Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Janice Turner on Keira's Case in the Times today

113 replies

Igneococcus · 10/10/2020 07:39

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fba6fad2-0a6b-11eb-9ac5-9d2cf4a10c9f?shareToken=f626b4b291808447a875b53cd678f216

OP posts:
TheWordWomanIsTaken · 10/10/2020 18:35

@stella47

Thanks for the reminder of the Aiden Kelly talk rogdmum. I remember hearing it before, and being amazed that after everything he said, the conclusion WASN'T "so of course we don't recommend this, there's not enough evidence", but rather was - "there's all these concerns and unknowns, but we're doing it anyway".
Indeed, I actually regret listening to it. It made me quite angry. I lost track of what he was advocating or saying. Coming in to puberty is a difficult thing he says. So offer therapy, not medication. It's not that radical. They should hang their heads in shame.
AnotherLass · 10/10/2020 19:30

The most interesting thing i've heard about this case was from Venice Allen on PP's video - she pointed out that everyone in court was talking about girls having double mastectomies and boys taking estrogen, not boys having mastectomies and girls taking estrogen. In other words, they were correctly sexing the kids - y'know, hate speech. For me this is enormously positive, because one of the things that has done my head in most throughout all of this is when not even medical professionals talking about children in academic journals can drop the pretence.

This court case didn't take place in gender speak, and that seems like a victory in itself.

AnotherLass · 10/10/2020 20:09

Sorry, that should have said "can't drop the pretence"

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/10/2020 20:18

Yes I found that extremely interesting too.

ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings · 10/10/2020 21:05

So many good points on this thread. I agree with Antibles that the entire concept of "being trans" needs addressing. Whenever we hear "some children will grow up to be really trans, but many will desist" (which I see frequently) or any other sentence containing "trans" in it we need to translate it back out of gender speak. Because if trans means "someone with persistent dysphoria towards their sexed body who undergoes a medical, legal, and social process to live as if they were the opposite sex" then yes, some children will grow up to be adults who meet that criteria. If it means "someone with a gender identity that is different from their biological sex" then no, no children will grow up to be that because there's no such thing as a gender identity. If you disagree with me then please provide me with literally any evidence that it exists. There's as much evidence for a gender identity as there is for an immortal soul. Even when we talk about trans adults we'd be better to say "adults who have had transition surgery", "adults with dysphoria", "adults with AGP", "adult cross dressers" etc. Wherever we know what "trans" is being used as a synonym for, let's use that instead.

As for the loss of sexual function /many adults are happily asexual thing, I think a lot of it comes back to the idea that women aren't really sexual beings. When they say "many adults are happily asexual" I'd bet money that what they mean is "many women don't care about sex". Similarly young boys who are having drugs/surgery to appear female and live as if they were women (I'm thinking especially of someone like Jazz Jennings) who may never have any sexual feelings, I'd be pretty happy to bet that at some point this has been handwaved away with the explanation that it's OK if they never have any sexual desires or positive sexual experiences because most women aren't sexual and don't like sex, most women never organism, being sexual as an adult is a male trait etc. I really think that's part of it.

Finally (sorry for the long post) I agree that the use of correct bio terms in the court case is hugely important. I shadowed for a while at a gender clinic as a med student (about 8 years ago now) and I remember asking the psychiatrist in charge if the genital surgery options were as advanced for transmen as they were for transwomen. He said no, there were hardly any viable genital surgery options for transmen compared to transwomen. I honest to god, no lie, came away from that surprised but happy that for once medical treatment for women was advancing faster than that for men. I thought this was a great example of advancing "gender equality". I was about 25, had almost no exposure to feminism (which I mostly thought was a joke thanks to the vocal misogynists on athetist/sceptic YouTube), and the language of "Transwoman", "she/her" etc had totally scrambled my thinking (even though 100% of the transitioners I met at the clinic were non passing). If the conversation had been about the options for males with dysphoria advancing ahead of that for females with dysphoria, I might not have missed the obvious sexism.

ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings · 10/10/2020 21:06

Sorry, that did have paragraphs when I wrote it!

Cailleach1 · 10/10/2020 21:13

Taking away sexual feeling from a woman is one of the aims of female genital mutilation, isn't it?

Destinysdaughter · 10/10/2020 21:25

27unwashedanddazed thank you for watching that video and commenting on it, I feel like I should start a separate thread on it. It's the cutesy way it's being presented that is so alarming to me, and to such young women too. Being able to identify out of sexual assault, harrassement and being a lesbian is obviously v appealing ( and lucrative to disgustingly dishonest Drs like her), but it's NOT the answer!

