Is the Surgical World Ready for Adolescent Gender Surgery?

[welshgendercrit]

... is the title of a recent TEDx talk by Dr Tandy Aye, a paediatric endocrinologist at Stanford Children’s Health and the Medical Director of their Paediatric and Adolescent Gender Clinic.

To watch an accredited medical professional calmly stating that a young male patient's reproductive capacity had been 'eliminated' (her word) and therefore his undeveloped testes should be removed like any other organ that has no use, appalled me more than I can say.

If I still needed any confirmation that by being gender-critical I'm on the right side of history, this video has provided it. What a world we live in...

There is something very odd, sinister even, about that woman giving the talk. Has she been taken over by some mind control mechanism or is she even human? Her speech and mannerisms resemble a robotic humanoid in a futuristic sci fi film.

Very disturbing. Especially the part about how they've administered drugs that render the genitals non-functioning, so what do doctors do with non-functioning body-parts - they cut them off! Always, always pushing the boundaries, making what was unacceptable, acceptable.

The bit at the beginning about the unicorn bag and the glitter clothes was also very irritating and seemed like a dog-whistle somehow. I'm sure an ordinary girl wouldn't be talked about in such a way, just the most special kind.

I find this really disturbing - I had always naively assumed that these people had at least some training in ethics, and that new procedures would require some sort of ethics committee approval.

Is there any chance this is trying to shock people into waking [the fuck] up?

The robotic nature she talks about mutilating children does little to hide the horror. I am sure at the end half the crowd was too stunned to clap.

I was glad to see the You Tube comments mostly agreed with the horror (and quickly shut down the TRA shouting out any criticism was “transphobic”).

Just watched some - couldn't watch all.

So she is arguing for under 18 surgery, and for consent for this to be in the hands of the under 18.

Watching this is the first time I have genuinely believed there must be some sort of agenda behind this, she can't possibly be that incapable of any sort of critical thought or biological understanding?

well, it is true that David Jordan, one of the founders of Stanford University, helped launch the 20th century American eugenics movement that resulted in the forced sterilization of Black and Native American women for over fifty years.

So it could be that Stanford Med Center doesn’t find the sterilization of children who’d likely grow up to be gay or lesbian to be that much of a stretch.

So she is arguing for under 18 surgery, and for consent for this to be in the hands of the under 18

When I was 16 I would have eagerly consented to liposuction, and removing some ribs even. I was anorexic. I would have easily argued that not allowing me to get such surgeries would lead to my suicide or death by starvation.

Fortunately people seemed to realize that I was not in a mentally healthy place to do such things - and that I was also very young and should not be given control to determine such body modifications.

But if someone presents with gender dysorphia? It seems all safeguards must be turned off and one needs to rush that child into hormones and surgery. Castration? Why not, that child wants to wear glittery tops and pretty shoes so of course!

Any surgeon that is willing to do this needs their medical licence revoked and a good spell in prison.

Christ on a bike, that is awful.

The interesting thing is that she's addressing surgeons in this talk. It's not in her power as an endocrinologist to offer trans children surgery, that's up to another group of doctors who she has to persuade. Obviously there's still some gatekeeping going on as children currently aren't be allowed to "consent" to body mutilations when they are underage. By administering puberty blockers and hormones she's kick-starting the process (rendering body parts "non-functional") but she needs the help of the cosmetic surgeons to complete the full destruction of her patients' bodies, I wonder if it brings her up against her cognitive dissonance when she encounters doctors who say no to her patients' or their parents' requests for bodily harm, so she has to find a way to stop those doctors doing that.

All those words though and what she couldn't bring herself to say was "I advocate castrating children".

This is why we can never give up. No matter how awful things get, no matter how dismissive or threatening politicians and celebrities and the woke are - this is a direct assault on children, their safety and their futures.

Never give up.

Erythronium

Spot on, I was about to post similar thoughts. It's a bit like the Susie Green conundrum: once you've taken actions, you need others to affirm your actions, otherwise you've created new problems..

As a 'progressive' endrocrinologist, you have prescribed medication that has resulted in the lack of growth and development of a child's body through puberty.

Which then means that child's body will no longer be developed enough to be suitable for the current surgical techniques carried out on fully-grown adults to create fascimile genitals of the other sex (particularly relevant for biological boys).

You've just created a new problem.

So you really do need the buy-in from those who'll help out to solve that problem.

As an aside, as an argument point for pre-18 surgery, Tandy suggests removing testes is no big deal, as medical practitioners are really familiar in removing redundant body parts like the appendix.

'm not sure if I'm behind the times, but I don't think doctors routinely remove all appendixes and other bits from us just because they're redundant - only those ones that go a bit wrong.

And Tandy's example of Avery's testes are only 'redundant' because Tandy's actions has rendered them so.

I work on a female surgical ward/emergency gynae clinic. I would quit my job if it meant having to care for young people who had been mutilated like this

How can they talk so frankly about it? What the fuck is wrong with people?

