Children who “socially transition” may ask for a range of changes to these arrangements- typically pronoun, name, clothing, uniform at school, and “girl/boy” labels."

And changing name to a name that is traditionally used for the opposite sex, insisting on pronouns that are not specific for their sex (not gender) and adopting girl/boy labels outside the family are exactly the issues that clinicians have recognised can cause a child distress when they realise they want to desist from that identity. It is a barrier to desistance.

The numbers for desistance is very high in 2011 in the Nederlands it was between 50-60% in that study posted up thread of patients registered at the clinic. The estimates for children and adolescent desisting from a trans identity over the past couple of years are as high as 80%.

In ignoring clinicians sounding the alarm, "you have no idea what you are talking about" really just seems like more projection.

And this is yet another absurd polarised and catastrophised contribution.

And fucking ignores the fact that for people who have similar beliefs, that parts of their body is not 'theirs' for example actually DO need this extensive mental health support. Or so too do people who are faced with navigating life because of injury or disease or a medical condition at birth where surgery and medication are not recommended because there is no evidence even after x years of improving the mental health issues. Plus let's not forget the number of people for whom there is no further surgical or drug treatment that will help.

There are groups of people who most definitely should be receiving extensive mental health support to be able to accept their physical realities and cannot access it.

To post this is no fucking joke.

It is yet another emotionally manipulative misrepresentation that force teams other people's conditions with those of trans people.

And let's remember this entire fucking thread is about children and teenagers.

Really, this post of shows the issue with absolutist arguments. Once you (general you) have oversimplified the issues to the very point that you think that this post is funny, or even relevant, you (general you) really are showing those reading along the lack of wider understanding and/or balance regarding the medical treatment of children and teenagers.

Yes Richard, your example about that young girl is spot on. I know two students where the school changed the records of those students without the parents even knowing. One of those students was under the care of a therapist who recommended that this did NOT happen. The school still did it, because they never once consulted the parents and did not know about the therapist.

But teachers of preschool children will tell you that there are considerable differences in the behaviour girls vs boys, at least when considered as groups rather than individuals.
Take away the clothing or hairstyle differences and they see that boys tend to be more boisterous, they're usually the ones pushing in the queue, they're less likely to sit still. There are differences in nature as well as nurture, at least at a population level.

Here is some points from The Sunday Times article:

Tavistock scandal ‘on a par with East German doping of athletes’ By Glen Keogh, Sat 11th February.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e04f4958-aa26-11ed-8a03-b2faadede0c5?shareToken=81bddfc85342137edc81797069ccd8cb

These are anecdotes from clinicians at the Tavistock.

"But Dr Anna Hutchinson, a senior clinical psychologist at Gids, said the service was soon “accepting everyone”. She said puberty blockers were supposed to be prescribed to children to give them “time to think” about whether they wanted to transition fully, but she realised that almost all went on to take cross-sex hormones, such as testosterone and oestrogen, which have irreversible consequences."

"Hutchinson told Barnes this was a “holy f*” moment. “It totally exploded the idea that when we were offering the puberty blockers, we were actually offering time to think,” she said."

“Because what are the chances of 100 per cent of people, offered time to think, thinking the same thing? If the service was getting this wrong, it was getting it wrong with some of the most vulnerable children and young people.”

and

"She now believes that “some of those kids would not have identified as trans had they not been put on the medical pathway”.

and

“But what is a bad outcome is creating a cohort of people who are medically dependent who’d never needed to be. And not only medically dependent, but perhaps — we don’t yet know — medically damaged.”

and then there is this family therapist

"Anastassis Spiliadis, a family therapist, told Barnes of the impact of outside groups, and parents, on decisions to refer often vulnerable children for puberty blockers."

"He said in his four years at the service, on two occasions he decided that children from complex family set-ups and backgrounds should not be placed on blockers. However, the families complained and “both ended up on the blocker”."

"Parents who complained were referred to “clinicians who we all knew it was much easier to get on hormones through them, rather than other clinicians”, he said."

and

"In one case, he said, the child told him, “my mum wants this for me”, or “my mum wants the blocker more than I do”. He said there was sexual abuse and domestic violence in the family and he and a colleague agreed that they would not be putting the young person forward for puberty blockers. However, this decision was allegedly overruled by Carmichael."

"On other occasions a change in clinician would be requested by Green, the Mermaids chief, Spiliadis said."

and this clinician

"Matt Bristow, a former Gids clinician, added: “Despite the obvious complexity of all these cases — sexual abuse, trauma, potential FII — the answer was always the same. That the young people eventually get put on the blocker unless they themselves say they don’t want it.”"

And for any poster who is going to post a 'well they are all just haters' type post, why the fuck would any of these clinicians want to lie or contort the truth?

