It gets worse - a new, fresh hell

[WootMoggie]

Medical paper in which it is argued that non-binary children should be given puberty blockers FOR LIFE
^
"In this article, we analyse the novel case of Phoenix, a non-binary adult requesting ongoing puberty suppression (OPS) to permanently prevent the development of secondary sex characteristics, as a way of affirming their gender identity. We argue that (1) the aim of OPS is consistent with the proper goals of medicine to promote well-being, and therefore could ethically be offered to non-binary adults in principle;"

"Phoenix, 18, was assigned female at birth but has identified as gender non-binary (not entirely/exclusively male or female) since age 5."
^

• and so it begins.

Lord help us keep these clinicians away from our families. Puberty is a scary thing, but this line of thinking is essentially redefining it as optional.

jme.bmj.com/content/early/2020/07/24/medethics-2019-106012

There’s is a great deal to critique about this paper that will be hard to do on my phone but the crux is this bit:

Phoenix’s doctor and psychologist conduct a capacity assessment, and find Phoenix capable of consenting to OPS. The psychologist also verifies that Phoenix’s desire for OPS is long-standing, informed, voluntary and free from coercion.

I just don’t believe it. I don’t believe it’s an independent assessment of consent. I don’t believe that an 18 year old whose body and brain has been stuck at prepubertal development has enough capacity. I don’t believe that the doctor and psychologist will have clearly laid it out: “Do you know what sex is? Do you know what sex means? Do you know what you will never experience?”

And following on from that, I don’t believe that someone who has no physical capability of sexual physiology - just basic arousal - can possibly then consent to giving it up. How can you consent to this? Of course someone who has never experienced it is going to shrug and smile and say “doesn’t bother me!” That is not consent. And we are talking about a basic human function here. It’s not “if you do this, you won’t ever win an Olympic medal if you do this”. We aren’t even talking about sex with someone else. We are talking simple arousal, libido and desire.

Having assumed the position that the section about consent is bullshit, the rest of it falls down.

And this is what is being celebrated as “vital trans healthcare” and for which JK Rowling is abused for bringing to the world’s attention.

It makes me sick.

And it demonstrates that once you go down this path, it cannot end in any other way than this or affirmative cross sex treatment. This paediatrician has dug themselves into a hole they can’t get out of from the second they happily prescribed the first injection to a young child with a “aren’t we a wonderful supportive clinic who cares for trans kids!” smile. And a wonderful beacon of trans adult, like Georgie Stone (a Melbourne patient) makes it all worthwhile doesn’t it? On Neighbours, acting! But now this. This is what you get. A girl who will never grow, never mature, never have sex.

You reap what you sow.

Is this not just one academic exploration of ethics, not meant to be taken as a policy declaration as yet? Academia has to be free to explore such things before they are taken up by politics. And after. The speed with which things are rushed through now for purposes of posturing is becoming a major problem.

A girl who will never grow, never mature, never have sex.

A girl who will never grow up, never mature, but will have the mind and genitalia of a child - and, in no time at all, be perfectly legal to have sex.

To answer the question though, she is female.

Er. See attached. Lauren is the person on the left. I don't understand why you would step up to answer a question in this way without in fact knowing the answer! It is quite relevant to know biological sex in situations like this, it helps assess motivations.

Lauren's list of publications is fascinating reading. Lauren appears to have been building up to this paper for a while with their CV of papers about overriding parental consent for medical decisions about their children.

Incidentally, Lauren has a paper arguing that "facial feminisation surgery" for transwomen should be provided for free by health insurance and nationalised health systems as a matter of "compensatory justice."

Is this not just one academic exploration of ethics, not meant to be taken as a policy declaration as yet?

It's part of the gradual erosion of boundaries- a few months or years down the line, this paper can be used as part of the justification for actually subjecting some child to this treatment.

*No! Don't do that! Don't assume that a woman's research must be that of a man just because you disagree with her. And shame for judging her by her looks! That's exactly what TRAs accuse women of!

To answer the question though, she is female.*

Please don't lump me in as having the same motivations as TRAs. The trouble is, I am so used to reading arguments from "women" who are either trying to erode women's rights, or dismantle children's safeguarding, and then discovering that said "woman" is actually an AGP-type male, that I am inherently suspicious of the motivations of anyone who argues for these abhorrent practices.

Apologies to Dr Notini for not immediately recognising she is female, but no apology for wondering what on earth her motivation is for encouraging the sterilisation, mutilation and brain retardation of children.

Er. See attached. Lauren is the person on the left. I don't understand why you would step up to answer a question in this way without in fact knowing the answer! It is quite relevant to know biological sex in situations like this, it helps assess motivations.