AchieveBelieve · 10/10/2020 21:46

destiny’sDaughter I found that surgeon’s insta a few days ago and was horrified by their feed. The whole ‘nipple’ reveal Friday. Smiling faces, chat about stitching the nipples back on the wrong way round and how it doesn’t really matter. She also does metoidoplasty but not phalloplasty I think and is obviously raking it in. There are very detailed illustrations that she does of the various surgical procedures that are very educational though. And shots of Miami Beach where you can sun yourself post-operatively.

Gladysthesphinx · 10/10/2020 21:53

A 12 year old can know what an orgasm is & an erection, but can’t possibly know what accompanies adult human sexuality - the joy, the grief, the intimacy, the passion, the intensity of togetherness, the way sexual love can bring meaning and discovery to life. No 12 year old can possibly have sufficient knowledge to shut the door, forever, to that area of his or her life.

I’m aware of how barristers operate, but I think that QC should be ashamed of herself.

Kantastic · 10/10/2020 22:03

rodgmum: what the fuck. That is horrific. How can he just sit there and say all that without realising the horror of what he's been doing?

One thing I can't get over in all this is: I'm aware of how clinical trials operate, to a limited extent. I know how exacting IRB boards are, how you've got to dot every i, cross every t, and anticipate near-impossible circumstances and incredibly low-key possible "harms."

But apparently it's possible to get around all this by just not doing any fucking research on your treatment plan and labelling it "experimental"? Then you can do whatever the hell you like to your patients - to hundreds and thousands of patients, for YEARS, with apparently no supervision whatsoever.

RedToothBrush · 10/10/2020 22:15

The QC argued that Tavistock patients think more about sex and identity than ordinary children, and an 11-year-old “who did not know what an orgasm or erection was would not be deemed capable of consent”.

This point is central.
An 11 SHOULD NEVER fully understand what it is to have an orgasm from having sex.

No child under the age of 13 should be having sex. Because they can't consent.

And if they are its a safeguarding concern - even if they are having sex with someone of a similar age. Because they lack the full understanding and ability to deal with the consequences.

It put kids from a vulnerable background in a position where they could be deemed more able to make a decision, when in reality its a reflect of a lifestyle in which they have been exposed to things they shouldn't rather than a comment on their ability to understand what this really means.

Children who have had sexual relationship at this age should be the ones that raise red flags about an unstable background with perhaps inappropriate boundaries. They should be the ones you worry about more in terms of making such a life changing decision at that age, not the ones you green light first.

Children living in an adult world who do not have the capacity to deal with what they are being exposed to, might well show signs of distress about their own bodies and sexual identity. Precisely because its a presentation of immaturity rather than maturity.

That the Tavistock don't understand that is troubling to my mind.

We have a very sad recent history of abuse scandals in this country in which young girls have been framed as sluts who knew exactly what they were doing, rather than young girls who were very vulnerable, didn't fully understand what was happening and felt powerless about what was happening to them. And no agency or authority spotted this issue and stepped in to help this girls reclaim their boundaries and own agency and control over their bodies. Instead they were shamed and the agencies became almost complicit with the idea that the girls were not only willing participants but were actively seeking this lifestyle. They didn't see the problems that lay behind because they forgot to question the maturity and ability of these girls to assert themselves in situations that were way beyond their years to deal with. They didn't have the language and understanding to realise that they were being raped and to convey this to adults who should have understood this problem, and should have asked questions.

The Tavistock as an agency, I fear is in danger of making a similar type of mistake, because its not asking the appropriate questions and mistakes experience or knowledge for understanding or genuine maturity.

This is especially true given we know there is a sizable issue with the influence of social media and online forums which share information, which kids pick up but don't necessarily comprend. And also are also not necessarily fully accurate and may have unduly influenced a child in terms of ideas of 'social belonging' within a group and distorted ideas of whats 'normal'.

Not only that but the idea that teenage sex is the same as a sex in an adult sexual relationship is another that is a fallacy too anyway. And its a very important part of becoming a young adult that you learn the difference.

I find the whole idea that an authority of this type can suggest that an 11 year old can make life changing decisions about having children rather bizarre. If an 11 year old rocked up to the doctor and said 'I want to have a baby now before my 12th birthday, please can I have the relevant information about how we can get pregnant quicker and what my birth plan options could be'. No one would say that an 11 year old would be capable of making sure a decision with a level of maturity which fully understood the implications, yet here we are discussing how they can make decisions which might lead to to having to go down the road of IVF or surrogacy or adoption later in life - all of which are emotionally and/or physically difficult.