Clinicians around the world are raising alarms about the level of care given to children and teenagers. And there are still posters determined to shame and to contort, misrepresent and to dismiss due to their own prejudices about the people who want to discuss it and want to get the information out there.

It all falls apart when one question is repeated.

Who benefits from silencing those raising alarms?

And then followed immediately by exactly who benefits from framing those discussing it and raising alarms as being people who hate trans people? Indeed, who benefits from perpetuating a lie that to be concerned about poor care levels is to hate trans people?

It most certainly doesn't benefit vulnerable trans people to be told the lie that people hate them.

Who benefits from silencing those raising alarms?

And then followed immediately by exactly who benefits from framing those discussing it and raising alarms as being people who hate trans people? Indeed, who benefits from perpetuating a lie that to be concerned about poor care levels is to hate trans people?

I suppose it benefits Folx who self-identify as being Righteously on The Right Side Of History and who believe that anything they do or say, however (real-world) harmful or dishonest, will ultimately prove Righteous as it is in service of bringing about TRSOH. Circular, but that's the central feature of the ideology!

Even in 2000, the child psychiatrist who set up GIDS in 1989 reported the following about the patient profile.

"Most of Gids’s patients were boys with an average age of 11. More than 25 per cent of them had spent time in care, 38 per cent came from families with mental health problems and 42 per cent had lost at least one parent, either through separation or death. Most had histories of other problems such as anxiety and physical abuse; almost a quarter had a history of self-harm."

From "How the Tavistock gender clinic ran out of control' by Hadley Freeman, The Sunday Times, Saturday 11th February

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f38ca170-a236-11ed-9d5c-69bd3c5b98b3?shareToken=08c87b70474a5200b2d70b4b1cd67574

I am just going to pull this out so people can see this more clearly:

Boys - average age 11

25% + had spent time in care

38% from families with mental health problems

42% had lost one parent through separation or death

up to 25% had history of self harm

most had histories of anxiety and physical abuse.

Even in 2000, a profile was forming that indicated how vulnerable these patients were. I have read figures that show this has not really changed much except that it is now the majority of female patients.

The interim Cass Report states:

"This increase in referrals has been accompanied by a change in the case-mix from predominantly birth-registered males presenting with gender incongruence from an early age, to predominantly birth-registered females presenting with later onset of reported gender incongruence in early teen years. In addition, approximately one third of children and young people referred to GIDS have autism or other types of neurodiversity. There is also an over-representation percentage wise (compared to the national percentage) of looked after children."

It has been estimated that over half the female patients referred to the Tavistock are lesbian or bisexual too. A vastly over represented category compared to the general population. How has this not be thoroughly investigated?

How do people dismiss the issues that are being raised?

These children and teens have been let down in the standard of care delivered by the NHS. But this is being repeated in other countries too as it can be seen from the article linked up by OP.

Teachers may say they see differences in girls and boys

Because they expect to

Because the children have already been exposed to training

Decades ago there was a study where small nursery children were cross dressed and then nursery staff ( unaware of the clothes switches) assessed the behaviour of the children

The children in blue were boisterous and liked playing with cars
The children in pink were kind and liked playing gently with dolls

The teachers see what they expect to see and reinforce it

It's hard to fight but you don't fight it by saying it's innate and there is something wrong with people who don't fit

"And for any poster who is going to post a 'well they are all just haters' type post, why the fuck would any of these clinicians want to lie or contort the truth?"

Just for the record, I also expect to see more of the 'but these anecdotes are just a small number'. Dismissing the very fact that these are just the clinicians who are prepared to put their name to their claims. And that this is a sample from a book just released.

Plus if any poster wants to go down that track of rhetoric, please also then answer:

How many children and teenagers are those posters willing to offer up as 'collateral' considering desistance and detransition rates are still undocumented thanks to the groups who said 'no debate' and shut down any efforts to query those numbers properly??

How many are considered acceptable 'collateral' damage?

That is the very question that logically has to go with 'it is just a small number'.

it seems the argument some people have is that instead of properly training our early years providers to not propagate sex stereotypes we should instead sterilise and multilate the bodies of young people who don’t fit the stereotypes?

if a young boy wants to wear a pink dress, play with a doll and call himself a princess when they do dress up why on Earth do we need to decide he must really be a girl and so start him on a pathway that will lead to his castration? Why can’t we just let him get on with playing?

as a society we’re going backwards. In 1900 a boy playing with dolls would probably be beaten by his parents, now we castrate him

Helleofabore · Today 10:46

I am looking forward to Tandora producing evidence to support their claims where that evidence in relevant and stands up to scrutiny. So far on other threads that has not been forthcoming.

I think she's read a few propaganda articles online and fallen for it, hook, line and sinker and isn't bright, or honest enough to stand back and reassess things. I get that impression by the extreme twisting of poster's words.

Ahhh... sinner I am trying to remain hopeful on this one.