Janice Turner on Keira's Case in the Times today

[Igneococcus]

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

There's something I really don't understand about the "prescribe hormones" it's the "only treatment option". I hope someone can help me with it.

1. The discomfort with gender starts around start of puberty.

1. 80% of young people will desist if they go through puberty.

1. Therefore PUBERTY is the the treatment that will solve most children's discomfort.

1. Puberty blockers are therefore extending the period of distress and are counter productive for most young people.

1. 20% will continue to have gender discomfort. Now they have an adult (post-puberty) brain and are capable of making their own decisions. No Gillick competency questions need arise.

So WTF are medical professionals so bloody keen to keep young people in distress and risk the (long term) health of 80%?

As far as I can see, it's to make it easier for the 20% to "pass". Superficial, cosmetic bullshit to persuade the general public of their chosen gender.

This keeps churning in my mind and I can't get over it. What am I missing? How are medics justifying this to themselves and their peers?

As far as I can see, it's to make it easier for the 20% to "pass".

And that only applies to males who want to 'pass' as women, because they will avoid the masculinising effects of testosterone at puberty.

There is no similar 'benefit' for girls not going through puberty, so there is absolutely no reason to put any female child on puberty blockers, and yet the majority of children being treated in this way are now female. It's insane.

What am I missing? How are medics justifying this to themselves and their peers?

You are not missing anything. Sadly.

I think it's about passing and I think it's driven by men who transitioned as adults. We all know that most women who transition, apart from being shorter than an average man, pass reasonably well. But male physiology is harder to hide.

The fact that it's mainly girls rather than boys transitioning doesn't seem to be considered.

Young women used to develop eating disorders in an attempt to stop their bodies developing. Now they can get a doctor to make it stop

@OldCrone

As far as I can see, it's to make it easier for the 20% to "pass".

And that only applies to males who want to 'pass' as women, because they will avoid the masculinising effects of testosterone at puberty.

There is no similar 'benefit' for girls not going through puberty, so there is absolutely no reason to put any female child on puberty blockers, and yet the majority of children being treated in this way are now female. It's insane.

once again, it's the girls who are sacrificed for the benefit of a few of the boys

It makes me sick it's so patriarchal

@OldCrone

As far as I can see, it's to make it easier for the 20% to "pass".

And that only applies to males who want to 'pass' as women, because they will avoid the masculinising effects of testosterone at puberty.

There is no similar 'benefit' for girls not going through puberty, so there is absolutely no reason to put any female child on puberty blockers, and yet the majority of children being treated in this way are now female. It's insane.

Goodness, how had I missed this? It's misogyny all over again isn't it?!

Girls & women taking lifelong consequences to support those very few young males who want to look pretty.

Be nice & kind can fuck off.
I'm so over this shit.

It doesn't even help the boys that much: Jazz Jennings was the poster child for this treatment protocol and was subjected to horrific malpractice and experimental surgery, and needed four revisions. The surgery would have been much easier if he'd developed and had enough tissue for the surgeon to do a penile inversion. Same issue Susie Green's kid had, which she thought was hilariously funny when interviewed. If they were managed with the "watchful waiting" approach and supported to manage their mental health and any other comorbid conditions they may have, most of them would desist, but it would also benefit the minority who would go on to seek surgery and hormones in adulthood. The process for adults is still experimental and dangerous but it's a lot better understood, and once they're adults and have been through child mental health services they will have a better grasp on whether they really want to go ahead with it.

I didn't seriously consider having kids until I was 30 years old, how can children possibly understand what they are giving up? Sexual function as well is a huge part of life, I can't believe the defence said "some people are very happy being asexual" ah ok it's fine to destroy the sexual function of children then is it??

@ThinkWittyThoughts

There's something I really don't understand about the "prescribe hormones" it's the "only treatment option". I hope someone can help me with it.

1. The discomfort with gender starts around start of puberty.

1. 80% of young people will desist if they go through puberty.

1. Therefore PUBERTY is the the treatment that will solve most children's discomfort.

1. Puberty blockers are therefore extending the period of distress and are counter productive for most young people.

1. 20% will continue to have gender discomfort. Now they have an adult (post-puberty) brain and are capable of making their own decisions. No Gillick competency questions need arise.

So WTF are medical professionals so bloody keen to keep young people in distress and risk the (long term) health of 80%?

As far as I can see, it's to make it easier for the 20% to "pass". Superficial, cosmetic bullshit to persuade the general public of their chosen gender.

This keeps churning in my mind and I can't get over it. What am I missing? How are medics justifying this to themselves and their peers?

I feel just the same .

ThinkWittyThoughts

I think that it is slightly more complicated than that - not that I want to defend the GIDS. However, my understanding is this: the 80% figure comes from old studies from when "transkids" were tiny handful of children, mostly boys, who were dysphoric from a very young age. Most of them desisted moderately early in puberty and clinicians like Zucker said that if the dysphoria had persisted well into teenage years, they'd probably be among the 20% who persisted permanently.

All that has been thrown into disarray by the new phenomenon which is mostly girls, very large numbers, and the dysphoria actually starts in puberty. People who aren't braindead see that it has all the hallmarks of a cult and think that many of them will desist or detransition. Sensible clinicians like Zucker say that the same rules don't apply to this cohort. However, nobody really has any proper empirical evidence on what will happen to them, because it's a new thing and because nobody has even been studying or keeping track of them.

Yesterday I was at school pick up and I overheard two girls in year 6 (11 years old) speaking to each other as they left school.

Girl 1: "I hate puberty".
Girl 2: [indistinct noise of agreement]

What girl doesn't?

Yeah puberty is awful. Your body changes, suddenly its neat smooth lines are corrupted by strange lumps and bumps and HAIR in weird places. Weight inexplicably piles on. Grown men look at you hungrily, your easy carefree life as a child in a neutral body is over. You are filled with the desire to be accepted by your peer group yet you lack the self-confidence or sense of identity that would make you feel accepted. Beauty advertising from all angles tells you you are riddled with imperfections that must be fixed - hair, skin, body.
Who wouldn't want a way out of that?

I suspect the 80% number is even higher with ROGD. A poster on here mentioned that a large number of girls at her school had desisted during lockdown.