Radio 4 Woman's Hour on Thursday - two mothers talk for and against puberty blockers

[nauticant]

I'll revive the thread on Thursday

Go that strong mum! Brilliantly calm and reasoned!

I only wish she had mentioned the harmful surgeries and irreversible hormones involved in the transitioning path as well, and also the strong possibility that her daughter is 'merely' a lesbian. (Unless I missed that bit or it was edited out).

Ugh. Student sex-work toolkit.

If I comment I'd get deleted:

twitter.com/stephenwhittle/status/1337345277745885184

Lets hope lots of parents here the Mum today and see there is another way.

And yes, are the BBC ever going to apologise for spreading the lie of 'you can change sex' message?

Well, someone should tell Stephen that the judges agreed the treatment was experimental. It's him who is shameful.

What I took from the interview is that the long waiting lists have so far saved this child from medical intervention but that the online narrative and affirmation by school and healthcare professionals is not helping this child to grow or mature.

It’s weird that Whittle still believes unknown 16 year olds are all informed enough to consent to life changing medical interventions when clearly 16 year old Keira Bell was not.

In the narrative Whittle gives, Keira Bell is part of the "1%" (which is itself disinformation) and is therefore acceptable collateral damage.

Well done that mother, under so much questioning from JG compared to yesterday’s offering. I wonder what the unnamed organisation mentioned by yesterday’s mum could possibly be. Guesses anyone? Jane much better on the student “sex work” but where is the criticism of the purchasers, or education of the same? Sarah D did bring out the issues of the industry.

Crashing in having only just caught up with yesterday's interview and will listen to today's later, but ooof...

It always starts with something like this. The mother's observation: She was never really a ‘boysy boy’. Then the familiar "Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services can’t help, we’re going to refer you to the Tavistock", which is the start of the pathway. It's a clear signal of the direction of travel. Then the cognitive dissonance, she describes her child's belief at one point as “Magical thinking”, but regrets not allowing her to start school as a girl and as non-binary instead, even though: "Some of the students from her old school decided to tell everyone at the new school she wasn’t a girl."

There is no level of early intervention that is going to entirely erase knowledge that the individual is the opposite sex in every case. The world cannot be rearranged to fit their "magical thinking". It would be so much kinder to NOT construct a fantasy world around a child's immature beliefs. That way you aren't setting them up for a fall when they come into contact with the inevitable disconnect between what they believe and what others see and know to be true.

I was surprised that Jane Garvey didn't ask if she felt CAHMs had been up to the job, that she didn't ask about gender dysphoria and how affirmation might exacerbate it, she didn't pursue the issue of PB's as an inevitable gateway to CSH with the mother and allowed her to paint PBs as benign, despite the ruling.

@nauticant

In the narrative Whittle gives, Keira Bell is part of the "1%" (which is itself disinformation) and is therefore acceptable collateral damage.

Whittle is dangerous .Comes across (to me) as patronising and condescending.No human can change sex - not even her.

CAMHs obvs

I think the robust questioning allowed the mother to state her position unequivocally so it was correct - JG was possibly being clever in that she framed possible objections so that they could be knocked down

[quote nauticant]If I comment I'd get deleted:

twitter.com/stephenwhittle/status/1337345277745885184[/quote]

What is he on? It's like banging your head against a brick wall with some people.

I think the only way JG can show there is critical reasoning going on in Nasty Mummy's head is by asking questions with the slightly confrontation tone. BBC requires it - and NastyMummy was able to reply calmly and clearly to each point. Powerful.

Jane Garvey much more frosty with Not Nice Mummy than she was with Nice Mummy? I'm sensing an awkwardness and a note of challenge and disapproval which wasn't there yesterday.

I think there's an awareness that any parent who advocates for their child like that potentially has poor mental health. The kid gloves were on yesterday.

I do think that the parent yesterday at first tried to explore ideas that this was a phase and it sounds like a huge number of "supportive professionals" (eg charities, possibly mermaids, school,) pushed the idea of wrong body as a "real" thing and suicide, mh etc.

"Magical thinking" stood out as a key assumption in the child that should have been set straight from the word go.

Imo JG's more robust challenges today were indication of a parent who had a clear recognition of the wider issues.

I want to note that some boys with autism are missed due to the issues with stereotypes around autism.

* Magical thinking^ stood out as a key issue^ in the child that should have been set straight from the word go.

Imo JG's more robust challenges today were indication of a parent who had a clear recognition of the wider issues.

That's a good observation.

What is Whittle on about? ''Still claiming treatment is experimental. Shameful.''

Three judges in the High Court found that, because of the lack of data, the use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria is experimental. That's not wrong to say.

Why are lawyers completely ignoring a court judgement?

There was a desperation in the mother yesterday: "We just needed expert help". She also acknowledged that the path that they were taking was the only option available currently, therefore that's what they have to go with.

Mum today discussed Gender Dysphoria and looked at the wider context in much more detail and was weighing up many more factors impacting her child. Yesterday the Mum was much more narrow in her focus and on the options in front of her child.

I think there's an awareness that any parent who advocates for their child like that potentially has poor mental health. The kid gloves were on yesterday.

That's a good point which had not occurred to me before.

Hecates There was a desperation in the mother yesterday: "We just needed expert help". She also acknowledged that the path that they were taking was the only option available currently, therefore that's what they have to go with.

That is almost word for word what my friend who has a trans son said to me. She is apprehensive about what they are doing, but, has no alternative. I feel very sorry for her, she is worried whether her child transitions or not.

'Nicola' the guest today was really bloody good. Calm and precise and very thoughtful.

Yesterday the Mum was much more narrow in her focus and on the options in front of her child.

Yes and a lot of talk about "treatment." that this is an illness. I did get a feeling that the child may have had information from elsewhere influencing them. The phrase "always have been" seemed borrowed imo.

They clearly tried the gender neutral approach suggested by GIDs. Which I think was wrong actually. Give the child the idea they can change their name and identity and of course they'll be furious they can't have the one they want.

Early on the child seems to have had fixed ideas about what a girl is - based on clothes etc. And an early preference for the stereotyped "girl" stuff, as mother noted.