Thats fundamentally different from a 11 year old who accidently found themselves pregnant (and there would be safeguarding questions asked) and was in need of medical advice and support to cope with a situation which could be lifethreatening in a child of that age because their body isn't fully developed.

The logic is baffling, as is how far removed from what safeguarding concerns there should be at the Tavistock.

I am watching the case aghast and with a great deal of anxiety over how it will conclude and what the implications of the ruling may be.

I only hope that the judges are looking at it and have similar concerns and fully understand why the law on the age of consent is written as it is.

persistentwoman · 10/10/2020 22:26

Brilliant post RedToothBrush

NRatched · 10/10/2020 22:52

Agree with all of that RedToothBrush

Ontop of this, considering the safeguarding lead from the Tavi is bringing a case also about staff being specifically told NOT to refer any concerns onto her, this is painting a seriously grim picture of the dealings there, for sure.

NoSquirrels · 10/10/2020 22:52

Yes, RedToothBrush.

I find the whole idea that an authority of this type can suggest that an 11 year old can make life changing decisions about having children rather bizarre. If an 11 year old rocked up to the doctor and said 'I want to have a baby now before my 12th birthday, please can I have the relevant information about how we can get pregnant quicker and what my birth plan options could be'. No one would say that an 11 year old would be capable of making sure a decision with a level of maturity which fully understood the implications, yet here we are discussing how they can make decisions which might lead to to having to go down the road of IVF or surrogacy or adoption later in life - all of which are emotionally and/or physically difficult.

Thats fundamentally different from a 11 year old who accidently found themselves pregnant (and there would be safeguarding questions asked) and was in need of medical advice and support to cope with a situation which could be lifethreatening in a child of that age because their body isn't fully developed.

Yes.

Voice0fReason · 10/10/2020 22:56

Janice has done a great job of summing up the situation.
Kiera's case is so strong, I pray that common sense prevails and children will be protected from the horrific harm that has been done to her.

PearPickingPorky · 11/10/2020 11:16

The QC argued that Tavistock patients think more about sex and identity than ordinary children, and an 11-year-old “who did not know what an orgasm or erection was would not be deemed capable of consent”.

Not read the full thread but saw this posted upthread and this it's important.

So, if a 10 or 11 year old is incapable of giving consent, because they don't understand sex, they don't get referred.

But simultaneously, according to Tavi, "there is no other treatment option", and they have to treat them because, otherwise, suicide.

So what happens to the 10 year old child who can't have blockers because they can't consent? They just get left to go through puberty, with the physical changes that brings, knowing that leads to "suicide"?

Obviously they don't think that these children being left unmedicated for a few years leads to suicide, or there wouldn't be the option of not-referring GD children who don't have capacity to consent.

SirVixofVixHall · 11/10/2020 12:10

13 year old children should not be having sex either. I have a 13 year old, she has only just started showing small signs of puberty beginning, she has no idea what an orgasm is, and no real idea of what an erection is.
I don’t understand Red when you say that under 13 children can’t consent to sex, surely that should be under 16 ?

Clymene · 11/10/2020 12:14

@SirVixofVixHall

13 year old children should not be having sex either. I have a 13 year old, she has only just started showing small signs of puberty beginning, she has no idea what an orgasm is, and no real idea of what an erection is. I don’t understand Red when you say that under 13 children can’t consent to sex, surely that should be under 16 ?
Legally, a child under 13 can't consent to sex. And my 13 years old is the same as yours but my best friend at school was having sex at 13 and I know 13 year olds who are now too. I don't think it's great but legally it's permissible
PenguindreamsofDraco · 11/10/2020 12:18

So isnt there a strange undercurrent here. A young child who has been having sex (I.e. has been abused) with a pre pubescent body at 12 could be deemed to understand enough to consent to blockers to keep him or her in that state indefinitely?
Gosh who could such a state of affairs benefit? If only there were some clue.

PearPickingPorky · 11/10/2020 12:39

Legally, a child under 13 can't consent to sex. And my 13 years old is the same as yours but my best friend at school was having sex at 13 and I know 13 year olds who are now too. I don't think it's great but legally it's permissible

Confused it's 16 though? 17 in Northern Ireland.

Antibles · 11/10/2020 13:00

I guess with anything if you have very little to work with you end up scraping the barrel of argument, no matter how noxious the dregs.

RedToothBrush · 11/10/2020 13:08

@SirVixofVixHall

13 year old children should not be having sex either. I have a 13 year old, she has only just started showing small signs of puberty beginning, she has no idea what an orgasm is, and no real idea of what an erection is. I don’t understand Red when you say that under 13 children can’t consent to sex, surely that should be under 16 ?
Yes thats true but its more the point about the law being even stricter for under 13s. And the fact that there was an argument about 12 and 13 year olds having sex with each other so therefore they understood sex that seemed to be part of the defence.

A 15 year old having sex with another 15 year old isn't going to raise the same questions because of how the law sits.

Chersfrozenface · 11/10/2020 13:15

@PearPickingPorky

Legally, a child under 13 can't consent to sex. And my 13 years old is the same as yours but my best friend at school was having sex at 13 and I know 13 year olds who are now too. I don't think it's great but legally it's permissible

Confused it's 16 though? 17 in Northern Ireland.

Legally, it's a bit of a mess. The age of consent is indeed 16 in England & Wales and Scotland, but also a child under the age of 13 cannot legally give consent, which leaves those aged 13, 14 and 15.

The below is taken from the West Midlands Regional Child Protection Guidelines:
"Young people between 13 and 15
Sexual activity with a child under 16 is also a criminal offence. Where sexual activity involving a child aged 13–15 is a feature, the professional in consultation with the designated safeguarding lead must consider carefully the nature of the relationship in light of all available information known about the parties, particularly their relative ages, whether there are any indications or concerns about coercion or competence of the young person’s decision making, and where there are any such concerns held by any professional, then a referral to children’s social care must be made.

In all cases the professional must provide the child with information on staying safe and being healthy.

Whilst the Sexual Offences Act 2003 recognises that mutually agreed, non-exploitative sexual activity between teenagers does take place and that often no harm comes from it, any sexual activity between an adult and a young person under 16 is a criminal offence. This acknowledges that this group of young people are still vulnerable, even when they do not view themselves as such."

Malahaha · 12/10/2020 10:34

The Telegraph on Keira:

www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/knew-wasnt-like-biological-men-would-always-female-no-matter/?fbclid=IwAR3zeudDC16oQpVOGa4yOTrRpm8DIMOu97a-7IenwvGNhulh9af8U2WCrZ0

It's behind a paywall. Full text here:

I knew I wasn’t like biological men – I would always be female no matter how hard I tried'Centre-stage in the gender detransition debate, Keira Bell opens up about why she turned her back on her new life.

Early last year a strange thing happened to Keira Bell: she started to cry. It had been years since the 21-year-old from Hertfordshire was last able to properly shed tears, ever since she started receiving testosterone injections at the age of 17.

The male hormones and puberty blockers she was prescribed forced many changes in her teenage body: her voice dropped, hair sprouted on her face and body, and her sex drive increased.

There were other more concerning physical changes which she felt she had not been properly warned about by her clinicians, her bones started losing density and she suffered vaginal atrophy (a condition more commonly seen in post-menopausal women).

And, the tears dried up. At moments of extreme emotion Keira would instead feel a lump forming in her thickening throat. But even those moments became rarer, nullified by what she describes as a strange inner numbness.

“The first time I cried was very weird,” the now 22-year-old recalls. “It felt like I was becoming myself again.”

At the time she had decided to turn her back upon the pathway she had been directed down as a teenager and revert to her biological gender. “Detransition” is the proper term for it and while a very personal choice, it was one which has propelled Keira to the forefront of a growing movement of young people who feel they have been pressured or encouraged into gender reassignment treatments or surgeries, which they later regret.

Last week, she appeared at the Royal Courts of Justice for a landmark legal challenge against the Tavistock Clinic in London. Keira, who lives in Cambridge, was referred for assessment for puberty blockers by the clinic in 2013 and later had her breasts removed. She is bringing the action with an anonymous claimant called “Mrs A”, the mother of an autistic girl of 16 who is on an NHS gender development service waiting list.

Their aim is to ban puberty suppressants (which block hormones linked to a person’s biological sex) for under-18s, unless their parents obtain a court order, arguing children cannot fully understand the risks involved. As heard in court, a quarter of the children referred for puberty blocking medication last year by the Tavistock clinic (which runs the UK’s only gender-identity development service) were under 14, and half were under 16. The youngest was 10 years old.

The Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust rejects the claims, saying puberty suppressants are lawful, reversible, that they relieve distress by delaying the onset of puberty and allow children time to consider their gender. When contacted by The Telegraph, a spokesman for the trust said it was awaiting the outcome of the hearing but added the clinic “is a safe and thoughtful service which puts the best interest of its patients and their families first”.

A judgment is not expected for at least a few weeks but the case has ignited attention around the world. The hashtag “I stand with Keira Bell” has been widely shared on social media, prompting various young people who have undergone a similar experience to speak out. A crowdfunder to pay for her legal fees has raised around £130,000.
Keira, a quiet and thoughtful speaker, admits the attention of recent days has shocked her but also strengthened her resolve. “I do hope this case drops a reality bomb on the situation for some people,” she says.

Growing up in the Hertfordshire town of Letchworth, Keira had a “very rocky” childhood. Her parents separated when she was around five and she and her sister were shuttled between them, meaning she failed to settle long in any school.

Always a tomboy, as she reached her teens she started to feel alienated from her peers and different from all the other girls she knew. Suffering mental health issues, she started taking longer absences from school, sitting at home all day, online. Around the age of 14 she started researching the process of physically transitioning, watching videos on YouTube and other social media sites.

After her relationship with her mother broke down she moved once again to live with her father and his new partner in Cambridgeshire. “She picked up on the fact I was on the more masculine side and asked me whether I was struggling with my sexuality or gender,” Keira recalls.

She was taken to see a baffled local GP – “I was the first person he had seen having those issues” – and then referred to the child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS). After a few meetings she was referred to the Tavistock Clinic, which she first attended in January 2013, shortly after she turned 16.

There, she was referred to the endocrinology department and after several appointments prescribed puberty blockers, the first of which she received at the end of that year.

“I definitely felt affirmed at the Tavistock,” she says. “When I spoke to these clinicians there was no exploration of why I felt like that, really. It was just accepted, and they were trying to deal with it [by putting] me on to the treatment path.”

At that stage her family life was in crisis. Her father, who had reluctantly taken her to the early appointments, refused any more involvement and kicked her out of the house. Suddenly she was living alone in a youth hostel in Cambridgeshire, attending a new school but with no friends. “It is a very awkward time when you are going through those changes,” she says.

But her treatments continued. The following year, aged 17, she started receiving testosterone injections and was referred by the Tavistock to an adult gender clinic in west London. At first, she took pleasure in the unfamiliar changes in her body – her lower voice gave her more confidence and she felt renewed energy. But she feels she was not adequately prepared for the more severe side-effects, in particular her deteriorating sexual health. “There is definitely a massive downside and those downsides aren’t spoken about,” she says.

After leaving college she started working as an IT analyst for a computer game company in Cambridge. She changed her name to Quincy by deed poll, and applied for a government-authorised Gender Recognition Certificate making her officially male.

Around that time she also received a referral from her doctors for a double mastectomy, which she underwent aged 20, in 2017.
Initially it was a relief to remove her breasts after so many years painfully binding them to hide under her clothes. “I wanted them gone,” she says. “But a year after surgery I really started to have serious doubts.”

She cannot put her finger on the exact moment she decided to detransition. There was no single “Eureka! moment”, she says, rather a series of small realisations. Even in the company of men, she never felt like she fitted in. “It became very obvious to me that I wasn’t the same as biological men,” she says. “I would always be female no matter how hard I tried.

Early last year she decided to refuse any further testosterone injections. Her periods returned after a few months and she says her body has slowly reverted to a more feminine shape.

In a statement submitted to the court, Bell described the effect on her body, saying she had been left with “no breasts, a deep voice, body hair, a beard, affected sexual function and who knows what else that has not been discovered”.

Now with a new partner, a woman whom she met late last year, she told the court that she must live with the fact that if she is able to have children in the future, she would not be able to breastfeed.
“I made a brash decision as a teenager (as a lot of teenagers do) trying to find confidence and happiness, except now the rest of my life will be negatively affected,” she said.

The court heard that referrals to the Tavistock’s Gender Identity Development Service had increased from 97 in 2009 to 2,590 in 2018, with girls comprising 76 per cent of cases.

Stephanie Davies-Arai, the director of Transgender Trend (an organisation of parents, academics and professionals, concerned about the unpredented number of children diagnosed in recent years) spoke as an intervener in the case on Kiera’s behalf.

She believes a toxic mix of celebrity culture and social media has increased pressure on young girls to conform to a particular body ideal. “I’m not surprised that so many don’t want to become women,” she says. In recent years, however, she adds the number of people who have opened up about detransitioning has “exploded”.

Keira has been contacted by numerous such young women online and hopes to establish a formalised network of people who have detransitioned.

For now, however, she is steadily dealing with the trauma of her own experience, and focusing on her new relationship. “I just am a woman,” she tells me. “And that is it.”