New psychiatry papers in the BJPsych Bulletin on Dysphoria in children

[midclegs]

https://twitter.com/lecanardnoir/status/1285918147476967426

“A number of new psychiatry papers in the BJPsych Bulletin have been published in the UK challenging the assumptions and evidence base around affirmation treatments for gender dysphoric children. In particular, the insidious idea that to not affirm 'gender' in children is like conversion therapy for homosexuality is pulled apart as ideological and unscientific.”

Part of a long thread linking two new papers, by Andy Lewis and others - it is so good to see this picked apart!

*New, obvs.

Thanks

With these papers and the WRU statement about women's rugby I'm starting to here Bob Dylan. Could it be the times are changing?

I wonder if these were sent to Liz Truss before publication? They are incredibly clear and back up the weak state of the research that the lobby groups have been using as leverage.

It's so encouraging that papers like these are being published, the climate of fear appears to be receding.

Wow! I haven't got time to read that now but it looks amazing. The definitions are fabulous

Thingy I am hoping you're right.
I was thinking of printing out these articles and sending them by post to my MP, who's an ejit.

Here are the links to the individual papers, rather than the twitter thread:

Griffin, L., Clyde, K., Byng, R., & Bewley, S. (2020). Sex, gender and gender identity: A re-evaluation of the evidence. BJPsych Bulletin, 1-9. doi:10.1192/bjb.2020.73
www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-bulletin/article/sex-gender-and-gender-identity-a-reevaluation-of-the-evidence/76A3DC54F3BD91E8D631B93397698B1A/core-reader#

Evans, M. (2020). Freedom to think: The need for thorough assessment and treatment of gender dysphoric children. BJPsych Bulletin, 1-5. doi:10.1192/bjb.2020.72
www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-bulletin/article/freedom-to-think-the-need-for-thorough-assessment-and-treatment-of-gender-dysphoric-children/F4B7F5CAFC0D0BE9FF3C7886BA6E904B/core-reader

Both open access articles, clear, evidence-based, respectful. Super useful resources.

Bumping cos these are excellent informative papers

I read the first paper. An excellent, well-reasoned and balanced paper. Makes clear where there isn't evidence, and where following ideology not evidence isn't perhaps the best way forward. Couched in the usual scientific language, but to me makes clear that doing this on young people is a massive experiment, and not the same group as the adult, predominantly M2F groups on whom earlier results were based. The plot of female versus male referrals to GIDs alone (6 versus 18 hundred latest figures) is such an enormous difference. The only 8.5% primarily attracted to boys figure really does make this look like transing the lesbian away.

This really does make it clear that there are so many questions that not just haven't been answered, but questions that current ideology makes it hard to ask. No debate indeed.

Quietly hopeful.

Thanks all for these - will add to my Monday morning reading list (I'm too mentally shattered to-day!!!). But they look promising. An improvement on what I get in the Lancet and the Psychology journals.

From the first paper:

"Sex

Humans are sexually dimorphic: there are only two viable gametes and two sexes, whose primary and secondary sexual characteristics determine what role they play in human reproduction. Sex is determined at fertilisation and revealed at birth or, increasingly, in utero. The existence of rare and well-described ‘disorders (differences) of sexual differentiation’ does not negate the fact that sex is binary. The term ‘assigned at birth’ suggests a possibly arbitrary allocation by a health professional, rather than the observed product of sexual reproduction.

Gender
Gender describes a social system that varies over time and location and involves shaping of a set of behaviours deemed appropriate for one's sex. It operates at an unconscious level via strong social norms, yet is also rigidly enforced by coercive controls and sometimes violence."

Despite the fact millions of people already know this, especially feminists, it's interesting that medical profession is now happy to come straight out and say so.

