Times article - calls to end transgender 'experiment' on children

[EweSurname]

Looks like it's dropped!

Thank you Lucy Bannerman and the Times. Excellent bit of journalism there. I will also go and buy a copy

Ha. The BBC usually feature The Times bear the top of their daily newspaper round up.

But today The Times is second from bottom, only higher that the FT, and the BBC’s summary gives equal prominence to the GIDS response: The Times reports the concerns of five clinicians who resigned from the only NHS gender clinic for children, citing concerns over the treatment of vulnerable youngsters. The Gender Identity Development Service clinic, in north London, is quoted saying young people's wellbeing is "at the centre of our work"

...near the top...

Lucy Bannerman, The Times. Thank you for your truth-telling.
This feels like a watershed, right on the front page in the Times.
What a relief to see it being exposed for discussion.

However, happy to be corrected, the Times front page article helpfully contains concerns from credible and informed critics (GIDS doctors) that the problem is ‘rushing’ kids through the NHS gender identity clinics system. It is also helpfully stating that the role of the advocacy charities is being overstepped beyond what may be in patients’ best interests.

BUT this article not quite getting to the absolute root of the problem if it implies that the problem is only rushing kids through to medication, hormones and surgery. (Whether this is rushing them due to a lack of resources in the NHS or due to the political pressure the NHS is being put under by the political lobby behind this ideology.. these are very worrying but not the full story).

The true root of the problem seems to be that there isn’t a true set of ‘trans kids’ out there. The problem is not that other ‘non trans’ kids’ are being caught up in treatments that should only be reserved for these few true cases. (Though it sounds very much like this is happening which is a very serious system failure. This demands a very serious reset of how these services are working with greater oversight). The Times is absolutely correct to highlight this.)

But I think the problem is that: the is medical interventions which are life changing are based on sexist stereotypes, they are homophobic, we know the rate of desisting is very high in children and young people and yet we know that they are being given treatment with permanent effects.

Patients should be told the truth: that they can live how they want, dress how they like but they can’t truly change sex. They should be told there is nothing wrong with being a ‘masculine’ woman or ‘feminine’ man. Also that there is nothing wrong with being lesbian, gay or bisexual.

Therefore to enable a healthy conversation around this (next step..) the NHS, the law courts, Parliamentarians and society need to get everyone to fucking well start to apply the normal level of safeguarding and normal medical ethics and normal legal standards of consent to these kids, that we would apply to other kids.

The major corporate bandwagon supporters need to realise and say publicly that this is a complex area and with good intentions they have been misled into holding a position not in the best interests of children. We all need to say that this genderist political ideology should be unlinked from lesbian gay and bisexual rights campaigning because it is the opposite of supporting them and should have its own advocacy lobby advocating on trans issues.

Remedying this requires everyone to advocate for more NHS investment: in a Watch and Wait approach, with investment in the provision of abundant professional talking therapies to children and young people who feel troubled by gender issues.

But I don’t personally think we should be giving out affirming medical (blockers) hormonal surgical interventions to anyone under 25. (Apparently that’s when the brain fully matures if natural puberty is allowed to happen...)

Because we know so many children and young will desist from having these feelings or holding these identities. Because we know so many of them are already vulnerable because of other issues they are dealing with in their lives.

Because at these young ages they can’t consent meaningfully to the loss of their own healthy sexual function, the loss of their own natural fertility, to bringing about possible osteoporosis, to bringing about a lowering of their own IQ, vaginal atrophy and possible need to hysterectomy, massive surgical risks; or multiple painful daily dilations of a hole in their body, and a load of other horrible effects from blockers, hormones and surgery.

This Times cover splash also makes current NHS pilots such as this one in Manchester look very concerning: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3549494-Plans-for-radical-trans-health-service-model-to-be-rolled-out-across-England

The aim here seems to be to take services for trans people out of the very specialist professional setting (gender identity clinics) and into more general primary care level (GP care) in community settings and delivered by trans people themselves wherever possible.

Actually I think, some adults over 25 are vulnerable and they still absolutely need neutrality, expertise and experience in their medical and psychological care.

Why would these patients benefit from being offered treatments by generalists who don’t have the experience to scratch the surface of what is going on first? Why would they benefit from the involvement of people who want to validate their own choices?

I think that competent adults can of course make their own choices including around long term blockers use, taking hormones and having surgery, but the system needs a lot of tightening up to ensure that adults with underlying psychological needs are helped with those, rather than ‘affirmed’ as first approach.

There will be a major backlash coming, but the Times have really started a long overdue conversation. Very relieved to see this happen.

Sorry for the massive post.

Just here to say Wow! And to Lucy.

This is amazing coverage. Well done The Times, I will be buying a hard copy today.

As others have said I hope this is a watershed moment, at least in relation to the treatment of children.

It still shocks me that we even got to this point. The article about gay conversion therapy is very powerful, I hope it opens many eyes to the harm being done.

