This was Sarah Ditum's article in response:
NewStatesman
25 OCTOBER 2016
'How society is failing transgender children
In the wake of the cancellation of a public debate on this subject, one of the speakers shares her view on where society’s approach to gender nonconformity is going wrong.'
(extract)
"In August this year, several UK councils issued guidance to schools on accommodating female pupils who wear binders. A binder is a constricting undergarment for the upper body: what it binds are the breasts, pressing them down to a flatness that the wearer feels is appropriate to their self-perception as masculine or gender-neutral. According to Cornwall Council, the binder is “very important to [the wearer’s] psychological wellbeing.” But binders have unwelcome physical side-effects too, including “breathing difficulties, skeletal problems and fainting.” Lancashire Council’s advice urges teachers to “monitor [wearers] carefully during physical activities and in hot weather. It may be necessary to subtly offer more breaks.”
When the NSPCC invited me to participate in a discussion on the subject “is society letting down transgender children?” (part of its Dare to Debate series), those guidelines were one of the first things I thought of. They’re written in accordance with the overriding principle of gender identity politics, which is that affirmation is all. Any bodily harms incurred count for little compared to the trauma believed to be inflicted by a “mismatch” between appearance and identity. It’s a doctrine that insists we’ve moved beyond the tyranny of physical sex and social pressure, and into a realm of pure selfhood where all must be able to live in accordance with their own inherent being." (continues)
concludes:
If we’re not able to address these issues, then we’re manifestly failing children. But addressing them is incredibly difficult: practitioners who privately mention their doubts about current approaches to gender noncomformity are afraid to ask questions publicly, anticipating personal attacks and the loss of their jobs.
They’re not wrong to do so. After announcing the Dare to Debate event, the NSPCC was put under sustained pressure, I was persistently abused, and following the withdrawal of the other panelist, the charity cancelled the event. Previous installments in the series have looked at child sexualisation, foetal alcohol syndrome, and asked whether the investigation of child sexual abuse has tipped into “hysteria”, but apparently it would be just too daring to talk about gender. Doctrine so bitterly defended that it must even be protected from good-faith debate is a kind of restrictive garment for the intellect. Wearing it can ease our mental pangs. But the damage it does besides is very real."
www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2016/10/how-society-failing-transgender-children
recent twitter comment :
"Some sympathy with Bergdorf. In 2016, the NSPCC asked me to take part in an event called "Dare to Debate" on the subject "is society letting down transgender children". I told them I was happy to participate but it would be contentious & they needed a plan. Of course! they said.
So they announced it, and it was contentious, and they did not have a plan. The other participant pulled out. I called and emailed the NSPCC to see what was going on and work out what we could do: no answer, and then a few hours later, the whole thing is off.
But the real issue is, big charities are often risk averse (dare to debate lol), & they won't communicate their decision making when they're protecting the institution
It sucked for me then, because I was left being libeled and attacked for a debate that the org I was supporting wouldn't even back. It sucks for everyone catching blame now because the NSPCC is stonewalling on its reasons.
Anyway, the NSPCC is not institutionally trans-activisty or institutionally gender-critical, it is institutionally a massive coward, the end"
twitter.com/sarahditum/status/1138457871535005698