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

[nauticant]

I'll revive the thread on Thursday

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.

I'm sorry for what your friend is going through. I felt like the Mum yesterday needed more help and support from a child mental health perspective and indeed some therapy herself. Also it goes to the heart of the institutional capture, her hand is being held as they go along a clear pathway to transition.

Viv, I'm sorry to hear about your friend and her child.

I feel that the lack of options have been fed by charities and the media though.

It's like there's an assumption that that is what must happen.

And reminds me of the recent report about Gd referrals in Sweden plummeting after a lot of media publicity around detransitioners and a transwoman who feels she wasn't given other choices.

Mermaids et al have a lot to answer for.

@yourhairiswinterfire

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?

The only way to end the ‘experimental’ tag, is to produce some really robust long term data studies.

Currently, they don’t exist.

Even one of the authors of the famous ‘Dutch Study’ has said that the results are not necessarily applicable to other patients:

‘Dutch Study’ (published 2011):

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609515336171

2019 admittance that the new cohort of teens presenting at clinics is different to those in the Dutch study: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00787-019-01394-6

The two papers have more than one author apiece, but one is common to both:

www.researchgate.net/profile/Annelou_Vries

PlantMam the Arnoldussen study actually found that there was no relevant difference between patients referred many years ago to those referred in more recent years. It was a poor study that did not even take into account the age of onset of GD.

However, in a 'Pediatrics' comment piece this summer, de Vries did finally acknowledge that the 2011 and 2014 Dutch studies, being of early-childhood onset patients, tell us nothing about the adolescent-onset group.

Here is the de Vries article:

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/146/4/e2020010611

It concludes:

"providing early medical treatment to transgender adolescents remains a challenging area to work in. Prospective longer-term follow-up studies of clinical samples like the study of Sorbara et al1 are needed to inform clinicians so that an individualized approach can be offered that differentiates who will benefit from medical gender affirmation and for whom (additional) mental health support might be more appropriate."

I'm listening to feedback and JG is being interviewed; there's a few v good answers she gives...

JG is now being interviewed on Feedback about her departure from Woman's Hour. Obviously a bloke phones in to say that they've not had enough transwomen on the programme. This got an exasperated response from JG. It seems she's not one of the TWAW gang but it looks like diplomacy is going to be her mode for the time being.

Cross-post! It's worth a (short) listen isn't it NeurotrashWarrior?

Listening also. She has just been asked about the gender / trans issue and concluded that she doesn't think it's the most important issue for WH listeners. Perhaps if WH had covered it properly, it would be!

She's asked if more people in the trans community should be included (listener question) and points out she has interviewed more trans women than trans men over the years; "listeners should think about that a little bit..."

She says she doesn't think for listeners it's the most important and controversial issue. I'm not completely sure what she means by that. That listeners don't feel they need more on?

She also says she has more control as a presenter over how she interviews rather than the actual content.

I've never thought JG was a TWAWer.

And yes, I heard that bloke too. FGS can we not have anything for ourselves?!

Yes, that's the heart of it jhuizinga, it's clear that she'd much rather never have to cover the trans issue at all.

I'm going to listen again more carefully Naut!

Loved her points about care; women who carry the brunt of care.

The missing jigsaw piece: JG is starting a new (interview) show in the Spring on Radio 4 (not sure if Radio 4 was made explicit). Since she's still going to make her living in the BBC, she needs to be diplomatic and not commit any ideological offences.

@yourhairiswinterfire

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?

To be fair, if the treatment was actually experimental the Tavi would be collecting data and have an intellectual interest in the outcome.

In that interview with JG they took more questions from men and talked a lot about men listening to the programme. WTAF? I’ve emailed them to complain.

No great surprise that I thought mother number 2 was a lot more grown up and persuasive than mother number 1.