My statement was in relation to the assumprion that she must be male.

We don't know. So yes, she is female.

To say otherwise is only feeding the TRA monster that absolutely feeds on assumptions and presumptions of us uppity, becunted women!

Critique the science! That in itself is simple enough to do!

I'm aware that this is a form of bioethicist trolling but some of the outlandish stuff proposed a few decades ago is now commonplace.

A girl who will never grow, never mature, never have sex.

It's more accurate to say or have no desire for sex. One of the most horrific things here is that were this to go ahead, some of these girls would be used for sex. Perhaps as a stop-gap until the sex robots become realistic enough.

Look at the video contained in this thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3978928-marcus-evans-psychiatry-sits-on-a-knife-edge

I think you'll be reassured. Here in England, at least, the tide appears to be about to turn.

From the paper:

a hypothetical yet realistic case based on clinical experience

So I imagine this is happening already.

Immediate thoughts are Peter Pan and peadophilia.

How can anyone think this is harmless physically or mentally?

In my lea, basic safeguarding training includes some info on how important puberty is on the brain for reorganisation and development of higher level emotional intelligence.

It's known that children who've suffered abuse early in life and thus damaged mentally and behaviourally, can actually make huge progress with the right support during puberty.

I've done that course a fe times sitting next to deputy heads, cleaners and kitchen staff.

And don't even get me started on bones.

Please don't lump me in as having the same motivations as TRAs. OK!

I apologise for being obtuse, blunt or hasty. But my point stands.

TRA actions, those repeated dismaying discoveries, are starting to make women be so suspicious of any strong jawed, more masculine looking female. That is not a good thing. It is how they sow division.

I think we must resist the temptation... until we know!

I wouldn't have wondered about her biological sex had she not been involved in writing such dubious papers.

And see above - I did immediately state when I found an audio clip of her voice, which does indeed sound female.

The impact on the water ways environment of puberty blockers can't be insignificant.

Just because humans can make it doesn't mean they should use it.

You’re focusing on the wrong person anyway. It’s Michelle Telfer who is the paediatric endocrinologist. She’s the one who is actually assessing these children for consent and ultimately responsible for prescribing.

It is how they sow division.

I would never stand on the same side of the debate as this woman, due to her views on what I consider to be child abuse. And I would never disagree with a woman who was trying to uphold child safeguarding, because she had a strong jaw or deep voice etc.

a hypothetical yet realistic case based on clinical experience

it's not happening yet. The "hypothetical yet realistic case" is the sort of person they imagine would be a good candidate for this treatment. I'm almost tempted to close read this paper and see if any major creepiness has snuck into the academic language.

This thread has a nasty streak. Do critique the paper, don't critique the person or her appearance. That is not relevant to the argument and it is important to keep the high ground.

Kantastic and nauticant. Exactly, it’s the use and practical implementation without full exploration of all sides that’s the issue. We need the line drawn again, or time delays put back in, between thought explorations and practical implementation. Academia seems to be far too politicised now.

@Kantastic

a hypothetical yet realistic case based on clinical experience

it's not happening yet. The "hypothetical yet realistic case" is the sort of person they imagine would be a good candidate for this treatment. I'm almost tempted to close read this paper and see if any major creepiness has snuck into the academic language.

I bet it is. I cannot imagine that of all the females who have gone on to puberty blockers all around the world there hasn’t been at least one who has wanted to follow this path. There’s likely to be several.

That whole thing! Including the equity part - it’s ok because Phoenix & parents can afford the cost...

A post menopausal relative has been hospitalised several times with UTIs. She is now being treated with estrogen pessaries and they seem to be working. The mention of waterways made me think - god so these poor girls who are having their ovaries removed and put on cross sex hormones. Does that mean some will suffer a lifetime of cystitis? That would be unbearable.

Buck Angel has said publicly, that after long term T use they were in excruciating pain. Doctors didn’t know what to do. Eventually discovered it was atrophying female genitalia. Buck now takes topical oestrogen.

I cannot imagine that of all the females who have gone on to puberty blockers all around the world there hasn’t been at least one who has wanted to follow this path. There’s likely to be several.

Yes and "Pheonix" is a composite example of such children, but so far they haven't been given this treatment just because they wanted it, because of the obvious harms it would cause.

This paper is unbelievably horrible. It acknowledges the issues with bone density, cognitive impairment, impairment of sexual functioning and likely pain during intercourse that are caused by puberty blockers, and then says that all of these issues are outweighed by Pheonix's distress at "not looking non-binary."

It also says "Pheonix's child like body might make it difficult for them to find sexual partners" and doesn't explore the question of what sexual partners they might find.