Michael Biggs paper on the Tavistock

[RedToothBrush]

Seems to have been published yesterday.

Link to pdf in the following tweet.

This paper when published will document an appalling scandal the NHS is inflicting on children.

Andrew Lewis @ lecandardnoir
Hidden trials. Suppressed results. Misleading parents and children entering trials. Ideologically driven treatments. Cover ups. You name it. #alltrials
t.co/34pe8JOmvG

If this is even half accurate Carmichael should be struck off and jailed.

Worth reading.

(nc for this post)

This is the first time I've seen Russel Viner's name involved in all this. My child is treated at UCL for an endocrine condition (unrelated to 'gender'). Our consultant works in the same team as Viner, and was listed on Weberley's website as one of the complainants against her.

I wonder, when all this first started, if they really knew that loss of sexual function would be an issue?

There was a scene in the I Am Jazz show, with Jazz Jennings, the poster child for everything trans in children.

Jazz was attending a meeting with the surgeon, who airily waved in the direction of Jazz's chest saying the drugs did you a lot of favours there, but not there, indicating Jazz's crotch.

The surgeon gave the impression that it had come as a surprise, to everybody, that the puberty blockers and cross sex hormones had kept Jazz's genitalia that of a prepubescent child. And therefore incapable of forming a neo-vagina.

I find it incredulous that the surgeon didn't know. Because what's the fucking point of the drugs, if not to keep a child in a childlike state?

But, the to-ing and fro-ing, and angst in the subsequent episodes and the trauma Jazz had to go through to find a pioneering surgeon who might be able to help them, made it look like they really had no clue.

The whole thing was unutterably horrific. I can't believe that the initial meeting with the surgeon who bemoaned the lack of genital material, wasn't scripted. Did they really film Jazz hearing that for the first time?

And if they didn't, why let the surgeon say it? It looks so negligent.

So quite apart from exploiting a vulnerable teenager they appeared to use them as a surgical human guinea pig, and then broadcast it to the world for entertainment.

And don't get me started on Jazz asking their mother at the dinner table quite how much of her vagina dad sees when they had sex. Worried, in case jazz's own vagina didn't measure up.

And, of course, Jazz has never had an orgasm, despite trying very hard for both the surgeon and the show.

The surgeon gave the impression that it had come as a surprise, to everybody, that the puberty blockers and cross sex hormones had kept Jazz's genitalia that of a prepubescent child. And therefore incapable of forming a neo-vagina.

Jazz is not the first child to have this treatment. Jackie Green had the same treatment and the same result. Susie Green was filmed laughing about the lack of 'material' to make Jackie's neo vagina. And presumably some other children have had this treatment as well, but less publicity. The surgeon - and the whole medical team - must have known this before Jazz was put on puberty blockers.

The surgeon - and the whole medical team - must have known this before Jazz was put on puberty blockers.

I agree, but in that case why the endless search for someone to do some pioneering surgery. And jazz being filmed having to make crucial decisions about whether to expand their genitalia somehow, or use other parts of their body.

It all looked as though no one had even thought of it. They certainly hadn't prepared for it.

And don't get me started on Jazz asking their mother at the dinner table quite how much of her vagina dad sees when they had sex. Worried, in case jazz's own vagina didn't measure up

Which of course shows a massive misunderstanding if what a vagina is and what it's for. The delusion that this perfect vagina can just be created from nothing. How are people with so little understanding of the human body and the amazing things it can do be a surgeon.

I have to say, as a parent of a child with ASD, that I already knew how few people working within children’s services actually care about them or centre them in any meaningful way.
Yet even I am shocked and appalled by what I am seeing here. What madness has seized these people?

Interesting UCLparent.

What madness has seized these people?

The madness known as power.

I’ve never really thought about this angle before, but the kids on puberty blockers - how do they do university/friendships/relationships/hold down a serious job/decide to settle down/get a mortgage if mentally they are stuck at 11 even in 20s and 30s? They are going to need support just to get by surely?

They consulted the parents on the content of the patient information???
Christ. Christ. This is just unbelievable. How are they getting away with this?

I’ve never really thought about this angle before, but the kids on puberty blockers - how do they do university/friendships/relationships/hold down a serious job/decide to settle down/get a mortgage if mentally they are stuck at 11 even in 20s and 30s?

I've been wondering that too. All the youngsters I've seen on documentaries, etc have either still been living at home, or in one case at university.

But yes, it's a horrifying thought.

Where are all the early transitioning kids? If they were say 12 in 2011, they should be 18 now. Are they on any social media or talking about their experiences? It would be interesting to hear fro them how they feel about it now, especially given this paper.

I’ve never really thought about this angle before, but the kids on puberty blockers - how do they do university/friendships/relationships/hold down a serious job/decide to settle down/get a mortgage if mentally they are stuck at 11 even in 20s and 30s?

