Observer articles on fast tracking at the Tavistock clinic

[nellodee]

I haven't seen these linked on here yet:

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/03/real-life-butterfly-families-transgender-child-tavistock-clinic

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/03/tavistock-centre-gender-identity-clinic-accused-fast-tracking-young-adults

I expect they are under immense pressure both from some people internally who feel they need to be more gung ho and also from TRAs.

Including those with considerable influence.

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3385533-Prominant-campaigning-role-of-Tara-Hewitt-NHS-TELI-Social-work-universities-etc

You can’t have it both ways, TRAs! Either diverse gender identity is a marvellous thing worth celebrating OR it is a debilitating condition that requires invasive medical intervention (with all the associated risk of drug side effects and surgical risk).

They can too have it both ways Betty. That's really phobic of you. Such a binary way of looking at the world.

Wonders will never cease.

Apologies Erish - I will get Travis to throw burgers at me while I apologise profusely for daring to bring logic to the table.

Lol Betty 😁

Really good video on this from Lisa Muggeridge

When Polly Carmichael was on Woman's Hour the other day, she made a big deal about the fact that the majority of the children they see do not have medical intervention.

What she didn't say, is whether there are children who turn up at the service age, say 17, who are then discharged to the adult services. So they show up in the statistics as "no medical intervention".

It is a huge worry that there appears to be very little in the way of psychological examination for 18-25 year olds presenting at adult gender clinics, when it is settled science that this group of people are still in the adolescent phase of brain development.

The Tavistock response to the letter in question appears to be looking at its own processes (dealing with children under 18). Surely the response needs to come from the Adult Gender Service?

Susie Green is not an expert in child health, child mental health, gender dysphoria, or the available treatments for gender dysphoria.

What she is is a cheerleader for a political ideology and industry lobbying and the most dangerous advocate in the UK for experimental medical treatment on very young children which causes sterilisation and can lead to long term irreversible physical problems e.g. bone density loss, a drop in IQ, increased risk of heart problems and some cancers.

Susie Green also refers young people and their parents to a doctor who was found guilty of running an illegal medical practice and was stopped from providing medical treatment to patients without supervision.

And lastly, Susie Green took her own pre puberty child to the US for sterilising treatments which were not legal in the UK, and followed that up with taking her 15 year old child to Thailand for elective permanently sterilising surgery also illegal in this country and which has since been made illegal on children in Thailand because of ethical concerns.

Susie Green is dangerous, she should have been prosecuted for her actions on her own child, and she and her organisation Mermaids should be investigated and barred from contact with any other children and their families.

If this post is deleted you know what Mumsnet's position is on Susie Green and the extreme danger she presents to children. That our government has allowed her to influence them as an 'expert' is a serious concern which should also be investigated.

Everyone who has protected or promoted Susie Green should be ashamed. Every one of them is culpable.

And their accounts up until December:2017 suggest financial support from the following:

We applied for funding to support our Plans far the next 3 years and received signlgcant funding grants as follows:
Children in Need —April 2016, £128k aver 3 year
Leathersellers —May 2016 £40kover 4 years
Awards far All —July 2016. £10 for one year
Department af Education - October 2016, £35k over 2.5 years
We have developed relationships with a number of companies, and are the Financial Conduct Authority's and Herbert Smith Freehills' Sponsored Charity of the year, We are working In partnership with the LGBT networks far Lloyds Bank and Barclays Bank, and are discussing ongoing partnership working with a number of other organisations for 2017. These organisations have assisted us financially and with professional development support, venue use and
volunteer recruitment.

Plenty of Public Sector bodies who should perhaps be more careful with their due diligence.

I noted this

“What the charity does
Education/training
The advancement of health or saving of lives”

Those bloody unproven statistics. Plus the fact that some their trustees have dispensation so their names are not published, including a person who was previously responsible for safeguarding.

Also any threats of legal action by Susie Green for mentioning the above should be ignored.

The worst that can happen is that all of it is brought out in court, there is evidence of every bit of it. People cant be found anyone guilty of libel for telling the truth. If she is stupid enough to follow that up then she will bring down the biggest amount of shit on herself and Mermaids, her supporters will abandon her faster than you can say 'child abuse'.

Sorry, Awards for All was £10k.

