Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Newsnight tonight: Britain's Experimented with Puberty blockers

268 replies

Campervan69 · 22/07/2019 20:38

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49036145

From Heather B-E:

"Britain's experiment with puberty blockers is set to be exposed tonight on Newsnight BBC 2 at 10.30 pm. Michael Biggs chapter in our latest book broke the story! t.co/FV5FLye1oX"

This should be interesting....

OP posts:
ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASaving · 25/07/2019 00:19

Puberty blockers are essential to this project of social engineering. Especially for the effect they have on males. Without them we will get more 41 year old Hubbards dwarfing teenage girls in weight listing, more Yanivs repulsing the world in pageants, more 6ft bearded TW in skirts screaming "It's MA'AM!" at terrified shop assistants. And the world will stop feeling sympathy, and the pitch forks will come. A blanket ban on TW in sports, shelters etc makes sense right now. But does it make sense in 5-10 years when the first significant cohort of TW who never went through male puberty start appearing? When we have more people like Jazz Jenning and Jackie Green, who look convincingly female, have very little sporting advantage, and probably passed from a young enough age to experience a great deal of female socialisation? Right now things are fairly black and white once you stop and actually think about them. The upcoming "puberty blocker" generation is where things are going to get really complicated.

JoyceJeffries · 25/07/2019 07:32

But I don’t think medicating children is going to stop middle aged men who develop AGP. If anything it will encourage them as they enjoy seeing themselves as a victim.

nauticant · 25/07/2019 08:03

I'm with ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASaving. Puberty blocked neutered children are a human shield for the AGP/fetish part of the transgender community. Their role is to generate a force field powered by pity.

They will be useful for other purposes too. But being explicit here would probably get this post deleted.

thecatinthetwat · 25/07/2019 19:31

A lack of scrutiny, research and accountability seems to be prevalent in all areas involving this ideology, from children, to women's services and political representation, to law change.

It's prevalent across the whole of medicine, not just this issue. Though, I agree this does seem to be a good example of it.

RedToothBrush · 26/07/2019 00:03

The following is an extract from Tuesdays Hansard of a debate on body image in the HoC:

Another issue I would like to talk about is gender identity, which has been the subject of quite a number of negative reports in our newspapers in recent months and, indeed, on Radio 4 this week. This is about people’s sense of self and physical appearance and about them wanting to change their gender identity. We have been aware of the issue of gender dysphoria, but there has been quite a lot of comment, and the House and the public need reassurance that the treatments available on the NHS, particularly for children, are appropriate.

To put the issue in context, gender dysphoria is where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there is a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity. That is incredibly difficult for anyone to deal with, but young people, in particular, will find it difficult. Many Members will have had representations from constituents about access to services to cope with gender dysphoria—I know that because I have signed many letters on the issue. It is essential that someone suffering with gender dysphoria receives the right support—support that really considers their holistic needs—because gender dysphoria often exists alongside other morbidities, and we must make sure we treat the whole person. Where appropriate, people should receive specialist treatment.

The Gender Identity Development Service for children and young people is provided by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. There has been lots of concern in the press about that trust, but having discussed the service with NHS England and visited it, I would like to try to give Members some reassurance and to address some of the points that have been made about the service.

The first thing I think the service would like to get across is that gender should be seen as a spectrum. The whole treatment pathway is based on allowing children to explore their feelings in a safe environment. Not all children referred to the service will go on to transition. That is an important point to recognise, because if children have the time and space to work through their feelings, that will perhaps lead to a different treatment pathway.

I know there has been lots of concern that too many children are being referred to the service, but I would like to reassure the House that the service takes children through treatment in a very exploratory way around gender, and more than half of the children referred do not go on to transition. The service will treat each case as individual and complex and will address some of the co-morbidities that come along with gender dysphoria—lots of concern has been raised about the fact that some of these children are also on the autism spectrum.

It is important to recognise that, compared with services internationally, the service is very much at the conservative end of provision, which has led to it being criticised as far too conservative by some aspects of the lobby in favour of more services. However, where we are dealing with children who have not reached the age of majority, and where some of the treatments they may go through may be irreversible, the whole issue of consent is clearly important.

It is important to note that this aspect of service has grown quickly, and it has done so in an absence of public scrutiny. I can understand why there will be some public concern about it, so I would like to reassure the House that I am working with NHS England to do a proper review of the research around this service and the ethics of it to establish a proper framework for consent, recognising that we are looking at treatments that may have long-term consequences.

I can assure the House that the service works hard to ensure that consent is robust and that young people who might receive hormone therapy receive adequate information about the nature and consequences of that treatment. Such consent is not a one-off decision; it requires ongoing dialogue with the service. It will also require some assessment of the capacity and competence of the individuals consenting.