Tone on Today programme totally changed. John Humphries just described it as "children put on hormone blockers to halt sexual development".

No mealy-mouthed use of "delaying puberty".This is a huge step in the right direction.

I originally subscribed to the Times for the brilliant Janice Turner. Now I equally get it for the amazing Lucy Bannerman.

This is what I mean about the convenient oxymoron that is the ‘trans child’- this is a label from political advocacy. These are adult labels being applied by adults to children and young people. The children either don’t have the maturity or ability to grasp the issues that taking on medical hormonal or surgical interventions may have for their bodies and later adult lives and choices ......or as the Times shows,....they may not even be properly informed of these issues even when discussing them with professionals :

One claimed young people were unable to give “informed consent” because it was regarded as taboo to discuss the impact of medical intervention on later sexual function in such a young cohort

These are children struggling with gender issues and they need professional support not blanket professional affirmation.

These children and young people should be exploring these issues in talking therapy, talking with doctors about their adult sexual function and fertility only when they are old enough to think about them.

It feels like once they are given the label ‘trans’ then they can be given treatments with permanent effects ‘with consent’ but before they can understand what the effects will be. So not really with consent at all.

That’s why watch and wait with proper talking therapy support is so key.

FFS in the UK you have to be 18 just to buy cigarettes or buy alcohol or get a tattoo or vote... and we raised the age limit on buying cigarettes once we understood the grave risks for young people of smoking.

Online too. Oddly enough, not mentioned just now in the run down of front pages on BBC breakfast. 🙄🙄

As well as buying a copy of the Times I will be emailing my MP with all the links to these articles.

I’m going to be asking them to call for a House of Commons Health Select committee inquiry into this area.

There needs to be proper scrutiny from a health perspective and ideally ultimately some kind of case-by- case regulation, because the system is really not working safely for either gender non conforming kids who think they might be ‘trans’ or the kids who are suffering with actual gender dysphoria in the current set up:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3525450-Tavistock-s-Experimentation-with-Puberty-Blockers-Scrutinizing-the-Evidence

Here’s how the Commons Health Select committee works:
www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/health-and-social-care-committee/role/

Below link to who the members are:
Sarah Wollaston the Chair of this committee is a GP which is helpful.

These committees need some evidence to start their enquiries- whether of concerning issues and of public concern. We have loads of both of that on these threads and now with the Times cover article and others today.

TRAs have no evidence, that is why it’s always all #nodebate

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/health-and-social-care-committee/membership/

So If parents just email a few points that we think are important to the committee - whether or not we are ourselves gender critical or we think that affirmation is the way to go- it can be heard and looked at in the open. Who can argue against that?

I want mental health support to be better for young people in general with shorter waiting lists, including those with gender dysphoria and those who are confused or exploring gender (if they are also in distress).

Evidence and political attention is how any issue gets to be prioritised. So let’s just start contacting people asking them to look at this.

You can email the Chair, any member MP (especially if it’s your own MP) and the secretariat of the committee directly who may pass these things on to the Chair to consider.

Sorry for the massive post.

Excellent posts Chatty thank you for the detail.

Julia Hartley Brewer will be discussing this on her Talk Radio show this morning. No details on guests yet.

Hear that noise? It's Susie Green's teeth gnashing Nope - it's her blood running cold. It's over.

Thank you to The Time. Lucy Bannerman, Carl Heneghan, the clinicians who spoke to her and the editorial staff. I can’t believe it’s four articles on the subject - it will be very interesting to see how other parts of the media respond.

Such great news to wake up to! Meanwhile Owen Jones passes comment on an article he has not read:

From whipping up bigotry against Muslims to indulging in the same “they’re subverting our children” propaganda which was used against gay people and led to Section 28, The Times is turning into Breitbart for Kent commuters t.co/zP80WPAcEp

In what other specialism would physical intervention that leads to permanent change to the body be the first line of treatment for a vulnerable child?

Name one. We'll wait.

Well done the Times. I will be buying a copy on my way to work.

On Talk Radio now.....

Julia Hartley Brewer will be discussing this on her Talk Radio

Agh, I think it just finished as I opened the live player a minute ago. WIll listen again later.

Just a brief mention so far, they may have just been looking at the front pages.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6897269/Workers-transgender-clinic-quit-concerns-unregulated-live-experiments-children.html
TIMES article reported in the Daily Mail.

There are four related articles. One is about 'faker' Rachel Dolenz.

The comments on LOJ feed - someone arguing that a 3 yo know and understand their gender. Do they know any children?

NSPCC, where are you?

Especially given the paedophile fears mentioned.

The comments on LOJ feed - someone arguing that a 3 yo know and understand their gender. Do they know any children?

I often wonder this. We live in a fairly individualistic society in modern times and the advent of the internet and social media has only exacerbated it.

For a lot of people their only real exposure to young children is when they have their own. Big families are more unusual, people have less younger siblings, are often not geographically close to extended family.

It all probably plays a small but not insignificant part.