Ben Hunte BBC article about puberty blocker ban

[risefromyourgrave]

Not biased at all maybe they’re trying to appease the people upset by big meanie Amol Rajan....

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55369784

@Positrans The Tavistocks own research, belatedly published, shows that children's mental health is not improved by taking puberty blockers. But physical health is negatively impacted. We are giving distressed children a drug with known negative impacts on physical health, unknown long term impacts on psychological functioning (NHS website) and no impact on mental wellbeing.

@positrans
You can't change someone's gender identity with mental health support.

"Changing gender identity" (whatever that really is) isn't the aim. Surely we can agree that reducing Theo's distress, and enhancing the meaning and enjoyment he finds in life, is the aim. The idea that the only way this can be done is via an essentially untested chemical method is deeply disturbing.

It is now appealing against the decision, along with University College Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust.

Leaving aside Ben for a minute. What does this mean? Is it this usual practice? Are they saying they have new evidence? How long before the C of Appeal gives its decision? Will there submission be public?
I can't believe other NHS Trusts are getting involved with this when the Cass review is in progress.

The other trusts are getting involved because UCL is where the paediatric endocrinologists are based who give the puberty blockers, and Leeds is where their outreach clinic is. So they’re all as guilty involved in it together.

There does seem to have been a few successful attempts recently of trans youth ending their lives but in each case those kids had additional serious mental health problems and were all recieving social and medical affirmation. So surely that is proof that the medical pathway is not the answer?

@Imnobody4

It is now appealing against the decision, along with University College Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust.

Leaving aside Ben for a minute. What does this mean? Is it this usual practice? Are they saying they have new evidence? How long before the C of Appeal gives its decision? Will there submission be public?
I can't believe other NHS Trusts are getting involved with this when the Cass review is in progress.

Yes it’s normal for the losing party to appeal. They don’t normally have new evidence but are instead arguing that the judges at first instance applied the law wrong. Also, at this stage, the Tavistock will not be appealing but simply applying for permission to appeal. If this is granted, they will appeal at that stage.

Imnobody4 - They weren't given leave to appeal in the first judgement. This doesn't stop them appealing to the Appeal Court directly but the Appeal Court can decide whether or not to hear the case. The Tavistocks own research, published since the judgement, strengthens the case AGAINST the Tavi in my opinion. They show that all children put on puberty blockers went on to cross sex hormones - a key plank of their case was that they were different treatments - and there was no improvement in mental wellbeing of the children on PBs, and they suffered from a significant reduction in bone density vis a vis their peers. Begs the question - what is tbe justification for these drugs at all?

Well we certainly have no evidence that the medical/"affirmative" pathway IS the answer

So encouraging a load of dysphoric kids to feel helpless and hopeless because they might not be able to chemically stunt their development seems extremely irresponsible.

Those heavily in favour of blockers tend to be adults who are bitter that they don’t pass convincingly for the opposite sex and wish that they hadn’t gone through puberty. So instead they project that on children and want to subject them to a range of serious side effects that they themselves never had to suffer.

I feel for these children. And I can't say this any better than to quote the Observer's leading article about this the other week week:

"This is a chilling state of affairs that is detrimental to child safety. There are children who will find last week’s judgment distressing and it is imperative they receive the professional support they need. 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"

The Tavistock were told by three judges that they weren't acting properly. They were told children can't consent to experimental treatment. And they want to appeal that? I think the best thing would be for them to have a good fucking look at themselves and consider this whole mess they've caused, and maybe stop letting gobshite activists dictate how children should be treated.

They didn't even understand Gillick properly. Their answer to this ''treatment'' destroying sexual function was ''meh, the kids might be asexual anyway.'' There you go. It's justified sterilising CHILDREN, how many with autisim we don't fully know because no one wants to be honest, because there's a tiny chance they may have turned out to be asexual anyway

Pretty grim people are smugly defending that. I'd be fucking mortified to show my face in court again if I were them, after their last pathetic, flimsy performance where they couldn't answer a single question decently. Children deserve better than that shower of shit.

And even if there was, there’s still the question of whether children can consent to it. The judges said children could still get puberty blockers if they could demonstrate understanding of the 8 points around consent.

If people are so sure it’s the right pathway, and these kids know what they want, there should be no problem with them demonstrating to a judge understanding of these 8 points then, should there?

i) the immediate consequences of the treatment in physical and psychological terms;
(ii) the fact that the vast majority of patients taking puberty blocking drugs proceed to taking cross-sex hormones and are, therefore, a pathway to much greater medical interventions;
(iii) the relationship between taking cross-sex hormones and subsequent surgery, with the implications of such surgery;
(iv) the fact that cross-sex hormones may well lead to a loss of fertility;
(v) the impact of cross-sex hormones on sexual function;
(vi) the impact that taking this step on this treatment pathway may have on future and life-long relationships;
(vii) the unknown physical consequences of taking puberty blocking drugs; and
(viii) the fact that the evidence base for this treatment is as yet highly uncertain

'In October 2020, Emily's NHS psychotherapist wrote: "I am satisfied that Emily, with the ongoing support and guidance of her parents, has a good understanding about the potential side-effects of this treatment."'
I know that's just a quote, but for a treatment with such serious lifelong irreversible side effects, you'd want your capacity assessment really really clear as to what evidence you had that they could understand the issues.