STatement: Our Gender Identity Development Service
4 November 2018

As reported in the Observer today, the Trust is currently conducting an internal review into issues raised about the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS).
(extract)
"The GIDS was founded in 1989 and is one of the longest standing services for gender diverse children and young people in the world. Domenico Di Ceglie, who founded the service, wrote a set of therapeutic aims which we still abide by today. This includes the unconditional acceptance and respect for young people’s gender identity. We do not therefore take a view regarding the outcome of an individual’s gender identity development: rather, our focus is to provide a space for exploration of gender, to ameliorate any negative impacts on general development and to work with young people to think through all the options open to them. These principles remain central to the delivery of the service.

A comprehensive psychosocial assessment precedes any referral to the endocrine clinic for consideration of physical treatments. Whilst it is the case that most young people attending the service have a wish to pursue physical interventions, 59% of those attending under 15 chose not to pursue an endocrine clinic referral.

We recognise that there are strongly held views among patients and families and their representatives including those who wish for physical treatment to be offered earlier or by those who feel that physical treatments should not be offered to young people at all. The service has worked hard, and continues to do so, to maintain a balanced view in which we are fully aware of wider social, cultural, legal and political factors, but maintain a focus on an individual approach to care informed by the particular circumstances of each young person we see.

We do not limit or curtail assessments because of pressure to move swiftly to medical interventions. With complex cases, rather than truncating assessments, we will often extend the time given to trying understand what may be going on. Whilst the national specifications against which the service is commissioned describe an assessment phase of between 4 and 6 meetings, one outcome of assessment may be further assessment. Nevertheless, we are always mindful that gender dysphoria is not in and of itself a mental health diagnosis. The young people seeking support from our service frequently experience high levels of distress, victimisation and isolation related to their self-identified gender. We are committed to ensuring we work to recognise and meet the various needs of all the young people we see in this complex and contentious field." (continues)
tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/about-us/news/stories/our-gender-identity-development-service/

Nevertheless, we are always mindful that gender dysphoria is not in and of itself a mental health diagnosis.

I wish someone could explain what gender dysphoria is, if it's not a mental health diagnosis. So many organisations say what it's not, but they can't seem to explain what it is.

from the statement above, this is interesting for NHS provision:

Domenico Di Ceglie, who founded the service, wrote a set of therapeutic aims which we still abide by today. This includes the unconditional acceptance and respect for young people’s gender identity. We do not therefore take a view regarding the outcome of an individual’s gender identity development: rather, our focus is to provide a space for exploration of gender, to ameliorate any negative impacts on general development and to work with young people to think through all the options open to them. These principles remain central to the delivery of the service.

There are plenty of transsexuals (and honest AGPs) who acknowledge that gender dysphoria is an illness.

I've just looked up Domenico di Ceglie. OMG. He was a Freudian, developing his ideas in the 1990s. The third paper down (Castaway;s Corner) gives some insight into the processes by which he developed his ideas:

scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Domenico+Di+Ceglie&btnG=

I was already wondering earlier today if one reason why the physical intervention model was developed would be because Freudian psychoanalytic therapy didn't work (which of course it wouldn't), and at that point better therapies of the CBT type hadn't yet been accepted as better....

"Gives some alarming insight" my post above should have said....

A comprehensive psychosocial assessment precedes any referral to the endocrine clinic for consideration of physical treatments. Whilst it is the case that most young people attending the service have a wish to pursue physical interventions, 59% of those attending under 15 chose not to pursue an endocrine clinic referral.

But to re-state - the problem is not the children's service - it is that older teenagers are (possibly) being referred on to adult services where they will not get the "comprehensive psychosocial assessment" that children do.

extract from Castaway's Corner (2002) by Domenico di Ceglie.
(link above)

Susie Green (CEO Mermaids)

US clinics require cash up front so it's hardly a fair comparison to the NHS.

What that document reminds me of is some of the research I did into some of the theoretical models underlying social work practice.

It was utterly shocking to me how much the "academic" side of social work seemed to rely on armchair theorising, with no actual studies of the efficacy of a particular approach.

Some practices in psychotherapy seem to rely on similar low/nonexistent levels of evidence. Freudian psychoanalysis, for example, continues as an approach by some, despite the debunking of its theoretical underpinning. Another example was the "recovered memory" of child sexual abuse bandwagon that has now been discredited, but which did so much harm in the 80s and 90s.

Obviously, the Castaway's Corner paper quoted above does not in itself prove that this applies to the affirmative approach, but I must say it makes uncomfortable reading in the light of what I know is possible in psychology and social work, particularly given the author's Freudian credentials, citation of Melanie Klein, for example, and focus on early childhood attachment.

Sorry, that should have said "the academic side of 'therapeutic' approaches to social work".

kesstrel

Why do you say 'of course' Freudian psychoanalytic therapy didn't work and describe CBT as 'better'?