Report on GIDS on Channel 4 news

[SkeeterP]

Just seen they are reporting on this tonight (Saturday).

Fantastic interview, on one of the main news programmes. The wheels are well and truly off this bus, at least in the UK. (And it will ripple across the world).

Even her wrong side of history gotcha was half hearted.

That was the least convincing rendition I remember hearing. Had the feeling it was in her preprepared script/interview notes, and a case of "oh yes, I was going to ask this".

I'm hoping it might be her last time asking it, at least to those on Dr Bell's side.

The whole 'Right or Wrong Side of History' spiel is very revealing of the fact that what is considered most important is not logic, critique, reflection or assessment, but being in the right crowd and thinking the right or approved thoughts. It really is about social conformity above all else. Which is incredibly ironic given so much lip service is paid to being radical or progressive.

It really is just a costume, a tribal dress, a way of signalling that you belong to the in crowd and the cool kids.

It's another one of the "pop up" people's mantras (OJ et al). Designed to be deliberately divisive.

Worth pointing out that the CEO of the trust is a non-clinician. The first ever non-clinician to hold the role:

www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/health/interview-the-tavistock-and-portman-s-new-head-paul-jenkins-3456910

Interestingly this 7 year old article was ‘updated’ in October 2020, during the period between when the Keira Bell Judicial Review took place (October 7th) and when the judges’ ruling was published (Dec 1st).
I wonder if the original version is archived somewhere?

@rabbitwoman

Devastating, isn't it?

I was speaking to my brother about it yesterday - he not only gets it but was very interested in the psychology of people who don't get it.

I am in the middle of an email discussion with someone who holds exactly the opposite view to me. He is pretty much a stranger - although a friend of a friend I have met once - and the document we are passing back and forth is now over 20 pages!

My brother asked me why I was bothering. I said, look at what is happening all over the world - in the USA, boy's in girl's sports. In Australia, the ban on 'convertion therapy' includes not being allowed to ask children questions about their gender dysphoria. I said, those laws nearly passed here, the only reason they didn't is because we spoke up, raised awareness and campaigned.

It all started here on mumsnet for me. We are doing very important work.

yes agree he was really impressive

That was the least convincing rendition I remember hearing. Had the feeling it was in her preprepared script/interview notes, and a case of "oh yes, I was going to ask this".

Yes, I don't think she enjoyed having to ask the inane 'wrong side of history' question. It made her look like she hadn't listened to a word of what Dr Bell had just told her.

@Justhadathought

The whole 'Right or Wrong Side of History' spiel is very revealing of the fact that what is considered most important is not logic, critique, reflection or assessment, but being in the right crowd and thinking the right or approved thoughts. It really is about social conformity above all else. Which is incredibly ironic given so much lip service is paid to being radical or progressive.

It really is just a costume, a tribal dress, a way of signalling that you belong to the in crowd and the cool kids.

Absolutely right. I hope I don't derail this into a discussion about 'wrong side of history', but I just saw this I missed in 2019. By Oliver Burkeman. I particularly liked the line that thinking you are on the right side of history is really consulting with some imaginary future people, so it's no surprise that they agree with you. www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/21/the-wrong-side-of-history-has-become-a-crowded-place-time-to-rethink

Why do people think Newman is a tra? I'm not surprised to hear it given that channel 4 news sees itself as 'progressive' and many media types are, but what has she actually said? Is she the 'don't interrogate it too hard, be kind, the other side are against so I should be for' type, or more active?

"The real hazard, though, comes when the idea is used by contemporary pontificators to avoid confronting the possibility that they, themselves, might be wrong. Once you’re confident of history’s position, you needn’t ask whether your critics might have a point; you can dismiss them as anachronistic fuddy-duddies who haven’t caught up with the latest advance toward moral truth. The irony is that it is a good idea to reflect on the judgment of history – not to reinforce your opinions, but rather to unsettle them, and infuse them with a dose of humility" ( Oliver Burkeman)

How could ‘first do no harm’ ever EVER be the wrong side of history.

His answer is excellent.

I think this is the full videoon Glinner's site?

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/doctor-david-bell-this-is-a-form?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMzI1Nzc0MywicG9zdF9pZCI6MzE4MDk0MjEsIl8iOiJnbUc2bSIsImlhdCI6MTYxMTUxMjAyOSwiZXhwIjoxNjExNTE1NjI5LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNjczMDkiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.ozPnLHC3g_oYmHBEF9hX7vfiqF_rBBfBkV8rVD6T1WY

I was sitting open mouthed in awe. It was so hard hitting. I’m also really glad that he acknowledged his own privilege of seniority etc as enabling him to speak out and pointed out that many other cannot for fear of reprisals.

The Tavistock have always done as they please. I was obliquely involved in a Family Law case a few years ago. The case rested on the ‘evidence’ of The Tavistock. Their conclusions were so at variance with any kind of evidence or logic that we had to bring in an expert witness from outside.

When presented with the paperwork on the case, he reclined in his chair and laughed heartily at The Tavistock’s conclusions. However, a few days later in court he sat hunched over in the witness box not making eye contact with anybody in the court room and basically parroted everything The Tavistock had said.