@Gncq

There aren't droves of trans people

Dorothy stringer secondary school in Brighton have something like twenty in each year group at the moment. About the same numbers as when bulemia/anorexia was the disorder du jour.

My daughter’s friend group doesn’t have a single ‘straight heteronormative’ girl in it. There is a non-binary (who is in a relationship with one of the bisexual girls and wears a binder) 2 bisexuals, a lesbian, a trans boy (also wears a binder and can’t do PE because of it) and my daughter who has come out as pansexual.

Add to that my son who thinks he is trans and that’s an awful lot of teenagers under the age of 18 in my (very limited as I have no friends!) social circle.

I thank God that one of them is brave enough to come out as a lesbian.

AH is a doctor. Surely he must have had training on suicide and risk management, which would include the Samaritans reporting guidelines, that are very clear about not suggesting single issues as causes for suicide and self harm. There is a real risk of suicide contagion, especially among young people. And I would wonder if this is increased among young people who are sensitive to other types of contagion.

Thanks to those who answered my questions. I really didn't think they'd try to take it further.

10 years ago, children in gender clinics were not given puberty blockers at anywhere near the rate they are now, and we are being led to believe that children now have distress that can’t be managed as it was 10 years ago?

It’s ridiculous. It’s basically the clinicians admitting they have lost all the skills needed to treat these children as they once were and they’ve become too reliant on avoiding the tough periods by papering over the cracks with puberty blockers.

Can a trans girl understand the consequences of going through a testosterone puberty? The physical masculinisation of her body that will likely give her life long gender dysphoria, the constant issue of navigating a transphobic society with a broken voice and a large build? The extensive surgery she will likely need if she is to overcome some of those effects?

@Positrans

Can a trans girl understand the consequences of going through a testosterone puberty? The physical masculinisation of her body that will likely give her life long gender dysphoria, the constant issue of navigating a transphobic society with a broken voice and a large build? The extensive surgery she will likely need if she is to overcome some of those effects?

Give over.

Puberty is an essential, natural occurrence, no one needs to consent to it, like no one needs to consent to growing teeth, or growing taller. Ridiculous.

10 years ago, children in gender clinics were not given puberty blockers at anywhere near the rate they are now, and we are being led to believe that children now have distress that can’t be managed as it was 10 years ago?

There weren't swathes of suicides then linked to gender dysphoria either. Adults are encouraging kids to feel suicidal for being denied a treatment pathway which has no solid evidence backing up its effectiveness.

And in terms of dealing with the distress of children who might not be able to get puberty blockers,
someone could explain to them that it's not a tragedy?
For girls that want to be seen as boys, there was very little to be gained from blockers anyway, even by the logic of those within the system. I would think that puberty blockers do little to help girls later pass as boys/men, particularly as blockers are likely to result in a reduction in final height, whereas to pass as boys/men they'd want to be as tall as possible?

It has always seemed strange to me that girls were put on a pathway that was basically designed for boys.

A male child going through male puberty is as normal and expected as any other part of human development. We know from evidence that if such a child is left alone he will end up comfortable with his own body.

He will also reach adulthood with normal growth, bone density, fertility and be able to have sex and achieve orgasm, all of which aren’t possible if puberty blockers are given. Any decisions regarding treatment can then be adequately consented to knowing what will be given up if this person proceeds. Surgery would then be carried out on adult tissue, not experimental surgery on prepubertal tissue.

I find it hugely concerning when adults are trying to live a life of “passing” vicariously through a random cohort of children, and be damned with the consequences for them.

Puberty isn't and nor should it be optional. Its vital for physical and mental development. A normal part of life. It sucks but you at least know all your mates are going through the same thing. Theres not a man or woman alive that doesn't have an embarrassing puberty story. We should be helping kids cone to terms with it. Not medicating it. Cos its going to be a million times worse when all their mates are coming out the other side and they are still stuck in the body of a child.

All the adults advocating for it have relationships husbands wives children and careers something not acheivevable if your mental development is stunted. Its easy for them to say life would have better but do you honestly think they wish their kids didn't exist like that? Cos with blockers they wouldn't have been able to have them.

Its not a disease.

And if their gender identity is insistent, persistent and consistent by the onset of puberty, we can be almost completely sure that it is fixed. At that point, we move, in some cases, to puberty blockers

Physical puberty in girls can start between the ages of 9-12 - many of the teenage girls who are questioning their gender identity are actually in the 13-16 year age group and have gone through their physical puberty as puberty sparks a huge amount of neural development on which many, many child and young people are forming their identities, uncertain and often feeling anxious and depressed.

There's really very little understanding of puberty or adolescent brain development, which is very worrying.

There are many, many stories of people who found their identity to be in flux in adolescence and it only became 'fixed' as they came out of their late teens.