In the conclusion:

"The General Medical Council's Good Medical Practice demands of clinicians compassion, shared decision-making and safeguarding of young people's open futures.59 The counterargument to unquestioning gender affirmation is that the process of medical transition may itself prove to be another form of conversion therapy, creating a new cohort of life-long patients dependent on medical services and turning at least some lesbian and gay young people into simulacra of straight members of the opposite sex. Psychiatry sits on this knife-edge: running the risk of being accused of transphobia or, alternatively, remaining silent throughout this uncontrolled experiment. Respectful debate, careful research and measurement of outcomes are always required."

... throughout this uncontrolled experiment

JK Rowling has retweeted the link to these two papers, thank-you JK

JKR really does have a handle on this. I would like to say though; she has only had this handle because of the women (mostly writing here, and some cross-over to Twitter) because of you fabulous women on this FWR board. Dissecting and questioning the TRA movement.
She probably wouldn't have known any of this if it hadn't been for you clever and stubborn lot.

It always makes me think of this
www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028151-900-bipolar-kids-victims-of-the-madness-industry/

Bloody hell.

This is exactly what all us ROGD parents needed fo make school counsellors and TRA teachers back the fuck off.

Off to fire up the printer!

This is a really positive step. It should be massively obvious that the current cohort of female referrals (and also probably very young males) are very different to the small group of transsexuals studied in previous decades.

This makes me both happy and sad. Happy because the truth is finally emerging, and sad it took so long...

My hope is that the more we have professionals talking in scientific medical language in peer-reviewed journals and serious newspapers like the Times about the very serious problems being caused to children... that it will finally cut through to some of the captured organisations that there is some serious controversy around these approaches and that these organisations themselves should exercise caution in the face of lobbying. Or recognise when they are being lobbied.

As many organisations have a self preservational mindset there could then be some backing off from the TRA lobby organisations.

That would be great as an outcome but it is disheartening that feminists and parents have been speaking about this for ages in political language yet the lobby have been so devastatingly effective at pushing sexist, homophobic anti-science views in this time and have gotten a good audience for all that.
Anyway- they are two very useful published papers.

From the first paper:

"In theory, universal human rights should not pit disadvantaged groups against one another, but in practice, disputes occur. Women's rights activists point to persistent global inequalities, sex discrimination and violence against women and girls. They are concerned that ignoring sex as a reality risks no longer being able to name, measure and ameliorate sex-based harms. Endorsing old sex and gender stereotypes in an attempt to validate young patients may inadvertently shore up outdated notions of how men and women should look and behave. There is no reason to believe that women have an innate love of pink and wearing high heels and find map-reading difficult, any more than men have a natural leaning towards blue and playing football and make excellent leaders.
Inherent in the notion of ‘gender identity’ is that there already exists a specific subjective experience of being a man or a woman. However, there cannot be a significant intrinsic experiential difference between male and female human beings when we cannot know what those differences are. One cannot possibly know how it feels to be anything other than oneself. Medicine may be in danger of reinforcing social norms and reifying a concept that is impossible to define over and above material biological reality. At present, many health, social, educational and legal policies are being adapted to give gender primacy over sex.53–57"

That puts my main concerns into simple terms. I find writing about women's issues increasingly fraught with the loss of clear terms to define what I am analyzing, and this is directly related to the clash of rights the article discusses.

A good piece, overall. In particular, I liked their argument that being gender non-compliant can be a healthy reaction in the world we live in, and that the trans approach essentially views it as an indication that one is trans. From this follows, then, the return of constrictive gender roles where what women do is narrowly defined and used to specify who can be a woman.

Wow, that's pretty unequivocal.

medical transition may itself prove to be another form of conversion therapy

NO SHIT.

@OvaHere

This is a really positive step. It should be massively obvious that the current cohort of female referrals (and also probably very young males) are very different to the small group of transsexuals studied in previous decades.

And also that the large numbers of older male transitioners with their 'female penises' (which they have no intention of losing) who are largely the ones driving the current movement (along with their cheerleaders) are very different again.