Hold that thought.

Now apply a potential munchausen by poxy lens to your thinking.

Now tell me what you see.

That struck me too, Big.

“The wording … [of the Patient Information Sheet] was agreed with a number of families with whom the draft had been discussed” (Di Ceglie 2019: 149)".

Why exactly were GIDS staff consulting families about the patient information sheet? That should based on clinical data only, free from external influences.

How can you maintain an ethical, unbiased trial when you are negotiating with some of the prospective participants about whether to include certain information about known or uncertain risks?

These families clearly have an interest in the trial going ahead and may therefore wish to remove some of the risks from the patient information sheet.

What was the criteria for including these particular families in that process? Why those parents and not other parents? Were those parents put forward by a lobby group?

Sounds like some parents were involved in deciding that other parents (who started the trial later) should be unaware of certain information about risks. How is that ethical?

The deeper you look at this, the murkier it gets.

One of the most horrifying things, to me at any rate, is that we saw this coming years ago - all of us ordinary Women and mums with little to no serious medical knowledge, we SAW it like a big flashing red light, how can you rob a child of puberty, pump them full of awful drugs and expect there not to be horrendous consequences?
If we could see it, why not the ‘experts’ ?

They could see it, everyone could, they just don't care.

And never forget that, fundamentally, the reason to do all this was to allow for a more pleasing aesthetics in adolescents later taking cross-sex hormones and also perhaps undergoing surgery.

The primary rationale wasn’t about healing or alleviating distress; it was about beauty.

It was about preventing the one process that has been shown, in fact, to alleviate dysphoria — actually going through puberty — in order to create more aesthetically pleasing trans adults.

And never forget that, fundamentally, the reason to do all this was to allow for a more pleasing aesthetics in adolescents later taking cross-sex hormones

Only in males. This never even applied to females, because they still need to have a mastectomy (even at 12).

In fact, I think blockers also stunt your height, which, while desirable for male children wanting to be trans-girls, is the opposite to what trans-guys want.

It was about preventing the one process that has been shown, in fact, to alleviate dysphoria — actually going through puberty — in order to create more aesthetically pleasing trans adults.

True but so so wrong. Although the 19 year old in the recent BBC program on blockers looked like a lad prancing about like a little girl. When i was that age a lot lads had long hair it was normal but the behaviour and speach of the TG was very different - very immature. So sad.

*I’ve never really thought about this angle before, but the kids on puberty blockers - how do they do university/friendships/relationships/hold down a serious job/decide to settle down/get a mortgage if mentally they are stuck at 11 even in 20s and 30s?

Hold that thought.

Now apply a potential munchausen by poxy lens to your thinking.

Now tell me what you see.*

Which is why this is such a desperate read.

go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.thetimes.co.uk/article/transgender-children-puberty-blocking-drugs-for-the-past-four-years-i-ve-been-stuck-as-a-child-5s6tkh7z2?shareToken=fd8ff48027eb9af4d3829ad49612a29c

Yes, that’s true. Only in males.

Bloody hell, Red , that's a scary thought.

We've talked on FWR for some years about the kind of predators who may be attracted to adults with retained childlike physical form and minds, but considering this as a means of extended control within a family is a new and alarming one to me. I've seen it in the context of disabled young adults struggling with parents not ready to let go ownership of decisions and control, but where the parent has had a hand in actively creating the issues around capacity and independence? Whole new safeguarding issues there.

Red

They are creating codependency a tactic often used by people with narcissistic personality disorder.

I've been convinced for some time that parents insisting that their primary aged child is the opposite sex is Munchausens or fabricated illness. But I hadn't though about the end result - an adult child unable to form satisfying sexual relationships, needing permanent medication and with little or no sense of self actualisation, needing the validation of others to establish their sense of self. And parents being critical in all that.

Just in case anyone thinks Bicker is exaggerating when she writes, The primary rationale wasn’t about healing or alleviating distress; it was about beauty, please see this thread about Norman Spack, the Boston physician who imported the "Dutch protocol" to the US and has promoted its spread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3469374-Dr-Norman-Spack-evangelist-in-chief-for-early-medical-intervention

Two relevant quotes, from an NYT article and Spack's TED talk, respectively:

Dr. Spack recalled being at a meeting in Europe about 15 years ago, when he learned that the Dutch were using puberty blockers in transgender early adolescents.

“I was salivating,” he recalled. “I said we had to do this.”

The puberty-blocking protocol gained legitimacy in 2009, when it was endorsed by the Endocrine Society, the leading association of hormone experts, on the recommendation of a task force including Dr. Spack. (NYT)

"Once they gave them the hormones consistent with the gender they affirmed, they looked beautiful. They looked normal." (TED)

Spack's clinic sees patients as young as THREE years old.