Will we look back on this in horror in the future, or is this agenda so strong that we will have been long drowned out?

We're living in a Franken'world.

Just watched the whole thing.
What really struck me was her main motivation for these huge surgeries was to avoid "psychological distress".
Which strikes me somewhat as a parent giving in to a toddler to have whatever they want to avoid a tantrum. Instead of keeping the boundaries and supporting your toddler through their anger and upset so they can learn some emotional self regulation.
Part of growing up is all about learning to deal with emotions. And part of adolescent is learning how to deal with angst and distress and disappointment. It's common to us all to a greater or lesser extent. How damaging bit is though doesn't depend on the extent of the trauma but how well supported we are to deal with it, and the skills we learn / are taught in how to deal with it.
I know we need to move away from the medical profession being seen as a benign patriarchal type thing where the "doctors know best", but fuck it sometimes they should bloody know best where to draw the line and say no!

Is she really addressing surgeons? It's so utterly patronising, if so. All that careful explanation of what an endocrinologist is & what happens at puberty in simple lay terms. So robotic. And comparing removal of sex organs with appendicectomy - the appendix is now only removed when causing trouble, so if child-size testes aren't diseased, why amputate?

Her point about removal of the age restriction being replaced by how long the child has lived 'in role' is worrying in the extreme. One of the cornerstones of self ID is that adult trans won't have to live in role at all - it seems to be part of the 'degrading and humiliating' treatment the trans Taliban speak of. It will be a mere hop, skip and a jump to apply that to kids then, I fear. Your kid could 'change sex' in the blink of an eye.

Scary scary stuff.

I think she is AncientLights:

"My surgical colleagues are going to have to come up with new techniques. They are going to have to think of these surgeries not as reconstructions but creations."

".......The surgical world needs to be prepared for the changes and expectations that are to come from my treatment, commitment and advocacy. I am willing to take this journey with these families. Are you?"

She's even admitting she's causing these issues that surgeons have to find solutions to isn't she PomBear? It's absolutely horrifying.

Is the surgical world ready to get sued multiple times in the near future?

Well she's lying when she claims she's willing to take this journey with the families. She'll go as far as suits herself, till her pockets are appropriately lined no doubt, then throw up her hands in mock innocence when it all goes tits up. Nothing to do with her, the patients all knew what they were doing. Just appalling.

Yep Erythronium exactly that.

Trying to think of how that works for any other condition: my patients found noise distressing, upsetting, and felt suicidal, I administered medication to damage their hearing. Now their ears don't work, they're redundant body parts. Let's work together to ensure you can resolve my initial treatment with ear removal

my patients found breast development distressing, upsetting, and felt suicidal with the onset of puberty, due to societal expectations layered onto women. So I administered medication to damage their breast growth. Now they view their remaining body parts as redundant. Let's work together...oh, hang on, we already are, great!

If Joseph Mengelegave gave TED talks...
this is what he would sound like.

It's absolutely awful, especially that it was applauded so much, but you have all given amazing analysis of the reality, thank you

Sorry not watched video yet so I am responding to comments on the thread (and am banging same drum as I have done previously so apologies for that) but here goes:

YY to this is why we can never give up.

YY to I find this really disturbing - I had always naively assumed that these people had at least some training in ethics, and that new procedures would require some sort of ethics committee approval.

I think many people assume this is the case. I did too. You’d expect that a new treatment is required to be evidenced by research as safe and effective before a doctor can give it as a treatment. But no. This is not the case.

This is why I think we need both ethical wake up- the medical ethics community in the UK need to be speaking up about this. (Honourable mention goes to add Prof Susan Bewley and colleagues, not ethicists but clinicians but publishing to correct bullshit and ask questions in the medical literature-previous FWR threads have covered these.)

And we need the UK Parliament to wake up and make new laws requiring licensing approval to be given before you can permanently trans a child- covering blockers, hormones and surgery- because clinicians are able to do this transing and they are being lobbied to do so.

So let’s take as an example of an ethics guidance that needs to be made- the British Medical Association, which is like the trade union for doctors and which offers UK doctors ethical advice and support and which has a medical ethics committee to approve the BMA’s new ethical guidance.

BMA MEC here: www.bma.org.uk/collective-voice/committees/medical-ethics-committee
Ethics Toolkits they provide for doctors to use are here:
www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics

I think the BMA ethics committee should urgently either

A) provide an ethics toolkit to endorse the current UK NHS practice of medically, surgically, hormonally transitioning children and young people under 25 years old (which is apparently when the brain reaches adult maturity, assuming natural puberty has been allowed to happen..) and stating when and why they think this approach is appropriate. (Good luck with making that case because the evidence of benefit does not seem to be there to support this from what I understand- but I am not a doctor)

Or

B) the BMA MEC should provide an Ethics toolkit to say that the appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria in children and young people is psychological support (as with other forms of body dysmorphia), and an exploration of whether there are other underlying or surrounding co-morbid issues.