I just can't get over the fact that once you as a parent/caregiver/teacher/random YouTuber/HCP tell a really, really young child that yes, they can really be [thing they can't be], schools, social workers, health care practitioners, Uncle Tom Cobley and Alll, will collude with you to make your tiny little one believe that yes, they really are said [opposite to what they are in material reality]. And once that first step has been taken, how can the child get off the travelator leading to puberty blockers, cross-hormones and surgery?

Mother #1 told an 8yo that yes, she believed the child was really a girl, in spite of having a male body. Child now uses a girl's name and she/her pronouns. You can get away with that before puberty if all the other children/parents are forbidden from comment, but the child is now 14 and very troubled by the physical changes under way as a result of puberty. Nobody has done the work with that child in the intervening six years to find out why child could not accept having a male body, and to help child come to terms with being male. Nobody has told the child that there is no right or wrong way to be a man/boy. Nobody has tried to get to the bottom of what that child thinks would be better about being a girl/woman than a boy/man.

No wonder the kid's now in a bad way.

To be fair, if the treatment was actually experimental the Tavi would be collecting data and have an intellectual interest in the outcome.

That's a very good point. So it's worse than experimenting. They're just bunging kids on hormones that prevent them going through major physical and mental developments, and just hoping nothing bad comes of it.

I can't for the life of me understand how anyone is defending this. I really can't. Everyone should be appalled.

but the child is now 14 and very troubled by the physical changes under way as a result of puberty.

How does this reconcile with the received wisdom that of course women can have penises/ beards/ male attributes?

How come no-one's calling them transphobic for not accepting this? It's just a mess.

Nobody has done the work with that child in the intervening six years to find out why child could not accept having a male body, and to help child come to terms with being male. Nobody has told the child that there is no right or wrong way to be a man/boy. Nobody has tried to get to the bottom of what that child thinks would be better about being a girl/woman than a boy/man. No wonder the kid's now in a bad way.

Repetition is a well known learning approach.

I often think it's a bit like Britain's Got Talent - you know the person who lands up performing to that massive audience as the "novelty" or "good grief" act?

The problem isn't that Cowell is exploiting them, the problem is that no one said to the performer "we know you love singing, you have such enthusiasm and passion - but you don't have the talent. Not yet. You should sing for enjoyment, or we could join a choir together or get singing lessons or maybe we should get your hearing and adenoids looked at. Don't go to the audition just now - you aren't quite good enough yet."

No, the performer's family and friends weren't able to be cruel to be kind and just said stuff like "you go girl" until she lands up being humiliated on prime time tv.

The family should have said "I'm sorry, but, no". It's part of loving someone.

The family should have said "I'm sorry, but, no". It's part of loving someone.

Yes indeed.

@DeaconBoo

but the child is now 14 and very troubled by the physical changes under way as a result of puberty.

How does this reconcile with the received wisdom that of course women can have penises/ beards/ male attributes?

How come no-one's calling them transphobic for not accepting this? It's just a mess.

Show me a kid who is full of joy and confidence at their changing body?

@DeaconBoo

but the child is now 14 and very troubled by the physical changes under way as a result of puberty.

How does this reconcile with the received wisdom that of course women can have penises/ beards/ male attributes?

How come no-one's calling them transphobic for not accepting this? It's just a mess.

I wish someone would explain this.

If we're transphobic for not accepting a person with an unmodified male body as a woman, why are little boys who want to be girls told that their bodies are wrong? Why can't they just be girls with penises like their adult counterparts? Then they can modify their bodies as adults if they still want to.

Arguing that women can have penises whilst simultaneously demanding that confused children should be irreversibly medicated before they are old enough to understand the consequences is the height of hypocrisy.

It would be so much kinder to NOT construct a fantasy world around a child's immature beliefs.

@HecatesCatsInXmasHats yes!!

Such a bad idea to tell children things that are not true.

There's nothing wrong with gender-non-conforming children. They're not the opposite sex. It isn't possible for them to change sex. They are not ill. They don't need medical treatment. They need to know that some people think some things are just for one sex, but this belief is wrong. Not them.