It is important to assure the House that this issue is very much under review. My starting point is that nothing should be undertaken in this space that would be irreversible for anyone under the age of 18. With that in mind, NHS England is putting in place a new policy and a new service specification for children’s services, and will thoroughly consider the issues that have come up in the press recently. Clearly, those issues will be a matter for debate, and many Members will have an interest in them. It is important for public confidence, as well as to enable access to services, that we have a proper, ethical debate around consent and the clinical evidence behind prescribing long-term hormone treatments.

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-07-23/debates/919E1A70-B3FE-46BF-85FE-93CCFF3B47EF/BodyImageAndMentalHealth

It was by Jackie Doyle-Price the minister for mental health

InsulatedCup · 26/07/2019 07:08

Nothing irreversible under the age of 18....

Good!

Needmoresleep · 26/07/2019 07:29

Lets hope she does not fall victim to the Boris reshuffle. It looks as if she was May/Hunt.

"Many Members will have had representations from constituents about access to services to cope with gender dysphoria"

I assume Mermaids backed/organised. Possibly why so few MPs have been willing to step into the fray.

BoreOfWhabylon · 26/07/2019 07:51

Nothing irreversible under the age of 18....

But GIDS considers puberty blockers to be reversible

boatyardblues · 26/07/2019 07:53

What Bore said. This is only progress if GIDS acknowledge the longer term harm that blockers do (eg lower bone densities).

KatvonHostileExtremist · 26/07/2019 07:59

I think that's positive. Yes, you must REALLY treat the whole person.

nauticant · 26/07/2019 08:01

Yes. I thought "I bet she's taken in the propaganda about puberty blockers being reversible and the she was actually talking about cross-sex hormones".

My starting point is that nothing should be undertaken in this space that would be irreversible for anyone under the age of 18.

I'm beginning to see puberty blockers as the sacrament of the gender identity religion.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 26/07/2019 08:31

nothing should be undertaken in this space that would be irreversible for anyone under the age of 18

I'm thinking about how long children will be on puberty blockers (if they proceed on the basis that they're reversible, and the child will go through puberty when they stop taking them)

we know that children don't come off puberty blockers and stop taking medication. pretty much 100% of them move from puberty blockers to cross sex hormones

so if a child starts blockers at 12, that's 6 years of really powerful drugs with serious side effects. irreversible side effects.

so by rights puberty blockers should be gone as a result of that statement, surely?

nauticant · 26/07/2019 08:46

I think any attempt to stop puberty blockers being used to trans children would be perceived as being an existential threat to the ideology. It would cause a massive shitstorm and would probably bring into public consciousness what puberty blockers do and their negative aspects. As a result, this is one of the discussions that must not be allowed to happen.

ArnoldWhatshisknickers · 26/07/2019 08:50

nothing should be undertaken in this space that would be irreversible for anyone under the age of 18

I am not reassured.

a) There is no evidence puberty blockers are irreversible

b) There is evidence puberty blockers lock children into a trans pathway

c) Brains don't fully mature until the mid 20s, 18 is still much too young to be making irreversible decisions

d) What I have heard of GIDS does not suggest they are treating children, or adults for that matter, holistically

e) Allowing trans propaganda in schools is putting ideas in the heads of children who weren't confused about the reality of their sex in the first place

f) It sounds to me like Tavistock have only shown the Honourable Member what they want her to see

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 26/07/2019 08:55

Brains don't fully mature until the mid 20s, 18 is still much too young to be making irreversible decisions

and

It sounds to me like Tavistock have only shown the Honourable Member what they want her to see

very much agree

JessicaWakefieldSV · 26/07/2019 08:59

18 is still much too young to be making irreversible decisions

Yes it is. I think actually irreversible decisions like this should be something you can’t do until much older. Minimum 25

RedToothBrush · 26/07/2019 11:03

Separate thread on this debate as its not just about the Tavi but about body image in general.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3645877-Debate-on-body-image-and-mental-health?watched=1&msgid=88835939#88835939

As I said on there, I am concerned about her defence of the Tavistock which she seems to have completely swallowed merely on the grounds that they take 'a conservative approach to treatment'. That does not make it ethical, evidence based nor responsible. And that concerns me.

There is other stuff in the debate that gives a context rather different from people just being trans - that LGB and T people have higher levels of issues with their body than the general population and social media is a key part of this. You can't go very far from stereotypes when you do that, though Doyle-Price is still stuck on the spectrum nonsense.

I got the impression stuff is going on behind the scenes from the reference to 'career limiting' even though there is not much I can see in the actual debate which is vaguely controversial.

What struck me is what wasnt said, but seemed to be implied very vaguely.

Note the reference to LGB separately and without the T that crops up at one point.

LangCleg · 26/07/2019 11:23

Note the reference to LGB separately and without the T that crops up at one point.

Reading and digesting now, so will post later. But yes, Red, that jumped out.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread