Observer today re Keira Bell

[rogdmum]

There’s also two great stories in the Sunday Telegraph today which deserve their own thread (I’ll not hog all the thread starting) but here’s the Observer with quote from Bayswater Support Group:

“The Bayswater Support Group, which describes itself as supporting “the parents of children with adolescent-onset gender dysphoria” who want to “explore all options before resorting to irreversible medical treatments and surgery”, welcomed the ruling.

A spokesperson said the UK’s current approach affirming a child’s need to transition was embedded at an institutional level.

One mother belonging to the group said: “Nothing can describe the fear you feel as a parent when you realise that medical transition is the only solution presented to your child for distress around their gender identity. Given that institutions – from schools to government, charities to the NHS – have supported this route, we have felt powerless to intervene.”

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/06/keira-bell-lawyer-warns-on-internet-coverage-of-transgender-issues

@NotBadConsidering

Every parent who argues puberty blockers are reversible has a child who has no intention of ever stopping them, given ongoing access.

They only seem to care about puberty blockers being seen as reversible so they can keep getting them for themselves.

No one ever asks these parents why they’re so happy to be rendering their child infertile and sexually dysfunctional.

They may believe it, they may have been fed the lies about suicide stats.

Or they may be lots of rather more unpleasant things.

From the article:

She added: “This echoes a discussion which used to be found around homosexuality, with questions like, when did you decide to be gay? Most people now accept that being straight or gay is not a decision; rather, sexuality is something which arises naturally.”

This is something TRAs are inconsistent on. Is it attraction to sex, or gender? Isn't attraction to a sex a 'genital fetish' and bad?

[quote KihoBebiluPute]Excellent editorial from the Observer too:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/06/the-observer-view-on-the-high-courts-ruling-on-puberty-blocking-drugs-for-children[/quote]
This article is damning. Good on the observer.

It's not on their Facebook or Twitter yet. Hope they put it up and intrigued to see the comments

While the parents may have swallowed the whole line another aspect that comes over clearly is that some were or are at the end of their tethers with their kids.
Anyone who’s been there and has found camhs and any other support totally absent while a DC is fuelled by teenage issues being brought to the boil via what they find on the internet are vulnerable to anyone and anything that appears to offer help.
The real pressure now is for good help and support and proper safeguarding.
I think the desperation is a theme now apparent in parents quoted across various news reports

One mother, who said she was now considering going abroad to obtain help, said her child did not “decide” on their transgender identity.

“It is natural,” she said. “It might be statistically uncommon, but then so too is ginger hair.”

She added: “This echoes a discussion which used to be found around homosexuality, with questions like, when did you decide to be gay? Most people now accept that being straight or gay is not a decision; rather, sexuality is something which arises naturally.”

I'm sure this mother didn't come up with these comparisons on her own, as they're things that the TRA lobby are fond of saying when they try to imply that being concerned about the impact of this ideology on children is similar to being homophobic. But it doesn't stand up to any sort of analysis.

If it's natural why do 'trans children' need medication at all? If 'being trans' was similar to being gay, then we would leave those children alone, let them change their superficial appearance (clothes, hairstyles etc), change their name if they wanted to, and that would be it. We would tell them that they couldn't change sex, but any personalities were OK regardless of their sex.

Some natural conditions do need medication. These are diseases and long-term physical and mental health conditions. People who suffer from them are in need of medication in order to live a normal life, or be free of pain etc.

So if it's natural, like being gay is natural, it needs no treatment. If it's natural like a disease or health condition, it needs treatment or a cure, and we shouldn't be prevented from finding a better one or stopping one which seems to be harmful.

This particular condition is often treated as just like being gay in adults, who require no treatment for their transness, just a declaration that they've become the opposite sex, but in children it's treated as pathological and in need of urgent treatment (while still declaring it as 'just like being gay'). It makes no sense.

The real pressure now is for good help and support and proper safeguarding.
I think the desperation is a theme now apparent in parents quoted across various news reports

This is my concern too. That the mental health care aspect is not there to support this obviously unexpected development.

As a parent watching with unease the girls in the group my teen is friends with, I feel the misinformation being spread is out of control. I feel for any parent who has to tread so carefully around the issues and has a teen who refuses to accept any deviation from guidance such as from mermaids or stonewall.

However, parents adding to this confusion by giving statements in support of medicalising children and teens when the truth is that it IS experimental and that affirming only has no evidence of the kind of success being attributed to it, is irresponsible.

if it's natural, like being gay is natural, it needs no treatment.

Exactly. Conflating with gay rights is like then Saying someone who is gay needs treatment.

All this has imploded since the T was added.

@OldCrone
Excellent post!

I’m also hoping that others will join Kiera Bell. Post gender confirmation surgery regret (and suicide) is much higher than people are willing to recognise and studies into the prevalence of post surgery regret have been vigorously suppressed/defunded.