Either way the ethics committee should note that UK doctors should never begin with a generalised starting point of ‘affirmation’, in terms of providing medical, surgical or hormonal treatments as the default- as they are no doubt being put under under pressure to do by the TRA lobby and the influence it has on patients, the coaching that has been reported and waiting outside in the corridor etc.

This is an inappropriate politicisation of the doctor- patient relationship beyond normal clinical care and this could be very harmful to the patient given what we know about the likelihood of detranisitioning.

There are multiple other sources of academic medical ethical advice including via published medical journals and ethics academic journals and via teaching to students in medical schools, the medical regulatory bodies including the GMC which licenses doctors to practice- and all should be stepping up- but BMA MEC seems particularly relevant because it ethically advises currently practising doctors so is where they will already be looking to to get ethical advice so they will be very influential if they comment on this. You really do have to wonder given front page of the Times lately with Tavistock revelations why the BMA MEC have not done so already.

Details of the Times front page in case anyone missed that: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3553935-Times-article-calls-to-end-transgender-experiment-on-children?pg=1&order=

Some threads referencing healthcare expert Professors like Susan Bewley and other medical colleagues publishing in medical journals on children and the permanent, unevidenced treatments being given to transition them:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3339177-Excellent-BMJ-Article-Responding-to-Previous-One-Featuring-ATH

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3410257-BMJ-article-We-need-research-to-explore-the-interplays-between-gender-identity-mental-health-and-neurodevelopmental-problems-sexual-orientation-autogynephilia-and-unpalatable-gender-roles

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3552430-Posible-answer-to-why-arent-more-doctors-speaking-up

Also evidence based medicine specialist Professor Carl Heneghan: speaking out via BBC interview: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3518188-BMJ-Prof-Carl-Heneghan-Evidence-Based-Medicine-Oxford-Panorama-Trans-Kids-Gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-Evidence-review-concludes-There-are-significant-problems

And regarding the stepping up that the UK Parliament needs to do to protect children and young people, (again sorry to recycle my posts from previous) but:

We need Parliament to have a Commons Health Select Committee Inquiry to look at this properly. After examining this properly surely to keep children and young people safe they will HAVE to recommend a statutory regulated system, with licensing, case by case application and frequent regulatory inspection of clinical work in this area.

Clearly this would need to be based on evidence, but you can imagine just from things anecdotally posted on here on FWR threads, that at a minimum to safeguard patients:

-Parliament should make it illegal for anyone but a licensed doctor (whether NHS or private) to give a specific child or person aged under 25 years old, blockers or hormones or surgery except under licensed conditions after a case by case review process. This should be overseen by a regulator with statutory powers (ie legal powers given to them to licence, refuse or revoke a licence)

-Same for surgical egg retrieval and surgical sperm storage and storing of prepubescent children’s and young people’s ovarian or testicular tissue (in hopes that one day mature viable eggs or sperm might be able to be derived from these.)

The law should also require that:

-There should be a duty for the clinicians who do this work to collect and share their outcomes data for all these patients from medical records so it can be properly researched.

Binders should be classed as a prescription-only medical product and again only possible to provide legally under clinical supervision.

Talking therapy must be made more available and there should be statutory maximum of the waiting times any young person should be expected to wait until they can speak to a proper professional about these issues. (And for all other issues while we are at it)

There should be proper government data collection in this space so we know the full picture of what is being provided in both public and private sector.

Criminal sanctions for those who break these laws.

Then a separate campaign to get research funders to fund appropriate professional researchers to properly investigate patient outcomes and to run studies to follow up patients in anonymised ways via medical records.

And also to fund sociological research (like I think James Caspian wanted to do) interviewing de-transitioned people, medically, hormonally and surgically transitioned people, those currently transitioning via services, and young people and children who are having talking therapies only. There’s probably other relevant groups I haven’t thought of.

Research should also be funded to talk to family members so they can talk about their experiences of caring for children and young people in this space.

Also research needs to be funded for the clinical service providers to talk about their professional experience of doing this work.

I’m sure others can think of relevant helpful things to include. My thoughts might not be right either, I am no expert in any of this but this seemed like a good place to start from the things people are worried about on here and might go some way to curbing the TRA lobby trying to inappropriately influence medical services.

Groups with power in this area should all be taking a stand and calling for an inquiry into this NOW. So that would include.

All of the medical and psychological professional societies and royal colleges, the BMA (the doctors’ trade union) and the regulators of medical or psychological practice like the General Medical Council,

Plus any organisation who supports research and evidence based medicine, especially in the NHS- like NICE, the NHS in each UK nation, but also the government departments in health, the medical and scientific research funders,
Plus any childrens’ and young people’s paediatric medical groups and bodies.