So, let’s get this straight, children’s charities seem to be perfectly content that a vulnerable and distressed group of kids, struggling with gender-related distress and possibly much else besides at the same time, will get pushed down a affirmation-only physical treatment route via NHS or private medicine?
Do these charities understand that gender identity services, publicly and privately funded, are provided essentially politically, beyond the norms of medicine in other areas?
That is- provided without a long term focus on exploring mental health issues that contribute to dysphoria (‘Watch and wait’). Provided with lower standards of child safeguarding and consent. With an inadequate evidence base to know if their ‘treatment’ has a chance of making the child feel better. Inadequate to know it won’t make them feel worse. With huge known physical costs-( to bone density, to IQ). With huge unresearched potential risks. With life-changing permanent effects.... and with no professional follow up?
These professionals trusted as apparent experts In gender don’t seem to provide any services for detransitioned people, to help them cope with the permanent effects of what they had ‘consented to’ as children and the way they have been ‘treated’. (How detransitioned people are ignored demonstrates the political nature of the affirmation-only approach- it’s as though the professionals and the lobby feel that detransitioned people are moral and political failures, to be excluded from a rainbows and glitter narrative which only allows for positive hopes for the future (not even actual proven outcomes!) to be presented).
Where is the abundant help and talking therapy support and affirmation of detransioned people’s views and experience?
The children’s charities have something right- these charities say we should support and listen to young people. Good. But apparently just not the desisted or detransitioned ones. OK then.
As anyone who actually has kids’ interests at heart will know, we should never just listen to a child unquestioningly, incuriously and then agree to act on and celebrate everything they say. Common sense tells us that’s not good for the child.
At some point, adult experience and responsibilities and risk assessment must come into play. Especially in a professional setting.
And there must be millions of scenarios these charities have faced where they’ve done exactly this, drawing appropriately on their professional experience and responsibilities. But apparently this is no longer appropriate for kids in distress, just because they say they are disturbed by gender issues (and potentially other things too)?
What has happened politically, to divert children’s organisations‘ advocacy away from key safeguarding tenets like that every child matters? How can they have simply re-drawn the concepts of ‘child’ and ‘adult’ like this? What is the ultimate conclusion of that for children? And for the survival of such organisations as safe and trusted advocates for children in society? We should be very worried.