I know that if I’d been born thirty years later, I’d have been told I was a trans boy. From a very young age I insisted on a male nickname, my favourite fantasy play was to be a girl disguised as a boy running off to be a pirate or a samurai, refused to wear skirts/dresses, refused long hair/makeup/perfume, hated girls games, always played with a group of boys, my academic interests were boy interests, my hobbies were boy hobbies and when I reached puberty I developed sexual attraction towards girls years before it developed towards boys (I am bisexual).

The reality is though that I was (and still am) simply gender nonconforming. I don’t recognise gender stereotypes as anything that applies to me and I’ve been too stubborn and wilful to conform.

@NotBadConsidering

Every parent who argues puberty blockers are reversible has a child who has no intention of ever stopping them, given ongoing access.

They only seem to care about puberty blockers being seen as reversible so they can keep getting them for themselves.

No one ever asks these parents why they’re so happy to be rendering their child infertile and sexually dysfunctional.

This.

The quote from the parent in support of blockers reflects the advice given to parents by Mermaids etc., they are coached to follow their child's lead, that "these children know who they are". However the child is being coached by Tumblr and reddit etc on the script they need to get what they want.

The affirmation approach ends up being dictated by a bunch of teenagers on social media, being reinforced by lobby groups, and not being challenged because of fear of being called a bigot.

@OldCrone

One mother, who said she was now considering going abroad to obtain help, said her child did not “decide” on their transgender identity.

“It is natural,” she said. “It might be statistically uncommon, but then so too is ginger hair.”

She added: “This echoes a discussion which used to be found around homosexuality, with questions like, when did you decide to be gay? Most people now accept that being straight or gay is not a decision; rather, sexuality is something which arises naturally.”

I'm sure this mother didn't come up with these comparisons on her own, as they're things that the TRA lobby are fond of saying when they try to imply that being concerned about the impact of this ideology on children is similar to being homophobic. But it doesn't stand up to any sort of analysis.

If it's natural why do 'trans children' need medication at all? If 'being trans' was similar to being gay, then we would leave those children alone, let them change their superficial appearance (clothes, hairstyles etc), change their name if they wanted to, and that would be it. We would tell them that they couldn't change sex, but any personalities were OK regardless of their sex.

Some natural conditions do need medication. These are diseases and long-term physical and mental health conditions. People who suffer from them are in need of medication in order to live a normal life, or be free of pain etc.

So if it's natural, like being gay is natural, it needs no treatment. If it's natural like a disease or health condition, it needs treatment or a cure, and we shouldn't be prevented from finding a better one or stopping one which seems to be harmful.

This particular condition is often treated as just like being gay in adults, who require no treatment for their transness, just a declaration that they've become the opposite sex, but in children it's treated as pathological and in need of urgent treatment (while still declaring it as 'just like being gay'). It makes no sense.

Great point.

Why does it need treatment if it's actually the way people are? And if it is actually an illness, why can there not be many treatments, and why would we not look for the best, least damaging treatment?

If one treatment is known to cause enormous side effects like infertility etc, why would it be forbidden to look at other, better treatments, or indeed continue with this treatment at all?

Such a good conclusion:
Children are not pawns to be deployed in adult debates about identity. Bell’s bravery has paved the way for a child-centred judgment that gives them the protection they deserve

Listen to that Mermaids, Stonewall, Amnesty and all our thoughtless politicians. Pleasing to see this in their Sunday paper of choice.

Thinking about what lies behind this Guardian, only a week after Suzanne Moore was effectively bullied out and caused a huge stink, and straight after Keira's judgement, I wonder if this leader article doesn't reflect a big behind-the-scenes tussle at the Guardian/Observer, with GC staff having finally had enough, and the Guardian seeing which way the wind is blowing legally, and fearing another Rotherham/PIE type scandal?

Or of course it could just be that the Observer leadership differs from the Guardian leadership on this, in a similar way to the way the Mail on Sunday has always had a much more liberal voice than the Mail (I note the MoS has several articles today on the negative consequences of Brexit ).

Or alternatively whether the leadership thought it was a good day to bury bad news due to all the focus on Brexit?

The Observer has always been more clued up on this. Tomorrow's Guardian will probably have another piece celebrating 'trans kids' and the benefits of early 'transitioning'.

And let's not forget that all this started before Mermaids lost the plot and Stonewall adopted the T, and it's not just GIDS. The government, EHRC and others have allowed various lobby groups to dictate policy. It's no wonder GIDS has failed.
The parliamentary archive is littered with documents that peddle the idea of 'trans kids'. See eg the 2011 Transgender Action Plan (hello Lynne Featherstone) Section 1, Early Years and Education.
Gires has been very influential.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3398737-We-re-Still-Here-Conference-8th-September-A-report-from-the-inside

TheHarpySings wrote:

"Hi all

First off, I’m a regular poster, have been here for years under various usernames, it I’m posting here on a name change as I don’t want this traced to me.

On 8th September there was a conference held in London a Bloomsbury Baptist Church which was called We’re Still Here, which featured a variety of panels and workshops and was attended by many prominent people in the pro-GRA reform camp.

I decided to attend to find out what was being said as it was clear that they did not want anyone to attend that wasn’t a TRA or an ally.

What follows are my notes from the day. But first a few notes on attendance:

There were probably 80-100 people in attendance. Overwhelmingly white. Mainly older transwomen. A couple of transmen. Some Mermaids delegates. Some fellow travellers/ allies. And me.

Okay. So here’s my notes

1. Health Panel: Chair was Dr Ben Vincent of GIRES.

Part of the discussion on this panel was around GPs reluctance to prescribe “bridging hormones”. GPs are reluctant/afraid to prescribe them for liability reasons. Apparently a brand of T-Gel was withdrawn and GPs are reluctant to switch brands.

There was then a bit of chatter about whether a person’s sex was relevant for healthcare stats.

Then there was discussion about trans children. Dr Vincent was very scathing about GIDS-said there was disgusting and unethical practices. BV spoke about dispelling the myths about desistance and the myths of ROGD- BV called this “concern trolling, malicious and ethically bankrupt”. BV would like a review of the whole system.

Then Dr Vincent said that they’d received a review copy of “Born in your own body” edited by Heather Brunskell-Evans and Michele Moore. BV is reviewing it for some Royal College and said “I will tear it a new arsehole”

Also (and they didn't want this tweeted) BV is also planning a book called Terf Wars which will be a “rigorous takedown of terf arguments” which is getting serialised as articled in some peer reviewed journal- I’m sorry but I couldn’t catch which one.

Dr Stuart Lorimer, of the Tavistock and Portman who was also a panellist- said that ROGD is “evidence free”.

Dr Stuart Lorimer, of the Tavistock and Portman who was also a panellist- said that ROGD is “evidence free”.

A tad ironic, given the judgement last week. It seems the 'evidence-free' theorising was rather closer to home.

Some might say of course he would say that.

In 2016 Lorimer arrived on Tumblr, an area of the net frequented primarily by teenagers. ‘Tumblr, like lycra is probably not for anyone over 30 –yet here I am’ announced Lorimer chirpily, posting his trendy business cards while making it clear that he didn’t represent his ‘NHS employers or my GenderCare colleagues’. Oh and adding that he may post pictures of cute animals.

lilymaynard.com/gendercare-dr-lorimer-brings-all-the-transboys-to-the-yard/

Ooo they're quite desperate to find a head to chop

Trans activists are currently tweeting their fingers into stumps with their endless repetitions of "puberty blockers are reversible". That doesn't look like a change, but actually something has changed. If you read what they're saying then you can see that what they mean by this phrase has shifted in meaning. It now means that a child can start taking puberty blockers and can, if they chose, stop taking them. The "reversibility" of puberty blockers as argued by trans activists is now independent of long term effects.

It’s trending on Twitter.

I do wish people would recognise the children have been let down, not by transphobia, but by organisations like the Tavistock, Mermaids and Stonewall.

They have failed them by refusing to explore options apart from affirmation and medication. They have failed them by not having proper checks and balances and by riding roughshod over basic safeguarding. They have failed them by not following good practice and due diligence. They have failed them by ignoring the law on informed consent. They have failed them by encouraging self-harm and suicide ideation as the alternative and telling them people with genuine concerns are transphobic bigots. They have failed them by closing down all debate and research.

If children are distressed it’s not because of JKR or the witches on MN it’s because the organisations supposed to help them have acted unlawfully and with tunnel vision.

Misgendering and dead-naming people is a hate crime according to these organisations but medical experiments rendering children sexually dysfunctional and sterile are ok as is joking about your gender dysphoric child’s genitalia. What has happened is criminal and KB et al have brought much needed sunlight.

Let’s hope things change and all children get the support they need.

Exactly bewaretheickabog. It's the likes of Mermaids that are causing the distress, and their response shows no thought for the children and young people involved.

@nauticant

Trans activists are currently tweeting their fingers into stumps with their endless repetitions of "puberty blockers are reversible". That doesn't look like a change, but actually something has changed. If you read what they're saying then you can see that what they mean by this phrase has shifted in meaning. It now means that a child can start taking puberty blockers and can, if they chose, stop taking them. The "reversibility" of puberty blockers as argued by trans activists is now independent of long term effects.

Oh it's like "When we said 'born in the wrong' body we didn't mean literally" all over again...

TRA Towers is built on quicksand.

I was very struck by the tone of the Observer editorial. It doesn't sound defensive at all and it doesn't read as if they're frightened of a reaction. That's something very new in left-wing publications - even when you get a half way supportive piece it tends to be hedged about with a lot of cringing. This isn't.