He looked terrified. There was definitely something sinister going on with The Tavistock, but I have no idea what. Or indeed why.

Hermione that’s terrifying. I wonder if some of the various funding campaigns or the odd wealthy figure (jk comes to mind, but anyone) might be worth paying for a decent private investigator or two to find out.

@oldwomanwhoruns

I've just transcribed that section of the interview to which *@AnyOldPrion* referred - it seems really important and worth repeating. (I may have got the word 'fullsome' wrong, it was hard to make out the exact word he used.) He talks about the movement 'capturing government'.

Interviewer:
"Do you worry that you might be on the wrong side of history here?"

Dr Bell:
"Well I think one has to just pull back a little bit first of all, and recognise that this is a very highly politicised area.
And leaders of movements of a very powerful ideological commitment have managed to capture policy, both medically, professionally, in the media, and in government, with no evidence base, it is a purely highly politicised movement which has had these consequences.
So all that I am saying, and many people are saying is, that they need to wait, there needs to be a fullsome engagement with them, as opposed to motoring them through, to treatment pathways, which have irreversible consequences for their bodies.
So we are talking about not doing harm, to children."

@oldwomanwhoruns

It's "thoughtful engagement", not "fulsome". Thanks for the transcription.

I watched the video and actually think I saw the exact moment the penny dropped for Cathy! Even her wrong side of history gotcha was half hearted.

Just watched it. Her facial expression looked quite pained.

Yes, she did look like she was embarrassed asking him if he was worried about being on the wrong side of history. Rightly so, imo. As if anyone with integrity would care about that compared with protecting children.

Such a clear, thoughtful interview. I can see why Marcus Evans speaks so highly of David Bell. In case anyone is dipping in and jumping to the last page, here’s the link to his interview again: www.channel4.com/news/children-have-been-very-seriously-damaged-by-nhs-gender-clinic-says-former-tavistock-staff-governor

Cathy Newman has posted a link to a longer version of the interview on Twitter. I think pennies must have dropped.

twitter.com/cathynewman/status/1354797624117743620?s=21

Thanks Fanny. I didn't realise there would be an extended version. Why wouldn't it have been released at the time of the broadcast? Were Channel 4 waiting to see what the reception of the initial piece was?

Wow that extended interview is even more damming than the edited version

Yep - even if you watched the YouTube one - go and watch this one.

A lot more strong points from Dr Bell in there that didn't make it in to the broadcast, particularly on the effects on young potential lesbians.

Quotes:

A large number of these children... Let me put it very simply. A girl of twelve may find that she's sexually attracted to other girls. And it may go through her mind, as I think it goes through many children's minds, "Maybe I'm not a girl? Maybe I'm a boy."

If that happened ten, fifteen years ago, it would have been a passing phase, and things would have moved on. But now, because of a hugely changed cultural context, and because of the penetration of the social media, such a girl may go online and she may easily come to the belief, not that she's developing in a complex way a different sexual identity, but that she really is a boy. And then having reached that view there will be lots of forces around which will support it, and of course she then... all her other difficulties will be repositioned through that prism.

[...]

Puberty blockers, it's often said, are reversible. But that's a very funny way of looking at the human subject. We're not video machines, in which you can press a pause button, and then release the button three years later. By stopping puberty you've got a person's body, a person's brain, a person's psychology, and a social world who's ready for puberty. So that has long-term consequences which are ill thought about.

Puberty blockers, it's often said, are reversible. But that's a very funny way of looking at the human subject. We're not video machines, in which you can press a pause button, and then release the button three years later. By stopping puberty you've got a person's body, a person's brain, a person's psychology, and a social world who's ready for puberty. So that has long-term consequences which are ill thought about.

Interesting that the BBC have now removed the CBBC programme 'I am Leo' from their website and elsewhere. This is the one where Polly Carmichael presses a 'pause button' to 'pause' Leo's natural puberty.

If they think they're on the 'right side of history', why are these people and organisations making so much use of the 'delete' button?

I did find a (deleted) BBC article about this programme in the archives, though, thanks to someone who commented on the Transgender Trend article about this programme.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141112115154/www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/29991877" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20141112115154/www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/29991877

Colourful graphic figures represent a child' eye view of someone born into the wrong gender body and there's a light-hearted sequence in the consulting room where Leo is 'frozen' with a graphic 'pause' button, to illustrate how medication is putting his natural development on hold.

Glad this has been made available, but what we really need is for the MSM to honestly report on the issue. Women's rights are being brushed under the carpet on all sides. Too little, too late is not enough.

So long as trans remains the media darling it still is, despite so many example of how women's rights are being erased, its like swimming against the tide.

"It really is about social conformity above all else. Which is incredibly ironic given so much lip service is paid to being radical or progressive."

Really.

Its always interesting when a new movement that was radical, progressive and cool for being against the establishment reaches the tipping point and becomes the establishment. And the new radical and progressive becomes something else. Visible in Newman sounding slightly proud of this interview as something important she has been involved in.